U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead

[Deleted member 28227]

@rmauch20 Like I said good and bad actors in every group. My children will never know the names of their great grand parents on my wife's side, or even which tribe they belong to, because their grandmother was forcibly taken from her family when her mom died. Per standard policy at the time records were sealed, her name was changed, birth certificate was reissued in the new name. She was born before the Indian child-welfare act so there isn't much we can do, my kids will never have tribal affiliation or be able to connect with their heritage.

I certainly do not think any of this means my kids should be able to hunt in a manner that hurts the resource or even have greater standing in the current state systems, but researching this singular example of systemic oppression, leaves me open to the idea that I don't know everything... to accept that there is nuance everywhere, and to consider to the fact that there are probably places where some user groups should have more access to certain resources than me.

 

[mdhunter]

This is certainly an interesting case with possible wide reaching implications. I get a feeling defining exactly where hunting will be permitted will be argued about for a while. If my understanding was correct the entire Bighorns did not qualify as "occupied" just because they are now part of a national forest.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is certainly an interesting case with possible wide reaching implications. I get a feeling defining exactly where hunting will be permitted will be argued about for a while. If my understanding was correct the entire Bighorns did not qualify as "occupied" just because they are now part of a national forest.

Yeah I agree with vikingsguy... I think the ruling is pretty narrow and leaves grounds for WY to continuing enforcing and for this issues to crop up again. (sorry vikingsguy if I'm misconstruing your meaning).

 

[rmauch20]

@wlm1313 A lot things went down that I don’t think anyone is super thrilled about in the current day and age. But it is the past.

I have to disagree with you on this user group access. If certain user groups are allowed special privileges but continue to play the victim card that is where you lose me.
I hope this case is not done. I hope Wyoming can some how apply even though the crow can access unoccupied lands they are still subject to a game laws for the sake of conservation. If not I think this could be huge.

 

[icebreaker12]

The ruling was remanded to the Sheridan County court. The definition of occupied and the basis of Wyoming to disallow hunting on the grounds of conservation still need to be decided.

 

[JLS]

They just got the green light to poach. Tags don’t apply, seasons don’t apply, waton waste doesn’t apply.
I am sure this will turn out great.

It’s not poaching. It’s legal hunting under a treaty signed with the US Government.

No one cares if someone thinks they are noble, honest, right, or wrong. It’s a legal interpretation of their rights and whether they extend onto the Bighorn Forest.

 

[3855WIN]

I just used discount code RANDY for a 23&me kit. With any luck, I’ll have free and unlimited tags. Now should I wait til the horns are done growing?!?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have to disagree with you on this user group access. If certain user groups are allowed special privileges but continue to play the victim card that is where you lose me.

Subsistence use in Alaska, Residents versus Non-residents, vets, MT's come home to hunt, disabled tags, landowners tags, etc. etc. ... that ship has sailed.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that native v. us history is extremely complex and we could litigate this till the cows come home and have wardens fighting tribal hunters for decades. I would rather to see various tribes added as stake holders to the conservation process, and agree to surrender their rights in exchange for some portion of limited tags, or something. MT has had a similar issue with the Nez Perce.

 

[3855WIN]

Hmm

https://twitter.com/x/status/1130483302991847425

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I just used discount code RANDY for a 23&me kit. With any luck, I’ll have free and unlimited tags. Now should I wait til the horns are done growing?!?

 

[jabber]

I find it interesting even on an issue like this it was pretty much a left vs. right vote. You would think that on an issue like this that I don't see as left vs. right, you could have a little more disparity in their votes.

 

[rmauch20]

It’s not poaching. It’s legal hunting under a treaty signed with the US Government.

No one cares if someone thinks they are noble, honest, right, or wrong. It’s a legal interpretation of their rights and whether they extend onto the Bighorn Forest.

You spelled it out better than I could. I don’t see how it could go wrong. Legal hunting=no season dates, no tag limits, no requirement to harvest all the animals, basically just a free-for-all.

If you have a hankering for some backstrap go chase down an elk in your pick up and shoot it out the window take a backstrap and leave the rest. That is legal hunting now! As I stated I’m sure this is going to turn out great.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You spelled it out better than I could. I don’t see how it could go wrong. Legal hunting=no season dates, no tag limits, no requirement to harvest all the animals, basically just a free-for-all.

If you have a hankering for some backstrap go chase down an elk in your pick up and shoot it out the window take a backstrap and leave the rest. That is legal hunting now! As I stated I’m sure this is going to turn out great.

Second, the state trial court decided that Wyoming could
regulate the exercise of the 1868 Treaty right “in
the interest of conservation.” Nos. CT–2015–2687,
CT–2015–2688, App. to Pet. for Cert. 39–41; see
Antoine
,
420 U. S., at 207. The appellate court did not reach this
issue. No. 2016–242, App. to Pet. for Cert. 14, n. 3. On
remand, the State may press its arguments as to why the
application of state conservation regulations to Crow Tribe
members exercising the 1868 Treaty right is necessary for
conservation. We do not pass on the viability of those
arguments today.

 

[rmauch20]

They have done such a wonderful job of conservation on the reservations I’m sure that they will extend that over now into an occupied lands. Hopefully Herrera and his hunting party of poachers head up to Yellowstone and exercise their treaty rights there and just stack animals up like cord wood because treaty rights.

This is a huge blow to the north American hunting model how that is not clear to all I don’t understand.

