Herrera Case, Native American game rights on Nat Forest?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Doc7

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
1,203
Location
Southern VA
As I understand it this case involved a poacher from the Crow tribe killing several elk and other species out of season, out of his state, and on National Forest land. His defense cited that the Crow tribe treaty says they have an unabridged right to hunt on uninhabited lands.

Does this decision mean crow members can now hunt throughout the USA on National forest lands 365 days a year?

“The court sided with Herrera and found that the treaty with the tribe did not expire when Wyoming became a state in 1890. They also ruled against Wyoming's argument that Bighorn National Forest, where Herrera was hunting, was not "unoccupied lands" as required under the treaty.”
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...-wyoming-hunter-as-gorsuch-joins-liberals?amp
 
LRDGCO said:
The head of Fish & Wildlife for the Crow Tribe was convicted for poaching hunting on a private ranch in Sheridan County WY. This is an ongoing issue.

This will be appealed by the State of WY.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. The case you cite was on private land. The case SCOTUS ruled on was Federal land.

There's no appellate court over SCOTUS. Who is WY going to appeal this decision to?
 
When hunting in Wyoming decades ago, a shady character from Buffalo offered to guide me on an elk hunt in the Bighorns even though the elk season wasn't open yet. He said that after killing the elk, it would be taken out through the Crow reservation across the Montana state line. Of course, I declined but have often wondered how many "hunters?" have taken him up on his offer and how many elk have been killed illegally by this creep.
 
Instead of relying on the report of the decision, I went and read the decision myself. SCOTUS decisions are not usually complicated. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
So basically, Congress would need to take action to modify all Indian treaties with a law that informed all of the Indian nations subject to such treaty wording that all National Forest lands are now considered "occupied" by the individual state governments. This of course will be challenged in court. That still would leave BLM lands.

Congress might also clarify the wording, as it mentions border areas with Whites..., so the argument could be that the Indians are only allowed to hunt in "unoccupied lands" that actually border their tribal lands. So Mr. Herrera, or any other Indian, could not go hunting outside of the law in the George Washington National Forest, for example. Right now I'm not sure if the SCOTUS decision would stop that from happening.

As for guides....well the Indian guide might not be restricted by state laws, but non-Indian clients sure would be prohibited. The treaty allows the Indians to hunt, not to guide non-Indians on hunts.

LD
 
Indian lands are Nations with a Nation, like the Marshall Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa, and most states added since the original 13.
The court upheld a treaty written and signed by the Fed Gov.

The Constitution says that the US gov must negotiate with these Nations, which , until the 1880’s was usually a declaration of war, and subsequent subjugation and assimilation’s of the lands.
The survivors were concentrated on Reservation, and administered by the Feds.
Evidently the courts are recognizing the perticular treatie

Treaties were made with these Nationals, and absolutely everyone of them was violated bu the US Gov.



That was then, down south in the 48, but Alaska has a different story, as it was not conquered by the US, it was a silent takeover, ........and at statehood, the lands ownership questions of those who lived in the state, weather Native or not, was kicked into figuring out who owned what.."
Being that the majority of lands were under Native feet, they got together as recognized tribes with Rights to the lands,, and in 1971 made a settlement with eth Gov, with lands divisions going to the state, the Feds and those who were already here, Native or Homesteders. Native folks got 13%, plus personal settlements went to the two heads of household, 164 acres each, not the kids or any adults that resided in the home of their parents, or lived in other places, even collage or the military.
The treaty was called the Alaska Native Lands Claim Act, and Native Alaskans were recognized as the original land holders and therefor entitled to lands and compensation for resources extracted against their wishes.
Land management Corperations were established with common lands and their development, and tribal members became shareholders in the various areas. Some corps make great money’s, some kept hunters hunting, Some lands, up north, had oil, around here is a lead/zink mine, some have fish, some , in the southeast, have timber.
They also developed a health care system for their villages, training health aids, and then establishing basic health care in each village.
In exchange for this, they gave up tittle and further claim to federal lands, monuments, BLM, Parks, Wildlife Refuges, etc that make up 80% of our region. However, they retain the right to access, Hunt and fish these lands.
Federal laws say subsistence users must be local to the area, so it really limits the use.
 
While that's interesting for Alaska, the treaty for the Crow and I think two other nations with nearly identical treaties are what is the question. I don't think they are closely related to the one in Alaska. I know they are not close to other treaties. ;)

LD
 
True, Dave, reservations systems and the USGov interactions with Natives in Alaska were very different.

Times changed, and , thankfully, so did the interactions.

While Indians were defeated in combat, by the US Gov, the Gov was defeated by Alaska Natives in court.

Seems the Indians have been using the courts....... :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top