User Tag List

  • Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cocky
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Down
  • Drunk
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Sad
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • WTF!?
  • zzz
  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
    Results 1 to 20 of 29
    1. Back To Top    #1
      Premium Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       

      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Posts
      589
      NDA Points
      6,422
      NDA Level
      34
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 645
      Given: 445

      Native Treaty Rights

      As they say..."Ruh Roh Raggy"

      I foresee stormy seas in the decades ahead because of this ruling. What do you guys think?


      Gorsuch breaks with conservative justices, delivering win to Native American hunter

      One of President Trump’s nominees sided Monday with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court for the second time in two weeks, as Justice Neil Gorsuch joined a narrow majority in support of a Native American man convicted for hunting in a national forest.

      The case, Herrera v. Wyoming, deals with a treaty from 1868 which allowed members of the tribe to hunt in “unoccupied lands” in the U.S. in exchange for their land, which went on to become part of Wyoming and Montana. At issue was whether the hunting rights in the treaty are still in effect or were nullified when Wyoming became a state in 1890.
      The opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor – and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Gorsuch – ruled that the treaty indeed still applies, and that Crow member Clayvin Herrera was improperly convicted of off-season hunting in Bighorn National Forest in 2014.
      The court’s 5-4 ruling, which vacated the decision from the state appellate court, is based on the 1999 decision in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians. In that case, the Supreme Court said that a territory gaining statehood is not enough “to extinguish Indian treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather on land within state boundaries.” The court went further in that case, stating that Congress “must clearly express” an intention to end a treaty with a Native American tribe in order for the treaty’s rights to expire.
      By siding with the traditionally liberal justices, Gorsuch gave them a 5-4 majority in the case.
      The opinion came exactly one week after Trump’s other nominee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, sided with liberals in a 5-4 decision that he wrote, ruling that Apple could be sued by iPhone owners over high prices in their App Store.
      Sotomayor, in the latest opinion, also addressed the argument that the land on which Hererra was hunting became “occupied” under the treaty when it became a national forest in 1897. The court’s decision said that while it is possible that certain areas of the forest could be considered occupied, the forest as a whole is not occupied by default simply because it is a national forest.
      Hererra’s attorney, George W. Hicks, celebrated his client’s victory. “We are gratified that the Supreme Court held that the treaty hunting right guaranteed to the Crow Tribe and Mr. Herrera was not abrogated by Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the creation of the Bighorn National Forest,” he said in a statement to Fox News.
      Gorsuch’s conservative colleagues, led by Justice Samuel Alito, argued in a dissenting opinion that the majority has it all wrong. Alito, like the lower court’s decision, relied on an 1896 case involving a similarly worded treaty between Wyoming and the Shoshonee and Bannack tribes, which also was from 1868. That case, Ward v. Race Horse, said that when Wyoming became a state, it ended the treaty. This ruling was based on the idea that states have the authority “to regulate the killing of game within their borders.”
      Additionally, the conservative dissent said that a 1995 10th Circuit opinion in Crow Tribe of Indians v. Repsis dealt with the exact issue in Hererra’s case, relying on the precedent in Race Horse to say that the Crow Tribe’s hunting rights under their treaty expired when Wyoming became a state. Because the issue was already decided in that case, the dissent said, it was improper for it to be heard again here.
      The majority opinion addressed the Race Horse and Repsis cases, stating that the more recent 1999 Mille Lacs case renders them obsolete. Sotomayor also wrote that it did not matter that the same treaty had been addressed in the past, because the Mille Lacs case represented a "change in [the] applicable legal context." The conservatives disagreed.

      0 Not allowed!

    2. Back To Top    #2
      Ultimate VIP Member
      hunting
       
      Mood:
      Angry
       
      Kurtr's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Location
      Mobridge,Sd
      Posts
      6,275
      NDA Points
      113,697
      NDA Level
      100
      Report Entries
      10
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 6,962
      Given: 2,342
      just read that i dont think it is a good deal for wildlife

      1 Not allowed!
      Snagzilla will always be #1

    3. Back To Top    #3
      Gold Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       

      Join Date
      Jul 2016
      Location
      ND
      Posts
      148
      NDA Points
      2,694
      NDA Level
      21
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 201
      Given: 205
      This ruling will complicate state game management throughout the country. This is probably a case where Wyoming wishes it would have let Herrera off with a warning and not pushed the issue to the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how Federal, State, and Tribal governments proceed.

      2 Not allowed!
      #illegitimate hunter

    4. Back To Top    #4
      VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       

      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Posts
      887
      NDA Points
      9,742
      NDA Level
      42
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 925
      Given: 712
      I say all these treaties should be abolished. They have their reservations to do as they wish and so when they are on other lands they should have to abide by the same rules as every other US citizen.

