Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Native American Hunter

If I were a Native American based on this and wanted to hunt a coveted game animal such as a Sheep, Moose, Elk, whatever....now do I just hunt with impunity?

I have several friends who are partial or full blooded Native American Indian. All of them have strict game and fish departments on the reservation, so no, you don't just go hunt anything you want. They have rules and regs too, and you operate within them. Most mirror the state dept they are involved with, but not all.

quote:

Originally posted by Blank:
I have several friends who are partial or full blooded Native American Indian. All of them have strict game and fish departments on the reservation, so no, you don't just go hunt anything you want. They have rules and regs too, and you operate within them. Most mirror the state dept they are involved with, but not all.

With all due respect...I don't think you read the ruling...
It has nothing to due with the reservation...the ruling said they can hunt on any State lands whenever or wherever they want basically because the Treaty that predates Wyoming becoming a State and thus Wyoming State laws do not apply
(That's certainly how I read it)

If what I am reading is correct,The Supreme Court just said "States do not have the right to set Game Regulations in their State".That would blow all Game relations out the for everybody.

quote:

If I were a Native American based on this and wanted to hunt a coveted game animal such as a Sheep, Moose, Elk, whatever....now do I just hunt with impunity?

No. Read and comprehend the decision in Herrera v Wyoming .

There is the majority and dissenting opinions in the 44 page document. Most importantly, this is narrowly focused on one treaty with the Crows and only on "unoccupied" lands. The court made it clear the path the state may follow if it wishes to fix the issue.

See page 24-25 where the majority states "Finally, we note two ways in which our decision is limited. First, we hold that Bighorn National Forest is not categorically occupied, not that all areas within the forest are unoccupied. 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.1985) (stating that the Federal Government may not be foreclosed from using land in such a way that the Indians would have considered it occupied).

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."

and there ya go..over reaction on the internet. As many fed judges out there that are totally liberal would make too harsh a game case void, at least they love animals..think goodness for once, so maybe one day soon we need to go judge shopping, but not yet!!

Wyoming (and it's not necessarily limited to Wyoming) must now argue in court that the State Laws concerning conservation of the resources must apply to all including them.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on that piece, however, now the State will have to get a ruling to confirm that the laws do now apply.
Hopefully they will and reason will prevail.
They may also end up,giving the Crowe "concessions" to do so such as special privileges and or quota or who knows what.
This isn't over and they won a major ruling in their favor

We have the "Brunot Treaty" with the Utes here in Colorado. The Ute's are given Tags that their tribal members can use. It's not a large number & can only be used in seasons set by the state. I know several tribal members that used them on moose, mtn goat & bighorn sheep. It kind of sucks but it's not the end of world.

https://trib.com/news/local/go...97-3da7aeb938a0.html


Article just published on the decision.

quote:

Originally posted by Poyntman:
Wyoming (and it's not necessarily limited to Wyoming) must now argue in court that the State Laws concerning conservation of the resources must apply to all including them.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on that piece, however, now the State will have to get a ruling to confirm that the laws do now apply.
Hopefully they will and reason will prevail.
They may also end up,giving the Crowe "concessions" to do so such as special privileges and or quota or who knows what.
This isn't over and they won a major ruling in their favor

I would believe that is how it works. Yes there are some special privileges. It has been for a while.

When we were hunting elk on the Indian Reservation is the 1980s I am pretty sure we were using the tags they "sold" us although we still had to be in compliance with the overall state law and not that we wouldn't be anyway.

But for that matter there are Governor tags and the special "auction " tags so overall this really isn't that big of a deal.

Yes it hacks you off waiting 20 years for a tag but it is just how it is and has been for quite some time really.