U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[JLS]

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?

I’m not familiar with the Fort Belknap treaty, but typically any fee land outside of the reservation is subject to state laws and regulations, particularly if a non tribal members is involved.

However, this is the same tribe that tried to arrest a state game warden on a county road, so WTF knows?

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Question, what would be the benefit to the State?

 

[JLS]

Question, what would be the benefit to the State?

Maintaining the trophy quality of the Big Horns. Limiting take of bighorn sheep. The tribe has some newfound freedom here, and may very well push the envelope as a way of giving the white man the bird.

 

[idahohuntr]

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?

Interesting...not a lot of case law here, but if its tribally owned land I would lean towards it being legal. I'm not sure I'd want to be that hunter though...particularly if they were lands purchased outright by the tribe outside the reservation boundary.

 

[BuzzH]

I’m not familiar with the Fort Belknap treaty, but typically any fee land outside of the reservation is subject to state laws and regulations, particularly if a non tribal members is involved.

However, this is the same tribe that tried to arrest a state game warden on a county road, so WTF knows?

Well, either way, I shot the pronghorn he was guiding the client to. I didn't even see them across the fence waiting for the pronghorn buck to cross onto the reservation sections. They came over and looked at the buck, the tribal guide was a super nice guy.

 

[bmt99]

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

I hope you know that this was a biased article leaving out much history that contradicts points made in the article and a lack of knowledge of the geography of some of the reservations in South Dakota. His facts are correct, but using only the facts that support your opinion is not honest. Washington Post?

 

[Irrelevant]

And the ways to make changes are fully provided: Constitutional Amendment (US, not state), SCOTUS interpretation evolving, agreement between tribe and state, and most relevant to this discussion - Congressional action. Individual state game & fish departments aren't on that list. The world changes and so does our legal framework, but we need to do it through the provided channels. WY tried SCOTUS path and lost - they can take their concerns to Congress if they wish - I doubt they will be well received, but that is the nature of democracy. In fact if Congress cared, and if a majority agreed with HT, almost all of the legal complaints raised at times on HT (corner crossing, NR price gouging, treaty rights, easements to locked up public land, "wilderness outfitters", parking on the side of a highway (rest in peace TopGun) etc.) could be solved by congress. But even though these are life and death issues for HT, they are not for 95% of America. The lawful answer to this dilemma is to make our case for change, not have a state F&G dept subvert federally sanctioned treaties.

100% true. But none of that implies, as some on here have, that these treaties is absolute, will not, and should not ever change. There are plenty of SCOTUS decisions I don't agree with and have contacted my representative over. This will be another.

 

[BuzzH]

Maintaining the trophy quality of the Big Horns. Limiting take of bighorn sheep. The tribe has some newfound freedom here, and may very well push the envelope as a way of giving the white man the bird.

Based on the tribe waiving their rights to hunt off the reservation in exchange for transferable vouchers?

Wyoming GF would have to create a whole new set of laws for that, and I don't think the hunters here would be too keen to allow a new transferable license.

 

[ZBB]

I hope you know that this was a biased article leaving out much history that contradicts points made in the article and a lack of knowledge of the geography of some of the reservations in South Dakota. His facts are correct, but using only the facts that support your opinion is not honest. Washington Post?

PBS, it was the first article I found when I searched for it. I won’t argue that it’s biased, the point I was making was to some of the posters suggesting that they could buy out the treaty. I couldn’t say that there was a shitload of money already offered and refused without siting an article.

 

[hossblur]

I have the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, yet I can't own a machine gun or sawed off shotgun freely.

I have FREEDOM to assemble, yet I need a permit to do so.

Buzz I can go on for days with the "rights" I have that have been tweaked or regulated.
Also. CROW of 1868 were most likely 100% CROW( I know nothing is 100%). So, the definition of CROW 1868. Not 2019. Is Herrera a CROW name? Seems very Latin to me.

Again. Why did history get to start in 1868? Who did the CROW capture that land from? What is the geographical location of CROW land? How were boundaries set?

Again. My great.......grandpa rolled into Utah with Brigham. Years later the Federal government sent an army against United States citizens(Johnson army). My great..... grandmother was forced off her farm when Utah petitioned statehood and polygamy was outlawed. Where is my farm?

My backyard neighbors family was pulled off their land and sent to topaz for WWII. Where is his farm?

It's assinine to start history in 1868. It's more so to take such vagueness as "unoccupied land" or "hunting rights" and apply it to 2019. Or, does the Mormons who rolled into Utah now own it outright? After all, the Utah territory (including some of Wyoming) was just that, "our land".

It's a word game. If the courts find that 1868 "hunting rights" apply, then 1868 methods should as well. As soon as Herrera loaded up the 20xx truck, shooting 20xx guns, and 20xx bullets (to poach by the way, let's not forget this was wanton waste to begin with), he acknowledged his heritage no longer applied.

