Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Thanks, GH! Trying to eat my light breakfast ... it almost came up heavily.
U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Wow... In all the years I lived on the rez, i have never seen anybody that was a full blood.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
Maybe Elizabeth Warren will get a Montana Bighorn Sheep in the near future.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
That sizzle reel is solid gold
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 345
By June...I think that's when the term ends.
I've been following this case closely - very interested to see how it goes. It was humorous (and maybe a little scary!) listening to the Justices and the Attorneys talking hunting.
I've been following this case closely - very interested to see how it goes. It was humorous (and maybe a little scary!) listening to the Justices and the Attorneys talking hunting.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
Two way street. If want to be treated as if a real nation then let's say Canada is the role model that is adopted for Indian Nations. Does America pay Canada's healthcare? Provide welfare? Provide defense? Allow open border for movement of people and goods? Require Passports?
Native Americans got a raw deal. Over 100 years ago. Someone's ancestors killed or ran off the prior peoples when no one from Europe or China had yet set foot on the continent. Those historical events are not recorded and the victims are long dead. As in America today. Probably the attacks and murder and other very bad actions happened several times as ice sheets moved south and retreated much less during drought or disease or just because it was Tuesday. This went on for 20,000 years. Humans of all colors have done some very bad things on the land mass that is America. The victor rarely is as benevolent as America has been even though has not been that benevolent.
I doubt Putin would think twice about how to handle a similar situation, for example.
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 345
The Supreme Court has technically defined Tribes as domestic dependent nations - which is in part why the United States "looks after" Tribes. So the Canada comparison isn't a good analogy, despite the sovereignty Tribes have over many of their affairs.
As far as who killed whose ancestors...not at play here...this isn't seeking justice for some past wrong. This particular case centers on a Treaty between the Crow and the United States.
As mentioned earlier, SCOTUS seems to have a way of keeping rulings narrow and/or on technicalities that limit application of their decisions...but if that doesn't happen here I see two broad potential outcomes:
1. Wyoming prevails and off reservation hunting rights become very limited...this would likely have a negative impact on treaty tribes in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon where substantial off reservation hunting occurs.
2. Herrera prevails and Treaty Tribes in Montana and Wyoming have substantially greater off reservation hunting and harvest than what they currently enjoy.
I know in Idaho it has been frustrating to draw a good bull tag - only to have Tribal hunters show up the week before the State season opens and they hunt the heck out of it. While it's frustrating, I understand they have a treaty right. My guess is Wyoming's limited entry units would be the most impacted by off reservation tribal hunting if Herrera prevails.
As far as who killed whose ancestors...not at play here...this isn't seeking justice for some past wrong. This particular case centers on a Treaty between the Crow and the United States.
As mentioned earlier, SCOTUS seems to have a way of keeping rulings narrow and/or on technicalities that limit application of their decisions...but if that doesn't happen here I see two broad potential outcomes:
1. Wyoming prevails and off reservation hunting rights become very limited...this would likely have a negative impact on treaty tribes in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon where substantial off reservation hunting occurs.
2. Herrera prevails and Treaty Tribes in Montana and Wyoming have substantially greater off reservation hunting and harvest than what they currently enjoy.
I know in Idaho it has been frustrating to draw a good bull tag - only to have Tribal hunters show up the week before the State season opens and they hunt the heck out of it. While it's frustrating, I understand they have a treaty right. My guess is Wyoming's limited entry units would be the most impacted by off reservation tribal hunting if Herrera prevails.
In my experience you're seriously underestimating effects in ID if you restrict it only to hunting trophy bull elk. I think people would be shocked if we got true figures on tribal harvest here.
Dammit you beat me to it!!!
noharleyyet
Well-known member
deleted
idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 345
That's a two-way street though. I'm sure a lot of Tribal folks are shocked with the booming number of State hunters out harvesting deer and elk. Whatever the Tribal harvest is - it's a fraction of the state harvest.
“I found a large bull elk that had been shot off the Pass Creek Road, and the only thing that had been taken was a little bit of backstraps and head had been removed,”....”we found a fourth bull that had been untouched”
Nothing like a good old subsistence hunt to feed the fam.
https://www.themeateater.com/conser...the-elk-hunting-case-before-the-supreme-court
Nothing like a good old subsistence hunt to feed the fam.
https://www.themeateater.com/conser...the-elk-hunting-case-before-the-supreme-court
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Although true, it's not without impact. Those numbers need to be recognized and often are not.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
It's strange how they always choose a giant horned old bull to feed the family?
ignorethefringes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 3,061
I just got the MeatEater email with this article today. The above statement and others about leaving most, or in one case all, of the animal behind is what makes me the most sick. The second to last paragraph in the article is this . . .
“That was a time when the tribe was in recession bad. And they cut our hours. They cut our pay,” Herrera testified on the witness stand. “I was cut down to like 32 hours a week. They cut me down to like $10 an hour. And growing kids, they eat more than me now, but the plan was to get an elk to eat it. Live off it.”
It's hard to believe when hundreds of pounds of meat are being left in the field to rot.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Last paragraph pretty much sums this case up: "While things such as season dates, licensing, waste of game and tag allocation matter a lot to hunters, the Supreme Court is not addressing those questions. What the justices decide may have implications for modern hunters, but perhaps bigger implications for generations-old promises made to the original hunters of this continent."
joelhunter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2015
- Messages
- 96
While I was disappointed to realize that the Washington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., was not a case about licensing strip clubs focused on older ladies for younger men, it could be a good indicator of where the SCOTUS might land on Herrera. The SCOTUS Blog has a good summary for those of us who are time constrained. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/washington-department-licensing-v-cougar-den-inc/
Similar threads
