Contributors to this thread:
Court picks Indians vs WY elk
The supreme court, in its infinite stupidity, sided with the Crow Tribe in the case of elk poaching in WY. What that means going forward is anyone's guess at this time. Unfortunately, I have lived on the WY/MT border my entire life and have seen what the native americans have done and their total disregard for wildlife and the constant poaching they do in WY. This ruling seems top give them permission to continue the poaching in WY. There is a reason you do not see any wildlife in MT on the reservation, the Indians have killed everything. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but I have been here my entire life, I have seen the Indians come into WY and shoot animals and just leave them lay. They are not conservationists in this part of the country. There are definitely native americans that value wildlife and only hunt legally, that is not the Crow Tribe, sad but true. There was a Crow legislator that talked to the high schools in our area and he said "If the ruling goes in favor of the crows, the crows will do what they always do and wildlife will be gone in two years".
Now there will have to be some people who determine what this means going forward. Are there going to be limited quotas still in WY for all game animals and the Crow Tribe gets a percentage, when does this start, what are the season dates, etc...
It continues to show how unintelligent and uniformed people are back east who make decisions that impact those of us who live out west. A sad day for all people who love to hunt in WY going forward. If you are a non-resident, you better check before you apply for elk, moose and deer tags in the Big Horn mountains going forward.
Agreed. Just saw it as well. This could go horribly wrong in sooooo many ways.
Big Horns? What keeps them from hunting public land ("unoccupied lands") anywhere in the state?
Wow. What a screwed up ruling.
Going to set up a big mess for years to come.
I lived in Fort Smith for 3 years during the mid 80s. I NEVER saw a deer on the res while I lived there. I found 1 (ONE) shed whitetail antler along the banks of the river that I was out on every day during that 3 years. I DID see a whole buttload of elk adjacent to the winter refuge one fall that I worked on the X Bar X ranch in Wyo. though. 250 elk crossed in front of me one day on the ranch, with one monstrous herd bull as the last one to pass. The elk pop was healthy in the Bighorns then, just not on the res. further north. I did see a huge herd of bison on the Res. though. This ruling sucks IMO. The poaching of big game did happen on the Res. then, I guess it still does.
In the state? Anywhere really. And is this just limited to elk? What about other, even more scarce wild game?
How do you set up new laws and regulations for people who do not follow laws and regulations? I am not optimistic about the Big Horns but unfortunately this treaty that is referenced covers lands down to central WY. There is also another treaty that extends from Idaho into Western WY, around Jackson and other areas. That will come up as well.
The Supreme Court just gave the approval to hunt 24/7/365 in WY to the Crow Tribe.
Ancestry.com just might be the answer to point creep.
This case references elk because of the poaching. However the hunting would not be limited to elk, it would include moose and deer as well. Crow Indians do not care what they shoot unfortunately. Everything is open season. WY will have an incredible challenge setting up some regulations, quotas, etc... immediately. The Crow Tribe can actually be hunting while I am typing this, hard to believe, but unfortunately it could be true. One of many next questions, when does this go into effect? Wyoming resident elk and deer limited quota draw in coming up in the next month, is this going to stay in place for the residents for this year? Lots of questions and no answers at this time so speculation runs wild....
Same with the Utes in SW Colorado...they have no game left so hunt the Nat'l Forest...and CDPW wonders why the game is dwindling?
I'd like to say what I really think about all of this but it's a public forum and I'll just leave it at that. I hope WY gets this figured out!
Southern Utes have a lot game on tribal lands, and have bought some of the bigger ranches bordering their reservations. But Southern Utes can hunt state wide, as seen by some big bulls killed in units that take most folks 15 to 20 years to draw.
Yes, the Southetn Utes kill a lot of game, but the dwindling herds can't be blamed on them and just them. Don't know where this information came from, but the Southern Ute have been very smart in their management lately.
You all have "Crow" season... The Wyoming season is Nov. 1 -- Feb. 28. Crows may only be taken by using firearms, archery and falconry. No license is required, and there is no bag limit.
I am kidding!!!
What a complete joke this is. Buglmin, you are likely right about them being smart in their management. However, that doesn't make this ruling any less ridiculous and egregious does it? Besides being smart in their management, they also are apparently able to hire skilled lawyers.
