tribal hunting rights
General Topic
Supreme court will decide a case regarding a Crow indian shooting an elk in Wyoming on national forest. Implications?
If they side with the Crow on this treaty, that would essentially mean immunity on all federal lands, from what I've gathered. I believe Newberg spoke briefly on this in one of his podcasts but I can't remember which one.
Welcome to Canada. It’s a friggin mess and getting worse by the month!! Ultleft politicians and judges.
If they turn this into the way it is north of the border we are in trouble.
Article says Trump's admin. is supporting Herrera. I wrote emails to those in power. I'd suggest others do the same. Supporting the Crow in this case would be setting a terrible precedent regarding the conservation of our public land animals/resources.
"...and as long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts."
Hmm, there is a loophole.
Part of the treaty: “The treaty, which established the tribe's present-day reservation, states that members "shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the U.S. so long as game may be found thereon, and as long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts."
This is no peace “among whites and Indians “ therefore his case fails, Guilty, next case.
Don’t take your cues from us north of the border. Just talked to a lifelong outfitter today who thinks we’ll see native only hunting by our lifetime. Sure hope not. With all the progressive thinking today I just don’t understand how a government thinks a right should belong to one group of humans and not others. Like you’re so progressive and yet u base rights on skin colour. Whatever.
To heck with a treaty, let's screw the injuns again........
I think the part that will be tough is the land may belong to the federal government, but the Animals belong to the people of the State of Wyoming! This is in there constitution, so when the state was founded this right to take animals that belong to the people of another state with impunity went away. But I could be wrong :)
If they rule in favor of the Tribe I will be looking for an Indian bride. If marrying a native american will do the trick.
Hopefully it doesn’t set a precident like we have in Alaska that muddys the water between DOI subsistence rules on fed lands and state regs elsewhere.
It looks like a slam dunk decision. The treaty is very clear. RBG will wake up for long enough to uphold it. Members of the Crow tribe can hunt on those unoccupied federal lands. Back when the treaty was signed, nobody was smart enough to realize that recreational hunting would become a thing and that people would travel distances to hunt (there were no cars back then). But stupidity doesn't invalidate a treaty.
Just because we don't like it now, we don't have the right to violate it. I know, I know: it's a long US tradition to not honor treaties with native Americans as soon as they become inconvenient.
As far as the states right to regulate game animals; the migratory bird treaty shows that the states authority can be overridden by treaties.
APauls…..if you Canadians elect "Jagmeat" you`re finished....lol
After being on a couple Reservations it`s very hard for me to argue against an American Indian feeding his family.
Stupidity doesn’t invalidate treaties, but common sense should.
This is about protecting a resource becoming more and more encroached joins by urbanization and recreational hunting.
It shouldn’t be about the Crow, nor the “white” man. It should be about protecting the resources. You do that by having strictures in place that all abide by equally.
Common sense.
If they are allowed to hunt across reservation and state boundaries, then they should have to use traditional equipment to hunt - self bows, cane arrows and flint points.
Since horses are non native, no horses either.
If they want to use modern conveniences - pickup trucks and rifles, then they should follow modern rules regarding seasons, limits and boundaries.
Come to WI. IF you had lived here in the 80's with the protests, etc. In a nutshell, The Treaties of 1836 and 1842 were upheld by Judge Barabra Crabb. WI negotiated for 50% of safe harvest levels of most all game and fish in the northern 1/3 of WI, treaty lands of the Chippewa. Got half the Elk in our first hunt this year as well. Nothing one can do about it.
I wonder how much weight will be given to the fact that the hunt and the elk started on the Reservation and then crossed over into Federal lands....and then killed. If I understand the story correctly.
No, common sense does not invalidate treaties. Obviously, it is in neither the Crow nation's interest nor the State's interest to decimate the game populations. Once the Supreme Court upholds the rulings the State and the Crow Nation can sit down and work together so that both can implement regulations to control harvest for those people they have jurisdiction over. Both sides will need to understand that they are in this together with an equal right to harvest game animals.
USFS is fed land, but the elk are state owned. The Crow tribe will have to adhere to state law regardless. Where this Crow game warden messed up is assuming he was in the right without first checking if he needed a state of WY license.
Treaty or not, a tribal member cannot just run amok because they think they can.
Treaties were drawn up in the late 19th centuries because the U.S. gov't veiwed the indian tribes as non-citizens. They are now citizens with all the benefits thereof. The treaties are null and void...
Well I think I'm going to do one of those DNA tests and find out how much Native American I have in me, and then enjoy the hunting rights.
Careful there, Ghost - the middle of the road is a great place to get run down these days....
But I dig your POV.
According to many crossbow enthusiasts and supporters, there is plenty of game, (especially whitetails), and too few hunters to go around. Therefore, who cares if the Native Americans have longer seasons and kill a few thousand more animals?
There is a link to FAQs about tribal hunting in MT on the MT FWP website (sorry, couldn't figure out how to get a .pdf link). Upon further research, off reservation hunting on "unclaimed" land is occurring rather routinely, usually defined as national forests and BLM lands that are not national parks and in accordance with individual tribal treaties (not all tribes have reserved hunting rights off the reservation). Some tribes have good management plans and hunting regulations than control off reservation harvest, some have co-op agreements with the states in which they hunt, and some don't have any regulation. That being said, I'm not sure how the supreme court could rule against in this case and don't see how it has any immediate effect. However, I don't know what the pressures are in Wyoming national forests and BLM land from the tribes with hunting rights but most bison harvest outside YNP is by tribal hunting under the reserved rights. I live and work for the tribes on a reservation in NE MT and spent 28 years living on a reservation on the western side of MT. 30 years or so ago I thought the hunting was fairly uncontrolled and damaging game populations but the tribes have put into place at least some regulations both on and off the reservations and have gotten much better at managing hunting and game populations, at least in some areas. In reality, I haven't heard any complaints about tribal hunting within public lands off the reservations other than some isolated issues with reduced permits and over harvest of moose in an area in Western Montana.
Montana has a shoulder season on private land , that allows people in that area with permisson to shoot up to 3 elk each ,season runs august 15- sometime in January that is just wrong . I would rather have the native Americans shoot these elk over ranchers if there are to many elk in a area.
if they rule in favor of the crow then i will too become 1/1024th indian.
pete, as far as I read the regs the shoulder seasons allow one elk with a valid license. Regardless, I don't agree with shoulder seasons either...
The treaties served their purposes. If you want portions of a treaty to be in force, all of the treaty should be adhered to...
This is a much bigger deal than many of you realize. The original offense is what caused the number of archery tags in prime Wyoming unit 38 to drop from 250 to 200, where they have remained now for 4 years. Additionally, as much as many may think the natives value keeping herd numbers at a reasonable level, the Crow tribe has little to no enforcement of game laws or regulations across much of their reservation. Drive the reservation, which is prime country featuring amazing whitetail habitat along the Little Horn and Big Horn Rivers and you'll be lucky to ever even see a deer. Having lived in the area for 27 years now, there's a running joke about the lack of wildlife on the reservation.
Additionally, this isn't about hunting in the first place. At the time this occurred--there is still an ongoing investigation--55 bull elk were poached. They were left to rot, with the perpetrators taking just the antlers. If that is defensible as hunting by ANY definition and if this is upheld by the SC, it WILL DRAMATICALLY affect herd numbers across the west. These individuals were not hunting. They were poaching and are now trying to use the treaty to justify/uphold/defend this repugnant behavior. I have no clue how much of that was presented before the court, but if "hunting" treaty lands in this manner is upheld, the entire Bighorn Mountain Range will be as void of wildlife as the Crow Reservation.
"Members of the Crow Tribe hunt elk to feed their families."
Subsistence hunting? Apparently they can only subsist on bull elk.
I fear the outcome of this situation because I think I can predict what's going to happen. As others have stated above, we have been living with these treaties in Wisconsin since the 1980's and more recently Minnesota as well. Prior to the Indians exercising their rights the lakes near where I live had abundant walleye populations and fishing was good. Surprisingly after the Indians began exercising their rights (often out of spite due to protests) and speared thousands of spawning walleyes, the numbers plummeted. They claimed that they didn't take nearly as many walleyes as sport fishermen do annually but the difference is that fishing seasons are closed while walleyes are spawning. Each speared female walleye contains thousands of eggs. Once the walleye numbers plummeted, largemouth bass took over. I doubt that it's a coincidence that walleye fishing practically disappeared shortly after the Indians began spearing spawning walleyes while using their big modern boats equipped with racks of high power spotlights.
We also made the argument about spearing out of canoes with a handheld torch the way they did back when the treaty was written but it fell on deaf ears.
