U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[VikingsGuy]

Viking, thanks for the legal info earlier. You want to see rule of law prevail. How does the rule of law prevail when game laws are cast aside so that a tribe can hunt out of season and leave meat to rot? If that’s “rule of law”, I want nothing to do with it.

Laws have hierarchies. When two laws appear to conflict (as happens a thousand time a year) there has to be a way to determine which controls. Under our constitution treaties are a higher priority than game & fish regs (and fed over state, constitution over statue, statute over administrative regs, etc.) It feels more like you are saying - if I don't get my preferred outcome then "I want nothing to do with it". And that is the difference between a nation of laws, not of men - and I am glad we are the former.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Wyoming did not pursue the issue, Herrera (actually his lawyer) did. Herrera appealed to higher courts, not Wyoming. Had he paid his poaching fine and accepted punishment, this would have gone no further, like his friends did.

That is really a poor analysis - every citizen has the right to appeal a state's conviction. WY could have let it go and saved the dollars -- any one who had bother to read Mille Lacs could have told them how this was going to turn out.

 

[JLS]

So could I lease the trespass rights from the Crow Reservation to go into the Bighorns around August 25th with a rifle and kill a big ol Bull?

At this point, no. Nothing in treaty or case law allows the tribe to transfer the treaty hunting rights to a non-tribal member. You COULD potentially lease hunting rights within a reservation, so long as the tribal government authorizes it and they have regulatory seasons in place to allow non-tribal hunting within the confines of the reservation. In addition, the state of Wyoming COULD negotiate licenses available to the tribe that could be transferred/sold that would allow hunting during a pre-determined season. This would necessitate legislative authorization by Wyoming before it could happen. The tribe could not just unilaterally make this decision.

 

[JLS]

Wyoming did not pursue the issue, Herrera (actually his lawyer) did. Herrera appealed to higher courts, not Wyoming. Had he paid his poaching fine and accepted punishment, this would have gone no further, like his friends did.

Part of due process is the right to appeal.

 

[375H&H]

Part of due process is the right to appeal.

Agree, that was his right. But the person appealing is the one pursuing, no?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Agree, that was his right. But the person appealing is the one pursuing, no?

I would say the state pursued a conviction and it fell short of prevailing because under appeal it failed to show that it had the right to prosecute the individual in the first place.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Had he paid his poaching fine and accepted punishment, this would have gone no further, like his friends did.

And if Rosa Parks would have just sat in a perfectly comfortable seat in the back of the bus . . . . . . .

 

[JLS]

Agree, that was his right. But the person appealing is the one pursuing, no?

No. He appealed, and Wyoming had the choice of dropping the appeal, negotiating, or contesting. So, Hererra appealed, Wyoming chose to contest it, not pursue it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

And if Rosa Parks would have just sat in a perfectly comfortable seat in the back of the bus . . . . . . .

Technically a lot of other people did the same thing earlier... Colvin being one of them, the NAACP just had the patience to wait for a better poster child.

 

[3855WIN]

You are conflating state law with rule of law. State law pertains to those within the state who fall under the authority of that. Tribal members fall under the authority of tribal law. Tribal seasons do not have to coincide with state seasons.

Not conflating a damn thing. Outlaws left the Rez to shoot horns out of season and let the meat rot. This is lawlessness. Normal people can see this. Apparently, lawyers cannot.

 

[375H&H]

No. He appealed, and Wyoming had the choice of dropping the appeal, negotiating, or contesting. So, Hererra appealed, Wyoming chose to contest it, not pursue it.

So wait, there is no pursuing on either side? I think you are muddying the waters here mate...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Not conflating a damn thing. Outlaws left the Rez to shoot horns out of season and let the meat rot. This is lawlessness. Normal people can see this. Apparently, lawyers cannot.

Mostly true, but at the same time Gandhi, MLK, Rosa Parks, etc were breaking the law as well and much of the language decrying tribal hunting rights is reminiscent of the pro-Jim Crow language of that time. Yes, I don't think Herrera had civil disobedience in mind when he left the house that morning, but that has no bearing on the legal ruling.

I would be experiencing a lot less cognitive dissonance, if the case had been about a single mom/75 year old grand father/ etc trying to feed their family... or even a dad teaching his son to hunt. The optics are terrible and it makes me not want to empathizes with the tribe.

 

[JLS]

Not conflating a damn thing. Outlaws left the Rez to shoot horns out of season and let the meat rot. This is lawlessness. Normal people can see this. Apparently, lawyers cannot.

Apparently, some people cannot see that state game laws do not apply to tribal members exercising treaty hunting rights.

 

[JLS]

So wait, there is no pursuing on either side? I think you are muddying the waters here mate...

Herrera pursued the appeal, which he is entitled to. Had he initially won, the state could not have pursued the appeal. They could only contest if Herrera pursued the appeal.

 

[375H&H]

Herrera pursued the appeal, which he is entitled to. Had he initially won, the state could not have pursued the appeal. They could only contest if Herrera pursued the appeal.

Is that not what I said originally, Herrera pursued the appeal? Of course he is entitled to it but he still pursued it.

 

[idahohuntr]

Not conflating a damn thing. Outlaws left the Rez to shoot horns out of season and let the meat rot. This is lawlessness. Normal people can see this. Apparently, lawyers cannot.

Treaties are the supreme law of the land. Article 6, United States Constitution.

 

[idahohuntr]

Good point.

Even more amazing is the USFS LEO in charge of the federal property where this happened was not involved and instead threw the game warden and state of Wyoming under the bus.

I would really like to see the state force the USFS LEO's and lawyers to get involved with this as they are the landowner and they are they are from the same government that signed the treaty. Yet they pass the buck and expect the state to fight their fight and waste millions on something they signed.

You misread what I wrote. The United States absolutely got involved - they were on the side of Herrera. I believe in the oral arguments or briefings they not only argued statehood and forest designation did not terminate the treaty...they even flatly stated the Bighorn NF is not occupied land in terms of the treaty.

 

[JLS]

Is that not what I said originally, Herrera pursued the appeal? Of course he is entitled to it but he still pursued it.

I might be short on coffee and misunderstanding the point you are trying to make.

 

[3855WIN]

IF Herrera hauled out the meat, I say more power to him. He found a loophole. I’d put him right there with corner jumpers and those who fly into isolated BLM tracts to hunt. He didn’t, and I’ll hold him in very low regard. Best of luck to the rest of the Crow hunters who are living the dream. I hope to see stories of ethically hunted elk that are feeding the Tribe.

 

[HSi-ESi]

IF Herrera hauled out the meat, I say more power to him. He found a loophole. I’d put him right there with corner jumpers and those who fly into isolated BLM tracts to hunt. He didn’t, and I’ll hold him in very low regard. Best of luck to the rest of the Crow hunters who are living the dream. I hope to see stories of ethically hunted elk that are feeding the Tribe.

There are many Crow tribal members who would pack out all the meat, and I would defend them vigorously- SCOTUS ruling aside. Herrera did not pack out all the meat, but the treaty rights allow the action.

I don't agree with the wanton-waste - but it is allowed under the treaty right. I think we can all agree that the waste of meat off any elk goes against our upbringing.

I would urge folks to look past this item and look at the bigger picture.