I’ve always been amazed at how many miles you can drive on the Crow res without seeing a living creature. It’s the land of tumbleweeds.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit... Welcome to New America where common scenes is no longer needed. It is just another chip in the process of changing America any way some group wants it right or wrong, good or bad . BS in my opinion .
It is a sad day. I lived in MN when the Milles Lac ruling came down. I am not going to blame all Mille Lacs current situation on tribal issues. But it sure doesn't help. The fluid herds on the border (WYO 38/39) are not accurately counted today because of the wintering areas on MT tribal lands. It now looks like tribal members can shoot elk within 1868 tribal boundary. It will be tough to quantify the impact on the fluid herds. It will be pretty easy to measure impact on "resident herds" in Bighorns. I think it is safe to say the impact will NOT be more elk in future years.
The case, Herrera v. Wyoming, deals with a treaty from 1868 which allowed members of the tribe to hunt in “unoccupied lands” in the U.S. in exchange for their land, which went on to become part of Wyoming and Montana. At issue was whether the hunting rights in the treaty are still in effect or were nullified when Wyoming became a state in 1890.The opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor – and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Gorsuch – ruled that the treaty indeed still applies, and that Crow member Clayvin Herrera was improperly convicted of off-season hunting in Bighorn National Forest in 2014.
Scoot, Never said the ruling being right or wrong. Just commented on the comment about there being no game on the southern ute reservation. If I had my way, the Indian tribes would only be allowed to hunt and fish on their tribal lands, not on the national forest.
And now we gotta watch the decision about what's going on in Oklahoma.
Agree I gun hunt se of devils lake the Sioux tribe. One farmer found 5 bucks thur late summer and fall all with there heads cut off. When we’re done hunting at night there just starting and there rigs with the lighting are all set up for night hunting. Sad
If I'm not mistaken, these hunting laws were established by treaty. Often they allowed hunting in areas much larger than, and outside, the reservations. And the treaties were signed well before there was any regulated hunting, or even a thought to regulate hunting.
I know Europeans came in and "stole" Native American lands, but the treaty system is really screwed up. It's about time they either join the US like every other citizen, or we leave them completely to their own devices on "their" land, as established by treaty. In every part of the world, all through time, groups/nations conquered other groups/nations, even Native Americans did it to each other. It's only recently that the descendants of the conquerers have started feeling sorry for the conquered and have tried to make reparations.
Buglimin: tribal members in Oklahoma get their hunting licenses free and it's not just for tribal land.
Looks like hunters got Trumped.
What a shame. Sure seems like the opening of Pandora's box......
Gonna be a mess and nation wide before long.
I’d bet they don’t need a guide in the wilderness either.
Bet they’ll drive their pickup trucks into the wilderness to kill animals there before too long. And it will be ok because their treaty’s give them the right to hunt there...
They are allowed to hunt in those areas, as long as they follow the rules established for seasons and methods. Certainly don’t understand why they would be allowed to kill animals when they please.
Maybe limit them to hunting with selfbows off horses?
A 150 year old treaty shouldn't allow the "Super Americans" to do harm to society. The reservation system should be phased out and we should have one America.
The most important message this sends is who voted for the wholesale destruction of the Public Trust. All 4 leftist, activist judges voted for this.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor – and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Gorsuch (now that's a huge disappointment)
Who gets a lifetime appointment to our courts is infinitely more important than who sits in the Whitehouse for 4 or 8 years. One party appoints the most anti-hunting and anti-freedom judges they can find and the other appoints strict Constitutionalists . It boggles my mind that there are still hunters who don't get it.
I think we need to truly document all of this. I hope the Wyoming game and fish can keep good ocunts and document every single case of waste and poaching. We need this to become a national outrage. It is damn shame that this can be allowed to happen in 2019. Unregulated poaching will destroy our herds.
Gorsuch is a huge disappointment to everyone. By siding with the liberal left, he is showing his true colors.
I hope those of you who love to hunt and fish in our great state will voice your displeasure at this ruling. It could have long lasting negative effects on our wildlife.
We still do not know the stance that the Game and Fish and the State of Wyoming will have on this or the short term or long term impacts yet. Stay tuned...
Wanton waste could be the "Cecil" moment for the tribes when they catch the national outrage of the week but it has to be exposed by popular media. Supreme Court can't protect the tribes or anyone from Twitter.
I don't think the decision is surprising regardless of politics. Courts everywhere are upholding treaties but this interpretation of occupied lands is not good.
The court is still relatively split with Gorsuch and Roberts joining the liberal 4 justices on certain issues and said 4 justices rarely if ever doing the opposite and joining the other side. Conservatives won't have a firm grip on the SCOTUS unless DJT wins another term and appoints another conservative judge in RBG's place. All she has to do is survive till November to get inside the lame duck session.
I can't find the link to the incident, when was it, 3 years ago? Where all those elk that migrated out of the bighorns were found shot with the heads taken and the meat left...
It's unacceptable no matter the justification.
Their 19th century treaty now stands. I think it's up to the US Govt to renegotiate the treaty with 21st century realities and the successes of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model in mind. This treaty was put in place before modern firearms and understanding about the effects of non-managed hunting.
In the decades after this treaty was signed, deer and elk were wiped out of much of their habitat due to unrestricted hunting.
"Maybe limit them to hunting with selfbows off horses?"
Why let them use horses? They didn't have those 'til Europeans brought them over. It always makes me laugh when they say something like how the white man destroyed their great horse culture. They would never have had horses if it weren't for the white man!
All native cultures that claim "traditional" or subsistence rights without modern limits imposed on other users (hunting, fishing, whaling, etc.) to protect their culture or way of life, should be limited to the tools their traditional culture developed or had before European influence. Otherwise, they should assimilate.
Yep Ziek, but they did have horses in 1868. Walking with dog travois would certainly be more appropriate though.
And any of them wanting to subsistence hunt should also be cut off the Government payroll. Pretty sure that 1868 treaty didn’t include any US Government handouts....
That's correct Ike. He wasn't hunting. He took the heads of several elk and left the bodies to rot.
Welcome to Canada, especially BC. We just had a court ruling that even the Indians from Washington can hunt in BC. Our current federal and provincial governments have signed on to UNDRIP lock, stock and barrel! Hunters and fishers are screwed!!
Treaties are formed by Congress as a terms of cease fire with a waring foreign nation, often upon their defeat as a means of calling calf rope. All tribes in the USA are no longer foreign entities. The treaties today are null and void, Gorsuch should know better and I'd expect this result out of the freebie-gimmie liberals.
It could be argued that they were never valid to begin with. The Indian "nations" they were negotiated with had no governance structure that gave anyone authority to sign such a treaty for their general populace, and they didn't even have a concept for the ownership of land. So how could they bargain for such ownership?
This stuff is relatively new out west. Here in Wisconsin and Minnesota we've been dealing with upheld treaties and tribal hunting, fishing and spearing for over 30 years...
In the 1800's Indians speared walleyes out of canoes while using torches for light. Today they use modern boats with high power spotlights. I believe they can also shoot deer out of their vehicles at night with the aide of spotlights.
The supreme court, in its infinite stupidity, sided with the Crow Tribe in the case of elk poaching in WY. What that means going forward is anyone's guess at this time. Unfortunately, I have lived on the WY/MT border my entire life and have seen what the native americans have done and their total disregard for wildlife and the constant poaching they do in WY. This ruling seems top give them permission to continue the poaching in WY. There is a reason you do not see any wildlife in MT on the reservation, the Indians have killed everything. I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but I have been here my entire life, I have seen the Indians come into WY and shoot animals and just leave them lay. They are not conservationists in this part of the country. There are definitely native americans that value wildlife and only hunt legally, that is not the Crow Tribe, sad but true. There was a Crow legislator that talked to the high schools in our area and he said "If the ruling goes in favor of the crows, the crows will do what they always do and wildlife will be gone in two years". Now there will have to be some people who determine what this means going forward. Are there going to be limited quotas still in WY for all game animals and the Crow Tribe gets a percentage, when does this start, what are the season dates, etc...