Don't even get me started on the natives' rights to shoot deer over bait piles out of car windows while using spotlights...
I think it's time to create a new treaty where non-natives will agree not to build our own competitive casinos in exchange for the natives having to follow the hunting and fishing regulations that everybody else has to follow...
Striker, I was going to post just what you did. The Crow reservation is a disgrace as far as wildlife management goes. They have some incredibly prime habitat and zero critters. I've driven the highway between Broadus and I-90 many times and it's a given you'll see nothing for wildlife on the rez. The only thing you have to worry about hitting on the highway is horses and the people.
The corruption and greed of tribal gov't is the problem.
There are 4 reservations/tribes within 60 miles or less of where I live. If someone thinks they don't use the race card, cry unfair ancestral treatment, or bawl and whine about treaty rights, your fooling yourself.
I have seen them get special treatment and favors for decades. Sorry your people were mistreated, not my fault, and should not have to lose out on opportinity because of it. Man up and move on - the rest of us have had to.
Honoring treaty rights today is nothing more than a political stunt and election tool. [Their] ability to pursue these interests tells me treaties are no longer needed, nor is "subsistence" hunting...
Elizabeth Warren could guide any of you who are intested
I wish CO could trade WY our non residents for their Indians.
they use to use torches, now they have spot lamps
I am confused if the court finds in his favor does that mean we will be booking trips from the Indian nations to hunt?
Read the book second Civil war which covers 1837 and 1853 Treaties in the Midwest.
The problem is that it turns into an "us" vs "them" mentality. Race to the last animal, killing animals for spite. Manitoba is one giant moose habitat mecca. With no moose. It became a race to the last moose, and now there are none to hunt unless you're flying many miles to do it, or shooting them in a small draw only area that is private land only in one corner of the province. Now we're seeing the elk go the same way.
There are so many issues with the treaties one doesn't know where to start, but the stories of unchecked killing go on and on and on. Single people killing hundreds of animals in a year. Meat going to waste selling of meat it goes on. Worse are the money mismanagements where the money doesn't make it to the actual Indian people. So much of it stops at the chiefs. 222 chiefs in Canada make more money than the provincial premiers and 82 make more than the Prime Minister!! And it's all tax free. At the time of the article I read there was a chief in Eastern Canada earning $978,000 (tax free) and wasn't even living on the reserve. I actually really feel bad for the native people, because they are the ones suffering most, and usually it's a select few of their own people making it the worst.
As for the hunting, I too wouldn't give a rip if they hunted with a recurve by moonlight any time of day night etc. But being able to spotlight and use vehicles and high powered rifles is a joke. But that's what turns it into an Us vs Them and that's the part I hate the most. How can you come together when you pit people against each other like that?
APauls “”Don’t take your cues from us north of the border. Just talked to a lifelong outfitter today who thinks we’ll see native only hunting by our lifetime. Sure hope not. With all the progressive thinking today I just don’t understand how a government thinks a right should belong to one group of humans and not others. Like you’re so progressive and yet u base rights on skin colour. Whatever.””””
Is happening right now Every non-native outfitter here in Ontario has a quota on bear tags The native outfitters they get as many tags they want
Get voted out of hunting on federal lands by native lobbyists or transfer federal land to the state and pay an exorbant access fee when it becomes private.
This will be interesting. I don't believe your state owning the wildlife will hold water. The two Chippewa Indians originally involved in the WI case was a total set up. They intentionally went spear fishing off reservation onto WI waters. They even called the warden a couple evenings in a row because the warden didn't believe them, quote " you are not going to do that your drunk". Finally the third day they were arrested on non reservation water's. From there found guilty in county court appealed to federal court first, Doyle, then Crabb. They win state loses then negotiate. Not the states fish or deer, etc. Seeded territory, their rights in treaty. As long as the sun rises and the sun sets the right to hunt fish and gather. Signed sealed delivered. Now not sure how the treaties there read but that was WI.
Striker, the link doesn't mention 55 elk. It clearly states the hunting party shot 3 elk, quartered them up, and packed the meat out distributing it amongst their families. Maybe you should read the article before you put something that inflammatory here on bowsite.
For the record, I'm not Native American but my wife is 50% Creek and my kids are Creek as well, obviously.
Those of you that are ok with trampling on Native rights are no different than your forefathers who did so. He's going to win this case as he should. The treaty is clear and some point in the history of this nation the government should start honoring their treaties.
