Interesting poaching case from Wyoming going before Supreme Court

[MtGomer]

I live with the natives in SD, have for 20 years. The people most offended by by the "Indian" moniker aren't Indians. They call themselves Indians, we call them Indians. I interact with them on a daily basis. Feign some outrage with those that don't know any better.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Bingo
I’ve lived adjacent to nearly my whole life and worked on a great part of my career, Indian Reservations. Indians don’t give a shit about Indian/Native American. It’s just a pc talking point of racist, white liberals. They Keep telling Indians they are weak, they are victims, that they are looking out for them, so they can control them. And it’s working.

As for the court case.. I hope to see them rule that the lands are ‘occupied’. The techniques that have led to the wildlife population-or lack of- on the Crow reservation are not something a hunter or conservationist wants to see on Montana or Wyoming’s Public lands.

 

[MallardSX2]

The whole Native American thing is a joke. Their ancestors migrated to America just like everyone else did, just a bit earlier. They just didn’t pop up from the ground. They’re just trying to play the system to be able to go out and kill whatever they want whenever they want to. Nothing more

X2.

If they want to claim their heritage make them kill animals with homemade longbows and arrows. All of which must be constructed with ancient techniques. They must also be required to use native apparel. Moccasins and all.

Meanwhile they stand there in the picture wearing underarmour gear laughing at us. Pisses me right the hell off.

 

[jspradley]

X2.

If they want to claim their heritage make them kill animals with homemade longbows and arrows. All of which must be constructed with ancient techniques. They must also be required to use native apparel. Moccasins and all.

Meanwhile they stand there in the picture wearing underarmour gear laughing at us. Pisses me right the hell off.

I can't say myself or many of us would do any differently in their shoes but it does seem that they stretch the limits of the old "Ummm... yep.. that's our... umm.. sacred ancient tradition" at times.

 

[sneaky]

Oh, I've had them tell me on the reservations before in Montana that they ride around in trucks and shoot deer on the run when they take off

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Chesapeake173]

The treaty language that we have for the 1836 Treaty of Washington that we deal with here in Michigan has some very similar (if not identical) language when it refers to occupied lands. The state has entered into a consent decree with the tribes which gives them the ability to set seasons and limits separate of state guidelines.

As for the public vs private the Consent Decree does not allow the exercise of those expanded seasons on private property unless that property is owned by a tribal member.

I am cautiously optimistic that this is going to be heard by the SC. If they rule against the tribes it should mean great things for us here in Michigan. In theory the “occupied lands” definition would apply here as well. Unfortunately if they rule in favor of the tribes it won’t change much for us but you folks out west will see a sickening change.

If nothing else, I’m happy this is being heard by this court now rather than a few years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk