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.
On the other hand, "as long as peace subsists among the whites and Indians on the borders of the hunting districts" will be the problematic part of that.Whites can be construed as the state.
Only those who will not want to say that in public.
Yeah. This isn't as simple or clear-cut as it would appear on first reading.
If the SCOTUS decided in favor of the plaintiff then wildlife in all national parks and wilderness areas will be subject to heavier hunting pressure. Anytime of the year. Yellowstone in the summer? The UP of Michigan?
It's not only Indian/native Americans that subsistence hunt. Careful management assures there is game for all. Whether to view or hunt.
This gentleman is welcome to hunt on reservation year round, and off rez during season.
I agree - they followed the herd, but did they follow the Law. The LAW must always matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Do all National Parks have reservations that border them?
I don't know - but doubtful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
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...
I also agree ..... "Poaching has nothing to do with feeding a family" ..... or a Tribe
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
He was. Odd that so many want to ignore that.
It will be an interesting case to watch ....... and it highlights why we have a US Supreme Court to decide these issues. Interesting Case. Our family also hunts, but following the Law is what we do.
Not following the LAW is very expensive - and so it should be.
It will be an interesting case to watch ....... and it highlights why we have a US Supreme Court to decide these issues. Interesting Case. Our family also hunts, but following the Law is what we do.
Not following the LAW is very expensive - and so it should be.
It should. I used to and followed the law also. Hunted during season with proper equipment and bought a license. It still appears to me that this person followed the agreement between the government and his tribe.
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.
If their treaty allows them to hunt, fish, and gather in their usual and accustomed places, even if those places are off-reservation, they're not "getting away with it". It's their right.
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.
