Crow Indian (Herrera) wins Supreme Court case against Wyoming

Guess they are allow to as per the ruling.
Lets see what the next ruling will say about occuping NF lands.
"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
From: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-la...erals-in-win-for-indian-tribe-in-hunting-case :


Sotomayor noted two ways in which the win for Herrera is limited.
First, she wrote, the ruling that the Bighorn National Forest isn't categorically ?occupied? doesn't mean that all areas within the forest are unoccupied. So Wyoming can still argue that the place where Herrera hunted ?was used in such a way that it was ?occupied? within the meaning of the 1868 Treaty,? Sotomayor wrote.

The justice also observed that Wyoming can still press the argument that ?the application of state conservation regulations to Crow Tribe members exercising the 1868 Treaty right is necessary for conservation.? ( I thought that was what the G&F warden was enforcing?)

The high court sent the case back to Wyoming state court for further litigation which could resolve these issues.

I guess we need to stay tuned....
 
The Wyoming Wildlife Magazine had a big article on this case last month. There was a map showing approximate boundaries of that 1868 treaty and another treaty for another tribe in Idaho that took in much of the Wyoming Range and Teton area. I wonder if those National Park lands such as Grand Teton and Yellowstone still have treaty hunting rights on them and or if Congress ever abolished those rights? This could create another dynamic when trying to scout mule deer in August and a group of Indians are rifle hunting those bucks in the Salt River Range... I'd say the State's of Idaho and Wyoming would have a hard time proving 'conservation' when those regions are all general licenses'. And as for the 'occupied' portion, would a USFS Ranger Station or cabin be considered as occupying 2 or 3 million acres? What a can of worms!
 
I think the bigger issue is shooting them on the winter range vs. in the alpine. At least in the alpine, they have to hike in a ways. They could knock out a lot of big bucks on the winter range quickly. Colorado has been dealing with a similar situation with Ute in the Brunot Agreement. It would be interesting to hear from some people from Colorado that know the ins and outs of that agreement, but I think the Utes could shoot Bighorns and deer on winter range.
 
If you read most treaties it's pretty clear they have the right to hunt. this is why Oregon has pretty much tried to cut deals with the tribes to minimize the damage, and it's sort of working. the state figured if they took it to the high court they'd lose and now it looks like they were right. thanks WY , I'm not sure there is any reason for them to make deals now.


Being a realist I see only one way out of this, buy their rights out. most will sell for the right price.

















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>Maybe we can get the Crow
>to hunt grizzly bears and
>wolves too. :)

You laugh. But in reality, take all that cash the lobbyists like BGF take in, and set up a bounty for the tribes on wolves. These treaties outdated the ESA, and there were wolves on the landscape then

"I don't care if the season is closed. Get off your butt and go hunt them"

TRISTATE
3/11/19

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
From the ruling:
its members would ?have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon . . . and peace subsists . . . on the borders of the hunting districts.?

So, are we assuming that this only includes forest service (Bighorn NF) land as discussed in the ruling? Do the "unoccupied lands" of the United States include "unoccupied" State of Wyoming land? Reason I'm wondering is because there are 3 major wintering grounds that are on State lands along the front the Bighorns.

Feeling like it is 1850 instead of 2019.
 
I wonder if I'm Crow Indian??? Hmm?? Ha ha
Seriously, if it was a deal, then it's a deal. Buy them out out of the treaty.
It?ll be interesting to see what happens.

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
@mm_founder on Instagram
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
>I wonder if I'm Crow Indian???
>Hmm?? Ha ha
>Seriously, if it was a deal,
>then it's a deal. Buy
>them out out of the
>treaty.
>It?ll be interesting to see what
>happens.
>
>Brian Latturner
>MonsterMuleys.com
>@mm_founder on Instagram
>LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
>on Facebook!

Couple problems with that:

1. The tribes aren't going to sell treaty rights.
2. The US Government couldn't afford the down payment on the asking price.
 
>>Maybe we can get the Crow
>>to hunt grizzly bears and
>>wolves too. :)
>
>You laugh. But in reality,
>take all that cash the
>lobbyists like BGF take in,
>and set up a bounty
>for the tribes on wolves.
> These treaties outdated the
>ESA, and there were wolves
>on the landscape then
>
>"I don't care if the season
>is closed. Get off your
>butt and go hunt them"
>
>
>TRISTATE
>3/11/19
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

We can set up a lottery system. Shoot a wolf or grizzly for a chance at a prize. Unlimited entries too.
 
So your telling me if your crow Indian you can go to unit 5 and kill a ram every day or go up to Jackson outside the park boundry lay down a whole herd of buffalo mid summer if you so please?

Or does if have to be on the res?



37205hornkiller.jpg
 
>So your telling me if your
>crow Indian you can go
>to unit 5 and kill
>a ram every day or
>go up to Jackson outside
>the park boundry lay down
>a whole herd of buffalo
>mid summer if you so
>please?
>
>Or does if have to be
>on the res?
>
>
>
>
37205hornkiller.jpg

This guy was hunting on national forest land
 
LAST EDITED ON May-21-19 AT 11:05AM (MST)[p]The conditions that existed at the time of the treaty are no longer present.

The treaties were conditions of a cease fire and peace talks between two waring entities, the US gov't and the tribes. The tribes lost and in the "benevolence" and traditions of the USA, gave the conquered a pretty good deal. Much better than Mexico, Russia, or France would've done.

The treaties are null and void today. The tribes are all US citizens with the same legal rights and priveleges we all have. They do not need extra benefits above and beyond anyone else. They have wifi for heaven's sakes...
 
The treaties are null and void?

Not according to the United States Supreme Court, you know the highest court we have.
 
The treaty says they can "hunt" on unoccupied lands of the United States. I'm not sure that they couldn't hunt in Grand Teton & Yellowstone. If national forest lands are "unoccupied", it follows that National Park lands are too....
 
>The treaties are null and void?
>
>
>Not according to the United States
>Supreme Court, you know the
>highest court we have.

That's because the treaties don't directly affect the members of the highest court and who says they're right? A black robe? Hardly.

The purpose to the treaties today are null and void. Tribal sovereignty only exists inside the reservations, yet somehow extends beyond those limits and shouldn't.

You strike a treaty to preserve life and end the cost of war. Not to allow a special advantage over others because of religion and skin tone decades later.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-21-19 AT 09:48PM (MST)[p]>>The treaties are null and void?
>>
>>
>>Not according to the United States
>>Supreme Court, you know the
>>highest court we have.
>
>That's because the treaties don't directly
>affect the members of the
>highest court and who says
>they're right? A black
>robe? Hardly.
>
>The purpose to the treaties today
>are null and void.
>Tribal sovereignty only exists inside
>the reservations, yet somehow extends
>beyond those limits and shouldn't.
>
>
>You strike a treaty to preserve
>life and end the cost
>of war. Not to
>allow a special advantage over
>others because of religion and
>skin tone decades later.

You very obviously don't understand treaties, or how the law is applied to same.

Study up, its never too late to learn.

Whether or not you like the ruling by the SC is irrelevant. They decide, you don't.

Let me guess, they're only "right" when you agree with their decisions?

Time to move forward.
 
Possibly, but not a sure thing. SCOTUS has never completely defined unoccupied lands. However, there have been lower court rulings that prohibited tribal treaty hunting in national parks on the basis that those lands were occupied in the sense that they were set aside for preservation and hunting was explicitly not allowed in the park. So, it seems reasonable that SCOTUS or other courts could apply the same logic and keep national parks off limits. Its definitely not clear...
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-21-19
>AT 09:48?PM (MST)
>
>>>The treaties are null and void?
>>>
>>>
>>>Not according to the United States
>>>Supreme Court, you know the
>>>highest court we have.
>>
>>That's because the treaties don't directly
>>affect the members of the
>>highest court and who says
>>they're right? A black
>>robe? Hardly.
>>
>>The purpose to the treaties today
>>are null and void.
>>Tribal sovereignty only exists inside
>>the reservations, yet somehow extends
>>beyond those limits and shouldn't.
>>
>>
>>You strike a treaty to preserve
>>life and end the cost
>>of war. Not to
>>allow a special advantage over
>>others because of religion and
>>skin tone decades later.
>
>You very obviously don't understand treaties,
>or how the law is
>applied to same.
>
>Study up, its never too late
>to learn.
>
>Whether or not you like the
>ruling by the SC is
>irrelevant. They decide, you don't.
>
>
>Let me guess, they're only "right"
>when you agree with their
>decisions?
>
>Time to move forward.

Buzz, buzz, buzz - boy, you just don't get it do you and have no idea what tribal politics can do?

I'm not the one who needs to study up, son...
 
Interesting article. I find it odd that all these Wyoming officials think they have a clue when it comes to tribal treaty rights...trying to downplay a precedent setting loss and temporarily save a little face I suppose?
 
" Unoccupied " means land not privately owned. you have to remember at the time these were written the government didn't give a FF about hunting rights. still don't really.


You can't steal something you don't like the price on. it's not the 1800's anymore.


In OR sometimes the state cuts a deal where public hunters and tribal hunters both get tags. what the tribe gets out of it is a managed herd and reintroductions in new areas to hunt along with public hunters. they know left to their own devices they would wipe the game out as they did on the rez. so that is the carrot.

The Supreme court is the final word. now it's what do hunters want to do, what will the tribes do and can we afford it. if we can't buy their rights out maybe we can " lease " them and pay them not to hunt, or they can hunt a certain amount in the lease. or if they won't do anything we sit back and whine.
















Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Here's my take, I posted this on another forum.
---------------------------------------

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.
 
>LAST EDITED ON May-23-19
>AT 12:06?PM (MST)
>
>LAST EDITED ON May-23-19
>AT 09:39?AM (MST)
>
>https://www.powelltribune.com/stories/no-changes-to-hunting-seasons
>
>
>Darn link, just go to powell
>tribune and read the article.
>from what I read nothing
>will change.

Article states Commissioners believe native Americans will not be arrested...

?They [Wyoming game wardens] just probably won't be arresting any Indians,? offered Commissioner Joe Tilden.

?Probably not,? Livingston agreed.

Will be interesting to see how game wardens deal with it.
 
So is just Crow's or can any Indians that is on a rez meaning Souix,Blackfoot, Ute ect

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
The time for arguments was before the supreme court made a ruling. the fat lady has sung.














Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Not sure if your joking about being raided, but that line of thinking is interesting. The treaty does not go into blood quantum. So, if a person is 1/32 Indian, could they argue they have a right to hunt unoccupied land? This may be an unintended consequence of the ruling. I'm confident that this is not the end. Pull out the popcorn, it's going to be an entertaining show.
 
I'm not joking at all! Reality is there will be plenty of takers for the cookies the supreme court handed out.
 
The treaties are valid and nothing has invalidated them.

Anyone that thinks otherwise, better drop the crack pipe.

Ochocokid has it right...Wyoming should have looked at this wayyyy before it reached the Supreme court.

Also, anyone familiar with article 6 of the Constitution?

May want to brush up on what you forgot in Freshman year civics:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I think the Supreme Court got this one right.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-26-19 AT 11:42AM (MST)[p]If anything in the treaties is outdated or invalid due to over a century of time passed, I guess Congress need to get to work.

Other than that, there will be a few extra Crow hunters on unoccupied lands of these United States starting about now; no matter what G&F or the Governor says in a statement.
 
Yes
Now the question is how much Indian blood 1/2 1/8 1/32 1/64 is needed to be a free land hunter,

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]
 
To be a tribal member you must meet the blood quantum. that can vary from 1/2 to 1/32 depending on the tribes wishes. my mother's tribe only requires 1/32.

I'm not sure what the Crow nation's standard is but it's not just the Crow that matter. this kicks the door open to many tribes as their treaties are similar. the Nez Perce treaty plainly allows hunting most anywhere. now it's official.


I do think it's unfortunate that an agreement made when tries traveled on foot and hunted with a few rifles and primitive weapons applies to 4x4's, quads and 1000 yard rifles today. but it does, that's what happens when you're trying so hard to steal something that you give up a lot in the process you never thought you'd care about someday.


There isn't much money can't fix. most tribal members are poor as church mice . if they have the money to buy meat they may elect to do that over plundering public lands. lets make a deal and fund it.







Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Wow, this dude is crushing it, he has killed 9 B&C Bighorns:

"Sublett said he has used the treaty rights to hunt bighorns in Hells Canyon and some neighboring areas since the mid-1970s. He said he has killed 10 bighorns and that nine of them rank as trophies by scoring more than 180 points in Boone and Crockett scoring."


"The Boone and Crockett Club said it recognizes Sublett's ram because of the treaty and because the tribe has a management plan for sustainable hunting of bighorns."

I wonder what that management plan entails? Do they have a drawing?

If everyone went out and shot a bighorn every couple years in Idaho, they would all be gone!
 
I still find it unbelievable that the federal government sets up the FS which stops occupation, then 100 years later says "it's unoccupied". Not sure who the hell built the roads, I guess they've always been there. Or the ranger stations. Or cattlemen/snowmobile cabins. Or the same. Or water diversion.

According to SCOTUS I suppose all this just happened.

It's asinine. The CROW signed a treaty to end their irradication. The irradication coming at the hands of settlers/army who WERE OCCUPYING the very land they stood on.

Second. I buy a hunting license, not a killing licence.

Since lawyers seem to want to be cute with words, where in the treaty is it written the CROW have a right to kill? A right to HUNT(meaning pursue), I guess, but in 2019, hunting and killing ain't the same. Just like apparently hundreds of thousands living in Wyoming means it's not occupied.




"I don't care if the season is closed. Get off your butt and go hunt them"

TRISTATE
3/11/19

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Im not a lawyer or the smartest cookie in the room.

Anyone else see a few avenues here?

This may prove a solid tactic to set precedent against the anti hunter one day!

Kinda thinking we should support this.
 
OCCUPIED:


of a place, especially a country) taken control of by military conquest or settlement.
"the occupied territories"

I know Buzz is enamored with this decision. But the simple, easy to understand concept, OCCUPIED, means just that.

Language is language. It's put there to define meaning.

"Shall not be infringed"
"Till death do us part"

Some phrases or words are put on paper for a REASON.

The CROW. Sitting at a table. Surrounded by military. We're occupied when they signed to stop their destruction.
They understood EXACTLY what occupied meant. They had seen it come to the land they inhabited.

The CROW aren't stupid. Neither were the whites signing with them. If the United States had intended for the CROW to have unfettered killing of game, forever, the treaty would have said FOREVER.

Those same occupiers that according to Buzz gave away hunting forever, were in direct competition for that resource. So we would have to believe that the United States government chose to feed CROW over feeding settlers. Really?

A government that days before was irradiating CROW suddenly decided to starve it's armies and settlers?

I guess they don't teach English or History in law school. The words are simple and straightforward; OCCUPIED

As is the history, the United States cared zero about the well being of the CROW. They sure weren't giving them rights to the game that would feed settlers in their further expansion.








"I don't care if the season is closed. Get off your butt and go hunt them"

TRISTATE
3/11/19

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
For the purposes and consideration of feral horses, all BLM and Forest Service land will be considered UNOCCUPIED and is open to all Tribes for hunting year around.

Just an idea.
 
>For the purposes and consideration of
>feral horses, all BLM and
>Forest Service land will be
>considered UNOCCUPIED and is open
>to all Tribes for hunting
>year around.
>
>Just an idea.

Best idea yet, Eel
Now we just need to convince them that horse is better tasting than elk!

Zeke

#livelikezac
 
This really has nothing to do with tribal hunting rights. it's still not too late for hunting organizations to pony up and buy as many tribal rights as possible.

