U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[BuzzH]

Are they allowed to hunt Wyoming Wilderness with out a guide? Being from a Sovereign Nation does not make them a resident of any one state, let alone Wyoming.

Yes, they would be allowed to hunt a Wilderness area, its unoccupied NF. The Wilderness Guide Law is a State Hunting regulation. State hunting regulations do not apply to the Crow Tribe.

 

[JLS]

wllm1313 hit upon a really good point. I’m sure at the time of the treaties, there was a very real expectation wildlife would be completely extirpated within the current generational lifespan. The conservation movement was a big curveball. Here we are.

We make the same tired arguments with regard to methods, weaponry, vehicles, etc. Go back and read idahohunters last post. Tribes will likely have more and more involvement with state management in the future, absent a congressional action rescinding or amending the treaty.

 

[ignorethefringes]

I probably have no business chiming in here as I'm not well versed in these issues. But my gut tells me that treaties could be bought out or at least bought down. Obviously there are lot of tribal members living in poverty and reservations are struggling for an influx of cash. It seems to me that you could waive a big enough check (or check substitute like raffle tags mentioned previously) that the tribes might actually consider forfeiting a portion of their hunting rights. It could mean that the forfeit enough that they have to follow seasons, or bag limits, or ???? Maybe they get a small number of tags that are good for any weapon, any unit, any time of year that they could raffle to the highest bidder. Surely there is some wealthy individual out there that would fork over a lot money to hunt that tag.

 

[idahohuntr]

Does this "Treaty" permit tribes to conduct their hunts for those who are willing to pay non tribal, $17,000 elk hunts (Blackfeet) so long as it's a tribal designated hunt for tribal funding? Basically, a way for anyone to pay backdoor entry to any "unoccupied" unit / district?
I know, up until now, MT State and Blackfeet held the understanding this was on their reservation though now?
Basically, how far does the treaty / sovereignty extend? It does not address this portion, at least within the SCOTUSBLOG:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/...n-affirming-crow-tribes-treaty-hunting-right/

Side note... I can see a resurgence of the Blackfeet's assertion they are entitled to hunt Glacier National Park. This has been a contentious back and forth game between the tribe and feds, regardless the "Conservation" model and Treaties / sold mineral rights, etc...

To the best of my knowledge - if you are a not an enrolled tribal member - their treaty right could not be conferred to you (even for a fee) to hunt off-reservation lands. As a non tribal member you would be subject to state hunting regulations (and fees). The hunts offered by Tribes that some have discussed here occur on the actual reservation. So, in short, I don't forsee any of this resulting in some sort of means for bypassing the state draws or regulations. Although...I'm also not aware of any case law that has addressed this specific issue. Many Tribes I'm familiar with really would not embrace the idea of offering non-tribal members "treaty rights" for a fee. Some Tribes have rules that prohibit non-tribal members from even accompanying tribal members who are hunting - unless the state season/area is also open to non tribal hunters at the time.

 

[Tomahawk]

As long as the tribal hunting in Wyoming doesn't create a conservation crisis, it should go on.

Fair enough, but what should we do when it does? I assume then it will seem obvious we should not have accepted unrestricted year round spotlighting.

 

[BuzzH]

To the best of my knowledge - if you are a not an enrolled tribal member - their treaty right could not be conferred to you (even for a fee) to hunt off-reservation lands. As a non tribal member you would be subject to state hunting regulations (and fees). The hunts offered by Tribes that some have discussed here occur on the actual reservation. So, in short, I don't forsee any of this resulting in some sort of means for bypassing the state draws or regulations. Although...I'm also not aware of any case law that has addressed this specific issue. Many Tribes I'm familiar with really would not embrace the idea of offering non-tribal members "treaty rights" for a fee. Some Tribes have rules that prohibit non-tribal members from even accompanying tribal members who are hunting - unless the state season/area is also open to non tribal hunters at the time.

So nice to have someone that understands the issue commenting...thank you.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

To the best of my knowledge - if you are a not an enrolled tribal member - their treaty right could not be conferred to you (even for a fee) to hunt off-reservation lands. As a non tribal member you would be subject to state hunting regulations (and fees). The hunts offered by Tribes that some have discussed here occur on the actual reservation. So, in short, I don't forsee any of this resulting in some sort of means for bypassing the state draws or regulations. Although...I'm also not aware of any case law that has addressed this specific issue. Many Tribes I'm familiar with really would not embrace the idea of offering non-tribal members "treaty rights" for a fee. Some Tribes have rules that prohibit non-tribal members from even accompanying tribal members who are hunting - unless the state season/area is also open to non tribal hunters at the time.

Definitely the status quo, I guess my argument is that we have seen an explosion of eco tourism, with hunting being one aspect of that and I think you could work with stakeholders to bring jobs to the rez. I'm sure the WY and MT guide associations are gonna raise hell... but net net I think you could make some lemonade out of the situation.

