The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Crow man takes hunting case to U.S. Supreme Court, says 1868 treaty is on his sideGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Crow man takes hunting case to U.S. Supreme Court, says 1868 treaty is on his side | Login/Join |
| one of us |
https://ktvh.com/news/2018/10/...eaty-is-on-his-side/ Link has news video. Crow man takes hunting case to U.S. Supreme Court, says 1868 treaty is on his side MTN News 2:51 pm October 15, 2018 BILLINGS – Native American tribes in the western United States will be closely watching an upcoming Supreme Court case that could set a precedent for tribal hunting rights and the application of Indian treaties today. The case, is Clayvin Herrera v. Wyoming, involves a member of the Crow tribe who took an elk in Wyoming and was later convicted of illegal hunting several years ago. “It is really about a case where a guy went hunting. He pursued an elk across the reservation line and into the state of Wyoming, where they ended up killing a few elk and bringing the meat back to the reservation,” said Monte Mills with the University of Montana Law School. Mills is familiar with the case as co-director of the Margery Hunter Brown Indian Law Clinic at the University of Montana in Missoula. He has also written briefs for the case. “Eventually he was charged by game wardens in Wyoming with violating Wyoming game law,” said Mills. However, Herrera believes the Laramie Treaty of 1868 is on his side. It says tribal members have the right to hunt on unoccupied land but the Crow reservation currently ends at the Montana-Wyoming border. “He’s arguing, I have a treaty right and I can’t be punished by Wyoming. I’m not subject to Wyoming law. I am governed by the treaty with the United States,” said Mills. In response, Wyoming said, those treaty rights ended when Wyoming became a state. “Wyoming is relying on previous cases that said when this area became the Big Horn National Forest that meant that it was occupied,” said Mills. The case is still months away from actually hitting the Supreme Court docket. Herrera’s legal team has filed their legal briefs and currently, the Wyoming state attorneys are filing their response. Wyoming’s legal brief is due by Nov. 13 and Herrera has the chance to reply by Dec. 13. The Supreme Court won’t likely hear the case until January 2019. A decision may not be reached until late spring or early summer 2019, said Mills. Many will be watching the case carefully, especially tribal members, Mills said. The case could lay the groundwork for future land rights cases involving tribes and states, for years to come, he said. “It’s important to remember that Indian people were here before the United States, before the constitution,” said Mills. “Those treaties still say that’s the supreme law of the land and that’s one of the issues in this Herrera case, whether or not that treaty still exists, then Wyoming law can’t apply.” Mills also says this a case is one non-tribal members will want to watch. “Even 150 years later, it’s a fundamental question about our constitutional commitments. And that’s an important national question for all of us in the United States, regardless of our connection with Indian country,” said Mills. Pertaining to this case, the state of Wyoming has also raised concern about its ability to regulate game and hunters within its borders, according to Mills. He says an underlying concern for Wyoming when it comes to treaty rights continues to be how the state views its authority to regulate hunts. On the side of the tribes, listed in Herrera’s brief, are arguments about the importance of the role of hunting, fishing, and gathering for tribes. Mills said a number of tribes in Montana take part in off-season hunting and currently hunt near Yellowstone National Park for bison, which is done in pursuant to treaty agreements. Reporting by Andrea Lutz for MTN News Kathi kathi@wildtravel.net 708-425-3552 "The world is a book, and those who do not travel read only one page." | ||
|
| one of us |
The outcome of this case could affect indian hunting in every state. Fishing in coastal states. Dave | |||
|
| One of Us |
If he is not charged we will see Indian folks hunting where ever they want because there is no fear of reprisal. We will have something akin to the METIS crap in Canada. Let's hope logic prevails in this case. Thank goodness of Kavanaugh,hopefully it helps | |||
|
| One of Us |
I hope Mr. Herrera is successful in his appeal. | |||
|
One of Us |
No! Once they leave tribal lands they are subject to the same rules and regulations as every other citizen of the United States. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
One of Us |
+1 | |||
|
| one of us |
Didn't and doesn't work that way in Wis. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Than something needs to be changed in Wisconsin!!! Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
one of us |
National forest to me is permanently unoccupied. -------------------- THANOS WAS RIGHT! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Have any of you checked in to the rules and regulations governing hunting and fishing on tribal lands and compared them to the regulations on state owned/controlled land? Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
One of Us |
You give them finger and they take it all and now Back to late 1800’ with not much game left Indians have no conception of conservation That’s a fact for all you Pocahontas lovers " Until the day breaks and the nights shadows flee away " Big ivory for my pillow and 2.5% of Neanderthal DNA flowing thru my veins. When I'm ready to go, pack a bag of gunpowder up my ass and strike a fire to my pecker, until I squeal like a boar. Yours truly , Milan The Boarkiller - World according to Milan PS I have big boar on my floor...but it ain't dead, just scared to move... Man should be happy and in good humor until the day he dies... Only fools hope to live forever “ Hávamál” | |||
|
| One of Us |
The reason for my opinion is threefold. 1. The Native Americans had their land forcefully taken from them. 2. None of the resulting treaties were fair because they were basically take it or leave it treaties with uneven bargaining power. 3. The cases cited by the U. S. Court of Appeals to uphold the conviction have essentially been overruled by SCOTUS in the Mille Lacs case from Minnesota. | |||
|
One of Us |
The "unoccupied land" defense has been tried and has failed several times in other places but one never knows how the next verdict will work out. Roger ___________________________ I'm a trophy hunter - until something better comes along. *we band of 45-70ers* | |||
|
| One of Us |
Law applies equally right? What’s wrong with Indians buying hunting licenses like everyone else? This shit about them in past is overdone They were nothing but brutal killers and land takers themselves " Until the day breaks and the nights shadows flee away " Big ivory for my pillow and 2.5% of Neanderthal DNA flowing thru my veins. When I'm ready to go, pack a bag of gunpowder up my ass and strike a fire to my pecker, until I squeal like a boar. Yours truly , Milan The Boarkiller - World according to Milan PS I have big boar on my floor...but it ain't dead, just scared to move... Man should be happy and in good humor until the day he dies... Only fools hope to live forever “ Hávamál” | |||
|
| one of us |
When have a displaced or defeated group of people received treatment like the First Nation people of N. America? Our rez system and handouts have destroyed them. What goes on in Montana with these folks and their "hunting" is quite hard to believe. And for years, the clueless bureaucrats have done their best to look the other way and not confront. Lindy- you might ask yourself why these First Nation folks don't hunt on their own land. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Why not instead of turning this into a "Crater" worthy  match, try to keep it factual.What happened in the past needs to stay in the past, it has no bearing on incidents such as this. Try looking around at different Rez's across the country such as the Apache and Navajo Rez's in New Mexico. Some of them have their own game depts. and work at managing the wildlife on their lands. What if this had been a non-indian and they had wounded a bull and it crossed the state line or even a GMU line and the hunter followed it and finished it off and was caught, would any of us try and defend that persons actions? Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
{Lindy- you might ask yourself why these First Nation folks don't hunt on their own land.} It is my understand that a small part of this case is about an elk that was wounded on native land and crossed over to government land. Nevertheless, as to why natives do not hunt exclusively on "their own land" - the reason is that these treaties gave them the right to hunt on unoccupied government land. A very very small price to pay to the native people for the land that we now all enjoy that was taken away from them, mostly by force. Yes, these people did act savagely at times. They did so mostly in defense of their land, their people, and their way of life. {What happened in the past needs to stay in the past, it has no bearing on incidents such as this.} It most certainly does because the treaty that happened in the past was designed to control the future! | |||
|
| one of us |
Welcome to Canada.  Grizz Indeed, no human being has yet lived under conditions which, considering the prevailing climates of the past, can be regarded as normal. John E Pfeiffer, The Emergence of Man Those who can't skin, can hold a leg. Abraham Lincoln Only one war at a time. Abe Again. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Treaties are below the constitution and above federal statutes. Treaties can be and have been disavowed, renegotiated etc. People, especially First Immigrant groups somehow think these treaties are like the 10 commandments and they are not. The highest law in the land, the US Constitution has been changed multiple times since these Indian treaties were signed. These poorly thought out agreements are now utterly hamstringing wildlife management 150 years later. They need to be disavowed and renegotiated to bring them at least up to the age of "Toilet Paper". | |||
|
| One of Us |
Whatever rights to game and fish that they were given should be honored, but they should be limited to using only their cultural equipment of the time the treaty was signed (i.e. homemade bows and arrows, stone clubs, etc). Using high tech, modern equipment to get game based upon a treaty signed a hundred or more years ago, is just wrong IMO. BH63 Hunting buff is better than sex! | |||
|
| One of Us |
By the time of this particular treaty Native People were using rifles and other modern tools to take game. They acquired those tools by trading, just like everybody else. And if the treaty meant for Native hunting to be solely by Bow and Arrow the treaty would most likely have said so. I do agree that these treaties were poorly thought out. The Native people should have received a lot more for what they gave up. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yep! Lindy? What did these current natives give to the earlier people they took the land from? All this indian crap should be over now. They have had 150 years to assimilate, time is up! . | |||
|
| one of us |
Lindy- Shouldn't we consider reparations? I would say we should give them total access in our National Parks but they already have that. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Maybe you mean - What did these current native people give to the earlier people that took the land from their ancestors? The people today didn't give them anything. And while I do respect your argument, I don't see it as having merit because if it were so then we could say the same thing about all property inherited from earlier generations by everyone. And, if the Government had intended that the treaty last only 150 years they would have said so. Those treaties were meant to go on into perpetuity because the people being displaced were not only giving up their land, but also their lifestyle, which was hunting, fishing, and gathering. Fair is fair. You give somebody something, or make a deal for something, you don't come back next week, or 150 years from now and say I want to take it back. | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do note that the US Gov't. has filed a brief in favor of the appellant in this case, and again, I hope the appellant is successful. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I hope the appellant fails and the court tosses these treaties as unconstitutional based on their institutionalizing race based preferences. The US Constitution got to racial equality a long time ago. All are equal before the law regardless of race. Not all are equal before the law regardless of race, except the Indians who are more equal. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The case has not been framed on the issue of race. If you read some of the briefs you will see that it is mostly framed on treaty rights. | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
This is a Dead End, meaningless "Discussion" that is not worth anyoner time or effort! Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| one of us |
The same "science" that liberals love to talk about seems to never find use in examining social issues. The rez observation is a perfect example: Native Americans probably fare worse than any minority group. | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Lindy 2, you are certainly entitled to your opinion on the issue, but I for one hope the man loses! Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
One of Us |
That is not completely accurate. The US Gov't filed an amicus brief that stated the case should be heard by SCOTUS and that Wyoming's statehood did not override the treaty based on the Mills Lac case. The US Gov't also essentially said that the issue of regarding occupied or unoccupied was not properly considered by the lower courts. The US Gov't did not say the appellant was right regarding the issue "occupied" versus "unoccupied" Mike Legistine actu? Quid scripsi? Never under estimate the internet community's ability to reply to your post with their personal rant about their tangentially related, single occurrence issue.  What I have learned on AR, since 2001: 1. The proper answer to: Where is the best place in town to get a steak dinner? is…You should go to Mel's Diner and get the fried chicken. 2. Big game animals can tell the difference between .015 of an inch in diameter, 15 grains of bullet weight, and 150 fps. 3. There is a difference in the performance of two identical projectiles launched at the same velocity if they came from different cartridges. 4. While a double rifle is the perfect DGR, every 375HH bolt gun needs to be modified to carry at least 5 down. 5. While a floor plate and detachable box magazine both use a mechanical latch, only the floor plate latch is reliable. Disregard the fact that every modern military rifle uses a detachable box magazine. 6. The Remington 700 is unreliable regardless of the fact it is the basis of the USMC M40 sniper rifle for 40+ years with no changes to the receiver or extractor and is the choice of more military and law enforcement sniper units than any other rifle. 7. PF actions are not suitable for a DGR and it is irrelevant that the M1, M14, M16, & AK47 which were designed for hunting men that can shoot back are all PF actions. 8. 95 deg F in Africa is different than 95 deg F in TX or CA and that is why you must worry about ammunition temperature in Africa (even though most safaris take place in winter) but not in TX or in CA. 9. The size of a ding in a gun's finish doesn't matter, what matters is whether it’s a safe ding or not. 10. 1 in a row is a trend, 2 in a row is statistically significant, and 3 in a row is an irrefutable fact. 11. Never buy a WSM or RCM cartridge for a safari rifle or your go to rifle in the USA because if they lose your ammo you can't find replacement ammo but don't worry 280 Rem, 338-06, 35 Whelen, and all Weatherby cartridges abound in Africa and back country stores. 12. A well hit animal can run 75 yds. in the open and suddenly drop with no initial blood trail, but the one I shot from 200 yds. away that ran 10 yds. and disappeared into a thicket and was not found was lost because the bullet penciled thru. I am 100% certain of this even though I have no physical evidence. 13. A 300 Win Mag is a 500 yard elk cartridge but a 308 Win is not a 300 yard elk cartridge even though the same bullet is travelling at the same velocity at those respective distances. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Native Americans "on reservations" probably fare worse than any other minority groups. Is there any law that keeps them on the reservation? Or are they free to live anywhere they want to? Do they have the same right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that every single American has? . | |||
|
| One of Us |
Just an observation, nothing more and it is based entirely on personal experience thru observation while traveling around America and in face to face discussions with folks living near a Rez. Native Americans are really not that much different than any other ethnic group in American, those that have the ambition/personal fortitude/desire however a person wants to describe it, it simply comes down to the fact that those that want to succeed and be a contributing member of society, DO! And I am not talking about being successful on the Rez but in society in general. There is really not any difference between a portion of the Indians on any Rez and inner city blacks. There is just as much a problem with drugs and alcohol on a Rez as there is in downtown LA, the differenve being becausec of thekir genetic makeup aslcohol is poison to Native Americans. Just my opinion, and we all know what personal opinions are worth, but what has hurt Native Americans the most has been the attitude of whites that hang on to the attitude that due to historical events, Indians must be treated like orphans and like any other human if people keep ghiviong someone stuff and telling them how poorly they have been treated, they are not going to try and improve their condition. I am sure my opinion will be viewed as harsh and uneducated, but in mine and Lora's travels we have spent enough time visiting Rez's and traveling thru the areas bordering Rez's, and as I say, those that want to better themselves and provide a better life for their children work at doing so, including moving away from the Rez and join regular society and succeed. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Legal crap aside, for anyone who bemoans how the American Indians were treated by the European settlers, and later on, by the early US Government; What would have happened if the feudal Japaneses had landed in the Americans first? My guess is that every trace of the indigenous people would have vanished, as the Japanese warriors of that time, weren't much for allowing their enemies to live! (Much like the first European settlers in what was to become North America, vanished without a trace.) Think about that! BH63 Hunting buff is better than sex! | |||
|
| One of Us |
None of two above posts are politically correct......you will get no sympathy for posting facts. Native Americans have the same opportunities today that any Americans have. The tribes they conquered? Did they get the same rights. Assimilate, contribute or shut up! . | |||
|
One of Us |
+1  Vote Trump- Putin’s best friend… To quote a former AND CURRENT Trumpiteer - DUMP TRUMP | |||
|
| One of Us |
Its kinda goofy but... If ol’ Pocohantas Warren has “some” native blood, I’m pretty sure we can all find some in DNA tests. If this guy wins, then de facto game laws do not exist, as we all can find some DNA evidence of relationship to native blood (it’s how these tests work) and thus we are all exercising our tribal rights. Coincidentally, while the tribes can say who they allow on the reservation, none of these treaties really state who gets what rights, just the tribe gets it, and if it’s off the reservation, their determination is meaningless a la Warren. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Crow man takes hunting case to U.S. Supreme Court, says 1868 treaty is on his side
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia