D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I am not saying I like this, just saying the tribe will get a great degree of latitude.
What about field care? Has that come up before?
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.
I am not saying I like this, just saying the tribe will get a great degree of latitude.
You mean wanton waste rules?What about field care? Has that come up before?
12-5-107 Waste Prohibited
(1) It is the policy of the Crow Tribe to promote the fullest use of its Fish and Game resources; therefore the waste of these resources will not be tolerated.
(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon all or any part suitable for food any bird, wild animal, or fish killed by that person within the exterior boundaries of the Crow Reservation.
You mean wanton waste rules?
Run a 100 buffalo off a cliff and....Yep. Just wondering if a court has ever defined hunt, take, etc. Can you mow down a herd of elk and leave them to rot under the treaty? Catch 400 salmon and then dump them on the beach and walk away?
I don’t know, but sloppy gill netting was allow in MN.Yep. Just wondering if a court has ever defined hunt, take, etc. Can you mow down a herd of elk and leave them to rot under the treaty? Catch 400 salmon and then dump them on the beach and walk away?
Yep, that was also 150 years ago but now some of us have rules we have to follow that prohibit that. Others, not so much.
In general - yes. Tribes may have rules and laws they enforce, but the states would have no authority to cite a tribal member for wasting an elk or a salmon if they harvested such in accordance with their treaty.Can you mow down a herd of elk and leave them to rot under the treaty? Catch 400 salmon and then dump them on the beach and walk away?
Some would say what we have done in the energy extraction and consumption arena over the last 30 years is even worse . . . . I am not of that position, but I do think we all should be a little humble when seizing the high moral ground (it’s like Hollywood folks all taking private jets to a climate rally).Yep, that was also 150 years ago but now some of us have rules we have to follow that prohibit that. Others, not so much.
But if there is a deal to be had, in the future the Crow could authorize WY officials to enforce tribe hunting rules in WY on their behalf — there are all kinds of cross-border/cross-jurisdiction agreements in many areas of the law like this.In general - yes. Tribes may have rules and laws they enforce, but the states would have no authority to cite a tribal member for wasting an elk or a salmon if they harvested such in accordance with their treaty.
Yep, that was also 150 years ago but now some of us have rules we have to follow that prohibit that. Others, not so much.
Blaze orange may stick (safety gets extra attention - see, Amish buggies and their orange triangles). And yes, WY LEO should cite any wrong doing, as their job is to enforce the law - the law is that the crow may hunt and the law is others may not harass, assault, etc. Now one may ask with how much enthusiasm they would pursue this work, but the its the law none the less. A distant aside - after SCOTUS protected flag burning in the late 70's early 80's, Texas passed a law that assault against a flag burner was just a petty misdemeanor with a $25 fine, no arrest, record or jail. If I recall, cooler heads later prevailed and they drop the change, but yes, LEOs should always protect those carrying out lawful activities.I’m loath to even bring this up but my curiosity is overwhelming my better judgement...
Tribal hunters are acting outside of Wyoming’s game management rules, seems like they don’t have to wear orange, salvage meat, etc etc... so do WY game wardens have to protect their ability to exercise treaty rights?
While hunting off the Rez could PETA harass them with impunity?
LEOs should always protect those carrying out lawful activities.
LEOs enforce the law as it is, not how we wish it to be. And unless the Crow consent or SCOTUS allows, WY waste provisions relating to tribal hunts is not the law. So, other than many disagreeing with the law, there is nothing strange, the LEO is 100% enforcing the law against 100% of the people present. No different than a police officer arresting an abortion protester for trespass at a pro-life rally but not arresting the doctors for their actions -- as under the current law of the US, abortion is not illegal even though some will call it murder.I guess what seems strange is LEOs having to enforce hunting regs on US citizens, PETA, but not being able to enforce them on the tribe, with regard to wanton waste.
Yes they lost, and that is why we kept the hundreds of millions of acres that we all live and hunt on, but the US government agreed in a binding treaty that they could retain special hunting rights in "unoccupied" areas. I am not trying to be mean either, but I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. The rule of law, respecting contractual/treaty rights, honoring our word -- seems like core values HTers should embrace -- except when it comes to Indians I guess.Not trying to be mean but they lost the fight. Just like the south did. Last i checked that means you go by the rules of the winning side. Now if i am not mistaken i owen the land but the wildlife belongs to the state is the way its put to me. And the state gets to manage it.
And as far as they got the short end of the deal tell me any body that the government did not give the short end to.
"and as long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts"