Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And that's what makes this case interesting. The post you responded to was explaining that there is no "feed your family" exemption that allows you to take game out of season.
This is a really sore point in many western states.
Depending on the interpretation of the governing treaty, tribal members are not subject to state hunting, gathering, and fishing laws off of reservation lands, since the treaties pre-date statehood, which really angers many non-tribal people. The most spectacular example is the Boldt decision regarding salmon limits. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/pub...boldt-decision
Do all National Parks have reservations that border them?
No. But depending on the treaty, tribal hunting, gathering, and fishing rights are often not limited to reservation land. In return for tribes ceding their rights to a lot of land, the treaties often specify that they may continue to hunt, gather and fish at their "usual and accustomed" sites off-reservation.
By definition, poaching has nothing to do with whether or not you feed your family with it. Poaching is illegal hunting against government laws.
I was thinking the same thing. I am sure that guy is a good guy, but there is a can of worms to be opened here if the court sets a precedent of allowing 1800s treaties to supersede wildlife preservation laws, etc...
That ship sailed about 30 years ago. See my cite for the Boldt decision in post #23 above.
No. But depending on the treaty, tribal hunting, gathering, and fishing rights are often not limited to reservation land. In return for tribes ceding their rights to a lot of land, the treaties often specify that they may continue to hunt, gather and fish at their "usual and accustomed" sites off-reservation.
Which if that is the agreement, then that is the agreement.
That might be taking place where you live. However, Wyoming isn't Nevada. This story took place in Wyoming. And that man's case may not be the same as what you have seen.
Granted. The Crow aren't the Paiutes. Tribal values do vary widely and a single elk is not ten deer shot with only four dressed out and taken or a couple hundred trout and catfish left to rot in a stretch net. If I needed food to feed my family and could take an elk I would. With or without a tag. Of course NV law allows for subsistence hunting though you might have to actually show that your truly that bad off. In many claimed "subsistence" cases it is found to be odd that someone can afford the gas to get to a hunting spot but can't at least buy some Top Ramen for the kids.
There's a huge and remote rez here. My old digs before my divorce butt right up against it. The Indians there are pretty uncaring about how much and what they kill. I've seen five and six deer hanging in someone's shed. They tend to rape the river too using gigs and nets. Waste is widespread and critters gotten thin these days. This is hardly "heritage" as claimed and certainly shouldn't be a right especially off the rez.
If they want to decimate their own turf whatever. But everybody elses as well? Off the rez they should be just like everyone else.
I've spent my entire life in the rural Midwest and these sorts of stories have persisted my entire life. When our DNR checks on such things, it invariably turns out to be bunk. Fish population in spearfished and net fished lakes have never been depleted. The deer herd remains out of control with overpopulation and disease from this overpopulation. Color me highly skeptical that your state is any different.
Do all National Parks have reservations that border them?
WHat difference does it make? Indians make the argument that they can hunt anywhere, on lands that are not part of, or adjacent to, reservations. I might be wrong about this but I think they get away with it in WA.
We don't know for sure. Just the same, killing an elk for the purpose of feeding your family does not count as poaching. That man shouldn't be charged with poaching.
Guess what? If any non-Indian shoots an elk to feed his family-he's charged with poaching. As he should be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