Stealing the natives rights won't work this time. so it's pony up or shut up. I'm willing to pay my share are you ? . between the wolves and legal unregulated hunting if we don't do something it's game over for lots of areas.
 
Togwotee said:
This really has nothing to do with tribal hunting rights. it's still not too late for hunting organizations to pony up and buy as many tribal rights as possible.

Stealing the natives rights won't work this time. so it's pony up or shut up. I'm willing to pay my share are you ? . between the wolves and legal unregulated hunting if we don't do something it's game over for lots of areas.
Click to expand...
No reason to break out the wallet. Tribal hunting is going the same way it is for non-tribal hunters, lack of interest.

I was talking to a tribal warden on the Flathead Reservation about elk hunting in Ferry Basin (some HUGE bulls in there). It's a total tribal hunt, and he said there's so many elk now that tribal members don't need to draw a permit anymore for cows. Further, they're getting elk damage complaints. He also said it wasn't all that tough to draw a bull tag anymore. Young kids just aren't interested in hunting, and hunter numbers on the reservation are wayyyy down.

I would think its no different on other Reservations. I'm not worried about wolves or tribal hunting ruining anything.
 
Well, tough crowd to disclose such a thing but I've hunted with the Crow folks several times now and will again a couple times this year.
I'm observing and hearing the exact same thing Buzz said, there's just not THAT much interest in hunting by the tribal members. A few, ya, but damn few from me perch.
There will always be the exception like the dude who has shot all the rams.

Zeke
 
To a point you're right, I have relatives on the rez and half of them don't hunt anymore. but the ones who do are killing machines. pickup loads of bucks in November and loads of big bulls in September. I've argued the point with them that a crew cab pickup and a 300 ultra mag are not what their traditional rights are about. guess how that worked.

I'm not saying the natives and the wolves will wipe out everything. but given the chance they're make a hell of an impact, it's just starting in many areas.
 
Togwotee said:
To a point you're right, I have relatives on the rez and half of them don't hunt anymore. but the ones who do are killing machines. pickup loads of bucks in November and loads of big bulls in September. I've argued the point with them that a crew cab pickup and a 300 ultra mag are not what their traditional rights are about. guess how that worked.

I'm not saying the natives and the wolves will wipe out everything. but given the chance they're make a hell of an impact, it's just starting in many areas.
Click to expand...
Are the Natives staying on the Rez. or are they exercising tribal treaty rights and hunting outside of the Rez? In Wyoming the Wind River Rez. must be managing well as the trophy quality on most game species is at historical highs.
 
Most of the tribes in eastern OR hunt when and where they want to. there aren't a lot of them doing it but the ones who do as you may expect get some really nice animals.

It has been assumed it was legal because the major treaties clearly say it is but OR was hesitant to test it . WY took care of that when they took it to court and got blown away. now the door is wide open in most states if not all, it's just a matter of how much ambition and gas money they have.
 
Togwotee said:
Most of the tribes in eastern OR hunt when and where they want to. there aren't a lot of them doing it but the ones who do as you may expect get some really nice animals.

It has been assumed it was legal because the major treaties clearly say it is but OR was hesitant to test it . WY took care of that when they took it to court and got blown away. now the door is wide open in most states if not all, it's just a matter of how much ambition and gas money they have.
Click to expand...
The Wyoming case is not over yet.
 
The supreme court ruled on the Crow case and that's the last word. since most treaties have the same provisions it's going to be very unlikely to ever downplay the set precedent.
 
nripepi said:
I think the bigger issue is shooting them on the winter range vs. in the alpine. At least in the alpine, they have to hike in a ways. They could knock out a lot of big bucks on the winter range quickly. Colorado has been dealing with a similar situation with Ute in the Brunot Agreement. It would be interesting to hear from some people from Colorado that know the ins and outs of that agreement, but I think the Utes could shoot Bighorns and deer on winter range.
Click to expand...
A few years back I encountered a Ute hunter on USFS land “out of season” (July). I heard a single gunshot where there shouldn‘t have been one. Went to check it out and found a native dude gutting a cow elk. Asked him what was up, and he proudly showed me his license which covered pretty much the whole west slope. He was meat hunting. Nice guy.

I’ve lived and worked my whole life in Indian Country and never seen it before Or since.

Now, the indiscriminate harvest of saplings for tee pee poles is another thing. But Colorado doesn’t do anything with our trees but let them burn, so I guess I don’t care.
 
Last edited:
ss13 said:
Here's my take, I posted this on another forum.
---------------------------------------

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.
Click to expand...
Depends on the tribe, but yes all these things are provided In one way or another. There are entire federal bureaucracies built to deliver services to Native Americans.

I believe the IHS model will be followed when the feds finally seize the health care industry. Google IHS statistics if you want a sense of the quality of care you will receive.

Fun thread. I love watching people try try to make sense of Indian Country law.
 
Last edited:
It's not really Indian country law. it's federal law. and the USSC says they can hunt on federal lands if the treaty allows it. if someone can find an argument that overrides the supreme court I welcome it. but I really doubt it.

Like I said, we can't give them pox blankets or steal it this time so let's buy the rights out wherever possible.
 
I was eluding to the point that the United States and Indian tribes have a very unique relationship - legal and otherwise - that 99.9% of people don’t know squat about.

If conservatives understood the story of that relationship, they would be much more sympathetic to their cause.
 
Bluehair said:
Depends on the tribe, but yes all these things are provided In one way or another. There are entire federal bureaucracies built to deliver services to Native Americans.

I believe the IHS model will be followed when the feds finally seize the health care industry. Google IHS statistics if you want a sense of the quality of care you will receive.

Fun thread. I love watching people try try to make sense of Indian Country law.
Click to expand...
Is IHS as awesome as the VA, because I've witnessed that?
 
Togwotee said:
The supreme court ruled on the Crow case and that's the last word. since most treaties have the same provisions it's going to be very unlikely to ever downplay the set precedent.
Click to expand...
You're incorrect, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the state. The lower court must define "unoccupied lands" So far the first judge has taken the exact same course as Alito's decent opinion. Now it must climb the judicial ladder before ending up back in the Supreme Court, which now has a different make up.
 
So you're saying it has to go back to the USSC so they can finalize the decision. if federal lands aren't unoccupied what is ? the treaty clearly implied unoccupied land as lands not owned by white settlers.

the reality is the horse has left the barn on this one. no influential politician or high court is going to take something away from the natives they were given in a treaty then won in the supreme court . not after the history of the last 250 years this nation has with them.

The only loser here is the non-tribal hunters, and if we mattered we wouldn't have ever had a wolf reintroduction program. I don't like it but it's the truth.
 
BigChiefJ said:
Is IHS as awesome as the VA, because I've witnessed that?
Click to expand...
I’ve only ever been to a VA hospital when I was young. My dad used to make me go when the Elk’s would go visit the patients on Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

An IHS hospital is an odd hybrid of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and the DMV. I don’t know how to describe it.

To be fair, the IHS has a difficult mission and tries very hard.
 

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

153BD8A6-8669-41EA-B58F-12AA565E48DA.jpeg
6 pt bull 7-21 #2.JPG
5B732076-0181-4ED8-B0B6-DEB5F7C92898.jpeg
392.jpeg
NM bull.JPG
135018C6-AC09-4C7C-9B0E-12C18D6CDCDC.jpeg
20201117_195459.jpg
IMG_2904 copy.jpg
40.jpg
26678234-D445-4D5E-AC27-DBFB6ED6F45B.jpeg
342488736_263441792780040_1566272923379424723_n.jpg
IMG_9389.jpeg

Wyoming Hunting Guides & Outfitters

Badger Creek Outfitters

Offering elk, deer and pronghorn hunts on several privately owned ranches.

Urge 2 Hunt

We focus on trophy elk, mule deer, antelope and moose hunts and take B&C bucks most years.

J & J Outfitters

Offering quality fair-chase hunts for trophy mule deer, elk, and moose in Wyoming.


Yellowstone Horse Rentals - Western Wyoming Horses
Back
Top Bottom