Crow Tribe poaching vs Wyoming

woody6899

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2018
Messages
14
If the land has logging or cattle leases it is occupied in my book.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Kelk

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
285
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
 

blackdawg

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
335
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
Great grand pappy should have left them a few dang buffalo, the political climate of today is ripe for anyone trying to settle the score against the white man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

247247

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2015
Messages
20
Location
Dayton Wyoming
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?
 

BuzzH

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
305
Location
Wyoming
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.
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.
 

BuzzH

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
305
Location
Wyoming
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?
Not that I'm aware of. The treaties were signed with the Federal Government, not with the States.
 

KurtR

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
778
Location
South Dakota
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?

the states dont do it the tribes have to set up rules on reservations even with them they are rarely followed and enforced even less
 

dreamingbig

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
2,557
Location
Washington
Is anyone here a lawyer proficient in treaty law? I'd like to see a professional opinion rather than rubbish.
Read up on the Boldt decision. February 12, 1974.

This case is the grand daddy of them all. I have wondered for years why other tribes haven’t taken advantage of the resource as much as Washington tribes have.

Sorry to hear that Wyoming is now feeling the pain.

WA state tried to get it appealed but the Supreme Court upheld in 1979.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
OP
L

LostArra

Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
1,510
Location
Oklahoma
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.
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.

 

204guy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
513
Location
Buffalo, WY
Funny... kinda. I can't see a long term hunting or conservation benefit to this ruling. But I was just thinking that this ruling actually strengthens the plt transfer argument, depending how far the tribe wants to push things.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

ChrisS

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
688
Location
A fix back east
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."
 

BuzzH

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
305
Location
Wyoming
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."
The question isn't what the Wyoming elk herd is worth...the question is what tribal hunting rights are worth into perpetuity. The other question is whether or not the Crow are going to be willing sellers of their rights. Probably not.
 

BuzzH

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
305
Location
Wyoming
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.

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.
 

Fatcamp

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2017
Messages
695
Location
Sodak
Not that I'm aware of. The treaties were signed with the Federal Government, not with the States.
Yet at this point it is argued incessantly that the game is the property of the state, not the federal government. So how is it that 100 years of conservation work can be ruined by this one ruling. The game on areas they control is almost gone, kind of like walleye on Mille Lacs, they will destroy a resource that sportsmen, not the federal government, have produced.

The next argument will be that all areas should be open to unlimited native hunting and fishing due to removal of tribes under duress. Really, give us a liberal SC and it isn't hard to envision.
 

BuzzH

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
305
Location
Wyoming
Article 6:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
 

204guy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
513
Location
Buffalo, WY
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.
 

BuzzH

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
305
Location
Wyoming
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.
You don't own a means of transportation? I hunt all over Wyoming.
 
Top