Not just any game warden either. He was the supervisor over the tribal game wardens. He claimed he was sustenance hunting but he cut the head off of the elk he killed in Wyoming and left the rest to rot.

None of that really mattered as far as the SCOTUS ruling however. It was mostly about the legal definition of "unoccupied lands".

Ya gotta admit, there is a bit of irony in us white folks complaining about the indiscriminate slaughter of plains animals by native Americans.

Isn’t that the truth! However, there was nothing indiscriminate about how or why it was done. There was one reason and one reason only kill the food source and you will be able to control them!

I'm no more guilty if that than I am white folks owning slaves. Bringing it up is odd, the north American wildlife conservation model is the model of the world.

Here's a more detailed explanation of what started this whole dustup.
https://www.themeateater.com/conser...lk-hunting-case-before-the-supreme-court

Ducknbass, you're right. No one alive participated in any of the killing off of the plains animals. I was just pointing out the irony.

Palehorse, It can be argued either way with historical facts

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/18/us/big-indian-elk-kill-leads-to-call-for-game-law.html

Yep, I've heard other stories about slaughter and waste on the Crow reservation as well.

I guess my opinion on the matter is, if a tribal member is truly exercising his right to harvest game per the treaty and is using the game to feed his family or others on the reservation, I don't have a problem with that. It's the wanton waste that gets me in the gut. No excuse for that.

End of the day hopefully the crow tribal council decides to strictly govern themselves.

If they abuse it with will weaken federal land ownership.

It’s kind of scary if you have read the liberal Y2Y initiative. Y2Y only recognizes first peoples rights to hunt, while also furthering Apex Predator expansion, thus limiting sustainability for long term hunting by general population anyway.

I don’t think this is the intended path by this ruling, but when you look at what’s going on in Canada and trickling down here... it’s more and more looking that way.

I bet if you took a poll of someone taking game regardless of decent, out of season or past tag allocation to truly provide for the family, Majority would not chastise it, or convict, with one exception species.

With no stipulation for regulation on harvest, what is sustainable and feeding family mean when it comes to individual species? Big horn sheep and Moose are perfect examples, those are fragile species.

No, there isn't.

Are you saying that I might have to give up my spotted owl pot pie recipe?

No, thanks to the no cutting or removal of dead timber, no logging, no control burns and no lead bullets, etc in California, they saved the owl, but When was the last time you shared though....., bogart?

Here is the Crow tribe's response to the ruling.

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialCT...1188/612288715954865/?type=3&theater

Cutting an elk’s head off and leaving it to rot is not even hunting, much less subsistence hunting.

It’s a crazy world sometimes....

Sounds to me like the right decision was made, the US Government had a treaty with that tribe and they honored it.

Substitute pigeons for owls, they are just as tasty and nasty.

Last time I was in the hospital one day for lunch they had this "brown meat", really not sure what it was, but I asked the nurse if she knew what it was, she said she didn't, I said have you noticed the number of pigeons flying around HMC is a lot less than a year ago, She said that can't be pigeon, and I had to breal out laughing.

Anyone wanna bet they are democrap/Hillary/Barry supporters.....

I'll bet they aren't.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/tribal-dispute-hits-supreme-court-with-trump-support

On a legal level I agree. They weren't deciding anything on the issue of wasting game, just the base question pertaining to the treaty. From what I've read, the treaty must still be honored based on the wording (and lack thereof). The tribe should handle the wasting of game issue internally and should generally be policing themselves, and IMO this guy should be hammered. There's no excuse for what he did.
The courts can't make decisions base on emotion, they have to rely on the law and legal precedent. Based on that, I'm not sure they could have decided any other way regardless of how I feel personally.

Unfortunately, you guys are in the minority these days. At the SC level, most decisions are based on pure politics. That’s why we even have the terms “liberal” justices and “conservative” justices and the votes can be predicted with about 90% certainty based on their politics alone.

The Justices made the right decision. I find it difficult to believe that some justices actually voted that the treaty did not apply. I am not happy with the Tribe winning this one, but their treaty specifically allows them to hunt the unoccupied lands of Wyoming. The Indian who won this is a POS who cuts heads off elk and leaves the meat to rot. Wyoming will just have to come up with a plan to address this increased hunting in the areas bordering the Tribal reservation.

The tribe should have handled this a long time before the courts became involved.

Cases like this should be decided based on the language and meaning used when the treaty (or bill of rights, exec) was written. People use 2019 language and definitions to translate or determine stuff written 100 years ago and it just doesn’t work. The second amendment is a great example of this. The federalist papers provide background for a lot of the discussion back then.

The Supreme Court should take that in to account when decided cases based on language a long time ago, treaties included.

I agree...