VikingsGuy
Well-known member
But by that logic couldn't you still charge someone with wonton waste, in spite of the treaty?
The tribe could charge them. Or the tribe and the state could negotiate some similar framework.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But by that logic couldn't you still charge someone with wonton waste, in spite of the treaty?
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.
We do what we can to ensure our continued siphoning of 4% of our nation's economyIf the the lawyers in 1868 would have wrote a legible treaty, we wouldn't have to hire a hundred fold lawyers to sort this mess out today. Job security for lawyers I guess.
The court is made up of nine highly educated people. As with all humans they can make mistakes and right some bad decisions. Some of the worst I can think of are when the Court allowed the other two branches of government to treat two groups of citizens differently.You’re right, wouldn’t want to do that like we do for ALL other US citizens.
The court is made up of nine highly educated people. As with all humans they can make mistakes and right some bad decisions. Some of the worst I can think of are when the Court allowed the other two branches of government to treat two groups of citizens differently.
Last I checked grazing agreements had rules and regulations that had to be followed, and those rules and regulations could change as technology and science updates for modern grazing practices.If you have a contract with the Federal government leasing some grazing land and I do not have such a contract - then you can graze your cattle and I cannot. We are thereby treated differently, is this a problem? Not by any legal analysis I have ever seen.
Many on this thread seem to forget there is a specific written agreement (treaty) between the Crow and the Fed Govt. - this is not an equal protections case.
Danny has a point here.We do what we can to ensure our continued siphoning of 4% of our nation's economy
Although, even if there were rules applied to tribal hunting, do we really think the head game warden for the Crow would enforce them?
That’s the beauty of America, the communists and the fascists have lawyer too.Now I see why you are not such a fan of communism Vikingsguy.
About the same odds as good ‘ole boy sheriff ticketing big local rancher for hunter harassment. Such is the nature of small town (res) politics.
"The Commission has concluded that criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country is an indefensible morass of complex, conflicting, and illogical commands," states a report to the President and Congress of the United States authored in 2013 by the Indian Law and Order Commission.
The report goes on to catalog a list of failures within the Indian justice system, including delayed prosecutions, too few prosecutions, investigators and prosecutors unfamiliar or even hostile to Indians and tribes, greater criminal activity and increased endangerment to people living within Indian reservations.
Disagree (edit added: respectfully disagree ). The process is far less transparent and possess far greater internal success to conceal the corruption within.
Rural, po-dunk Sheriff Roscoe Coltrane's are exposed in time. Far different world on tribal land.
Example:
https://missoulian.com/uncategorize...cle_636592af-a4b5-5740-aadf-c8436cc902b8.html
Also;
Vikings guy, does your read on the opin lead you to conclude that in order to apply the precedent established in Mille Lacs and upheld in Herrara that while statehood does not abrogate treaty hunting rights within lands identified for individual tribal treaties that each treaty must be tested to determine if and how each treaty maintains said treaty hunting right for various tribes?If you have a contract with the Federal government leasing some grazing land and I do not have such a contract - then you can graze your cattle and I cannot. We are thereby treated differently, is this a problem? Not by any legal analysis I have ever seen.
Many on this thread seem to forget there is a specific written agreement (treaty) between the Crow and the Fed Govt. - this is not an equal protections case.
In general that is a fair statement for any disputed contract or treaty. The court explicitly left open issues to be further litigated. The two most obvious being "occupied" and some ill described WY role in "conservation".that each treaty must be tested to determine if and how each treaty maintains said treaty hunting right for various tribes?
@VikingsGuy How does this work regarding the unoccupied area... In the sense, is it within their hunting range known in 1868? Or is this a national level of unoccupied?
The case was ordered back to the lower Courts to determine if conservation needs give Wyoming the right to regulate hunting by Crow tribal members...
What "lower Courts" does this refer to? Back to State and challenged to Federal, if Wyoming contends Crow, like any hunter, must comply with the State's F & G regulations, designed for the *intended purpose of "conservation needs"... Which applies to the qty of tags per unit, seasons, etc... (?)
I see this as a potential WY recovery... If I am reading this correctly. Just as there are Resident and Non Resident Tags, add, Native Tags to the pool of tags and the "conservation needs" of the state are maintained.
On the conservation angle...there is a fair amount of case law for Pacific Northwest Tribes as well that have touched on this issue...all of it in alignment with what vikingsguy notes above. If Wyoming thinks (as alluded to by their Governor's statement) that this is business as usual and they will use the "conservation" angle to simply apply state regs to Crow Tribe members...they are living in a fantasy world. This is why they need to get to the negotiating table and figure out co-management.This is not an administrative proceeding to set the boundaries of the treaty lands, but rather a trial against Herrera. I think both sides accept that the specific grounds Herrera hunted at the time of the citation was land within the scope of the treaty. The lower court just needs to determine if those specific areas hunted by Herrera are or are not “occupied” (again, have sufficient settlement or residences, not just park/forest designation) under the treaty.
As for lower court, it will go all the way down to the WY state trial court.
As for conservation angle. I would not get my hopes up. The federal courts have given MN DNR very limited leverage in similar discussions with local tribes. Mere replication of existing rules for “native hunters” will not carry the day unless the Crows want that. Steps necessary to prevent of true decimation of animal populations will probably fly, but it will not allow for the kind of “management for desired herd age and trophy status” folks on HT will want. It is far more likely that the tribe will have broad latitude in seasons and harvest numbers and the state will have to ratchet down non-tribal hunting access to preserve base population (see, Mille Lacs matter). I am not saying I like this, just saying the tribe will get a great degree of latitude.