It continues to show how unintelligent and uniformed people are back east who make decisions that impact those of us who live out west. A sad day for all people who love to hunt in WY going forward. If you are a non-resident, you better check before you apply for elk, moose and deer tags in the Big Horn mountains going forward"
All truth- ^^^
To add to it...this has been going on forever over in Paradise Valley near Yellowstone National Park and no one pays any attention to it. The Indians are allowed to kill bull elk almost year round on the border of the park. The same place where the elk herd went from 20,000 animals down to 4,000 at recent count this year. Wolves, grizzly bears, get discussed some but no one talks about what the Indians are doing. What is said above about the reservations is true....you can't find a living animal on them. They have the right to hunt and kill year round and they have completely wiped them out on their lands. The whole thing is very sad.
Welcome to Canada. Once again you guys are way behind ;)
BUT BUT, I thought they were the so-called "keepers of the land", that the land was their mother! How can this be?!?
Does this mean that Liz Warren can hunt wherever/whenever she likes too?
In the Great Lakes, they would spear every walleye, if they could,,,, they are the worst stewards of the land, and that is a fact
For any Native Americans reading this thread, What do YOU think? Please let your positions be known. I for one would like your input.
Me thinks that Gorsuch is a CHERIHONKY !
with this ruling, could a native american hunt a bighorn sheep anywhere they want? seasons/rules/limits etc not really apply or ???
Alaska is not immune to this either. Pretty much slap on the wrist for the:
whale poaching (https://www.ktoo.org/2018/06/11/investigation-closes-on-kuskokwim-gray-whale-killing/),
walrus poachers (https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2017/04/21/point-hope-men-sentenced-for-wasteful-walrus-hunt-that-caused-herd-to-stampede/),
muskox poaching (https://thecordovatimes.com/2017/08/07/alaska-men-sentenced-musk-oxen-poaching-case/)
buffalo poaching (https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/rural-alaska/2017/01/31/released-into-the-wild-wandering-alaska-wood-bison-poached-near-quinhagak/)
And the list goes on and on up here--status quo up here really. Pretty much just let the villagers run rampant and no punishment (or minimal) to not even provide a deterrent.
Trapper- you asked for a take from a discriminated minority member, so I'll offer you one. I'm sick and tired of everything being my fault. Folks of my ilk have been mistreated for way too long! It's about time those who are in the privileged majority don't get all of the best of everything and I get a chance. I'm sick and tired of the discrimination I receive from the media and the lefties. It's really tough to be a white male in the US these days...
Yup. Neo-racism and sexism of the 21st Century: For some reason it's ok to racist and sexist against white men, but no one else. The hypocrisy is thick.
Scott and Ike, meet me in the safe space, I'll bring the bourbon. :-)
Haha, Brotsky- I'm in! Just tell me where there is a place that is actually safe from this BS!!! Oh... can I bring some candy ass drink like Coors Light? I'm not a bourbon guy. Ah hell, given where the country is headed I think I'll become a bourbon guy to help me through the tough times!
Ike, that's exactly right. Fing ridiculous! White men are guilty until proven innocent. Hypocrisy is exactly right!
Scoot, the only safe space I know of is in the high country in September! Even now they are trying to take that away from us!
Hey you can't discriminate against me because I IDENTIFY as a one legged left handed half Black half Chinese half Indian woman who identifies as a gay spirit wolf. I'm immune you can't touch me...
Wait, I don't mean to offend anybody who actually IS a one legged left handed half Black half Chinese half Indian woman who identifies as a gay spirit wolf. Really.
I read a book about General Custer recently. We as a society, today, malign ourselves (or the leftists do) for "taking" the native Americans lands and other atrocities. One point that stuck with me from the book was when the author made the statement that "we didn't do anything to the Indians that they hadn't been doing to each other for hundreds of years". But, we're bad people because we did....
Locally here in central NYS, a tribe built a casino and paid it off in a very short time. Maybe we should charge them for national defense. After all, their "nation" is inside our nation....
The lastest news locally is that this ruling might create hard feelings and conflicts between the states and also between the local hunters and the native americans. There is so much unknown impact to this ruling that nobody knows how to react. That is the really hard part as someone who is on the mountain all summer and fall taking pictures and hunting and enjoying the wildlife. What will happen when the native americans start shooting wildlife just for the fun. (Do not kid yourself, this will happen as a result of this ruling. The National Forest just became their hunting ground thanks to our supreme court idiots) There is supposed to be continued enforcement of hunting laws and conservation. This is a joke because the Indians can and will ignore this since they can poach at any time and it was just ruled legal by the supreme court.
