[QUOTE]Originally posted by BuffHunter63:
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[/QUOTE

Much like the Native Americans(By the way there is no native Americans who can trace their ancestors to the beginning of time.Indians were immigrants just like everybody else.)Who killed all their enemy tribes men and made slaves out of the women and children.

"Native Americans have the same opportunities today that any Americans have."

I think one could reasonably say that anyone has the same opportunities as any other American. As is often said, anyone can do anything.

But I also think Native People have two things going against them that make it difficult to take advantage of the opportunities. First, it is difficult to obtain resources to take advantage of opportunities when one has very little resources to begin with. Said another way, its difficult to dig oneself out of a hole. And second, whether one wants to admit it or not, there is a general bias against Native People. People don't like them for any number of reasons. Its very difficult to take advantage of available opportunities when the person handing out opportunities is biased against certain applicants.

The Native People just wanted to take care of theirselves when they made their treaties. They asked for land and the ability to use that land the way they always had. that is all they asked for. The treaties were made, and they should be honored. I think the court will go back to the same reasoning they did in the Mille Lacs case and the Appellant will win his appeal. It will be a great day for Native American rights.

quote:

"Native Americans have the same opportunities today that any Americans have."

And like successful Blacks/Mexicans or any other ethnic group, there are individuals that work at bettering their situation and there are those that believe they should be given preference and are willing to sit on the Rez and draw the handout the Government gives them whether it is welfare or Food Stamps.

quote:

But I also think Native People have two things going against them that make it difficult to take advantage of the opportunities. First, it is difficult to obtain resources to take advantage of opportunities when one has very little resources to begin with. Said another way, its difficult to dig oneself out of a hole. And second, whether one wants to admit it or not, there is a general bias against Native People. People don't like them for any number of reasons. Its very difficult to take advantage of available opportunities when the person handing out opportunities is biased against certain applicants.

I do not think in todays America anyone is going to find very many people that have a prejudice or bias against Indians, with the exception of some folks living close to a Rez that have had bad experiences with indians that are hooked iup on drugs or alcohol.

One of the main problems I have observed is that just like every other minority and more so than some due to the BIA's and the government handouts to Indians, they don't want to improve themselves. Throw in the attitude of some "Indian Groupies" toward Native Americans in general and it is just easier for some to just not make the effort.

The guy broke the law and if they let him off simply because he is an Indian, all that will do is open a Flood Gate for other such incidents.

quote:

The guy broke the law and if they let him off simply because he is an Indian, all that will do is open a Flood Gate for other such incidents.

He did not break the law because he had a treaty right to do what he did, and all Natives subject to the treaty should be allowed to do the same.

No Sir he left not only Rez land but crossed the state line and was hunting illegally in another state.

You are free to believe as you wish but I really do not see either Montana, Wyoming, the Bureau of Indian Affairs or any of the other state or Federal agencies that have any jurisdiction in this matter finding for that man.

If they do it will mean other Indians will just start going where ever they please/when ever they please and killing what ever game species and in how ever many numbers that they choose to.

Saw it in 2000 in Nunavut on my Musk Ox/Caribou hunt, the Inuits are subsistence hunters. Those of us "Sports" that were in camp had been watchiong a family of Canadian Geese that sort of hung around camp, a male, female and 4 half grown goslings and one day right after lunch this one Inuit and his wife or girl friend came walking past camp with a .22 and all 6 geese.

Yes, they were on their land and it was their tribal right, but one thing too many Wahsichus/Bellagonas/Tivos A.K.A White Eyes in todays world do not grasp is that tribes of Indians, especially the Plains Tribes were not Conservationists in tune with Mother Earth.

They stayed in an area, especially after getting horses until they killed off all the game and would then move to a new area and start the process over again.

Do not get me wrong, in many ways I sympathise with the North American Indians, but following the histories of the various tribes, those that adapted to the white mans ways have thrived while those that have decided to just take the Governments handouts are no different than the welfare recipients in Americas inner cities.

That is exactly the point. The treaty gave him the right to hunt where he was hunting.

I think one of the biases that people have against Native people is that they do have these treaties that allow them to do things that others would like to do. But would other people give up what the Native people had to give up to get what the Native people got. I surely wouldn't. The Native people were treated very unfairly in the treaty negotiations because they really didn't have any bargaining power. It was mostly a take it or leave it deal. Again, I wonder how people today would feel if somebody came on their property and told them they had to move and would get a nickel on the dollar for their home, and they could go hunting and fishing when they wanted to.

Those treaties were not worth the paper they were written on!

The only thing that can be done is wait for the outcome, but I really doubt that things will go in his favor.

The native people were treated very unfairly. News flash- so were the slaves. So we should pay reparations to all their descendants. The give away mentality has to stop somewhere.

Seeing that he was hunting outside the rez I think that they should throw the book at this guy. If this type of action is allowed to continue what comes next? These treaties were enacted when the population densities in the mid west and western states was relatively low. We live in a different time now, and game laws have been enacted to protect fish and game to protect over harvest. Natives going off and killing what ever the hell they want doesn't mesh well with game management.

"Those treaties were not worth the paper they were written on!"

My point exactly, they were designed to do nothing but cheat the Native People. Which is why the Supreme Court shout do the right thing and honor the treaty by finding for the Appellant.

quote:

Which is why the Supreme Court shout do the right thing and honor the treaty by finding for the Appellant.

That is not going to happen.

The man broke the law, he knew he was breaking the law and so now he is trying to play upon Public Sympathy and it is not going to help him one bit

He knew just exactly where the Rez boundaries were at and he and the members of his hunting party crossed them anyway.

How do you think things would have been handled had it been Non Indians crossing onto the Rez and shooting game?

I appreciate and commend you on your attitude about how the Indians were treated, but history can not be changed and anyone, regardless of ethnic background of any individual knowingly/willingly breaking exixsting laws needs to suffer the consequences.

Meaningless treaties signed during the Indian Wars simply cannot be honored today for countless reasons.

It is a sad part of Americas history on several levels but it does not give any Indian the right to break todays laws anymore than it gives Whites to break those laws.

"That is not going to happen"

It may not, which would be a shame. But I think that there is a good chance it will happen if, as I mentioned before, the Supreme Court follows it precedent in the Mille Lacs case.

Reading comprehension is the first casualty of the internet.

quote:

Reading comprehension, the first casualty of the internet.

No, its ad hominem argument.

It isn't really an arguement, it is a difference of opinions.

Wouldn't this world be a miserable place if everyone agreed everytime on every subject?

I just believe there are too many aspects of this case that the Federal Government will have to take in to consideration including opening the door to future such cases.

Regardless of the outcome of the case it is only going to create further friction in that region.

The government cannot make treaties with its own citizens, only with foreign governments. At the time these treaties were made, Indians were not legally considered US citizens.

Sometime in the 1920's (??) full citizenship was granted to them. Since they are now American citizens why do the treaties still apply?

In Wisconsin the 1840's treaty ceding Indian land to the state stipulated that a group of 6 or more male tribal members venturing off the reservation would be considered a war party and could be dealt with accordingly. Strangely, this aspect of the treaty was simply forgotten.

Just an opinion, nothing more.

I think many Americans believe that Native Americans were poorly treated, but what happened, happened and things can not be changed or corrected.

Native Americans have just as many opportunities to succeed in modern America as whites/blacks/mexicans or any other group, but just like some of the members of those groups, it is just easier to set back and accept handouts and complain than simply get up and try to better themselves.

There we go considering again......who cares about considerations???? Facts are facts!

.

Bingo

quote:

Originally posted by Venandi:
The government cannot make treaties with its own citizens, only with foreign governments. At the time these treaties were made, Indians were not legally considered US citizens.

Sometime in the 1920's (??) full citizenship was granted to them. Since they are now American citizens why do the treaties still apply?

In Wisconsin the 1840's treaty ceding Indian land to the state stipulated that a group of 6 or more male tribal members venturing off the reservation would be considered a war party and could be dealt with accordingly. Strangely, this aspect of the treaty was simply forgotten.

Bingo

Any body claiming to be native should be given a DNA test.

Then if they are not over 50 percent native they should be declared non native and just normal citizens.

Exactly my thoughts

Lindy you live in fantasy land. I have worked on the Crow Reservation and they piss the government funded resources away and drive any government funded businesses in the ground. There is hardly any game on the reservation because they kill everything. The poacher should have been arrested and fined. Last time I checked they lost the war. Treaties should be nullified and reservations disbanded. You want to see how much money the federal government wastes on reservations each year your head would explode. Indians are generally stereotyped because they fit the stereotype. The crow reservation is a crap hole because that is how they want it.

quote:

The Crow Indian Reservation in south-central Montana is a large reservation covering approximately 2,300,000 acres (9,300 km2) of land area, the fifth-largest Indian reservation in the United States. The reservation is primarily in Big Horn and Yellowstone counties with ceded lands in Rosebud, Carbon, and Treasure Counties. The Crow Indian Reservation's eastern border is the 107th meridian line, except along the border line of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. The southern border is from the 107th meridian line west to the east bank of the Big Horn River. The line travels downstream to Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area and west to the Pryor Mountains and north-easterly to Billings. The northern border travels east and through Hardin, Montana, to the 107th meridian line. The 2000 census reported a total population of 6,894 on reservation lands. Its largest community is Crow Agency.

That figures out roughly to a population density of 1 person per 330 acres. I serioiusly doubt that they spread out like that on their reservation.

quote:

Facts are facts!

Or individual perceptions of reality.

quote:

Or individual perceptions of reality.

Try this perception of reality and really think about it.

Are Native Americans required by law to actually live on a Rez??????

Its irrelevant to the issue of whether the treaty is valid or not. That, and the fact that the person took game against Wyoming state law, are the only things that matter.

Unfortunately that is ALL that matters!

Many Americans actually do sympathise with Native Americans and what happened to them.

The problem however is that a few too many Americans do not want to accept the fact, that modern day Native Americans have the ability to improve their lives, but just like so many inner city blacks/whites and mexicans, it is easier to stay on welfare.

https://trib.com/news/state-an...ae-371982b61065.html



Crow Tribe files to vacate judgment restricting tribal hunting rights

Ellen Gerst 22 hrs ago

Outside Buffalo, US-16 cuts through the southern part of the Bighorn National Forest, seen Tuesday. The Crow Tribe wants a court to vacate a 1994 ruling that can be used to prosecute offseason tribal hunters under Wyoming game law.

Cayla Nimmo, Star-Tribune

Ellen Gerst

The Crow Tribe is trying to vacate a 1995 federal appeals court ruling that restricts tribal hunting rights.

In 1994, Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis decided that an 1868 treaty between the tribe and the federal government that allowed tribal members to hunt in the offseason was voided when Wyoming became a state in 1890. That decision was appealed and upheld in the Tenth Circuit in 1995. The case relied on an 1896 decision in Ward v. Race Horse, which ruled that hunting rights ended with statehood. In 2019, the Race Horse decision was repudiated in the U.S. Supreme Court.

That Supreme Court case, Herrera v. Wyoming, ruled in favor of Clayvin Herrera, a Crow Tribe member fined $8,000 for hunting in Bighorn National Forest during the offseason in 2014.

Now, as the details of Herrera’s case are still contested in a lower court, the tribe hopes to vacate the 1994 judgment that may still be used as grounds to prosecute offseason tribal hunters under Wyoming game law — even though its legal basis has been effectively overturned.

The Crow Tribe, represented by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), filed a motion to vacate the judgment in Crow Tribe v. Repsis last week. Dan Lewerenz, a NARF staff attorney and lead counsel in the motion, said Tuesday that they had yet to hear back from the state. The judge who presided over that case more than 25 years ago, Alan B. Johnson, still sits on the bench in Wyoming — and Lewerenz said he might get a second crack at it.



The motion is formally filed against Repsis, a former game warden, and Brian Nesvik, director of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

“The Wyoming Game and Fish Department is continuing to evaluate the current legal status of this case,” said Game and Fish spokeswoman Sara DiRienzo.

The department did not comment further, citing pending litigation in the case.


“Regardless of whether the Wyoming court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals were right back in 1994 and 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court now says that those decisions are inconsistent with how the Supreme Court understands the law,” said Lewerenz. “The US Supreme Court now says that the Crow do have a continuing off-reservation treaty hunting right and that the Crow Tribe can exercise that right within the Bighorn National Forest, so long as it’s not within an area of the forest that has been occupied.”

The Repsis case decision, despite being repudiated in the highest court, was used against Herrera when his case was sent back down to circuit court in Sheridan. A judge ruled in June 2020 that land in the national forest was occupied, and therefore under the conservation restrictions of the Game and Fish Department.

But Thor Hoyte, general counsel for the Crow Tribe, said that Wyoming is missing an opportunity for better conservation by not working with the tribe. The Crow Tribe’s motion argues that in light of decades of elk overpopulation — the number of elk in Bighorn National Forest is about 40% higher than it should be, according to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department’s 2020 annual report — Wyoming should be looking to the tribe to help preserve that land.



“Tribes have demonstrated throughout the American West that they are an invaluable partner to states’ conservation efforts,” Hoyte said, “because they can provide additional regulation, additional work power, additional resources to perform conservation acts.”

Hoyte pointed out that tribes rely on treaties like the one cited by Herrera’s case to cooperate with the federal government as separate and sovereign ruling bodies. After ceding more than 30 million acres to the United States, the Crow Tribe’s rights to hunt on that land preserve an essential cultural practice. And since a treaty is federal law, Hoyte said, judges in Wyoming should have to respect it.

“Our rights under the Treaties of 1851 and 1868 remain significant and important to Crow citizens today,” Heather Whiteman Runs Him, a Crow Tribe member and director of the Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona, said in a NARF statement. “The right to hunt for subsistence on ceded lands must be respected by the State of Wyoming, especially after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Herrera.”

In Herrera’s case, the state ruled that the terms of the 1868 treaty were voided when Wyoming became a state in 1890, and that the 1897 designation of the land as a national forest means it is legally occupied. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, penning the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s overturning decision, said that the tribe’s right to hunt is not affected by Wyoming’s statehood. She also wrote that Bighorn National Forest is not necessarily “occupied” just because of its status as a national reserve.



Establishing occupation on federal or state lands could come from a number of things, Lewerenz said — from building a house there to securing mining permits. The question of whether Herrera was hunting on occupied land, as well as whether he can still be prosecuted for violating conservation regulations, remains to be decided in Sheridan. The Sheridan Press reported in January that Herrera’s attorneys have filed a notice of appeal in his case, but the status of that is unknown.

The appeal may be delayed by four unrelated felony charges now facing Herrera, including strangulation and child sexual abuse in an unrelated case from 2020. He has pleaded not guilty to all counts in a Montana court.

quote:

“Our rights under the Treaties of 1851 and 1868 remain significant and important to Crow citizens today,” Heather Whiteman Runs Him, a Crow Tribe member and director of the Tribal Justice Clinic at the University of Arizona, said in a NARF statement. “The right to hunt for subsistence on ceded lands must be respected by the State of Wyoming, especially after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Herrera.”

Are there not enough elk or other game on tribal lands to subsistence hunt? If not, why not?

Also, I would think that the human population is certainly much different now compared to when treaties were made. With less habitat for wildlife, no doubt. Seems such data should be considered?

I know this is a touchy/feely situation- I assume tribal land is considered private property. I know as a landowner I go out of my way to provide habitat to encourage game on my small piece of property so I can put meat up in my home. It's not hard to do. I surmise that if the tribal land isn't properly managed then why should anyone be allowed free range on Federal land?

If they want to subsistance hunt to preserve their cultural ways, then they must use only their original pre columbian cultural tools. If they want to use post columbian / 20 century tools, then they should use/follow our rules.

Areas near reservations I have been around suffer constiant poachiing.

So many Fucking people these days, impacting the environment, we can't allow some to live without following the rules.

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams1:
So many Fucking people these days, impacting the environment, we can't allow some to live without following the rules.

Grizz

1868 treaty vs 1890 Statehood?

Be careful how you argue this ! You give the libs and other groups reason and precedence to amend the Constitution of the United States. Our argument being " we need to abrogate these treaties based on time and cultural/societal change."

If successful the libs will turn it around and try too to apply the logic to getting rid of the Constitution.

Native Americans have been given the power of sovereignty within their lands. When outside of those lands, live under the rule of law of the governing country or state. The tribe here asks that of us if we chose to go on their lands.

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
If they want to subsistance hunt to preserve their cultural ways, then they must use only their original pre columbian cultural tools. If they want to use post columbian / 20 century tools, then they should use/follow our rules.

Areas near reservations I have been around suffer constiant poachiing.

Are you prepared to have them extend that to the 2nd amendment? You darn well know that they want to....

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
If they want to subsistance hunt to preserve their cultural ways, then they must use only their original pre columbian cultural tools. If they want to use post columbian / 20 century tools, then they should use/follow our rules.

Areas near reservations I have been around suffer constiant poachiing.

Are you prepared to have them extend that to the 2nd amendment? You darn well know that they want to....

Hunting and second amendment have nothing to do with each other, otherwise it would be unconstitutional to have to pass a hunter safety course in order to get a hunting licence

quote:

Hunting and second amendment have nothing to do with each other

Amen!

quote:

Originally posted by eny:

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
If they want to subsistance hunt to preserve their cultural ways, then they must use only their original pre columbian cultural tools. If they want to use post columbian / 20 century tools, then they should use/follow our rules.

Areas near reservations I have been around suffer constiant poachiing.

Are you prepared to have them extend that to the 2nd amendment? You darn well know that they want to....

Hunting and second amendment have nothing to do with each other, otherwise it would be unconstitutional to have to pass a hunter safety course in order to get a hunting licence

If that were the case, then wouldn't it be unconstitutional to require a background check to purchase a firearm?

But I was not equating hunting and the second amendment. My point was that you argument that modern firearms/tools should be excluded from subsistence hunting sounds a lot like the antis saying that the 2nd amendment should only apply to the firearms of the time period when the amendment was written, and should therefore not cover modern firearms.

Hunting right? Imagine the possibilities. Facking A!

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by eny:
If they want to subsistance hunt to preserve their cultural ways, then they must use only their original pre columbian cultural tools. If they want to use post columbian / 20 century tools, then they should use/follow our rules.

Areas near reservations I have been around suffer constiant poachiing.

Are you prepared to have them extend that to the 2nd amendment? You darn well know that they want to....

Hunting and second amendment have nothing to do with each other, otherwise it would be unconstitutional to have to pass a hunter safety course in order to get a hunting licence

If that were the case, then wouldn't it be unconstitutional to require a background check to purchase a firearm?

But I was not equating hunting and the second amendment. My point was that you argument that modern firearms/tools should be excluded from subsistence hunting sounds a lot like the antis saying that the 2nd amendment should only apply to the firearms of the time period when the amendment was written, and should therefore not cover modern firearms.

Im not equating it to "subsistance hunting", Im equating it to giving someone more/ unrestricted access due to their cultural history of subsistance hunting. do I think what I suggest would actually happen? No, Its just a bit of saecasim

Hunting and the 2nd Amendment have nothing to do with each other !!! Open your eyes. Maybe remote Alaska there is still A SMALL AMOUNT of subsistence hunting and even then it is more cultural than a necessity. With both white and native americans its more of a desired life style than required for survival in the lower 48. Any method or tool the leftists can find to dismantle the 2nd Amendment they will use it to their full advantage.