 

[JLS]

They have done such a wonderful job of conservation on the reservations I’m sure that they will extend that over now into an occupied lands. Hopefully Herrera and his hunting party of poachers head up to Yellowstone and exercise their treaty rights there and just stack animals up like cord wood because treaty rights.

This is a huge blow to the north American hunting model how that is not clear to all I don’t understand.

It’s not great, but neither is it the end of the world.

 

[rmauch20]

Second, the state trial court decided that Wyoming could
regulate the exercise of the 1868 Treaty right “in
the interest of conservation.” Nos. CT–2015–2687,
CT–2015–2688, App. to Pet. for Cert. 39–41; see
Antoine
,
420 U. S., at 207. The appellate court did not reach this
issue. No. 2016–242, App. to Pet. for Cert. 14, n. 3. On
remand, the State may press its arguments as to why the
application of state conservation regulations to Crow Tribe
members exercising the 1868 Treaty right is necessary for
conservation. We do not pass on the viability of those
arguments today.

They may. They may not. If, and that’s a big if, they do there’s no doubt in my mind at all so will be challenged all the way back up to the Supreme Court by Herrera and his band poachers.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They may. They may not. If, and that’s a big if, they do there’s no doubt in my mind at all so will be challenged all the way back up to the Supreme Court by Herrera and his band poachers.

Not sure what the state will decide, they could certainly drop it... let him walk. Then continue their enforcement, if they catch him again and/or a different person see if that offender wants to take their case up through the courts... which they might not.

I think we all would have preferred the state to press conservation, and have the courts uphold treaty rights, but uphold conservation regulation.

 

[Big Fin]

What a bunch of shit. Those poor poor Indians . They have it so rough. I guess they will just have to go back to their government subsidize land and live in their government subsidize houses and those poor poor people will just have to go shoot elk, because the government subsidize food program just doesn’t provide enough. Meanwhile the only thing they take is the back straps and head.

Yeah, they are poor. For a lot of reasons, mostly for reasons that resulted from them acting in good faith with an entity that proved to not be acting in good faith, the US Government and its elected officials. We effed them over, time and time again. We signed deals with them, then broke the deal, then when they starting shooting people over those broken deals, the US Government signed more deals, which again got broken.

Our Government signed deals with them, the same way the US Government signs deals with others, yet for some reason that is hard to understand, many feel those deals do not need to be honored. The deals were commonly a contract where we get their land for pennies on the dollar in exchange for a lot of empty promises. We get claim to most the resources we previously said belonged to the tribes.

We rounded them up on reservations and said we would manage their lands and other resource in a Trustee-Beneficiary relationship on their behalf. We stole billions of dollars from them as part of that Trustee-Beneficiary relationship, where it would have never been acknowledge and partially repaid except for a PO'd Blackfoot woman who demanded an accounting and payment of monies the US Government has been withholding. Even with that, they didn't get all that was owed, rather they had to make a compromise settlement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobell_v._Salazar

What they get is not "Government Subsidized." What they get is a small portion of the payment/compensation/renumeration that was promised to them. They gave up an asset, their amazing lands, in exchange for these things, all documented under Treaties, which at their basic level are nothing more than contract. The US Government never has, and probably never will, make good on these deals.

We can't even manage their lands properly or keep an accounting of the payments that are owed to them, even though we promised that is what we would do. The reason they have "Government subsidized" houses is because that is how the US Government set it up for them. On most reservations, you do not, and you cannot, hold fee title to the land/house you might live in. Imagine not being able to own the roof over your head. That would provide almost no incentive to care for it, improve it, invest in it. Hard to have much future or stability when you cannot have a property right in the most basic essential, your house.

These tribal law settlements are part of a deal that was made to buy/steal their land from them. We made a lot of promises that we would forever manage what little land they were allowed to retain and that we would give them the proceeds from management of that land. We also promised that in exchange for all that land we would forever provide certain items to them. That is the deal we made. We don't have to like it, but that is what our leaders of the past thought was a good deal at the time, and in retrospect was surely a great deal for everyone other than the tribes and their members.

Having grown up next to a reservation and a lot of friends from tribes, I could go on and on.

If we want to have a discussion about the impacts of this case, and those impacts could be far reaching, then let's have the discussion. That discussion can be had without the BS comments about the tribes and the implication that this is the future they wanted or the future they bargained for when negotiating treaties and renegotiating broken treaties.

This case has a lot of undercurrents that can make for some ugly comments by those not inclined to think about Treaties as a contract to be followed by us. Those ugly comments will not be tolerated on this forum. Anyone making such comments, either outright or implied, will be toasted without warning.

Now, let's have a discussion of the case, what is unoccupied lands, how Wyoming will respond, what impacts this has on wildlife conservation, the fact that late winter tribal hunting has been occurring around Yellowstone Park for decades and includes bison, elk, sheep, deer, etc. , and on the many other points relevant to the case/topic.

 

[rmauch20]

Not sure what the state will decide, they could certainly drop it... let him walk. Then continue their enforcement, if they catch him again and/or a different person see if that offender wants to take their case up through the courts... which they might not.

I think we all would have preferred the state to press conservation, and have the courts uphold treaty rights, but uphold conservation regulation.

Unfortunately they only did two out of the three.

 

[Jape]

It’s not great, but neither is it the end of the world.

Exactly. This is not the end of the world. We should, of course, have an active voice in any negotiations between the various interested groups, but these are deep waters and it behooves us to tread carefully.