SCOTUS and hunting rights



lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
23,415
Likes
7,951
Points
1,008
Location
Cavalier, ND
The treaty, which established the tribe's present-day reservation, states that members "shall have the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the U.S. so long as game may be found thereon, and as long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts
Federal law trumps state law
Also they weren't hunting for sport but to feed thier families
 
Last edited:

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
20,177
Likes
5,444
Points
1,008
Location
Mobridge,Sd
I have went elk hunting it is cheaper to take the money you have into gear gas and every thing else and go buy food. Also if they are that broke they get food stamps. The subsistence hunting in the lower 48 is a farce.

- - - Updated - - -

here are the legal arguments

http://www.scotusblog.com/2019/01/argument-preview-tribes-treaties-and-animals-return-to-the-supreme-court/

- - - Updated - - -

more so if it is the culture than i have no problem with hunting with self made bows and the clothing of the Native culture. Not the new white man guns or the synthetics of modern day hunting clothing
 

lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
23,415
Likes
7,951
Points
1,008
Location
Cavalier, ND
Not every native wants to take handouts I wonder how many times these families have done this type of harvest of elk meat.

- - - Updated - - -

The old equipment argument trick good one now its personal attack against a group of people we know nothing about. This debate is gas lighted dumpster fire
 


Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
20,177
Likes
5,444
Points
1,008
Location
Mobridge,Sd
What is the cost per pound of elk vs beef?

- - - Updated - - -

your the one who threw the whole feeding the tribe thing out. If thats the case you only get to pick and choose what parts?
 

lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
23,415
Likes
7,951
Points
1,008
Location
Cavalier, ND
I was posting what the article said what they did with the elk meat that was a question based on what the article said. Wasn't a personal remark based my own opinion about what they get or not get from the reservation.
 
Last edited:

Bfishn

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Posts
3,934
Likes
401
Points
368
Do whatever they want within the borders of the Rez, Once outside the borders, game laws should apply....period. As others have pointed out the cultural thing is BS unless your also using "cultural weapons"
 

LBrandt

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2016
Posts
11,288
Likes
2,358
Points
693
Location
SE ND
If the white man hunts on the res we have to follow their laws, if they hunt on our res they should follow ours.
 


wjschmaltz

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2018
Posts
989
Likes
378
Points
218
Location
Southcentral ND - Southcentral AK
This is a touchy issue for me and I could go on ALL day. A few thoughts:

There is a much larger picture in at hand. A reservation was drawn by man and really was a forced cage for each individual tribe. When speaking on subsistence rights, (which I think the argument in a court of law will eventually lead to and why these people will get off with a shake of the finger) native people will eventually be able to say that they are partaking in a subsistence harvest wherever traditional subsistence harvest took place 300 years ago. For example, someone in a formally nomadic tribe living on the Rock could probably go shoot a deer by Jamestown and fight their way out of it by these standards. These laws need to be scrutinized and updated.

There is now a chunk of federal land the size of ND in northwest AK where people who do not live in the area are no longer allowed to hunt caribou. That is federal land owned by everyone who reads this; not reservation or tribal claims. They say it is because of subsistence preference. Locals in the north central and northeast part of the state are working to impose the same laws. It would make an area the size of Montana closed to caribou hunting for non-local users. No scientific backing, the AK department of fish and game opposes it saying the caribou are doing great, and a federal judge rules that subsistence rights are of upmost importance and allowed the ruling to stand. A law based strictly on malice towards “evil outsiders”. I won’t even get into the niceties that these evil outsiders provide to the villages annually.

Every year we still hear of reports of a half dozen musk ox or 20 caribou found dead on the tundra and filled with bullet holes. They find the guilty party, give them a trail in tribal court where they receive 20 hours of community service, and are hunting the next year. All the while bitching that the reason caribou numbers are down are because of the entitled people from the road system coming out to hunt (bulls only and less than 5% of the total harvest to boot). At some point, tribes have to decide on what their ethics really are and stick with them.

As far as traditional harvest is concerned, I don’t need to go too far down that road or it will ruin my day. It’s amazing how a traditional use SkiDoo 800 can be used to run down caribou and grizzlies in 6 feet of snow. Or a traditional use 22-foot Wooldridge with twin 200 hp mercs can be used to run down whales. No to mention weapons. I’m not saying it should be illegal; but tribes that hide behind “traditional use” so radical environmental groups who find this behavior offensive stand behind them are simply lying to themselves. Shit or get off the pot. I’ll leave it at that.

There has to be a time where everyone has to play by the same rules before it gets out of hand. These are shared resources that need to be managed properly for those in “the womb of time” as TR stated. I think there has to be something in place where tags should be available OTC for subsistence users. But if claiming that resource, a percent of government kick-backs (if claimed) need to be made unavailable. If you are harvesting an elk out of necessity for your family of 3, then why do you need the same amount of assistance as the family of 3 down the street that doesn’t harvest an elk (assistance is calculated based off necessity of family size). You cannot take from the taxpayers twice. It’s a fair trade off. And I’m not targeting natives, there are just as many white people (probably more) claiming these luxuries in AK as there are natives. I have several friends and coworkers who head off into the tundra with 100K worth of pickup/camper/trailer/ATV to fill subsistence tags and I let them know how I feel.

Eventually we all need to get on the same page and work together. Respect the native traditional harvest while natives respect and acknowledge modern convenience and don’t abuse the allowed harvest. There is a really good book called “Make Prayers to the Raven” written by an anthropologist who lived with the Athabaskan people in the early-mid 1900’s. There a a quote in that book that needs to be brought up every time the evil white man is cussed, IMO. When a young person mentioned to one of the village elders that he wishes he could go back to before the white men arrived, the elders’ response was “Have you ever had to eat Ptarmigan poop to survive the winter?”
 

SupressYourself

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Posts
2,207
Likes
1,165
Points
523
Location
Not where I'd like to be
"Subsistence hunting" has not been a real thing for a very long time for any group of people in the US.
How can you argue that your family "needs" this meat to survive when you're using thousands of dollars of equipment to acquire it?

The tribal aspect of this particular case makes it even more laughable. How can you claim you "need" anything when the government provides it all for you?

It's time to abolish / remove / <insert proper legal term here> all of these treaties and reservations. It's been a failed experiment in socialism, but that's a whole 'nother topic...
 
Last edited:

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
13,742
Likes
736
Points
438
Location
williston
Well it should be ebt cards or subsistence hunting take your pick
 
Last edited:

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
4,010
Likes
57
Points
283
This could have long standing repercussions on hunting around the country your thoughts?

mine are that on the res is their deal but leave it and you have to follow the game laws as every other person.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/native-am...ed-family-093110715--abc-news-topstories.html
I think this is a non issue as this claim has already been put before the Supreme Court in the past and the treaty is no longer valid and that the lands in question are not considered unoccupied.

Besides the fact of this case I do think natives should be granted tags on their federal land within their reservations if they are hunting to feed their families. I don’t think it would hurt the population too bad and they have more of a right to hunt there than the rest of us non natives.
 


Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
20,177
Likes
5,444
Points
1,008
Location
Mobridge,Sd
I think this is a non issue as this claim has already been put before the Supreme Court in the past and the treaty is no longer valid and that the lands in question are not considered unoccupied.

Besides the fact of this case I do think natives should be granted tags on their federal land within their reservations if they are hunting to feed their families. I don’t think it would hurt the population too bad and they have more of a right to hunt there than the rest of us non natives.


non native? I have lived in America my whole life. Why do they have more of a right to hunt here?
 

Retired Educator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2016
Posts
3,290
Likes
276
Points
313
Location
North Dakota
Another discussion I should stay out of but I do have something to say or ask. Is there anything, especially in this area, that is more racist than reservations. I'm not an expert but were reservations not established to basically keep the Indians (as they were known when treaties were written) away from the whites? And to allow the whites to settle in the west?

Isn't it true that Indians (not trying to be impolite, just using terms that were used back then) of the belief that no one owned land. Different tribes settled in different areas but no one owned the land. And if one tribe wandered on to another tribes territory a skirmish may occur. Which was the same reason that Indians and whites had battles.

Reservations have outgrown their original purpose. There is no reason to keep Native Americans from the whites. There is no reason for any of them to be treated any differently than any other American. I realize that to dissolve all reservations is a huge undertaking as you can't just dissolve a way of life overnight. As it currently is, too many Native Americans have been raised in a life of poverty with little to encourage them to change that life. I'm not talking about all Native Americans, or even a majority in many cases, but the truth is that too many of them don't see a lot of hope in their future. For me, most of that is caused by encouraging them to become too reliant on the government. Another prime example of socialism at its finest.

You may now start blaming me for being so non-caring about a group of Americans that have been mistreated by our government for years. Give them enough to keep them in line, but no more. They must be kept reliant on the government.
 

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 360
  • This month: 119
  • This month: 82
  • This month: 67
  • This month: 62
  • This month: 60
  • This month: 59
  • This month: 48
  • This month: 43
  • This month: 38
Top Bottom