D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I think a better out come would have been for the tribe to make a deal with WY and deal with it internally.
U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
I think a better out come would have been for the tribe to make a deal with WY and deal with it internally.
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Absolutely it should have been, opportunities were missed at all levels.
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 345
I generally think this statement put out by the Crow Tribe was much better than what the WY Governor said in response to the decision...The Crow "...extend a hand of friendship to Wyoming, so that we may all move forward..."
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialCTINews/photos/a.136225533561188/612288715954865/?type=3&theater
I continue to believe WY needs to put aside their ego and begin treating the Crow and other Tribes with the respect they deserve - which begins with recognition several Tribes have a right to hunt without interference from WY officials. Hard headedness will only result in an escalation that ensures wildlife bears the brunt of continued fighting. Co-management can be a win-win that ensures resources are harvested sustainability and allows for combined technical expertise and resources to better manage and monitor wildlife and their habitat.
https://www.facebook.com/OfficialCTINews/photos/a.136225533561188/612288715954865/?type=3&theater
I continue to believe WY needs to put aside their ego and begin treating the Crow and other Tribes with the respect they deserve - which begins with recognition several Tribes have a right to hunt without interference from WY officials. Hard headedness will only result in an escalation that ensures wildlife bears the brunt of continued fighting. Co-management can be a win-win that ensures resources are harvested sustainability and allows for combined technical expertise and resources to better manage and monitor wildlife and their habitat.
HSi-ESi
Well-known member
The press release was a good show of faith. I do have some hope that good things come of this.
It is very frustrating in that the initial violation was fought not on the grounds of treaty rights (until it reached court) - and does taint the case in many folks' eyes. I think the approach AJ is politically taking with the release is a good start.
I hope that cooler heads prevail and that a workable solution is formed. There are many instances where the tribal members are both US Citizen's, yet still hold sovereign nation status. There aren't any "do-overs" here - so lamenting about the past is a waste of time from both perspectives.
It's gonna be a rough road for a bit though.
It is very frustrating in that the initial violation was fought not on the grounds of treaty rights (until it reached court) - and does taint the case in many folks' eyes. I think the approach AJ is politically taking with the release is a good start.
I hope that cooler heads prevail and that a workable solution is formed. There are many instances where the tribal members are both US Citizen's, yet still hold sovereign nation status. There aren't any "do-overs" here - so lamenting about the past is a waste of time from both perspectives.
It's gonna be a rough road for a bit though.
bobbydean
Well-known member
Very proactive for the tribe.
Treaty is law. Abide.
Treaty is law. Abide.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@idahohuntr The whole thing is a mess all the way around.
I agree that with the SCOTUS ruling, but the actions of Herrera were completely unethical and unlawful, and not pursuing their own charges against him is a black eye for the tribe. Given the SCOTUS ruling Herrera should still be charged for breaking tribal game laws.
The Tribes comments in light of the facts of the case come across as smug.
Fact of the matter is that no matter where you stand on treaty rights for the Crow, Herrera, a game warden tasked with upholding the wildlife laws of his nation, killed an elk kept the head and left all the meat to rot, and shot a second bull which he didn't recover, these actions break the law of the Crow nation which he is employed to uphold.
Court Testimony
-Continues on to discuss a number of elk killed in the area, found pics of Herrera on Monster Muley's, eventually gets confessions, etc etc...
Court Exhibits
I agree that with the SCOTUS ruling, but the actions of Herrera were completely unethical and unlawful, and not pursuing their own charges against him is a black eye for the tribe. Given the SCOTUS ruling Herrera should still be charged for breaking tribal game laws.
The Tribes comments in light of the facts of the case come across as smug.
Fact of the matter is that no matter where you stand on treaty rights for the Crow, Herrera, a game warden tasked with upholding the wildlife laws of his nation, killed an elk kept the head and left all the meat to rot, and shot a second bull which he didn't recover, these actions break the law of the Crow nation which he is employed to uphold.
Court Testimony
-Continues on to discuss a number of elk killed in the area, found pics of Herrera on Monster Muley's, eventually gets confessions, etc etc...