In practicality I see it working similar to a CO landowner voucher, the tribe gets a specified number of vouchers for various units which they can keep and distribute to members or sell to non-tribal member hunters. A hunter would still have to buy the tag, but they wouldn't have to draw... said hunter would be limited to hunting with a tribal guide and would have to be with them at all times.

 

[JLS]

What should we do when it does? I assume then it will seem obvious we should not have allowed unrestricted year round spotlighting.

What could potentially happen is the tribe and the state each have a harvest allocation and can do what they want with that allocation. One thing everyone is going to have to get over real fast, is applying your ethics on tribal take. They will have the ability to promulgate their own rules, which will likely allow party hunting, possibly not have wastage regulation, and won’t follow the same seasons as the state.

 

[Sytes]

To the best of my knowledge - if you are a not an enrolled tribal member - their treaty right could not be conferred to you (even for a fee) to hunt off-reservation lands. As a non tribal member you would be subject to state hunting regulations (and fees). The hunts offered by Tribes that some have discussed here occur on the actual reservation. So, in short, I don't forsee any of this resulting in some sort of means for bypassing the state draws or regulations. Although...I'm also not aware of any case law that has addressed this specific issue. Many Tribes I'm familiar with really would not embrace the idea of offering non-tribal members "treaty rights" for a fee. Some Tribes have rules that prohibit non-tribal members from even accompanying tribal members who are hunting - unless the state season/area is also open to non tribal hunters at the time.

Crazy crap happens when a corrupt Tribal leadership is bickering .. None the less the Browning repeated issues of law enforcement corruption to the point feds had to restore order and again restore order.
I am pretty sure this was on the reservation though certainly shows how non tribal can pay to play, so to say.

3 ex-Blackfeet leaders indicted over illegal hunts with country musicians

GREAT FALLS – Three former Blackfeet tribal leaders were indicted Tuesday on charges they held illegal big-game hunts for a film crew and country music stars including Josh Thompson and

missoulian.com

Btw, thanks for the reasonable response.

 

[BuzzH]

What should we do when it does? I assume then it will seem obvious we should not have allowed unrestricted year round spotlighting.

Cross that bridge if/when it happens...and I doubt it will. Wyoming will have to move through the court system again and make its case that there is a valid conservation concern. Hopefully they get better legal advice than from the brain-trust that decided this was a good one to pursue.

I think many need to start thinking logically and leave emotion out. How many registered Crow Members are there? Of those, how many hunt? Of that subset of those that hunt, how many are serious about it?

My guess, not that many.

I'm concerned with tribal moose hunting in the Bighorns...but not worried at all about tribal hunting in regard to elk, deer, pronghorn, grouse etc. I would also like to believe that the Tribe would take into consideration, that if they choose to over-harvest moose, there is going to be litigation if there is a conservation concern.

 

[ZBB]

I probably have no business chiming in here as I'm not well versed in these issues. But my gut tells me that treaties could be bought out or at least bought down. Obviously there are lot of tribal members living in poverty and reservations are struggling for an influx of cash. It seems to me that you could waive a big enough check (or check substitute like raffle tags mentioned previously) that the tribes might actually consider forfeiting a portion of their hunting rights. It could mean that the forfeit enough that they have to follow seasons, or bag limits, or ???? Maybe they get a small number of tags that are good for any weapon, any unit, any time of year that they could raffle to the highest bidder. Surely there is some wealthy individual out there that would fork over a lot money to hunt that tag.

An old article on the same subject.

Why the Sioux Are Refusing $1.3 Billion

Members of the Great Sioux Nation could pocket a large sum set aside by the government for taking the resource-rich Black Hills away from the tribes in 1877. But leaders say the sacred land was never, and still isn't, for sale.

www.pbs.org

 

[JLS]

Does this "Treaty" permit tribes to conduct their hunts for those who are willing to pay non tribal, $17,000 elk hunts (Blackfeet) so long as it's a tribal designated hunt for tribal funding? Basically, a way for anyone to pay backdoor entry to any "unoccupied" unit / district?
I know, up until now, MT State and Blackfeet held the understanding this was on their reservation though now?
Basically, how far does the treaty / sovereignty extend? It does not address this portion, at least within the SCOTUSBLOG:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/...n-affirming-crow-tribes-treaty-hunting-right/

Side note... I can see a resurgence of the Blackfeet's assertion they are entitled to hunt Glacier National Park. This has been a contentious back and forth game between the tribe and feds, regardless the "Conservation" model and Treaties / sold mineral rights, etc...

Likely no. So long as a tribe has hunting regulations in place, non tribal hunters can hunt on the reservation. However, treaty rights are a different cat and to my knowledge only extend to registered/enrolled tribal members. They cannot be conveyed (even temporarily) as far as I know.

That’s not to say it won’t happen illegally. It certainly will, and does currently. No differently than fraudulent use of landowner and/or outfitter tags and other set aside permits.

