Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Injuns win right to hunt parks

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    34,626

    Default Injuns win right to hunt parks

    U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Crow tribal member in Wyoming hunting rights case
    MTN News
    9:38 am
    May 20, 2019

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Crow tribal member in a hunting rights dispute with the state of Wyoming.

    In a 5 to 4 ruling, the court ruled in favor of Clayvin Herrera, a tribal member who was cited for violating Wyoming game laws. The court ruled that hunting rights for the Crow tribe under a 19th Century treaty did not expire when Wyoming gained statehood.

    Click here to read the opinion.

    The ACLU of Montana released this statement Monday morning:

    “This ruling is a huge win for Clayvin Herrera, the Crow Tribe and tribes across the country that entered into treaties with the federal government. On a practical level, this means that members of the Crow Tribe can continue to hunt on unoccupied lands like the Bighorn National Forest to provide sustenance for their families and children. This is especially important for the well-being and health of the Tribe because access to healthy food on the reservation is limited. More broadly, through this decision, the Supreme Court held the federal government accountable to its treaty obligations and affirmed tribal sovereignty. Throughout the history of colonization, tribes have upheld their end of treaties while the federal government has consistently fallen short of its obligations. We’re hopeful that this ruling marks a new day, one where the federal government lives up to its treaty obligations and recommits to the important principles of tribal sovereignty and self-determination of tribes in the United States.”

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    34,626

    Default

    Wyoming court still has 2 issues to decide in Crow hunting case
    BRETT FRENCH french@billingsgazette.com 16 hrs ago

    Crow tribal members Clayvin Herrera, at left, and Samuel Enemy Hunter pose on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in January. An opinion was issued Monday on Herrera's treaty hunting rights case.

    Although a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Crow elk hunter Clayvin Herrera appears to be a win for the Montana tribe by affirming its 1868 treaty rights, his attorneys aren’t taking a victory lap yet.

    “We are gratified that the Supreme Court held that the treaty hunting right guaranteed to the Crow Tribe and Mr. Herrera was not abrogated by Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the creation of the Bighorn National Forest,” Steven Small, an attorney with the Billings law firm Holland and Hart, wrote in an email.

    The law firm’s attorney Kyle Ann Gray represented Herrera when, as a tribal game warden in 2014, he was cited for illegally killing a bull elk in Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest. Herrera is being advised by his attorneys to remain silent.


    That’s because the high court remanded the case back to Sheridan County District Court to work out two issues. So what the ruling may mean for Wyoming’s elk, elk hunters and other tribes with treaty rights in the state is still open to interpretation, argument or settlement negotiations.

    Necessity
    One issue that Wyoming could address is why the state thinks conservation regulations are necessary to regulate Crow tribal hunting in the state.

    “The state would have to demonstrate that there is a conservation necessity to preserve the species,” in this case elk, said Monte Mills, a University of Montana law professor who filed a brief arguing in favor of Herrera’s case.

    Other lawsuits in the Northwest have dealt with limiting tribal take of salmon citing conservation necessity, Mills said.

    “It’s really been limited what the states can do,” he added. “The tribes can’t pursue the last steelhead into the net. That’s a high bar for the state to meet.”

    Occupied
    The other issue the state of Wyoming can address is the definition of what areas of the Bighorn National Forest, where Herrera killed the contested bull elk, are considered “occupied” and therefore not open to Crow hunts under their Fort Laramie treaty rights.

    The state had argued that the entire forest was occupied. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed but wrote in its 5-4 opinion, “On remand, the State may argue that the specific site where Herrera hunted elk was used in such a way that it was ‘occupied’ within the meaning of the 1868 Treaty.“

    “In other areas of the country the tribes and state have cooperatively worked out how those treaty rights can be exercised,” Mills said.

    So defining where Crow hunters could pursue game might be negotiated between the sovereign tribe and the state.

    Hunting
    Dwayne Meadows, executive director of the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, said his group is reserving judgement on how the high court’s ruling might affect the state’s elk populations or elk hunters.

    “At this point it’s hard to be concerned because there are so many steps yet to go,” he said, and it could take years more in court.

    “We’re going to have to wait and see how it’s defined,” Meadows said.

    Wyoming Attorney General Bridget Hill said she would not comment on pending litigation. But Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon issued a statement that said in part, "Until these remaining issues are resolved, the State of Wyoming will continue to regulate the take of game animals in the Bighorn National Forest to ensure equal hunting opportunities for all.

    "With the remand, my administration will stand up for a system that preserves the decades of conservation work that has built a strong wildlife population in the Bighorns, and we will work to find solutions for all those who hunt."

    Other tribes
    The U.S. Supreme Court decision is not likely to apply to other tribes in the state, such as the Shoshone-Bannock, according to one legal scholar.

    “Today’s opinion is best thought about as the resolution of a narrow dispute over treaty language between the Supreme Court (in 1896 and 1999), the Tenth Circuit (in 1995), and the Wyoming Supreme Court (this case, in 2017),” Matthew Fletcher, professor of Law and director of the Indigenous Law and Policy Center at Michigan State University, wrote in an email. “Since the treaty language at issue is limited to only a few tribes, it is unlikely to have much precedential value elsewhere.”

    ACLU
    Subscribe to Breaking News
    Get breaking stories sent to you as they develop

    Email Address
    * I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.
    But the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a brief in favor of Herrera, sees the court’s decision as a win for Indian Country on a broader scale and the second one for tribes and treaty rights from this Supreme Court. The other ruling in March favored the Yakama Nation of Indians in a dispute with Washington state over fuel taxes and referenced the tribe’s 1855 treaty.

    “It’s hard not to count this as a win,” said Lillian Alvernaz, Indigenous Justice Legal Fellow with the ACLU of Montana. “The arguments seemed pretty clear, but it’s always scary” when the Supreme Court considers Indian law.

    “On a practical level, this means that members of the Crow Tribe can continue to hunt on unoccupied lands like the Bighorn National Forest to provide sustenance for their families and children,” Alvernaz said in a statement. “This is especially important for the well-being and health of the tribe because access to healthy food on the reservation is limited.

    “More broadly, through this decision, the Supreme Court held the federal government accountable to its treaty obligations and affirmed tribal sovereignty,” she added. “Throughout the history of colonization, tribes have upheld their end of treaties while the federal government has consistently fallen short of its obligations. We’re hopeful that this ruling marks a new day, one where the federal government lives up to its treaty obligations and recommits to the important principles of tribal sovereignty and self-determination of tribes in the United States.”

    At Crow
    While some Wyoming hunters may be imagining the worst following the ruling, on the Crow Reservation professor Timothy McCleary of Little Big Horn College said social media was blowing up with celebration of the high court's decision.

    "It's pretty exciting," he said. "I wasn't particularly surprised."

    McCleary was one of the signatories to a friend of court brief filed in Herrera's case before the Supreme Court.

    He said a previous court ruling that found in favor of Wyoming over the Crow Tribe had left some tribal members feeling wronged. Now the issue will be how Wyoming handles the issue of conservation and occupation, he said.

    "Wyoming can't take away the hunting right, it's there," he said.

    "We're all human beings, it's just a matter of figuring out how to work together."

    https://billingsgazette.com/outdoors...3674290a6.html

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Scumter
    Posts
    18,024

    Default

    I heard about this on the radio. The tribe had a deal. And a deal is a deal.

    Delta in a nutshell: Breeding grounds + small wetlands + big blocks of grass cover + predator removal + nesting structures + enough money to do the job= plenty of ducks to keep everyone smiling!

    "For those that will fight for it...FREEDOM...has a flavor the protected shall never know."
    -L/Cpl Edwin L. "Tim" Craft

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    33,688

    Default

    meanwhile, one of Delta's hen ringnecks with a transmitter was shot a couple of weeks ago by a Crow man making a stew....
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    34,626

    Default

    A deal that should not have been made to a conquered people. Special classes of people is stupid as shit. However, the deal was made. Wildlife will pay the price.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    42,119

    Default

    Until “unoccupied” is defined.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    34,626

    Default

    Ever seen the Cherokee working shifts on a school of walleye? Goes on for days until the last one is in the cooler. Pretty impressive really...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Indians of now are not what they were. This will give them a free pass to rape the environment. At some point all agreements need to be updated. What happens when indians are aloud to hunt on private ranches that a treaty from 1903 says belonged to them?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    34,626

    Default

    What happens when indians are aloud
    They are pretty quiet. Noise would be the least of the issue...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    greenville
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    On the Indian reservation we stayed on in Montana, any animal that passed through was shot. There were very few deer or any other big game for that matter. We were told the week before we got there the Indians treed a family of black bears that were passing through and shot the sow and 2 cubs. The good news is they are too lazy to hunt upland birds.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    MUN-row, NC
    Posts
    3,271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    They are pretty quiet. Noise would be the least of the issue...
    Beat me to it. Well, except when they get to drinkin'.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    34,626

    Default

    Bit of an over generalization don't you think? There are plenty of indian hunters who get after it like it is their job. Because it is. The one I ran into in Saskatchewan 2 years ago who was running pothole to pothole with a .22 shooting every duck he could find for instance...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Homestead, FL
    Posts
    1,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    A deal that should not have been made to a conquered people. Special classes of people is stupid as shit. However, the deal was made. Wildlife will pay the price.
    Yeah, cause wildlife hasnt paid the price already? When the white man showed up, is when the resource became non sustainable. Market hunting completely destroyed entire species. Hell, I say give the Indians a fair chance. They managed the land for a long time before Europeans got here.
    "Opinion on everything, expert on nothin' "

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Old Indian is not new Indian!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    17,021

    Default

    He should be able to hunt just like when the deal was made,,........cedar sapling bow, catgut string, and a stone arrowhead....or just a spear.

    Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Border of both Carolinas
    Posts
    712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Catdaddy View Post
    He should be able to hunt just like when the deal was made,,........cedar sapling bow, catgut string, and a stone arrowhead....or just a spear.

    Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk
    cousin eddie.jpg

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    united states of america
    Posts
    17,248

    Default

    Hold on. I thought Indians prayed to the great spirit and thanked each dead animal, only took what they needed to survive the winter, wasted nothing, and lived peacefully with each other.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    42,119

    Default

    Pre firewater and Catholicism.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    34,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tman View Post
    Yeah, cause wildlife hasnt paid the price already? When the white man showed up, is when the resource became non sustainable. Market hunting completely destroyed entire species. Hell, I say give the Indians a fair chance. They managed the land for a long time before Europeans got here.
    When did Sammy Fretwell join Ducks?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Spartanburg
    Posts
    41,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JABIII View Post
    They are pretty quiet. Noise would be the least of the issue...
    And his teachers want more money.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •