Crow Tribe poaching vs Wyoming

[Bobbyboe]

I took the time to read through the treaty and it was an interesting. Per the written agreement, any man with a family is entitled to 320 acres of their choosing. In addition, any single man is entitled to 80 acres. Also, the US government agreed to annually furnish physicians, teachers, carpenters, millers, engineers, farmers and blacksmiths. Do Indians still get these things?

This treaty was clearly written in language of the time period, with provisions applicable to that time period. I have no idea how this treaty is still valid. That being said, it looks like an "man" can vote on amendments. If there is a majority vote, the amendment passes. So, theoretically the Government could offer or propose a buyout to amend this treaty.

The post above makes a valid point about the Indian's now being US Citizens. Because of this, is it possible that the treaty is now void? The treaty clearly says that all Indians will make the reservation their PERMANENT homes and will NOT make permanent homes elsewhere. Hmm...... Seems as though they violated the treaty, as it was written. We all know that Indians now have equal rights as US Citizens, and are rightfully no longer bound to the treaty agreement regarding residency. Why would the Government be bound to the agreement about hunting rights? Seems to me the treaty should be void.

 

[Bobbyboe]

To add, I feel that the Supreme Court decision was made by political agenda. Any reasonable person reading the original treaty would realize that it is no longer applicable in modern times, both by the Indians and the US Government.

 

[Fatcamp]

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.

When I think about how many elk me and my five best friends could kill if allowed this ruling concerns me. The Bighorns are an amazing place, and it would only take a small group who were thinking in terms of money to really impact that herd.

If that concern equates to crying so be it, but the reality is that the entire big game population of that mountain range is in jeopardy.

 

[BuzzH]

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

No, hunting rights on unoccupied lands.

 

[Still Hunter]

Sad situation. The wildlife will be the ones to suffer. It will not take a lot of people killing uncontrollably to decimate the wildlife the same way the africans have decimated the wild game in africa. Uncontrolled and unregulated killing will be detrimental to the entire outdoor industry. Why will sportsman continue to spend dollars in licensing fees to fund a DOW that has no control over the flagrant killings of game animals.

What's the definition of "Occupied Land"? Place a Game Warden in a resident home, State funded in each National Forest. Now it is occupied.

 

[woody6899]

Is it just the crow treaty that has this wording?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

Is it just the crow treaty that has this wording?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is similar wording in other treaties recognizing hunting, fishing, gathering rights.

 

[brsnow]

To add, I feel that the Supreme Court decision was made by political agenda. Any reasonable person reading the original treaty would realize that it is no longer applicable in modern times, both by the Indians and the US Government.

The treaty carries the same legal weight as the constitution, do you think the constitution should be viewed as no longer applicable to modern times? Only weapons from that time covered under the 2nd? Only for militia use, not covered for sport?

 

[Bobbyboe]

The treaty carries the same legal weight as the constitution, do you think the constitution should be viewed as no longer applicable to modern times? Only weapons from that time covered under the 2nd? Only for militia use, not covered for sport?

I understand what you're saying, but i feel that this situation is different. (Not that my or your opinion really matters) The treaty cited in this case is not being followed by both the Government and the Crow tribe. Per the treaty, which carries the same legal wight as the Constitution, all Indians must reside on Reservation. Do they follow those treaty rules? I'm guessing the answer is, no. Does the Government supply physicians, teachers, blacksmith or engineers? I'm guessing the answer is, no. Does the Crow tribe provide 320 acres to any/all men who ask for it? I don't know. If they did, over 1 million acres would be homesteaded, per the current Crow population. (Rough math)

The way this treaty was drafted was to ensure that the Indians had proper means to survive, such as food, shelter, education, healthcare. The hunting segment was added so that people didn't starve to death. There weren't grocery stores in the 1860's where food could be purchased. If the hunting clause was excluded most would have starved to death and the Reservation would have been uninhabitable. Pretty simple.

Make no mistake, the Indians got a raw deal. What I'm simply saying is that, in my opinion, the treaty should be void for several reasons. 1st, hunting is no longer needed as a year round food source. By allowing unregulated hunting your are putting a fragile resource at risk. ALL AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO ENJOY THE RESOURCE. 2nd, the treaty is no longer being followed to a T by both sides. 3rd, the Indians are now US Citizens and are afforded all rights any other American has.

My opinion is, that no American should receive special treatment based off of their race, religion, sex or skin color. There were many wrongs done in the past, I get that, but you cant make right by preferential treatment.

The Supreme Court vote was 5 to 4. That alone should tell you this was a close decision. A supposed conservative judge flopped sides in favor of a liberal vote. This decision has little to do with the treaty, but rather more to do with politics. It was a terrible decision, which may or may not have ramifications down the road.

