Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Wildlife And Hunting

[davsel]

Arrived in my inbox from Safari Club International

Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Wildlife And Hunting
In an opinion released today, the Supreme Court ruled that an 1868 treaty between the U.S. and the Crow Tribe could give members of that tribe the right to ignore state hunting regulations and engage in the unregulated take of game beyond the borders of reservation land.
The case of Herrera v. Wyoming was brought to the Supreme Court by Clayvin Herrera, a member of the Crow Tribe and former tribe game warden. Herrera followed a group of elk past the Crow reservation's boundary and ended up taking several bull elk in the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming.
Herrera asserted his treaty rights as a defense to criminal charges of illegally taking elk out of season. After he lost in state court, Herrera successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider his case.

Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Gorsuch agreed with Herrera. They held that the Bighorn National Forest and other federal lands may fall within the scope of an 1868 treaty that permits members of the Crow Tribe to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States."
SCI assisted the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in this case, opposing the position of Herrera. SCI filed a "friend of the court" brief to defend the importance of state management authority over game on federal lands. This same principle could apply to 19 other treaties with similar language, spreading the impact to other Tribes and well beyond Wyoming.

In effect, the ruling could give Tribal members the ability to ignore the state hunting regulations. This could threaten wildlife populations. It could also lead to restrictions on non-Native hunters in order to keep harvests within biologically acceptable limits.
The glimmer of hope for state wildlife managers is that the ruling still allows Wyoming to make its case to the Wyoming state court that the state's hunting regulations should override treaty rights for reasons of "conservation necessity."

Four justices, including Justice Alito, Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, filed a dissenting opinion strongly disagreeing with the majority ruling.

SCI argued in our brief that states could be forced to reduce the available harvest for non-tribal hunters since the unregulated take by tribal hunters not only reduces the potential availability of game for all, but also undermines the state wildlife managers' ability to accurately determine the number of animals removed from the population.
SCI will continue to monitor the case and, if needed, will help support Wyoming's efforts to demonstrate the conservation necessity of its game regulations.



Safari Club International - First For Hunters is the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and in promoting wildlife conservation worldwide. SCI's approximately 200 Chapters represent all 50 of the United States as well as 106 other countries. SCI's proactive leadership in a host of cooperative wildlife conservation, outdoor education and humanitarian programs, with the SCI Foundation and other conservation groups, research institutions and government agencies, empowers sportsmen to be contributing community members and participants in sound wildlife management and conservation. Visit the home page www.SafariClub.org, or call (520) 620-1220 for more information.
International Headquarters Washington, District of Columbia ? Tucson, Arizona ? Ottawa, Canada
www.SafariClub.org

[CS1983]

Don't the tribes coordinate with the state fish and wildlife agencies on handling limits and such?

Surely the great caretakers of Mother Earth, who were totally not genocidal, entire herds of buffalo over the cliff, maniacs prior to the white man coming would not assist in wiping out animal populations?

[Irving]

Yellowstone is worried about this since it could be argued that tribes can hunt Yellowstone. I've heard a few different points of view about this issue. I'm interested in finding out real numbers of members of tribes that hunt.

[Delfuego]

There are 12,000 people in the Crow Tribe. I think this threatens revenue far more than wildlife. If the US doesn't like it, they shouldn't have signed the treaty with them...

Crow Nation map for reference

[Irving]

There are 12,000 people in the Crow Tribe. I think this threatens revenue far more than wildlife. If the US doesn't like it, they shouldn't have signed the treaty with them...

There has been some speculation that at the time that the treaty was signed, animal expatriation was reaching peak levels and it was assumed that in a few years there wouldn't be any game left near the Crow nation, if it wasn't gone already. That doesn't at all change the truth of the above though.

[Great-Kazoo]

There has been some speculation that at the time that the treaty was signed, animal expatriation was reaching peak levels and it was assumed that in a few years there wouldn't be any game left near the Crow nation, if it wasn't gone already. That doesn't at all change the truth of the above though.

There was speculation the U.S would honor the treaties signed by all parties, also. We all know how that's worked out.

[CS1983]

They went off the Res, and while I agree that a national forest probably doesn't meet the onus of being "occupied" in any meaningful sense, Herrera's argument seems like a bunch of sophistry to me.

From a purely legalistic perspective, the hinge word is unoccupied. What did that mean in the context of the treaty's writing?

https://www.themeateater.com/conserv...-supreme-court

[Zundfolge]

We signed a treaty with Germany in 1919 ... then went to war with them again in 1941. We're not bound by the 1919 treaty anymore.

So the answer is obvious ... time to declare war on the Crow again

[bobbyfairbanks]

We signed a treaty with Germany in 1919 ... then went to war with them again in 1941. We're not bound by the 1919 treaty anymore.

So the answer is obvious ... time to declare war on the Crow again

Giggty

[TRnCO]

idk, seems like not only did he cross out of crow res., BUT also crossed a state line. Seems like every other person that crosses a state line at least has to pony up as a "non-resident". If they can hunt any "unoccupied" lands, does that many in any state too?