U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[JLS]

Unoccupied has to be evaluated in terms of what the phrase unoccupied lands meant at the time the treaty was signed. An administrative occupation, such as a national forest, will not reach the threshold of constituting occupied lands.

 

[Sytes]

And Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Teton, Roosevelt National Parks are considered... Unoccupied? Or is there a "conservation" angle that voids the "unoccupied" portion? (Speaking outside reservation territory)

 

[VikingsGuy]

[

And Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Teton, Roosevelt National Parks are considered... Unoccupied? Or is there a "conservation" angle that voids the "unoccupied" portion? (Speaking outside reservation territory)

Unoccupied will be viewed through the eyes of a Crow tribe member in the 1880s. Are there towns/settlements, are the active ranches and farms, etc? Things like BLM status, designation as a park or a wildness, a "forest" or a landmark etc will have no meaning in the determination of occupied.

 

[Sytes]

I fear you're right... That is unfortunate.

 

[bobbydean]

Not my state, I do not know local knowledge. I would think National parks , BLM would be considered occupied as they are covered by park rangers and BLM. Would make a case in court. Do not like your chances, but a good lawyer!

 

[antlerradar]

The difference with National parks maybe that federal law not state law regulates hunting.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Not my state, I do not know local knowledge. I would think National parks , BLM would be considered occupied as they are covered by park rangers and BLM. Would make a case in court. Do not like your chances, but a good lawyer!

There were transient people, trappers, hunters, marshalls, military scouts etc at the time - if that counted as occupied then there would have been no unoccupied even at treaty signing. This approach has zero chance.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So we're going with the 1880's definition of "unoccupied" but not the 1880's method of "hunting" (ie. horseback, bow and arrow)? This rational is a joke.

Hunting is a word that does not need further definition even today. How, when and where and why you hunt may vary, but the word hunt hasn’t changed much in the language, so the distinction is perfectly logical. Also Indians were already rifle hunting by the time of this treaty so not helpful there either.

 

[bobbydean]

Viking Guy, why so negative. Do you consider a National park visited by thousands as being occupied? I do.

 

[BigHornRam]

[

Unoccupied will be viewed through the eyes of a Crow tribe member in the 1880s. Are there towns/settlements, are the active ranches and farms, etc? Things like BLM status, designation as a park or a wildness, a "forest" or a landmark etc will have no meaning in the determination of occupied.

Yellowstone Park was established in 1872 so it appears to have been occupied when the treaty was signed based on this line of reasoning.

 

[375H&H]

Yellowstone Park was established in 1872 so it appears to have been occupied when the treaty was signed based on this line of reasoning.

I thought the treaty was in 1868...

 

[375H&H]

Not my state, I do not know local knowledge. I would think National parks , BLM would be considered occupied as they are covered by park rangers and BLM. Would make a case in court. Do not like your chances, but a good lawyer!

National forests are patrolled by forest rangers as well...

 

[375H&H]

Hunting is a word that does not need further definition even today. How, when and where and why you hunt may vary, but the word hunt hasn’t changed much in the language, so the distinction is perfectly logical. Also Indians were already rifle hunting by the time of this treaty so not helpful there either.

Hunting sure needs further definition. Does “hunting” include wanton waste? Or is that term not even relevant due to this treaty?

The waste of a game animal whether shot under a treaty or not should be a hard pill for EVERYONE to swallow.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Viking Guy, why so negative. Do you consider a National park visited by thousands as being occupied? I do.

Not negative, just a lawyer who is familiar with appellate court practice - and a casual watcher of how the Mille Lacs matter has gone for the last decade in MN. I doubt visitors will be relevant to the discussion - but I would guess some of the the built up areas of national parks may be "occupied" - like lodges at Yellowstone.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yellowstone Park was established in 1872 so it appears to have been occupied when the treaty was signed based on this line of reasoning.

Occupied is NOT a legal status, but a rather actual "settlement".

 

[VikingsGuy]

Hunting sure needs further definition. Does “hunting” include wanton waste? Or is that term not even relevant due to this treaty?

The waste of a game animal whether shot under a treaty or not should be a hard pill for EVERYONE to swallow.

Wanton waste occurs after hunting and is a separate concept. I don't like it either, but the legal framework here is not set to our 2019 sensibilities but to 1868 indian understandings.

 

[375H&H]

Wanton waste occurs after hunting and is a separate concept. I don't like it either, but the legal framework here is not set to our 2019 sensibilities but to 1868 indian understandings.

You’re right, wouldn’t want to do that like we do for ALL other US citizens.

 

[BigHornRam]

I thought the treaty was in 1868...

So it was. Yellowstone was unoccupied at that time then. I stand corrected.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Wanton waste occurs after hunting and is a separate concept. I don't like it either, but the legal framework here is not set to our 2019 sensibilities but to 1868 indian understandings.

But by that logic couldn't you still charge someone with wonton waste, in spite of the treaty?

 

[Sytes]

Tribal guided / solo hunts for bighorn sheep in Rocky Mountain National Park, Grand Teton, Glacier... On the way, crack a few elk... Grab the backstraps... Hey, if the antlers are cool... lop the head off...

Amazing.

Where does the part within the SCOTUS reading regarding state (and federal, for that matter) relate to "Conservation"?