I think some of you should look back at the history before jumping to a quick conclusion. The Crow protected the gov’t interests in a territory filled by many ruthless tribes, and for that, were handsomely rewarded with land and rights. Over time, the Crow kept relinquishing their rights when asked by the gov’t and ended up willingly giving much more land back than they obtained.....and their treaty to this day included the hunting rights in question. I think it is fair to be mad at the gov’t for making what most of you consider a stupid treaty though.......this was a fully executed treaty. A deal should be a deal. If you buy a house for $1mm and in 10 years it is worth $2mm, the new owner shouldn’t have to sell it back to the original owner for the original sales price.......or better yet, the original seller can’t just come back and take it back for free.
Yes a deal is a deal and they were obviously handed a bad one. It was either take it or be eradicated so I can sympathize. And I don’t believe most people have a problem with them being able to hunt when and where they want, it’s mostly about having respect for the animals and not laying waste to them “because whitey owes us”. I kinda like the thought that if they need meat they take an animal. Without asking the govment. Kinda like it used to be. But I have a hard time believing that’s where it would end and that’s why this is a bad ruling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Considering he attempted to gain investigation information from a wy g&f warden, which raised suspicion with said warden, resulting in the investigation which uncovered multiple people shooting multiple bulls within Wyoming. Yes that's right HE (Herrera) approached the wy g&f to help by
"sharing notes" about the many poaching cases in the area (he really just wanted to know what kind of investigatory tactics g&f were using, and what leads they had). So if he was as interested in the info g&f had as they stated, it would lead me to believe he knew what he was doing was unlawful. As I stated earlier, his two buddies (or accomplices) plead guilty to poaching.
And yes his first defense was "I didn't know where I was" (ie he, a tribal conservation officer didn't know he was in Wyoming).
But dont let facts get in the way, especially since his majesty hath spoken on the matter.
The crow tribe has no hunting regulations on their lands, which is essentially why they come into wyoming looking for game. They have shot most of theirs out because of unregulated hunting. I fear this will now happen here at home with this decision. Hopefully Wyoming can set up a crow only license with seasons and regulations. Aren't there other states that do this?
Great grand pappy should have left them a few dang buffalo
The crow tribe has no hunting regulations on their lands, which is essentially why they come into wyoming looking for game. They have shot most of theirs out because of unregulated hunting. I fear this will now happen here at home with this decision. Hopefully Wyoming can set up a crow only license with seasons and regulations. Aren't there other states that do this?
Is anyone here a lawyer proficient in treaty law? I'd like to see a professional opinion rather than rubbish.
Blah, blah, blah
All irrelevant to the case...the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. Game, set, match...get over it, or die with it. Either way, the Crow Tribe successfully reaffirmed their hunting rights.
That's really all that is relevant.
Buy out their hunting rights. Treaties can be re-negotiated at any time. How much is the Wyoming elk herd worth?
Also, too;
"In affirming the tribe’s treaty hunting right, the court stressed that this right is not unlimited. Portions of the national forest may be legally “occupied” under the treaty language, it noted, and Wyoming retains the power to impose nondiscriminatory conservation regulations on tribal treaty rights under well-established precedent."
True but some important details have yet to be determined before the pillaging of the Big Horns or whatever else is unoccupied can begin in order to "feed their families".
Given the modern day decisions regarding tribal law it's a safe bet Wyoming and it's hunting community will not be happy with the fate of the undecided issues.
Governor Gordon's Statement on Herrera decision | Wyoming Game & Fish Department
Please click here to download the statement or see below:wgfd.wyo.gov
Not that I'm aware of. The treaties were signed with the Federal Government, not with the States.
Talk about red herrings. It won't affect me in Laramie much, I can hunt plenty so move along nothing to see here. Yet anyone traveling on I90 with half an eye for spotting game will instantly know when they are on the Crow Rez. The habit doesn't change, but the game #'s sure do.Hard to say. We can shoot 3 elk a year, 6 pronghorn a year, 6+ deer a year, 2 lions, a black bear. I don't see tribal hunting for those species being any kind of big deal. How many registered Crow members are there? How many actually hunt? Of those, how many really get serious about it?
The one place I can potentially see an issue of conservation could be with moose in the Bighorns. But, it wouldn't make much sense for the Tribe to over-hunt the moose (creating concern about conservation).
I don't think this is the big deal most are making it.
Talk about red herrings. It won't affect me in Laramie much, I can hunt plenty so move along nothing to see here. Yet anyone traveling on I90 with half an eye for spotting game will instantly know when they are on the Crow Rez. The habit doesn't change, but the game #'s sure do.