U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

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.

If 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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Thanks for clearing that up. I understand where you are coming form. Not a perfect analogy. You may not have a grazing contract but there is nothing holding your back form getting one except money and common sense. Treating people differently based on blood lines is what I have a hard time with.
After reading the treaty again it seems there are some things that the tribe may not be that fond of. I wonder if WY will push them.
 
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.
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.

This treaty has no rules or regulations pertaining to modern “hunting” and some seem to think that this treaty should not be updated even in the slightest to account for modern wanton waste or legal take aspects that all others have to follow (barring another treaty) and are stuck in 1868.

Although, even if there were rules applied to tribal hunting, do we really think the head game warden for the Crow would enforce them?
 
Last edited:
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.

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;
"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;

I'm with vikingsguy... at this point there is nothing the tribe could do that holds a candle to what good ol'boys have gotten away with. Let's remember it took 30 years for Byron De La Beckwith to be convicted of killing Medgar Evers; during one of the trials the Governor walked into the court room while Evers widow was on the stand, and walked up to De La Beckwith and shook his hand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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?
 
that each treaty must be tested to determine if and how each treaty maintains said treaty hunting right for various tribes?
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".

Regarding "occupied", general legal designation (e.g., a national park or a forest, etc.) or transient activities (e.g., lumber operations or mining) did not trigger wholesale "occupation". Further, "occupied" must be viewed in light of 1868 Indian understanding of the term which is essentially non-Indian settlements and residences. But for now they are leaving to the lower courts to figure the specific application of that definition to the specific locale in this case. They offered no guidance regarding a state conservation role, but the bar will be quite high to trigger that if the federal courts approach in Mille Lacs is to be repeated in WY.
 
@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.
 
I would think even a fraction of the Wyoming regs would suffice as meeting a conservation need. Even if the tribe just said, any elk, Sept to Nov. That's at least something. I seriously doubt they'll actually go so far as to setup a draw/tag allocation system. They can barely fund their wildlife enforcement let alone take on more responsibilities.
 
@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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
Kenetrek Boots

Forum statistics

Threads
113,669
Messages
2,029,037
Members
36,276
Latest member
Eller fam
Back
Top