Further, sure water rights should apply. However you do not own the right to pollute your water. Hunting rights and when wanton waste begins. After all we've heard all the tales of how natives use everything in harmony with nature, let's not forget where this began. A damn fine Wyoming LE doing a fine job tracking down POACHERS.

I own all the property in my name. I am not allowed to pollute it. Rights have restrictions in a society.

 

[JLS]

Based on the tribe waiving their rights to hunt off the reservation in exchange for transferable vouchers?

Wyoming GF would have to create a whole new set of laws for that, and I don't think the hunters here would be too keen to allow a new transferable license.

They might not be keen on it, but they don’t have a lot of leverage either. Maintaining trophy quality isn’t considered a conservation issue with respect to treaty right hunting.

I don’t know the answer. It’s a gamble for sure. Do you give away a little extra as a way of preventing potential disaster down the road, or do you stick to your guns and hope for the best? If I were Wyoming, I’d look long and hard at the NW tribal issues before making a decision.

 

[JLS]

Obviously some people have a hard time understanding how treaties work.

 

[88man]

In the act of hunting > Do tribal members need to follow forest service road restrictions? Or can they drive anywhere just because they are hunting? On or off road? Can they drink alcohol when hunting? Be drunk and hunt? under the influence of drugs? Can they hunt from airplanes? Can they hunt at night with a spot light or over bait? Do they need to follow any rules??????? Can they hunt endangered species? What about CWD and crossing state lines with bones and brains? is it 24/7/365 anything they want to shoot and any number?

 

[Sytes]

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

I don't give a rats whether it is your pig to roast or your farm from Wyoming. That's your business. Their historical pattern of illegal activity is my pig to roast as a concerned American and NW MT resident who hunts surrounding areas of this reservation and now the inclusive areas I hunt, I may face the corrupt setting that has existed and continues to exist.

 

[hossblur]

I think Cliven Bundy is an ass.

Now, Cliven claims he has a contract with the state of Nevada for water and grazing. He claims he has no such contract with the BLM, and that his families grazing rights predate the BLM. Further, so do hundreds of other ranching families, many who can trace their grazing to pre statehood(mine can). Since its now fashionable to talk about ancestral rights, us public land dudes are in a lot of trouble. If the natives don't own it, the Spanards do. That broad brush that SCOTUS paints with, is TROUBLE for 70% of hunters in the West.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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.

If true crisis then maybe congress will resolve.

 

[farmerboy1381]

Ok forgive someone who is not informed but asking questions to try to get that way. I really have no opinion yet but am very intrigued, so answer if you want ignore if you don’t. I know their is a decent market for trophy quality antlers with some sets worth decent money. Right now it would be perfectly legal for a tribal member to cruise any part of the area with a spotlight shooting as many trophy animals as they want anytime of the year and just remove the head to sell. The state could not touch them because they are tribal members. Could the tribe enforce any rules on land they do not own? Do they have jurisdiction off the reservation?

 

[JLS]

@88man. Typically they are subject to public safety laws, i.e. loaded firearms in vehicles, shooting from roadways, DUI, and so on. Method of take is typically left to the tribe.

They can hunt state endangered species, but not federal. The CWD question is a really good one, as there is a very legitimate conservation argument there.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think Cliven Bundy is an ass.

Now, Cliven claims he has a contract with the state of Nevada for water and grazing. He claims he has no such contract with the BLM, and that his families grazing rights predate the BLM. Further, so do hundreds of other ranching families, many who can trace their grazing to pre statehood(mine can). Since its now fashionable to talk about ancestral rights, us public land dudes are in a lot of trouble. If the natives don't own it, the Spanards do. That broad brush that SCOTUS paints with, is TROUBLE for 70% of hunters in the West.

Citing a specific treaty right is in no way similar to vague “ancestorial references”. And SCOTUS painted with a very small brush in this (and most) case(s). Basis several of your comments on this thread I think you may need to update your civics class.

 

[JLS]

Ok forgive someone who is not informed but asking questions to try to get that way. I really have no opinion yet but am very intrigued, so answer if you want ignore if you don’t. I know their is a decent market for trophy quality antlers with some sets worth decent money. Right now it would be perfectly legal for a tribal member to cruise any part of the area with a spotlight shooting as many trophy animals as they want anytime of the year and just remove the head to sell. The state could not touch them because they are tribal members. Could the tribe enforce any rules on land they do not own? Do they have jurisdiction off the reservation?

In a nutshell, yes they would have jurisdiction for tribal members off the reservation.

If tribal regulations prohibit wastage, a tribal member who committed said violations off of the reservation could still be subject to prosecution in tribal court.