Also, the US Constitution can and has been amended many times to fit modern norms and beliefs.

 

[brsnow]

I understand what you're saying, but i feel that this situation is different. (Not that my or your opinion really matters) The treaty cited in this case is not being followed by both the Government and the Crow tribe. Per the treaty, which carries the same legal wight as the Constitution, all Indians must reside on Reservation. Do they follow those treaty rules? I'm guessing the answer is, no. Does the Government supply physicians, teachers, blacksmith or engineers? I'm guessing the answer is, no. Does the Crow tribe provide 320 acres to any/all men who ask for it? I don't know. If they did, over 1 million acres would be homesteaded, per the current Crow population. (Rough math)

The way this treaty was drafted was to ensure that the Indians had proper means to survive, such as food, shelter, education, healthcare. The hunting segment was added so that people didn't starve to death. There weren't grocery stores in the 1860's where food could be purchased. If the hunting clause was excluded most would have starved to death and the Reservation would have been uninhabitable. Pretty simple.

Make no mistake, the Indians got a raw deal. What I'm simply saying is that, in my opinion, the treaty should be void for several reasons. 1st, hunting is no longer needed as a year round food source. By allowing unregulated hunting your are putting a fragile resource at risk. ALL AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO ENJOY THE RESOURCE. 2nd, the treaty is no longer being followed to a T by both sides. 3rd, the Indians are now US Citizens and are afforded all rights any other American has.

My opinion is, that no American should receive special treatment based off of their race, religion, sex or skin color. There were many wrongs done in the past, I get that, but you cant make right by preferential treatment.

The Supreme Court vote was 5 to 4. That alone should tell you this was a close decision. A supposed conservative judge flopped sides in favor of a liberal vote. This decision has little to do with the treaty, but rather more to do with politics. It was a terrible decision, which may or may not have ramifications down the road.

Also, the US Constitution can and has been amended many times to fit modern norms and beliefs.

We no longer have a well regulated militia either but it doesn’t invalidate the 2nd. The last major 2nd challenge which case name escapes me was a 1 vote difference as well. The court decisions are worth reading in addition to the treaties.

 

[Billinsd]

The big question I have, is what does this mean and how will it affect other Western States?

 

[Billinsd]

We no longer have a well regulated militia either but it doesn’t invalidate the 2nd. The last major 2nd challenge which case name escapes me was a 1 vote difference as well. The court decisions are worth reading in addition to the treaties.

The court decisions mean everything, because they interpret the meaning of the Treaty. Same, with 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment states that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon." In my opinion the right to bear arms have been severely infringed upon. Bill

 

[JWP58]

We no longer have a well regulated militia either but it doesn’t invalidate the 2nd. The last major 2nd challenge which case name escapes me was a 1 vote difference as well. The court decisions are worth reading in addition to the treaties.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[brsnow]

This decision was 100% political. Look at how the judges voted.

The Supreme Court only ruled that the original treaty was not abrogated when Wyoming became a state.

Wyoming courts will now attempt to invalidate the treaty based on the "unoccupied" definition. Here are some definitions of unoccupied:

Not being used.
Bare, empty, barren.
Unattended.
Abandoned, deserted, emptied, vacated.
Without anyone in it or not busy.
Not occupied by an enemy.
Not occupied by inhabitants.
Not engaged in work.
Idle.
Unemployed.
Not lived in.

I don't know fellas, it took me all of about 3 minutes to look these definitions up. I'm sure the Wyoming Attorney General and his associates will do a more thorough job than me in putting together our case. It seems to me like the Bighorn National Forest might be occupied.

The deciding vote was a Trump nominee. Invalidating a treaty is on the same level of invalidating an amendment of the constitution. Unlikely.

 

[brsnow]

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Please post the whole amendment...

 

[JWP58]

Please post the whole amendment...

Please go f yourself

We get it, you have W guilt and hate the rights bestowed upon you by your creator...

 

[MuleyFever]

Please go f yourself

We get it, you have W guilt and hate the rights bestowed upon you by your creator...

Nice

 

[brsnow]

Please go f yourself

We get it, you have W guilt and hate the rights bestowed upon you by your creator...

I have integrity and honor. I believe you keep your word.

 

[MAVinWA]

hope the Crow tribe has integrity, honor respect for wildlife management.

in WA State, the Yakimas, Quinault, Muckleshoot tribes only respect the mighty $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[JWP58]

I have integrity and honor. I believe you keep your word.

Who's word? They were given citizenship 60yrs after the treaty was agreed to. If they reject their U.S. citizenship and subsidies I'd be all for it. But they wont and all of us living in the here and now will pay for transgressions of the past, which we had no control over. The liberal utopia is here, and flourishing.

While in the mean time we the citizen just keep taking in the rear. Damn I wish I had some righteous native blood in me........