Crow Tribe poaching vs Wyoming

[A 4]

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."

This is getting overlooked. What is defined as occupied land and what legitimate conservation regulations are imposed on the treaty hunting rights is still to be decided.

http://themeateater.com/conservation/public-lands-and-waters/supreme-court-issues-opinion-on-herrera-v-wyoming

 

[wymtnpounder]

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.

And area 12 sheep...

 

[BuzzH]

And area 12 sheep...

Maybe so...we'll see.

 

[LostArra]

Your attitude about the game/resource surprises me considering the amount of time and effort you spend on things like elk drawing dates.

I hunt Wyoming but nowhere near the Big Horns and it still bothers me that people like Herrera can "guide" hunters from the tribe into an area coveted by legitimate hunters and shoot bull elk for their heads. I would not have a problem with actually "feeding.their family".

I don't have the same confidence you have in the tribe not over hunting moose or any species. History is not on their side.

BIG INDIAN ELK KILL LEADS TO CALL FOR GAME LAW (Published 1983)

www.nytimes.com

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

OTC tags at NR prices.

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?

oklahoma does now

If Wyoming has to do crow OTC they should charge the NR prices.

 

[BuzzH]

Your attitude about the game/resource surprises me considering the amount of time and effort you spend on things like elk drawing dates.

I hunt Wyoming but nowhere near the Big Horns and it still bothers me that people like Herrera can "guide" hunters from the tribe into an area coveted by legitimate hunters and shoot bull elk for their heads. I would not have a problem with actually "feeding.their family".

I don't have the same confidence you have in the tribe not over hunting moose or any species. History is not on their side.

BIG INDIAN ELK KILL LEADS TO CALL FOR GAME LAW (Published 1983)

www.nytimes.com

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

What choices are there? Best to accept it as the reality it is and move on. The Supreme Court ruled.

I guess a person could stamp their feet, hold their breath, and throw their sucker in the dirt...

 

[BuzzH]

OTC tags at NR prices.

oklahoma does now

If Wyoming has to do crow OTC they should charge the NR prices.

The Crow wont need a State license...where in the treaty signed with the Federal Government, 22 years before Wyoming was a state, is that a stipulation?

 

[cuerro viejo]

Should be.

 

[JWP58]

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.

Come on? Dont you own a car....jeez...

 

[brsnow]

It is likely hunter harvest will be far larger. I recall folks complaining about spearing of walleye in WI while they took their limit home before going back out to catch another.

 

[JWP58]

It is likely hunter harvest will be far larger. I recall folks complaining about spearing of walleye in WI while they took their limit home before going back out to catch another.

I highly doubt it will have any effect on game populations. Native peoples are extremely conscious of conservation issues/actions and will harvest game in a responsible manner. This is all chicken little talk. I mean heck, even if it does impact population numbers it's not like the state spent any money on raising elk, moose, and sheep populations...ever. All of those animals belong to the native people anyway. If they choose to kill them all, so be it. Just drive somewhere else to hunt (duh).

Plus have you heard hunting numbers are down? This could help increase hunter recruitment and diversity. Think big picture y'all.

And lastly, with such vague broad language in the treaty there isnt much wiggle room. Now if there had been statements like "shall not be infringed", it probably would be easier to "legislate" this issue.

 

[KurtR]

It is likely hunter harvest will be far larger. I recall folks complaining about spearing of walleye in WI while they took their limit home before going back out to catch another.

There is a reason those tribes are now ruining lakes in Minnesota they wiped out the Wisconsin lakes. Millacs once was a great walleye fishery. Lake Winnipeg is facing the same problems

 

[WannabeHunter]

For group of "tough mountain men," I see lots of children on this forum.

The actions of a few do not dictate the character of all.

 

[MuleyFever]

For group of "tough mountain men," I see lots of children on this forum.

The actions of a few do not dictate the character of all.

But it only takes the action of a few to ruin things for all.

 

[TreeWalking]

I highly doubt it will have any effect on game populations. Native peoples are extremely conscious of conservation issues/actions and will harvest game in a responsible manner. This is all chicken little talk. I mean heck, even if it does impact population numbers it's not like the state spent any money on raising elk, moose, and sheep populations...ever. All of those animals belong to the native people anyway. If they choose to kill them all, so be it. Just drive somewhere else to hunt (duh).

Plus have you heard hunting numbers are down? This could help increase hunter recruitment and diversity. Think big picture y'all.

And lastly, with such vague broad language in the treaty there isnt much wiggle room. Now if there had been statements like "shall not be infringed", it probably would be easier to "legislate" this issue.

How are the deer and elk doing up on the reservation? I heard they are few and far between with ineffective game management fo the game animals. Would that be accurate recap of elk and deer game populations that are on Crow lands? That implies a lot of shooting goes on until is hard to find more critters to shoot.

 

[jspradley]

For group of "tough mountain men," I see lots of children on this forum.

The actions of a few do not dictate the character of all.

One thing I've learned is that too many hunters tend to be the biggest crybabies there are...

 

[WYLight]

BS

 

[cuerro viejo]

For group of "tough mountain men," I see lots of children on this forum.

The actions of a few do not dictate the character of all.

I forgot what was the reasoning again it went to the Supreme Court? Substance hunting right?

 

[WannabeHunter]

I forgot what was the reasoning again it went to the Supreme Court? Substance hunting right?

I have not read the treaty, therefore I do not know if there is language limiting the Crow's hunting rights to substance hunting only. But I believe the Supreme Court was really ruling on Wyoming's claim that once Wyoming became a state then the land became "occupied" and therefore certain parts of the treaty were voided. The Supreme Court disagreed and said that the treaty was upheld after statehood.

Is the right to US citizenship something "better"? Historically they weren't citizens at the time of the treaty, that was granted later (1924), sadly it took longer for voting rights (1957) but here in present day and age native Americans are "given" full US citizenship and voting rights, something that wasn't part of the original deal. Obviously it wasn't a treaty amendment to pass these laws but en mass the people of these sovereign nations were given citizenship offering them the freedom to live/travel/vote/etc. among the united states and not just their reservation and treaty provisions. With that in mind I have a hard time wrapping my head around a certain race of US citizen that is granted rights that other US citizens are not granted on US soil.

This is probably the only argument presented in this forum, I feel might hold some water. I'm not a legal scholar, but there might be an additional way the state could re-try the case making this argument?

My original comment about "children" is in response to the immature back-and-forth and lack of substance one can find across this forum.

 

[BroodBuster]

The thing that bothered me the most while skimming the descent opinion was the fact it states “The heads removed and most of the meat left to rot.”

It does seem they ruled strictly on the treaty rights and not on what should of been a simple poaching case .