Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Wildlife And Hunting

[Beartooth]

You bet it's a brewing disaster look at what went on in Gardner Montana with the nez peirce indian treaty hunt. Out of state Indians shooting bull elk and bighorn sheep all of us have waited our whole lives for a tag for. If you all think SCI and wyoming are out of line by continuing to fight this come and live next to them not the people you think they are.Herrera cut the heads off those elk and left the rest to rot. I own 500 acres in the middle of the old treaty and I am seriously thinking about leaving its getting to where it's just not worth it soon they will be able to hunt private property year round then total land reform they are already trying to get all the water rights. Libtard news wants you to think Herrera and his goons were out getting meat to feed his starving family when they were poaching trophy bulls in a national forest do the research.

 

[Powdermaker]

Tribal leaders/councils, members don't want the wildlife they respect and hunt to vanish. "They" want wildlife to flourish as a means to protect their cultural heritage.

Game laws had to be enacted because encroaching westward movement of "settlers" were destroying the vast herds of animals: buffalo/bison, elk, beaver, white tail deer, and many other species west of the Mississippi River to near extinction.

In the areas east of the Mississippi River the once vast herds of eastern buffalo/bison and elk, the eastern populations of cougar/panther, eagles and wolf became extinct.

While eastern white deer, beaver, black bear, hawks and turkey were nearing extinction.

It wasn't just the unregulated hunting that discimated wildlife, but also the destruction of great forest and natural wildlife habitat.

It must be different where you are. Tribal leaders here, seem more intent on exercising treaty rights than actually enforcing, common sense, wildlife management laws. They did agree to stop hunting at night, while using spotlights. Our neighboring province, Manitoba, is trying to get the practice stopped. They are getting stiff opposition from the Metis federation. They have very few moose on public land, due to this practice and the resulting over harvest.
I think we can all agree that the original inhabitants of this land got screwed over. We can not change the past, but we can try to work together to enact laws that benefit wildlife for everyone. This is difficult when the laws are not consistent for different ethnic groups. I agree with Flatwater Bill. This is a brewing disaster.

 

[Ridge Runner]

The problem is that there are 8 billion plus humans on the Earth now. And there is little room for wildlife. The number of Native Americans and First Nations, whatever is the current PC term, has changed too. Not many lance and bow hunters either. The targeting of trophy species makes me wonder whether cultural tradition is the only use or value of these animals. And since I originally posted, I asked a friend and lawyer (Dave S.) who has done work here for conservation organizations, and he believes this is a really, really big precedent. That it will preclude all future negotiations by leaving an out......a get out of jail free card..who's implications on private land, National Parks, and closed areas is yet to be fully understood. I have just reviewed several articles where 380 inch elk and various big horn rams were used by the original conservationists for their "traditional" uses. I understand others have very different opinions. I read the treaty. But I think this is a brewing disaster................FWB

Non hunting are non hunting areas to everyone without exception.

However when these areas become over populated by a particular species, then relocation of or allowance to hunt by quota draw/raffle should be done.

Private Property is just that Private Property. Land owners have the right to allow or not allow hunting on their land regardless "aboriginal"/ First Nation birth right.

I'll use my location for example:

Southeastern Tennessee/ Southwestern North Carolina has a Cherokee Indian Nation Reservation that is part of the Appalachian Mountains.

Part of this area is also made up of the Great Smokey Mountains National Park and Cases Cove State Park.

No hunting is allowed in either park area. The elk that inhabit the area were relocated there from western states and have since increased in numbers that other areas are being considered to relocate some of these animals and until a sustainable herd can be established there is no elk hunting in this area.

Although by culture the Cherokee could hunt a very small number of elk they don't. There is abundant deer and black bear for those few that are committed to the cultural traditions of long ago. They can hunt the National Forest areas in either state open to hunting.

Out west Yellow Stone National Park has an over population of wolf, elk and bison. And this animals are migrating outside the park area in such numbers that area farmers and ranchers are claiming they are becoming a nuisance and causing damage to their property and livestock.

Rather than allowing hunters the opportunity to hunt the excess bison through a draw/raffle. The park service claimed too much expense to relocate the excess bison. Park service brought in shooters to kill off the excess bison.

The elk population went unnoticed because wolves were killing livestock. News media east of the Mississippi River has quit covering the dilemma.

The Yellow Stone situation is a prime example as to why weren't native American/First Nation people given the opportunity to harvest these animals.

 

[Hogpatrol]

My take, there will be negotiations, the Crow will live under different hunting regulations and get a pile of money in the process.

 

[Shootist43]

Beartooth, your posting of the "defendant" removing trophy heads and leaving the meat to rot totally changed my thoughts on this matter. Treaties that allowed "unrestricted" hunting were probably considering that the hunting/fishing was for the purpose of "gathering" food for their families. While that may be inconvenient at times, I'm not against it. On the other hand, removing trophy heads while leaving the meat to rot is the work of a poacher and should have been punished as such.

 

[Beartooth]

The part everyone is forgetting is they already have hunting rights in these lands the same ones as you and I as Americans they just want to have special rules for them. This makes it impossible for states to manage wildlife populations. Take a drive thru the crow reservation there is nothing.I'm not saying there all bad but it is a different world than northern Canada or Alaska which I have spent extensive time in both. The far North is about subsistence hunting and there is far more respect for wildlife by natives who have game commissions and work with state and provincial wildlife agencies. The hunting public finally needs to be aware of these treaty hunting rights and what is going on. I honestly feel that most hunters would be sickened by the conduct of these treaty hunters not to mention the black eye it gives our sport.I guarantee in the next five years they will be able to hunt in Yellowstone. It's seriously that close and no one is talking. Tribal members can already shoot buffalo when they leave the park and if they don't leave they round them up and ship them to the reservation. I normally don't participate in forums but the hunting public needs to wake up.

 

[Hank2211]

I really think this is not an all or nothing situation, or at least it doesn't have to be.

The treaty in question, like most, provided for subsistence hunting. The Supreme Court did not say anything about hunting as a business or for trophies. If your grandfather had given up his land in exchange for a promise and now the other side was saying that promise wasn't valid anymore, my guess is you'd have a problem with that. Given that the other side is the government, there's ample basis for negotiation here . . . recognizing traditional hunting rights while insisting on proper record keeping and other reasonable conservation measures.

This works reasonably well in Canada. I know, there are exceptions, but nothing is perfect and to use a absence of perfection as an argument against doing anything is unreasonable (and illogical).