U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[BuzzH]

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.

Yep, and Wyoming will lose again.

 

[Sytes]

WY is not alone in this dog and pony show... now.
Negotiation 101: Come to the table with something the other side wants.
What would tribes desire in exchange for our States balls to protect our conservation?

$$$... Concessions, enhanced casino perks for their wealthy to increase the tourism flow of non tribal "members"... Welfare enhanced culture for "their" people. That magical Democrat word, "reparations" likely to pop up.

Did I say, $$$?

 

[3855WIN]

Yep, and Wyoming will lose again.

Only if they want to lose. Wyoming could easily open up hunts in the northern Bighorns to greatly reduce elk populations. Then the Tribe would have to decide if they want the Wyoming part of the treaty to be a wildlife wasteland like their reservation is, or if they prefer to have sustainable elk numbers for the benefit of all. Wyoming has leverage. I doubt they’ll use it.

 

[BuzzH]

Only if they want to lose. Wyoming could easily open up hunts in the northern Bighorns to greatly reduce elk populations. Then the Tribe would have to decide if they want the Wyoming part of the treaty to be a wildlife wasteland like their reservation is, or if they prefer to have sustainable elk numbers for the benefit of all. Wyoming has leverage. I doubt they’ll use it.

Never have seen a situation where shooting yourself in the foot was a good idea.

 

[HSi-ESi]

I don't see where WY and MT cannot try to negotiate on this issue, which will tough with limited leverage.

The water compact has taken years here - and with a tribe much different than the Crow.

I see this drawing out over many years.

 

[antlerradar]

Only if they want to lose. Wyoming could easily open up hunts in the northern Bighorns to greatly reduce elk populations. Then the Tribe would have to decide if they want the Wyoming part of the treaty to be a wildlife wasteland like their reservation is, or if they prefer to have sustainable elk numbers for the benefit of all. Wyoming has leverage. I doubt they’ll use it.

Montana has been working on this strategy for about the last 15 to 20 years with the deer herd on the Custer. I would not recommend it.

As much as I would like Montana to wait this out and watch and see what happens with Wyoming, the prudent thing to do would be for Montana to start talking to the Crow tribe. There have been a lot of suggestions like less restrictive seasons, special tags and cash payments. I don't see any of those as much more than wishful thinking. The Tribe holds all the good cards. The only card Montana has is the public perception card and it is a low card. About the best I would hope for is that Montana could use the card to get a agreement on wasting game and restrictions on the most egregious methods of hunting like spotlighting and using a motor vehicle to chase down game. Maybe the Tribe would agree to restrict the taking of cows and does when the fawns are young. Any thing else for better conservation would be a bonus unless there are some cards the state holds that I do not know about. Lets hope that the higher ups in FWP and the Governors office have all ready started.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Leverage is where you find it. We had an area casino that was running up costs for road repairs and police calls just off the reservation around a casino. When the tribe wouldn't help defray costs the county declared it was going to turn the primary county road that ran to the casino into a toll road. They were also considering making it a per person toll instead of per vehicle which would hit the many many buses running seniors out to the casino. Somehow the tribe found the will to negotiate. All has been well since.

 

[BWALKER77]

How do you figure a casino will do the Crow tribe any good? Montana has a casino on every corner and the tribal casino in crow agency was a failure. Who wants to spend time in a dump like Crow Agency?

 

[PrairieHunter]

This is a federal issue IMO. Not a Wyoming and Montana issue since as mentioned they were not even states when this treaty was signed. They are just getting caught in the middle due to the feds granting hunting rights to 2 groups, the tribe and the state game and fish departments. The feds negotiated a treaty with the Crow. Then the feds turned around an gave the states the authority to manage game on the federal land. In reality this should be handled between the people who have the treaty, and the landowners, which happens to be the USFS. Their treaty, their land, their problem.

IMO Wyoming G&F should mark this unit off the hunting maps, not issue any tags for those areas, and forward any poaching or other complaints to the USFS LEO in charge of that property. We are just wasting resources fighting a fight that is not ours to fight at this point. Let the USFS decide how to handle this mess and let their LEO's and attorneys waste money fighting with the tribe. Wyoming is in a no win situation at this point.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Montana has been working on this strategy for about the last 15 to 20 years with the deer herd on the Custer. I would not recommend it.

As much as I would like Montana to wait this out and watch and see what happens with Wyoming, the prudent thing to do would be for Montana to start talking to the Crow tribe. There have been a lot of suggestions like less restrictive seasons, special tags and cash payments. I don't see any of those as much more than wishful thinking. The Tribe holds all the good cards. The only card Montana has is the public perception card and it is a low card. About the best I would hope for is that Montana could use the card to get a agreement on wasting game and restrictions on the most egregious methods of hunting like spotlighting and using a motor vehicle to chase down game. Maybe the Tribe would agree to restrict the taking of cows and does when the fawns are young. Any thing else for better conservation would be a bonus unless there are some cards the state holds that I do not know about. Lets hope that the higher ups in FWP and the Governors office have all ready started.

The only real "ace in the hole" for the state would be issuing the tribe transferable tags. I am not saying I want this to happen or think it should but at that point they could sell those tags which obviously would have value for the tribe.

They really have no reason to negotiate beyond that but all they will get is meat and horns, not money. Just depends which is more important.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Only if they want to lose. Wyoming could easily open up hunts in the northern Bighorns to greatly reduce elk populations. Then the Tribe would have to decide if they want the Wyoming part of the treaty to be a wildlife wasteland like their reservation is, or if they prefer to have sustainable elk numbers for the benefit of all. Wyoming has leverage. I doubt they’ll use it.

