X2

Now that the ruling is in effect that they have the right to hunt the land, I hope the Crow Tribe acts immediately to self-regulate their improved access to this land and enforce their own game laws and bag limits. The Jicarilla, White Mountain and San Carlos Apaches all do good jobs of creating and enforcing game laws that preserve the resources on their reservations.

That where the issue is. How is the tribe going to enforce Game laws on Non Reservation lands... they can’t nor will they.

The head crow game warden was the one doing the head hunting.

Bad day for North America conservation model. Hopefully they will continue to do stupid stuff like lay down a bunch of bighorns and generate enough outrage they will get atleast restricted to some kind of conservation allotment.

In Mean time WY will loose a bunch of tags and revenue.

I still don't understand how you can side with the tribe on this one. I will paste what I wrote earlier. "Occupied"- The land is occupied because it has been controlled by a state, when the treaty was written, there were unoccupied lands-meaning lands that were not under statehood or any formal control.

They do not have free reign to just go kill whatever they want on any public lands.

In my view and from what I understand, the argument really came down to two things:

1. What are unoccupied lands?
At the time of the treaty, unoccupied lands really meant lands that were not under statehood. Once Montana and Wyoming became states, those lands are now occupied. All of the land in the state is considered occupied as they are all lands under a governance. (Kind of like we occupy Puerto Rico)

2. Is the game really a federal resource or a resource that the Native tribes have relied on since the treaty?
In my opinion, the answer is no to both. The Native tribes definitely have not relied on Elk in the area because there were NONE for a very long time.
When written, it was widely thought that the resource of game would not be around forever because they were being market hunted in to extinction/extirpation. The fact is that Elk were 100% extirpated from the area, therefore this is a resource that belongs to the state and therefore the state is able to control the resource.

I think this ruling is a VERY slippery slope and could take the opportunities away from the population.

it’s guilt not truths or facts unfortunately

I'm hoping that the states can still enforce laws regarding wanton waste and safety. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem like enforcing those laws would break the terms of the treaty.

I think there is a conservation measure that was sent back to the lower courts, will be interesting to see what they pass and if another Crow headhunter decides to challenge it for his walls or monetary pleasure, sheds bring $ 17lb, full set a couple hundred!!

Here is an interesting opinion piece about the ruling and what it might mean in the future.

https://www.themeateater.com/conser...ourt-issues-opinion-on-herrera-v-wyoming