Wow what a mess in my backyard....
In Canada, Indians can now hunt in federal parks if it is in their claimed traditional territory. Last year a few drove their pickups into Banff National Park to hunt and kill three bighorn sheep, two being rams
The hunting "rights" in the sense of the treaty was for sustenance. Any animal will work for that and I hardly think a bighorn ram is the only animal to fit that bill.
Traditional hunting on "unoccupied lands" in the spirit of the treaty was to sustain the tribe and village as a whole when game was scarce on reservation lands. I doubt a couple of rams were needed to go along with bacon cheeseburgers...
So does this ruling allow Native Americans to hunt grizzlies and wolves on unoccupied government lands too?
Aspen.. I like the way you think
“We’re DOOMED” , every time that I hear this I smile. Our problem is not native Americans, anti hunters, or the animal rights peeps. We are the problem. This reminds me of the Colorado bobcat and the BC grizzly ban threads and let’s not forget the one where we attacked a girl’s mountain lion photo. We hint about the liberal Democrats being at fault but then we are having coffee with our friends of of that persuasion.
Americans have failed to guard their way of life. The working man paved and paid the way while his wife and offspring slowly undermined much of what he stood for. We have allowed the education system to indoctrinate our kids all in the name of higher learning. Many hunters no longer eat wild meat And their families turn their nose up. The fast food microwave society has gotten mom out of the kitchen. Moms quit cooking and went to the PTA meeting and now every time a kid blinks parents think that they have to immortalize every single moment. My parents hovered around their homes, work, and adult responsibilities. We were to be seen and not heard and we got more discipline than praise all the while bowing that we were loved. I know that all of you are thinking not my family but you cannot win against the current forces one family at at a time. The political landscape demands that we change our methods but provide us with nothing but send donation please.
All of the hunting communities icons want to tell us how not to offend the anti and how to educate the non hunting public but obviously we are losing. I think that it was Einstein who said that to continue doing the same thing and expecting different results was the true sign of ignorance. The antis are much more serious about taking away your rights than we are about keeping them.
P. S. I am starting to look at my Democratic associates through a different lens and yes it is not always good to be open to their ideas because they damn sure are not open to yours. Now I know that I am generalizing but in the end the Democratic sheep will fall in with the radical left because they believe in one tidbit of their platform.
Scoot, I think Pres. Trump feels your pain too. Rocky, "We hint about the liberal Democrats being at fault but then we are having coffee with our friends of of that persuasion" I don't associate with those types , or if I encounter them, I definitely let my position be known. I also make it clear why, and throw in unsolicited comments to support it. They can take me or leave me. Mostly though, I get them to listen with truthful and logical explanations. Now on the other hand, your discussion about the wife and ids can be very common. I have no kids, but to be honest, my wife loves to see wildlife, and hates to see them dead. She therefore by her own admission 'Hates hunting'. She tolerates mine, but I pay the price and I hear about it more often as the years go on. She even killed a small blacktail buck when we first got married, but I think regretted it afterwards. Now, when she sees a roadkilled deer, it makes her sad to the point of tears. So I hear you on the forces of 'family'. I am born to hunt and this becomes a huge dilemma. I can't say goodbye to hunting without losing my very being, and I can't say goodbye to her because I love her. But one thing is certain: I don't hunt anywhere near as often as I would if I were single. I skip opportunities more often, and I don't get the satisfaction from hunting as much, knowing she's hating it and has some words for me when I'm done at some point down the road. I'm not 'doomed' yet, but I could be if I allowed myself to succumb. I may have to make a choice someday, which is going to be the end of me truly.
Alpen Ghost: I REALLY REALLY like the way you think. What if we start a gofund me to hire a couple of certified Native Americans to be paid a bounty on wolves and grizzlies? Forget the other thread about a billboard in Denver, offer to pay them $5K per griz and $1K per wolf...They could make some serious income and with no restrictions on weapon, spotlighting, season, baiting, trapping, etc. they could actually make a dent in the population of these protected predators...
$5k per grizz and $1k per wolf? Sure have come a long way since the old bottle of whiskey days haven't we?
