Nick87
Well-known member
A lot of points would be getting dumped in a hurry that's for sure.
U.S. supreme Court case - Big decision ahead
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am not sure what time window you are using, but the 10th circuit was reversed 60% of the time from 2006-2015 (Table 2 of https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1169&context=ckjip) and 2007-2017 (https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_analysis:_Supreme_Court_case_reversals_by_appeals_court).
So,non resident Indians will be able to go into designated wilderness in Wyoming without a guide? WYBGO will over rule the Supreme Court...
If they want to go by game management from the 1880 they need to go back to the TOOLS they had to havrvest the game in the 1880. Stickbows and horses. No trucks and no long range smokeless powder rifles; not even the 94 Winchester.
If they want to go by game management from the 1880 they need to go back to the TOOLS they had to havrvest the game in the 1880. Stickbows and horses. No trucks and no long range smokeless powder rifles; not even the 94 Winchester.
So if this ruling goes the wrong way, how do you guys see this going? If it’s just the treaty with the crow nation I don’t see it having a substantial effect. Enrolled crow membership is Roughly 12,000, so maybe 2,000ish hunters, of which say 75% are probably ethical people aware of importance of wildlife management. Rough numbers, but just trying to simplify this in my head. Im sure there is a lot I don’t know about the case, so fill me in. Does this open the floodgates to similar treaties with tribes across the nation?
I think it could absolutely open the floodgates as well as have precedence defining what is open and unclaimed. They are not the only tribe with that language in a treaty with regards to hunting and fishing.
Tribal hunters are already having a pretty solid impact on off reservation game pops in some areas. WA has closed a bighorn unit due mainly to tribal hunting, ID has a unit where most of the rams are gone that were there just a couple years ago, and I know of some WA and ID elk area that would take the average years to draw where tribal members are killing piles of BIG bulls every year.
ignorethefringes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 3,061
When I lived in WA I used to feel this way about the salmon fishing rights.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
It will depend on how SCOTUS resolves the case. For example, one issue is whether or not designation as National Wilderness Area results in the land being "occupied" or not. For example, if the SCOTUS tosses that element of the case due to specific case "technicalities" like issue preclusion or waiver (for not raising in lower courts), then there is no real precedent to instruct other similar treaties, but if they rule that the act of statehood or the creation of a federal designation such as wilderness area IS (or is NOT) occupation, then there would be strong effect on other treaties that use the same constructs (there are a number of treaties done during this historical window that have a lot of common language). Also, if SCOTUS is willing to take a clear position as to whether this court considers the Milacs case in MN more broadly controlling, or if it is viewed as a narrow outcome due to unique language in that one treaty, will also have an an important impact on treaties of the era with similar language.
SCOTUS can and does find very limited applications or technical rulings to resolve many cases - not that many SCOTUS case result is large scale shifting of interests. Given this, it is hard to predict in advance how this will impact other treaty situations. Even if you knew the "winner", you won't know the external effects until the nature of the ruling becomes clear from the opinion (and often not even then, as some SCOTUS cases leave more questions than answers)
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Always good to view from both sides, so I offer the following thought. I understand that as non-native hunters many of us would likely prefer an outcome that prevents a large exception to state wildlife management. But if the court finds that as a matter of law the US in effect has agreed that the tribe has a continuing exemption from such management, shouldn't we readily honor that exemption?
If we are "pro" property rights, and "pro" freedom to contract, things that typically are shared among many in the west, then, if the tribe wins we should have no problem with them exercising their property/"contract" rights? (I know that treaties are not exactly contracts but they are viewed somewhat similarly in practice) Such an exemption may end up fine, and it may end poorly, but rule of law, property rights, enforcement of contract, the full faith and credit of the United States and the like are more foundational to our system of government than elk populations.
If we are "pro" property rights, and "pro" freedom to contract, things that typically are shared among many in the west, then, if the tribe wins we should have no problem with them exercising their property/"contract" rights? (I know that treaties are not exactly contracts but they are viewed somewhat similarly in practice) Such an exemption may end up fine, and it may end poorly, but rule of law, property rights, enforcement of contract, the full faith and credit of the United States and the like are more foundational to our system of government than elk populations.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
They aren't asking to go back to game management of 1880, they are asking that their bargained for rights are respected and not artificially terminated for the convenience of an entity (WY) that didn't even exist at the time of the deal. If your then childless neighbor sold you 40 acres for $10,000 but 20 years later tries to unilaterally terminate the sale and give the same 40 acres to their now 18 year old kid, my guess is we would all call that ridiculous.
