Lex Anteinternet: A Potential Wildlife Management Disaster or A Redefinition of "Unoccupied". Where forward from here.

I just posted this item:

Lex Anteinternet: A Potential Wildlife Management Disaster or A Rede...: That's what the United States Supreme Court's decision in Herrera v. Wyoming stands to be. Or at least it certainly has th...

It was one of those that took me quite awhile to draft and then more time to edit.  Not that the topic is old.

Anyway a person looks at this, it's going to have to be addressed. The Wyoming Game & Fish, and frankly the wildlife agencies of the United States, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Utah, Colorado and Idaho. . .and others are all going to be dealing with it this fall.

The Governor has appropriately reacted, particularly as the decision actually leaves a door wide open towards further defining "unoccupied".  Indeed, if this gets back up to the Supreme Court, and that's a big "if", my suspicion is that unoccupied will be defined to mean not lands that are not leased for use and are withdrawn from occupation.

Those lands are:

• Wilderness areas, maybe (quite a few of those actually have leases on the).
• Lands withdrawn under the Antiquities Act
• Parks

My suspicion is that the Federal Government, in a self serving manner, will oddly find that Parks are occupied.

I frankly have no problem at all with hunting in the National Parks, and I think it ought to be allowed.  Game is excessively plentiful in Yellowstone and I'd support allowing Native Americans to hunt in a regulated fashion in the Parks.  I know that this voice is solely a local one, and most people in the U.S. would find that horrifying.  But truth be known, the human natural element is the one thing missing from the Yellowstone ecosystem now.   I'd close the park in late September and open it to Native hunting through late November, in a regulated permitted fashion.

That's not going to happen, irrespective of the Supreme Court decision.

My second suspicion is that the Court will also say that the state may regulate hunting for conservation, and that means regulate it, but that Native Americans will have to be taken into account for permits.  I think there's a very high likelihood of that. 

That may all have to be worked out in the Courts, which the Governor's letter, which we'll now set out below, takes into account.  I'll come back with commentary below that:

The governor was correct in his comments.  But what might those "solutions for all those who hunt" (which includes Governor Gordon) be?

I think there might be some, and I'd suggest they consider them now.

My view is that the state ought to reach out to the native populations who had a historical presence in the state, which would include the Shoshone, Arapaho, Sioux, Cheyenne and Crow and work towards a solution.  What I see that solution being is as follows.

A number of licenses, on a draw basis, needs to be set aside for Native American hunters.  It doesn't, I don't think, have to be wholly unregulated.  Essentially, therefore, they'd be a new classification of hunter.

Or an old one, if you prefer to view it that way.

That classification should buy licenses at the same price as in state hunters.  Indeed, some will be instate hunters.

Those numbers, whatever they prove to be, should displace out of state licenses.

The net effect of that would be to allow the impact of the decision to be taken into account.  Moreover, it could be done in an efficient manner that doesn't actually need to restrict anyone to just Federal lands for hunting, plenty of that those there is.

And it would help address the slow evolution towards head hunting.

I've addressed that here before, but that's an evolution that operates against hunting and hunters.  Most hunters don't have anything against people preserving a trophy from a hunt, but making it the main focus is another matter entirely.  Indeed, in recent years there's been a really negative trend towards "donating meat" which I feel leads in an entirely wrong direction and shouldn't be tolerated.  

Conversely, most people support hunting for the table, and that's what hunting around here was for locals forever. This might serve to refocus that a bit, which would be a good thing.  

Indeed, awhile back I posted something on subsistence licenses, and this sort of heads in that direction.

Now, of course, while this plays out legally this is unlikely to occur.  But I think the state ought to start looking at it. And if they can get to this point either with the cooperation of the Tribes, or perhaps without them, I think they should.  They might have to.