Smarba/Alpen Ghost, I like your idea! I'd go with $1K/griz and $500/wolf though! Now that's make lemonade outta lemons!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5gFrB_ldhk What we really need is more frontier justice. Wales takes care of the griz and the wolf in this one...
Pretty good article on the situation.
Make them use only equipment that was available when treaty was signed. That means no vehicles or rifles. Problem solved.
Seriously, someone needs to put Aspen Ghosts plan into action. Brilliant! It will either work to reduce the bear and wolf population, or it will get the antis to fund the fight to cancel the treaty. Win either way.
Still no Native Amercian input.
I was out last night and was talking with friends about this ruling. One guy "Thought it was great!" People on the surface think this is a good ruling but don't understand what this ruling does to our wildlife. This is the legalization of poaching. This enables guys to drive around in trucks and shoot deer and elk, saw-off the rack, and keep "hunting." This isn't about shooting an elk or two to feed your family. As a conservation-minded hunter, this makes me sick. I've seen what we do at Wild Sheep and other organizations and all these efforts could be completely undermined.
There are a lot of unintended consequences that will come from this ruling. Yes, there are tribes out there who take care of their wildlife and value it. Look at the Jicarilla Apache Reservation, it's the best mule deer hunting in the country. They also have a draw for tribal members, so the herd is carefully managed. Not to mention, they have game wardens who protect the wildlife. Sadly, it sounds as though the Crow are not conservation-minded. Furthermore, let's not kid ourselves, this whole thing started with a guy trying to get out of being nailed for POACHING.
To add on to KSC the general public has no idea. They actually are celebrating this as Native Rights issue. They beleive that all native some how are the best conservationist in the world. I had a guy tell me that because the poacher was Native American he obviously knows about conservation, better than any white person...
"I had a guy tell me that because the poacher was Native American he obviously knows about conservation, better than any white person..."
Holy cow, what kind of idiots do you talk to, coelker?!? Haha! What an incredibly ignorant statement. Sadly, it's likely not as uncommon of a belief as we'd like to think.
Scoot, we were taught in school that the Indians used every part of the animal and nothing went to waste. People still believe this is deeply rooted in their culture and they are more in touch with the land than any white person. I bet if you surveyed the country, more than half (conservative estimate) would side with the coelker people.
Ignorance is alive and thriving. The same people who have this idyllic image of a wolf or grizzly bear freely roaming the woods eating squirrels and berries, think tribal rights will be exercised by Native Americans riding the prairies with their horses w/traditional bows and arrows. The reality is much different. (You won't see many canoes on Mille Lacs, MN spearing spring walleyes).
*Registered Native American here*
In college up in Northern Idaho I watched the Nez Perce less than appreciative truckloads of drunkards running up and down the roads with 5-6 rifles in the back shooting at anything that moved. IT MADE ME SICK TO MY STOMACH! The Gov. would give them a new truck or families on the "Rez" a new mini-van and within 2 weeks it was trashed and seats torn and such. They have zero appreciation! I am a Registered Native American, I LOVE AMERICA and I LOVE OUR WILD GAME! Not a single one of these idiots today were ever effected by what these treaties where written for. They are outdated and ridiculous. We are simply AMERICANS and shouldn't get anymore rights or freebies in my opinion. Give them a free hunting license then tell them they are bound by the rules of the state. PERIOD!! They should have to bide by the seasons and get rid of the ridiculous year round hunting/spearing salmon etc. etc. etc. Of course we live in a country that gives freebies to Muslims that want to kill all of us so I am starting to loose hope in America! I for one was PISSED OFF on 9/11 and I won't forget who was behind that attack. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
Before I say this, and get flamed for it :-). I think how this worked out is wrong, but......
It was the right answer for the SC. We say we don't want them legislating from the bench, but to follow the law. They did. The treaty is fairly clear, so they had a few options:
1) Do what they did and say the indians have this right.
2) Declare the treaty void, not sure how they can
3) say WY GF rules outweigh the treaty.
Yes the treaty is over 100 years old, and out of date and the conditions no longer apply, however it's a legal agreement, EXACTLY like the constitution. Unless it's changed, or removed by an updated legal entity, then it's the law of the land and the SC did the right thing.
