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.
It will be interesting, to me, if taking horns and back straps (comprable to filets on steaks) will qualify as "subsistence" hunting. I doubt any details will even hit the media.
Irrelevant. They are permitted to hunt, your attempts to demonize them with nothing to go on aside.
The United States has broken every treaty ever signed with Indians. Why should this case be any different?
"Herrera said the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie from 1868 -- between the United States and Crow Tribe, before Wyoming became a state -- expressly allows tribal members to legally hunt in unpopulated federal forest lands at any time.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."
Your own quote is telling you to check the specific statutes on these animals. I gave you a link to those specific statutes.
RIF.
Here's the quote:
Quote:
Quote: Shooting of animals on public land may require land management agency permits or fees.
Land management permits or fees MAY be required. Currently, they're NOT required.
Quote:
Prairie dogs and other nongame species are protected on many national wildlife refuges. Check with each refuge before shooting on refuge lands.
I've already agreed that some refuges regulate prairie dog shooting. But these are a pretty small portion of the state.
Quote:
again legally speaking, there is no statewide ban, but there are rules and regulations that must be followed on private land and public. My link listed all of that.
As I told you before, what is listed at your provided link is the authority to implement various management plans, and a description of what those plans are. Some of those plans, perhaps related to poisoning on private land, could be in place, but nothing related to shooting prairie dogs, on either private or public property, is currently in place. The last restrictions on shooting were back in 2003, and covered a three month closure during March, April, and May, and closed one area of BLM land due to Black Footed Ferrets. Neither of those control provisions is currently in place.
I'm sure that you will disagree, so, instead of simply maintaining that you are correct and referring me to a previous link, quote the actual laws or rules, with the specific language that says what you are claiming, and that these restrictions are currently in place.
Montana FWP doesn't create the law, but enforces the laws currently in place. The FWP website is very clear that there are currently NO restrictions on shooting prairie dogs. It's baffling that you aren't able to understand this.
Irrelevant. They are permitted to hunt, your attempts to demonize them with nothing to go on aside.
Yeah. Doesn't matter to people who don't really care about wildlife. But, they screwed themselves out here and on their own rez. We don't tolerate waste.
But it brings awareness to a problem, so in that way it's good this is getting attention.
Yeah. Doesn't matter to people who don't really care about wildlife. But, they screwed themselves out here and on their own rez. We don't tolerate waste.
But it brings awareness to a problem, so in that way it's good this is getting attention.
You made up a scenario that has nothing to do with this case.
Irrelevant. They are permitted to hunt, your attempts to demonize them with nothing to go on aside.
They are not permitted to hunt illegally on federal lands. If their tribal reservation allows them to hunt big game- those are rules only pertinent within the boundaries of their associated tribal authority.
If they poach outside of that, well, then they are ‘fair game’ for violations.
That is likely Truly if I were after meat for my family I would have took a fat cow Not a bull I don't have any face time with the Northern tribes like the Crow Cheyenne and Blackfoot. My many and varied experiences have been with the Paiute Shoshone and Washoe. I have a couple friends I grew up with that are Paiute and Shoshone. One Shoshone guy and I have been on a few cat hunts after stock killers
Indians like him who truly do honor the old ways but have still adapted to modern society are getting really rare Have been for quite a spell in reality. I've heard and seen a lot of stuff about how bad Sioux reservations like Rosebud and Standing Rock are just cesspools. Right up there with the Walker River rez here which is quite bad. Drugs booze and squalor. If you get off the highway into the inner rez here your taking your life in your hands. It's as bad as any inner city
Treaty interpretation is causing a huge issue here right now to but it's over water rights not off rez hunting. And the anger and hatred that goes with it is thick as 10 day old ham n beans. those treaties that were done in the 19th century really need to go away and the reservation system looked at. US Grant ain't the prez any more and T Sherman ain't in charge of the "Indian problem."
Montana has 7 reservations, not counting the Little Shells, and water rights are a big deal here too. I have some Indian friends, worked on several fire with Indian crews, one on one, I like them for the most part, but you won't find me on the Blackfoot Reservation after dark.
One of my best friends growing up was Indian, funny thing was he was Chickasaw, not one of the local tribes. Good guy, but he ended up moving to California, I haven't heard from him in several years.
There are some that still honor their elders and the old ways while being able to be a fully functioning and contributing member of modern society. The Salish Kootenai tribes for example. They're working to revitalize their language with their children, working to take responsibility for the Buffalo Range transitioning from state controls, while at the same time they have created several corporations that operate successfully across the country.
I've been impressed with what they've done including leasing land and welcoming non tribal members to live on their reservation. Driving through Arlee, except for the signs in two languages, you wouldn't think it was anything but another small town in Montana. They're very proud of their heritage, and rightfully so.
The Crow and Chippewa Cree are starting to move this way, but it's a process. My great great grandfather came to Montana as part of the Army during the Indian Wars of the 1870s, so I've heard some of the stories passed down from his adventures.
I still deal with the tribes in my work. They're just people, some good, some not. I will wait to see what the court says, but from what I've heard, I'm very suspicious that this was a subsistence hunt.
The United States has broken every treaty ever signed with Indians. Why should this case be any different?
"Herrera said the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie from 1868 -- between the United States and Crow Tribe, before Wyoming became a state -- expressly allows tribal members to legally hunt in unpopulated federal forest lands at any time.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."
Similarly, the U.S. has also broken a lot of treaties or parts of treaties with foreign nation.
They are not permitted to hunt illegally on federal lands. If their tribal reservation allows them to hunt big game- those are rules only pertinent within the boundaries of their associated tribal authority.
If they poach outside of that, well, then they are ‘fair game’ for violations.
"]They are not permitted to hunt illegally on federal lands"
Correct , BUT they were hunting LEGALLY according to the treaty the U.S and the Indians signed.
""Herrera said the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie from 1868 -- between the United States and Crow Tribe, before Wyoming became a state -- expressly allows tribal members to legally hunt in unpopulated federal forest lands at any time.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."
Similarly, the U.S. has also broken a lot of treaties or parts of treaties with foreign nation.
And wast does that have to do with this incident?
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.