Court Exhibits
3855WIN
Well-known member
Wyoming defended the rights of its citizens and the wild game that inhabit the state against non resident poachers. The tax payers should be happy and proud they have leaders that will fight for their rights. The Crow Tribe should also be happy they had leaders who fought for their rights. Wyoming could open an early unlimited rifle season in the northern Bighorns. The Crows could shoot elk year round in the Bighorns. Neither is best for the resource. Time for both sides to develop a workable plan that will protect the resource.
FYI- I have Creek blood in me. I respect those who respect the resource, regardless of heritage.
Yea, and they spent a lot of time and money to loose. A resolution would have been better then a loss with open ended ramifications. The racehorse angle was a looser. They should have been smarter then that.
Last edited:
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 345
I understand but I think its appropriate to separate the individual circumstances from the broader legal issue of treaty rights and whether they were extinguished with statehood or national forest designation. I would never condone the intentional waste of an animal, but I also believe the far greater injustice has been the criminal prosecution of Tribal members exercising their hunting rights and (by implication) intimidating Tribal members into not exercising their rights. If it so happens the specific case is not filled with the most noble Tribal hunts...I'm not sure it changes my view in any appreciable way.
A great example of a Tribal member acting honorably in fighting for his tribes Treaty rights is Billy Frank Jr...a man who over the course of his life was arrested dozens of times...and after landmark SCOTUS rulings in his Tribes favor - he found the compassion to not only forgive, but work collaboratively with the entities who for so long had treated him very poorly. Truly compassionate and an amazing life story...this current WY/Tribal hunting situation cries out for the Billy Frank Jr's of the world to step up...on both sides.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
True, but if you look to the civil rights movement there were numerous instances where the NAACP picked their figures strategically to make sure they had the moral high ground first before advocating for their rights. I can't help but think that the Crow tribe went with Claudette Colvin instead of Rosa Parks.
Seems so backwards that a game officer, who leaves an animal to rot is going to continue working for a government that knows full well what he did... ostensibly he is going to be busting people for wanton waste on the Rez this fall.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's already happened...
I might also point out that a generation latter the US did a pretty decent job assimilating many cultures into ours. In the case of the Indians they were doomed as soon as they were treated differently and confined to reservations.
Will never happen on the crow. The tribal membership is against any sort of regulation of tribal hunting as it pertains to bag limits and seasons.
There is no such thing as wanton waste on the Crow rez.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Please refer to post #373 and 12-5-107 of the tribal code
Crow Tribal Laws & Tribal Constitution | Crow Agency MT
Information regarding Crow Tribal Laws, Tribal Constitution, Rules of Order and Crow Law and Order Code.
www.ctlb.org
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Is it enforced, I will leave that to those of you with first hand knowledge. I cant comment... but it is on the books.
It isnt enforced in the slightest. The tribal game laws also prohibit spotlighting, but again spotlighting is commonly used.
I personally know of a case where a guy who worked for me shot 6 elk on the way home from work. He took the heads and tenderloins and left the rest to rot.
One winter just outside Hardin antelope were wintering along the road and were being shot like varmints and left to rot where they were shot.
I could go on and on.
Last year the tribe was having a budget crisis and didnt even have a fish and game officer on duty for a year or more. I have not worked on the rez since last Novemeber and for all I know they still dont have a fish and game officer on duty.
Keeptrying
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2016
- Messages
- 678
The guy left an elk to rot. Now he and his friends have no restrictions on doing it again, and again, and again, and again........... And everyone knows it.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Even if the tribe is enforcing the waste rules, the rules do not apply off of the reservation and the tribe does not have the authority to enforce non tribal laws off the reservatiion.
I don't know if WY is doing the right thing. My gut tells me that they should be negotiating with the tribe. I under stand that the Tribe has the upper hand in the negotiation and WY is likely to get few concessions. One concession I would think WY could get form the tribe is the right to enforce the state's waste laws on tribal members off of the reservation. If the tribe is unwilling to negotiate on waste than there is no point in negotiating and fighting in court is the only option left to WY.
I don't know if WY is doing the right thing. My gut tells me that they should be negotiating with the tribe. I under stand that the Tribe has the upper hand in the negotiation and WY is likely to get few concessions. One concession I would think WY could get form the tribe is the right to enforce the state's waste laws on tribal members off of the reservation. If the tribe is unwilling to negotiate on waste than there is no point in negotiating and fighting in court is the only option left to WY.
Last edited:
Similar threads