Yes this has bad consequences, but the answer is to deal with this via changes/removal of the treaty.
What I wonder is how many on the reservations that exist are still 100% Indigenous and how many have been watered down through cross racial breeding, still wanting to call themselves Indigenous. Read that as wanna be Indigenous, Elizabeth Warner is a prime example. She MAY have Indigenous DNA but it is so watered down, it doesn't count. I think you can have a 1/8 Indigenous blood line, you can still be counted as indigenous by the government and get the benefits from it, but that is still to watered down. 1/2 to 1/4 Indigenous and call yourself such, I would agree to, and to be counted on a reservation as Indigenous. If I have a 1/8 Irish back round, I am not Irish, but I do have Irish Heritage. Living here in the USA I am like most a blend. It is also like calling a miniature Poodle a wolf, because somewhere in its history, that is where they came from. If animals are killed and head only is taken that is not subsistence hunting, that is just wanton waste. Those carcasses could have been used to feed the families of the Reservation, but were just left to rot. Many look at the Indigenous People as spiritual and respectful of the nature and the land, when in fact the individual, is no different than those in our society. DANNY
NO treaties endure forever. They should be interpreted for current times preserving the INTENT for the time in which they were written, or limiting them to methods and tools available to them back then. Or, they could be allowed to hunt, but NOT unrestricted. They should have to follow the same game laws as everyone. Failing that, we could still abide by the strict language of the treaty and nothing more. No additional government support. That would encourage them to re-negotiate.
What they taught us in school about how good stewards of the land and nature Native Americans were, is romantic fantasy. They killed whenever they could, and as much as they could. (Buffalo jumps, etc.) They didn't have much of an impact only because there weren't t too many of them and their methods were primitive.
I have worked with MANY Native American Tribes, individuals, and agencies during my 30 year career as a feed. Fish and Wildlife biologist and now Cultural Resources Manager for the Air Force. I grew up in Oneida NY, and have personally known a lot of 'Indians' from an early age. Most of those I've com across were logical minded and conservation minded people. I have run across some in Montana that were wreckless and lawless when it came to game and fish. (BTW, Mt. Man, I appreciate your post, value your input. Thanks for commenting.) I will say this: I think overall, this law will not change much. Poachers already do what they do, and those Natives who already value fish and wildlife resources and see the benefit of sound management, will not suddenly 'go south' and take advantage of this 'freedom' by going on rampant poaching raids. Those that already respect wild resources will continue to do so. Those that don't will not have any real advantage, because they already do poach 24/7/wherever thy can get away with it. I doubt there are so many Native poachers that they will suddenly invade all the national forests and public lands as to deplete the game resources such as on the one reservation now in question (Crow) has been decimated of game. I dealt with Treaty Trust responsibilities on the Columbia River 9salmon issues) for years and the although the CRITFC 4 treaty tries wanted to fish and have seasons for gill nets, they were still more conservation minded in many ways in that they wanted fish left in the river, not transported in barges like the Corps of Engineers practices. So I felt most tribal entities were respectful of the resources. Sure they wanted to take advantage of treaty rights, who wouldn't want to. The rights were adjusted to modern times though, not just wanton unrestricted fishing. The limits were imposed. If this new right gets abused, I think Fed. and private agencies will step in and govern and make demands that it be halted. I give most of the Natives the benefit of a doubt having worked with tem. Now the Crows, which I lived among, could have been more conservative IMO when it came to their deer and elk though.
I used to travel through the crow reservation several times a year when I lived in Montana. One this was certain you didn't have to worry about hitting a deer at night on the rez. A human (dressed in black walking on the road) or horse, however, was a real possibility.
I see a lot of character generalization in many of these posts, and somewhat disturbing. Most native Americans have adapted to modern times and are willing to work to keep resources available to them and future generations. Keep in mind that our govt. has basically enabled the tribes to become the most impoverished and 'dependent' social group in our nation in many areas. You can see that on any reservation. People in situations like that become desperate and will do whatever they can to survive, lawful or not. Not making excuses for them, but poverty has a way of causing lawlessness. It is a vicious cycle and tough to escape from if your are reservation born. Yeah, the game is going to be depleted, and fish taken to feed themselves regardless of regulation. Most however, are slowly climbing out of this pattern and making life better for themselves and their peoples. Just give them a chance. Not saying this now law will help that effort, I think it is a step backwards actually - just like the govt handouts were. It is a hindrance IMO -to the peoples and to the big game resources. Its bad medicine.