I don't think that means immunity for all tribes on all federal lands. This pertains to the Crow tribe only. For example, my wife's tribe has no such right in any of their treaties and I don't think this would apply to them. I'm sure there's many tribes in the same position. Good on the Crows for securing their right to game on federal land
Understand - the treaty was put into place at a time when they had to rely on hunting and gathering to survive. Staying to the confines of a reservation could compromise this. Fast forward 150 years. The hunting and gathering is now done through many other means.
ALL tribal members are now citizens of the same country as non tribal members. Extending certain privileges beyond reservation boundaries is no longer needed. When you leave a reservation, you are subject to both state and federal law, rather than just federal.
To say "trampling" tribal rights today is no different than what others did before is plain and outright absurd. Those days are over. If tribes excercing a "right" is in accordance with both state and federal law, have at it. But don't think you get run of the place because of promises made that have already been taken away from countless thousands of non tribal individuals with rights trampled on all the time. History is full of injustices, yet everyone else has had to learn to move on and cope with it.
Growing up near reservations and with several friends that are members of tribes, the ones who shout the loudest about injustice are the ones that have it the best...
N2BUX - I read the article. I live where this occurred. I'm well aware of the details of what happened. If you believe the article is the complete authority on the issue, then you are a fool. 55 bull elk were killed, some for the baiting of eagles. You didn't see that in the article either. Look at the tag number change in unit 38 of the Bighorn Mountains. Notice the historical numbers were dropped in 2015 from 250 to just 200 (they had been 250 for 15+ years) not because just 3 elk were killed. I know what I'm talking about even if you don't care to believe.
I just read that Mr. Herrera is a game warden for the Crow tribe and was a tribal police officer prior to that. The killing of 55 elk really isn't making any sense nor can I find any information pertaining to these claims. Striker, perhaps you can point us in the right direction?
I also see the tribe adopted a resolution prior to this incident asserting their off reservation treaty rights and their intentions to assert those rights. The also support Mr. Herrera.
I also read the tribe was already working with the state to license and regulate off reservation tribal hunting so I'm not sure it's the sky is falling, doom and gloom scenario some foresee.
N2BUX - I have edited my original post to walk back the direct attribution of the 55 dead bull elk directly to Mr. Herrera. Upon reflection and in my frustration as a resident of the area who has been directly impacted by the killing of these animals, I directly referenced him, perhaps unfairly. It is strongly believed by those investigating the circumstances that Native Americans were/are responsible for the dead animals, which had the antlers removed and were otherwise wasted or used for the baiting of eagles.
I brought it up in the first place to illustrate the fact that unfortunately, historically, the Crow Tribe has not taken wildlife management seriously, and if this case is upheld I personally believe it will create, as APauls stated, a race to the last animal.
Thanks for clarifying Striker. I have a vested interest in seeing tribal rights preserved but I like most here, would like to see that done in conjunction with sound conservation practices.
Hopefully the report I read that indicated the tribe was working with the state to license and regulate off reservation tribal hunting is true and they can make it work.
Good luck to you
Off reservation hunting should be easy. Pick up a state regulation book and follow the same rules that everyone else uses.
The Native Americans shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If they need to take animals outside of state regulations then they shouldn't be entitled to welfare, medicaid, etc... to fund their "subsistence" lifestyle. The entitlement mentality is waaaaaayyyyy out of control! Unfortunately, it isn't just Native Americans with this mentality...It runs rampant through all races of Americans...
Let em hunt- but only with the technology available at the time the treaty was signed.
Non native hunters do not restrict their technology, it is being discussed all over this forum.
The Southern Ute has been off reservation hunting for years, killing some big bulls in a few gmu that take most poeple 18 plus years to draw. A few guys travel all over Colorado killing elk, deer and antelope. A few have killed sheep. And you should see the mule deer they kill on forest service before the deer get to their tribal lands. It's been going on for years with no end in sight. And the amount of deer and elk that can be taken by household members is staggering.
Jimmy- the game departments restrict the technology and set limits for non native hunters.
The President can cancel the treaties at his/her discretion which would in up in the SCOTUS. As Kit Carson stated,"I hate the reservation but to keep the extermination of the tribe I have to agree with it" from the book Blood and Thunder an biography of Kit Carson.
They do set the limits...but compare when archery started, and today. The limits have changed, same with many black powder seasons and equipment. "Evolving".... as the white men say. LOL.