      9 Not allowed!

    5. Back To Top    #5
      Silver Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      wjschmaltz's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2018
      Location
      Southcentral AK
      Posts
      94
      NDA Points
      3,653
      NDA Level
      25
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 250
      Given: 22
      To reiterate my thoughts on this subject when it was first discussed 6 months ago here is the copy and paste from that thread -

      [ 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?” ]

      Here we are 6 months later and this ruling essentially gives open season to native individuals. And just last week a proposal was submitted to the AK subsistence board to shut down all federal lands to caribou and moose hunting in GMU 13 to non-subsistence users. Making this the third hunting unit this has happened within the state. This unit is the unit most Alaskan's get their annual meat from (I think nearly 13,000 caribou tags filled per year).

      The way our political climate is heading with one side basically playing inter-sectional, one-up Olympics competing to "give" anything to whatever minority is willing to vote for them; we are in a potentially scary time when it comes to wildlife management. These treaties need to be re-addressed sooner rather than later. It will get worse as our political power does it's historical swing of power to the party of intersectionality. And each time it swings, the party in power becomes more and more radical.

      6 Not allowed!
      Following along instagram photos for pictures of my hunting, fishing, and outdoor adventures.

    6. Back To Top    #6
      Ultimate VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Obi-Wan's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2015
      Location
      Bismarck
      Posts
      2,076
      NDA Points
      154,948
      NDA Level
      100
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 2,727
      Given: 2,443
      So how long will it take before a local goes to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and drop a Bison or two?

      0 Not allowed!
      I don't always get negative reps..... But when I do it's because some crybaby couldn't handle my posts!

    7. Back To Top    #7
      Ultimate VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       

      Join Date
      May 2015
      Location
      Drifting the high plains
      Posts
      3,728
      NDA Points
      35,093
      NDA Level
      82
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 2,185
      Given: 2,485
      Things have changed since those treaties. If they want to subsistence hunt restrict them to traditional equipment. No firearms, and no motorized vehicles of any kind.

      6 Not allowed!

    8. Back To Top    #8
      Ultimate VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Sum1's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Location
      Bismarck
      Posts
      1,817
      NDA Points
      10,805
      NDA Level
      44
      Report Entries
      2
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 2,116
      Given: 1,460
      Neil Gorsuch should get his nuts cut off.

      - - - Updated - - -

      It’s time to do away with treaties and reservations. Long over due

      11 Not allowed!

    9. Back To Top    #9
      Silver Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      wjschmaltz's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2018
      Location
      Southcentral AK
      Posts
      94
      NDA Points
      3,653
      NDA Level
      25
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 250
      Given: 22
      Quote Originally Posted by Obi-Wan View Post
      So how long will it take before a local goes to Theodore Roosevelt National Park and drop a Bison or two?
      I hope they're on the way to Yellowstone right now to hunt the long weekend. Drop a bunch of bison for the Memorial Day crowd and show them the subsistence way. If it's anything like the whale harvest up here, it will just be whatever they can send to the city and sell to the tourists as art. Hell, they're probably up there already. Why wait when every day is Saturday!

      3 Not allowed!
      Following along instagram photos for pictures of my hunting, fishing, and outdoor adventures.

    10. Back To Top    #10
      Ultimate VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      eyexer's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Location
      williston
      Posts
      4,098
      NDA Points
      29,838
      NDA Level
      75
      Report Entries
      1
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 3,145
      Given: 2,588
      In all honesty if we don't like it, which I'm sure none of us do, then we need to get congress to end this shit. I don't really blame the SCOTUS for upholding something that has never been squelched.

      6 Not allowed!

    11. Back To Top    #11
      Ultimate VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Sum1's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Location
      Bismarck
      Posts
      1,817
      NDA Points
      10,805
      NDA Level
      44
      Report Entries
      2
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 2,116
      Given: 1,460
      This is absolutely rediculous. So laws don’t apply to them?

      1 Not allowed!

    12. Back To Top    #12
      Ultimate VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      SDMF's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Posts
      3,575
      NDA Points
      38,137
      NDA Level
      85
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 4,577
      Given: 205
      Classifieds
      1
      My 1st question in all of this would be: "What members of which tribes does this ruling apply"?

      0 Not allowed!
      I can explain it for you, but I can’t understand it for you.

    13. Back To Top    #13
      Premium Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      SupressYourself's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Posts
      639
      NDA Points
      108,134
      NDA Level
      100
      Report Entries
      1
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 995
      Given: 860
      Classifieds
      2
      I'm with they the 'easy button' crowd. There's not anything "native" about most of these people anymore. Abolish all treaties, reservations, special treatment, handouts, etc. You can still be proud of your heritage and enjoy your traditions as long as it falls within the laws that every other citizen of this country must abide by.

      3 Not allowed!

    14. Back To Top    #14
      Premium Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       

      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Posts
      589
      NDA Points
      6,422
      NDA Level
      34
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 645
      Given: 445
      I would assume this applies to any tribe that signed onto the 1868 treaty? Or is farther reaching?

      0 Not allowed!

    15. Back To Top    #15
      Ultimate VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      SDMF's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Posts
      3,575
      NDA Points
      38,137
      NDA Level
      85
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 4,577
      Given: 205
      Classifieds
      1
      Quote Originally Posted by ndlongshot View Post
      I would assume this applies to any tribe that signed onto the 1868 treaty? Or is farther reaching?
      I ask because I have't any sort of a clue. Was the 1868 treaty referenced in the court case struck and agreed to by all Native American tribes of the time, or was it a treaty that was made with and therefore applies to just the members of the Crow tribe? Then the next question is does this treaty apply to all Crow members, or only Crow members of a certain reservation(s)?

      0 Not allowed!
      I can explain it for you, but I can’t understand it for you.

    16. Back To Top    #16
      VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      snow's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      1,065
      NDA Points
      65,568
      NDA Level
      100
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 1,087
      Given: 269
      i've been down this path here in minn,I grew up on mille lacs lake,and its a shame what has become of our once prestine natural walleye lake since the 8 tribes pilage the lake with miles of gill netts every spring since 1999 when the supreme court gave them a green lite to do so,the natives were given they're rights to harvest and gather we get that but as stated above our country has changed,this treaty from 1837 should've been declared "null and void" as minnesota was not a state until 1855 further the tribes are fat and happy these days give an inch they take a mile wilst repeating the $$ from they're casino's and collect federal funds every month

      2 Not allowed!
      Last edited by snow; 05-21-2019 at 11:27 AM.

    17. Back To Top    #17
      Ultimate VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      guywhofishes's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2015
      Location
      Little Minneapolis, ND
      Posts
      10,063
      NDA Points
      250,035
      NDA Level
      100
      Report Entries
      2
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 14,073
      Given: 13,205

      2 Not allowed!
      If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles.
      ~Doug Larson

    18. Back To Top    #18
      VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      snow's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      1,065
      NDA Points
      65,568
      NDA Level
      100
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 1,087
      Given: 269
      PS~ They also have rights to hunt 24/7 9 months/year in twelve different counties can take 4 deer day or night per hunter the tribes donot regonize sate boundries either now we have a wisc tribe hunting moose in ne minn since they disimated the herd in wisc..

      i'm curious what will happen when the natives set they're sites on walleye harvesting devils lake?that will be a kick in the balls eh?

      0 Not allowed!

    19. Back To Top    #19
      VIP Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       
      jdinny's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2015
      Posts
      857
      NDA Points
      24,148
      NDA Level
      67
      Report Entries
      7
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 755
      Given: 664
      this one hits pretty close to home for me. My buddies ranch borders the crow rez wyoming side, land is in the area of this national forest where it happened not sure if it butts up or just in the vicinity. they have never had issues with the tribe but i am curious if it is about to start...uff da.

      0 Not allowed!

    20. Back To Top    #20
      Gold Member
      No Current Status
       
      Mood:
      ----
       

      Join Date
      Jul 2016
      Location
      ND
      Posts
      148
      NDA Points
      2,694
      NDA Level
      21
      Thumbs Up
      Received: 201
      Given: 205
      Quote Originally Posted by SDMF View Post
      I ask because I have't any sort of a clue. Was the 1868 treaty referenced in the court case struck and agreed to by all Native American tribes of the time, or was it a treaty that was made with and therefore applies to just the members of the Crow tribe? Then the next question is does this treaty apply to all Crow members, or only Crow members of a certain reservation(s)?
      This particular case was concerning the Crow Tribe located in Montana and Wyoming. As I understand the ruling, members of this particular Crow tribe (not necessarily Rez residents) should all be afforded the rights granted under this particular treaty. There must be tens if not hundreds of different treaties between the United States and various Tribes throughout the country.

      While I don't like the potential ramifications this decision may have for wildlife management, I do think the United States needs to honor any legal agreement they have entered into.

      3 Not allowed!
      #illegitimate hunter

    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •  


    About Nodak Angler

      NodakAngler is a community of outdoors enthusiasts. Our primary focus is to provide a great place for North Dakota sportsmen to gather, discuss, and participate. All are welcome.

    Business & Contact

    Follow us on

    Facebook Instagram Twitter YouTube