There was no regulated hunting at the time the treaty was issued. Today there is. The 10th Amendment gives the right to the state to manage game.
The language of the treaty may be what it is, but the interpretation of SCOTUS for unoccupied lands is wrong.
Huntcell 's Link
The fairy tale idea that this is about subsistence hunting is pretty much the same lie told about wolves only killing what they need to eat and they only kill the sick and weak.....
It's all weapons grade BS....... like the guy that's grinning at you while you BOTH know he's lying.....
Governor of Wyoming recognizes the Supreme Court only upholding the validity of the treaty not becoming void due to Wyoming statehood. And that Supreme Court suggested further action by the parties to determine how the treaty impacts the parties going forth.
The Govonor states he will enforce current conservation practices to be applied equally to all.
Wyoming continues to be a strong advocate of states rights that have been severely overreached by the federalist since the administration of Lincoln and ever continually being eroded since. And to apathetically accepted by the sheeple.
Cowboy state, ‘Riding for the brand.’
This is an ugly thread. It should be taken down.
SCOTUS upheld the Treaty, time to move on.
SCOTUS determined that national forest in the bighorn mountains is unoccupied. There are more legal hoops to jump through.
There is something going with the Supreme court ruling that some people will be interested in. The Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) has taken the position that they are to NOT to interfere with Crow tribal members hunting on any National forest within the original boundaries of the Crow hunting area. There are several National forests within this area. Their position is that the Herrera ruling has triggered treaty rights on all Federal forests within the original Crow hunting areas, unlike the opinion of the State of Wyoming. I had a conversation with Becky Dockter, who is the Chief legal counsel for FWP and she confirmed this. The next day I had a conversation with Dave Loewen, Chief of Enforcement for FWP and confirmed that Montana will not interfere with UNREGULATED hunting by Crow tribal members on US forest lands. BLM and Mt. state lands are NOT included in this decision. To make this Crystal clear, this means season is open year around starting now. It also is not required that any meat has to be salvaged. Hunting for velvet antlers will be possible in the summer, legally. The latest value for velvet antlers I found was $55-$70 per pound. ABSOLUTELY, I hope it never comes to this, but with a large elk rack in velvet bringing over a thousand dollars,the temptation is there. If anyone thinks this is bogus then look up the FWP numbers for yourself and give them a jingle.
There is a meateater podcast that discusses this it’s pretty good.
Not being used. Bare, empty, barren. Unattended. Abandoned, deserted, emptied, vacated. Without anyone in it or not busy. Not occupied by an enemy. Not occupied by inhabitants. Not engaged in work. Idle. Unemployed. Not lived in.
It seems to me that the Bighorns are "occupied". I know this is the angle that the Wyoming court system will approach reviewing the treaty. The Supreme Court only ruled that Wyoming becoming a state did not abrogate the treaty.
Maybe the public via National Forest and other could negotiate an annual fee to be paid to the tribes for not hunting these lands. It probably would be much per person. Think of it as a tribal fee, another wildlife stamp or similar. Just suggestion.
Pay the tribe a fee for not using heritage and public lands when and how they please? Sounds more like a ransom of a public resource...
Better to have a plan B in case all else fails...
Not any kind of plan at all. Beg one group to not use heritage lands however they want so everyone else can use them as intended...
I, for one, have loved hunting in WY and I don't won't to see the wildlife disappear due to this misguided ruling. I am not going to complain about the decision, but I will contact WYG&F, the governor, Sportsman's Alliance, and others to work to correct this issue. I encourage others on Bowsite to do the same.
The Game and Fish has been directed by the Attorney General that nothing has changed currently for how WY is enforcing hunting laws. Poaching is not allowed and anyone will be arrested who is caught. That is a good thing for now. The courts in WY have two decisions to make, what is the definition of "unoccupied" lands, and how to define "conservation". Both of these will take a few years to figure out and will then give some direction to where this is headed. Thanks to everyone who cares about WY and our wildlife and wants to see it maintained at our current levels for everyone to enjoy.