 

[BuzzH]

Crazy crap happens when a corrupt Tribal leadership is bickering .. None the less the Browning repeated issues of law enforcement corruption to the point feds had to restore order and again restore order.
I am pretty sure this was on the reservation though certainly shows how non tribal can pay to play, so to say.

3 ex-Blackfeet leaders indicted over illegal hunts with country musicians

GREAT FALLS – Three former Blackfeet tribal leaders were indicted Tuesday on charges they held illegal big-game hunts for a film crew and country music stars including Josh Thompson and

missoulian.com

Btw, thanks for the reasonable response.

All happened on the Blackfoot Reservation...per the article. Not your pig, not your farm.

 

[Sytes]

Will be interesting to see how the National Parks pan out as, "unoccupied" or... As mentioned about Blackfeet interest to hunt GNP as a right.

 

[idahohuntr]

Definitely the status quo, I guess my argument is that we have seen an explosion of eco tourism, with hunting being one aspect of that and I think you could work with stakeholders to bring jobs to the rez. I'm sure the WY and MT guide associations are gonna raise hell... but net net I think you could make some lemonade out of the situation.

In practicality I see it working similar to a CO landowner voucher, the tribe gets a specified number of vouchers for various units which they can keep and distribute to members or sell to non-tribal member hunters. A hunter would still have to buy the tag, but they wouldn't have to draw... said hunter would be limited to hunting with a tribal guide and would have to be with them at all times.

If the state cooperated on this (like is suggested with your CO example) - then I could see it working. The key would be that the State is endorsing the tag and allowing the Tribe to assign it to a non-tribal member for a fee. The State basically has no say over tribal member hunting or hunting on a federal reservation...but non-tribal and off-reservation...the State must be involved.

 

[BuzzH]

Definitely the status quo, I guess my argument is that we have seen an explosion of eco tourism, with hunting being one aspect of that and I think you could work with stakeholders to bring jobs to the rez. I'm sure the WY and MT guide associations are gonna raise hell... but net net I think you could make some lemonade out of the situation.

In practicality I see it working similar to a CO landowner voucher, the tribe gets a specified number of vouchers for various units which they can keep and distribute to members or sell to non-tribal member hunters. A hunter would still have to buy the tag, but they wouldn't have to draw... said hunter would be limited to hunting with a tribal guide and would have to be with them at all times.

The Crow Agency already does that very thing on their Reservation. I know for sure they allow non-tribal members to hunt bears, pronghorn, and bison. In fact, a friend of mine from Utah killed both a bison and pronghorn on the Crow Reservation last fall.

I don't believe there is any chance of the State of Wyoming agreeing to give vouchers to the Crow Tribe that would allow them to guide hunters off the reservation. Further, the hunters in Wyoming are NEVER going to allow a transferable voucher here. That was already tried in the past and was quickly, and harshly dealt with.

 

[JLS]

The Crow Agency already does that very thing on their Reservation. I know for sure they allow non-tribal members to hunt bears, pronghorn, and bison. In fact, a friend of mine from Utah killed both a bison and pronghorn on the Crow Reservation last fall.

I don't believe there is any chance of the State of Wyoming agreeing to give vouchers to the Crow Tribe that would allow them to guide hunters off the reservation. Further, the hunters in Wyoming are NEVER going to allow a transferable voucher here. That was already tried in the past and was quickly, and harshly dealt with.

This is a different set of circumstances though, and looking at the long game it might be beneficial to allow for the transfer of tribal vouchers. I don’t know. I certainly wouldn’t rule it out.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't believe there is any chance of the State of Wyoming agreeing to give vouchers to the Crow Tribe that would allow them to guide hunters off the reservation. Further, the hunters in Wyoming are NEVER going to allow a transferable voucher here. That was already tried in the past and was quickly, and harshly dealt with.

Exactly why it might be a way to get them to agree to no unregulated hunting off the rez by members of the tribe. Any deal is gonna require some major pain on both sides to work.

But yeah I agree with you I think the status quo wont change much and there will just be... say little border skirmishes like this that pop up every once and a while.

 

[BuzzH]

If the state cooperated on this (like is suggested with your CO example) - then I could see it working. The key would be that the State is endorsing the tag and allowing the Tribe to assign it to a non-tribal member for a fee. The State basically has no say over tribal member hunting or hunting on a federal reservation...but non-tribal and off-reservation...the State must be involved.

I ran into a situation in Montana in the 1990's with a tribal pronghorn hunt. I was hunting on private land, outside the Fort Belknap reservation on a friends private property. I ran into a tribal guide from the Fort Belknap reservation, outside the reservation boundary, but guiding/hunting a couple sections owned by the Fort Belknap reservation. The client wasn't wearing orange and was hunting under a tag issued by Fort Belknap.

I always wondered about the legality of that?

 

[BuzzH]

Exactly why it might be a way to get them to agree to no unregulated hunting off the rez by members of the tribe. Any deal is gonna require some major pain on both sides to work.

But yeah I agree with you I think the status quo wont change much and there will just be... say little border skirmishes like this that pop up every once and a while.

Good luck with that....