I am not saying the Crow should win, will win or that their win will be good for non-native elk hunters, I am just pointing out that this is not properly resolved by the preferences of hunters, what's best for elk population or by science based conservation. Either the contract hunting rights survived the formation of WY and designation of the fed wilderness area or it did not - how native and non-native hunters carry out the act of hunting is irrelevant.
Knepper argued weakly in my opinion. He said the primary reason for seasons was safety!? It looked to me, based on Goruch's questions (page 58), like some justices want to rule in favor of WY and were trying to draw the argument out of Knepper. If I were a betting man, my money would be on a ruling favorable to WY. If I were Peter Michael, I'd be questioning my decision to assign Knepper to the case.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I can't speak to Knepper's performance in this instance or his overall skill set, but I will say that if I ever had a matter in front of SCOTUS I would make sure I have one of the small number of boutique SCOTUS oral argument pros carry my case.
So they get all the rights and privileges of a United States citizen, and all the rights and privileges of ANY states citizenship (no nonresident draw, no non residents WY Wilderness restriction), AND all the benefits of the Indian Nation.
Nice deal. They must have had a HUGE advantage at the negotiating table. Ridiculous.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
based on that link I posted on the SCOTUS blog I was surprised this wasn't the first case similar to this they've heard nor that they've been consistent (in my opinion) with their rulings. Seems like either side they go with there's already president.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am pretty sure non-natives have gotten the better end of these deals. Non-natives got 2.3 Billion acres of land (and the commensurate resources and wealth), the natives have retained 55 Million acres of largely "worthless" (as viewed at the time) land via ever shrinking and marginalized reservations. Non-natives also saw the Bison, Elk and Antelope as unwanted pests at the time and slaughtered them senselessly to make sure cows reigned supreme in the west. Now a hundred years later we decide we like open public lands and elk hunting is fun so we should get to change the rules for our convenience yet again -- that is ridiculous.
I accept that wars have winners and losers, and that war is by definition is a harsh and non-equitable resolution of conflicting claims where the winners get to dictate the outcome - and I don't have a lot of time for revisionist history that suggests otherwise. But at the same time, if the US signed a treaty that laid out the rules then we should live with it.
A simple read of history shows that non-natives took what they wanted and "promised" the unwanted to the natives under treaty -- until the land became wanted and they repeated the process (see, Oklahoma and oil discovery). At some point (early 20th century) this cycle stopped. But watching debates over casino gaming and hunting rights over the last 30 years shows that the underlying premise remains in the minds of many - if valuable to non-natives at the moment, then natives must concede regardless of past binding agreement.
(And to stick to the present post topic, it is still not legally determined if the Crow have a binding agreement to broad hunting rights in the relevant area - so my remarks are not intended to suggest that to be the case in this particular instance.)
BuzzH
Well-known member
I wouldn't trade them places straight across for the "nice deals" they get for shooting some wildlife...by a long shot (pun there).
The hunting/fishing privileges wouldn't be worth the suffering that occurs on many reservations. I don't have the stomach for high suicide rates, alcohol/drug addiction, rape, and other violent crime. Plus, the living conditions I've witnessed....no thanks.
Finally, the way I read the lawsuit, its more a question of what's considered "unoccupied" land than it is about their absolute rights to hunt and fish on what is considered unoccupied lands. They already have the full right to the wildlife within their reservations, and in some cases, even outside the reservations.
ignorethefringes
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 3,061
Please understand that this is a genuine question with no ill will behind it because I truly don't know the answer.
Why does anyone continue to live at the reservations if the living conditions are so poor?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Wordy but interesting...
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/node/155
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/node/155
BuzzH
Well-known member
The same reason you live where you do...and not all tribal members live on the reservations.
I think we all know people from our home towns who have several generations of direct relatives who have never lived outside their home towns, some never leaving the neighborhoods they grew up in.
Many people, by choice or circumstance, simply cant just up and move.
Similar threads