It's interesting that the Wind River reservation is a general unit with a month long any elk season and 2 month cow season.

 

[VikingsGuy]

How do you figure a casino will do the Crow tribe any good? Montana has a casino on every corner and the tribal casino in crow agency was a failure. Who wants to spend time in a dump like Crow Agency?

Not my point.

 

[JLS]

This is a federal issue IMO. Not a Wyoming and Montana issue since as mentioned they were not even states when this treaty was signed. They are just getting caught in the middle due to the feds granting hunting rights to 2 groups, the tribe and the state game and fish departments. The feds negotiated a treaty with the Crow. Then the feds turned around an gave the states the authority to manage game on the federal land. In reality this should be handled between the people who have the treaty, and the landowners, which happens to be the USFS. Their treaty, their land, their problem.

IMO Wyoming G&F should mark this unit off the hunting maps, not issue any tags for those areas, and forward any poaching or other complaints to the USFS LEO in charge of that property. We are just wasting resources fighting a fight that is not ours to fight at this point. Let the USFS decide how to handle this mess and let their LEO's and attorneys waste money fighting with the tribe. Wyoming is in a no win situation at this point.

Closing the Big Horns to state hunting to resolve the treaty issue would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[PrairieHunter]

Closing the Big Horns to state hunting to resolve the treaty issue would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You think it makes sense to have Wyoming state game wardens and LEO's try to get involved with the tribal hunters this fall?

After this ruling I don't think the state game wardens need/want to be dealing with this. They have no authority it appears. A true no win situation for them and the state.

Letting the landowner and treaty holder work out the issue make a lot more sense than the state wasting millions fighting with the tribe and it's treaty that the state had nothing to do with.

If the state is not in control of the game harvest on that land then why try to manage the game on that piece land?

 

[JLS]

You think it makes sense to have Wyoming state game wardens and LEO's try to get involved with the tribal hunters this fall?

After this ruling I don't think the state game wardens need/want to be dealing with this. They have no authority it appears. A true no win situation for them and the state.

Letting the landowner and treaty holder work out the issue make a lot more sense than the state wasting millions fighting with the tribe and it's treaty that the state had nothing to do with.

If the state is not in control of the game harvest on that land then why try to manage the game on that piece land?

Absolutely it makes sense. They don’t HAVe to arrest them for exercising their treaty rights. IMO, that is a poor decision by the governor to issue that decree.

It doesn’t need to be a no win. Closing the Big Horns to state hunting is a rash move. There is no need and no benefit. Taking a more level headed approach, Wyoming hunters and Crow tribal hunters can coexist. There may not be the level of opportunity there currently is, but it will still be far greater than if there is none.

The state is in partial control of the game harvest. Just because there isn’t complete state autonomy doesn’t necessitate taking it completely off the table.

I doubt Montana hunters would be too happy if the entire upper Yellowstone basin was closed to hunting because the state doesn’t have exclusive management authority over the elk there. Somehow, they’ve managed to coexist with Nez Perce tribal hunting. So have hunters in Idaho. It’s not always rosy, but it beats the alternative of nothing.

This issue really has nothing to do with the landowner. It’s an issue for the state and tribe to resolve. I’m guessing the courts will extend Crow rights to BLM land as well as state land. The issue is reaching a resolution some sort of co-management between tribe and state.

 

[3855WIN]

It's interesting that the Wind River reservation is a general unit with a month long any elk season and 2 month cow season.

Hmm. I read on here that this is shooting yourself in the foot. Sounds more like the best idea to yet another problem sent from DC.

 

[antlerradar]

In my opinion the unoccupied and unclaimed big horn mountains were claimed by the citizens of the US when their Representatives in Congress created the Big Horn National Forest. My opinion doesn't count for much and 5 of the 9 highly educated lawyers said it is so. Their opinion is the one that matters. WY has no case on if the Big Horns are unoccupied or not. WY may have a better case if they claim that Herrera was poaching and not hunting but I wouldn't get your hopes up.

 

[BuzzH]

You may be confused on what the Supreme Court ruled. It ruled that Wyoming becoming a state did not abrogate the original treaty. Now, the case will be back in the Wyoming court system to decide if the Bighorns are "unoccupied" and what effect will wildlife conservation play in the potential off-reservation hunting.

I think its time that many on this thread start facing the reality that Wyoming chit in their mess kit taking this case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Crow treaty rights to hunt, for that to happen, there has to be unoccupied lands to hunt (which the court says definitely exist). The Supreme Court sent Wyoming a warning when they mentioned in this ruling that unoccupied lands exist. It would be laughable if Wyoming tried to use the argument that the entire Bighorn National forest is "occupied". They will lose again in court on that, and wouldn't it be great if the Court ruled that not only is the NF unoccupied, but so is all State Trust Land and BLM? Roll the dice again Wyoming, see what happens.

Trying to use semantics to make unoccupied NF "occupied" isn't going to work, and that's a fact.

 

[dcreiss]

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.

There already exists an instance where a tribe can hunt within a NP. The oglala Sioux tribe's citizens can hunt within the south unit of Badlands NP but it is a little different a situation as the south unit exists within the tribe's reservation exterior boundaries.

 

[dcreiss]

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?

Sounds like they were guiding on off reservation tribal trust land, this is a difficult question of legality as these parcels are basically islands of tribal jurisdiction. States differ on how they approach this situation, usually local CO's know those lands well and deal with this scenario wisely. States typically look at these lands as on reservation hunting even though they contend tribal licensure authority does not exist for non-Indians outside of reservation borders.