Quantcast

Herrera Case, Native American game rights on Nat Forest?

Discussion in 'Hunting' started by Doc7, May 20, 2019.

  1. Doc7

    Doc7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,146
    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?

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...-wyoming-hunter-as-gorsuch-joins-liberals?amp
     
  2. Fine Figure of a Man

    Fine Figure of a Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    3,001
    Location:
    Iowa
    And if so can they shoot wild horses, California condors, polar bears and baby seals?
     
  3. AZAndy
    • Contributing Member

    AZAndy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,726
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ, USA
    This was a Supreme Court decision; who would they appeal it to? ;)
     
    Fine Figure of a Man and Doc7 like this.
  4. GRIZ22

    GRIZ22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,606
    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?
     
  5. Patocazador

    Patocazador Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,034
    Location:
    Central Florida
    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.
     
    Armored farmer likes this.
  6. Loyalist Dave

    Loyalist Dave Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,733
    Location:
    People's Republic of Maryland
    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
     
  7. caribou

    caribou Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,030
    Location:
    North West Alaska
    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.
     
  8. Loyalist Dave

    Loyalist Dave Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,733
    Location:
    People's Republic of Maryland
    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
     
  9. caribou

    caribou Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    2,030
    Location:
    North West Alaska
    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
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice