MT Highway Patrol Officer David Moon and MT Fish,

[kempronnie]

yes were they found this fawn was on the southside of town but well inside town in an empty lot. yes wolf point is right in the middle of the reservation there is no daunt that this was a reservation deer.

Edited June 22, 2009 by kempronnie

[kempronnie]

well i will tell you this i don't bash on anyone how doesn't deseve it and they do. also for you i wasn't there when they found it or thats what i would of told them. it was to late when you get back from work and there is a baby fawn in your yard. that is almost dead from not eating for how ever long. so i opened my heart and wanted to help the little guy.

[Dawg]

So the whole town is on the reservatio. Gotcha.

The Administrator made a good point, none of this would have come to a head if they would have just let the deer be.

I'm done with this as I said before I don't have the slightest clue when it comes to Indians and their law.

[kempronnie]

yeah he is right in that aspect of it.

[The_Kat]

Oklahoma Highway Patrol has full jurisdiction in the state, regardless of tribal government. I am most certain it is the same way in Montana. Tribal governments are just that........governments, they aren't territories. I live in the choctaw capitol....yet their "reservation" doesn't dictate my community. The light horse are called in on certain calls, and other times they aren't. It's completely at the LEO discretion, and also depends on what charges are impending on the perp. Also I assume if the deer was as poor as you claim it was, the GW saw fit to put it down as it probably wouldn't survive. Another suggestion....lighten up with the attitude that some of your posts seem to have, or you might find your posting ability stopped in the near future. Is there a link to your story yet?

[The_Kat]

BTW your completely mistaken on the GW being able to remove an animal of tribal land. State government can over ride tribal government. It causes controversy as we can see from this story, but they can and within their rights. Remember....these governments reside one of the states in the union.

[buckee]

  kempronnie said:

see he is a tribal member and this is his land so everything on it belongs to the tribes and there tribal members as far as game animals go. so yeah he does have a lot more ownership over it then you.

That's exactly how it is here on the reservations too Kemp.:yes:

  kempronnie said:

well i will tell you this i don't bash on anyone who doesn't deserve it, and they do. Also for you i wasn't there when they found it or that's what i would of told them. it was to late when you get back from work and there is a baby fawn in your yard. that is almost dead from not eating for how ever long. so i opened my heart and wanted to help the little guy.

I would have done the same thing. Well, almost. Here we have animal shelters for wild animals like that. They don't have these type of facilities everywhere, but here we do. I would have taken it home, and then to the shelter, but that's just me. I love nature.

:boo:

  The_Kat said:

Oklahoma Highway Patrol has full jurisdiction in the state, regardless of tribal government. I am most certain it is the same way in Montana. Tribal governments are just that........governments, they aren't territories. I live in the choctaw capitol....yet their "reservation" doesn't dictate my community. The light horse are called in on certain calls, and other times they aren't. It's completely at the LEO discretion, and also depends on what charges are impending on the perp. Also I assume if the deer was as poor as you claim it was, the GW saw fit to put it down as it probably wouldn't survive. Another suggestion....lighten up with the attitude that some of your posts seem to have, or you might find your posting ability stopped in the near future. Is there a link to your story yet?

Almost certain or most certain...LOL

I don't see a problem with any of his posts Kyle.:disolve: I do see a problem with the way a few members jumped him, and put him in defence mode, without politely asking a few questions first. JMHO :disolve:

This reminds me of a story about a guy I know, who accidentally went hunting on Native land in northern Ontario. He shot a deer, and was trying to drag it out, when a couple of native guys came along. One native fella walked up to the deer, lifted his leg, and put his foot on it and said, "My Deer", and my buddy couldn't do a darn thing about it.

They had the right to claim his deer, because he shot it on their land ... like it or not. Native rights are different than our(whiteman's) rights whether you like the idea or not. They're reserve land is there's alone according to our laws too, so get used to it. To take your anger against native law verses whitemans law out on Kemp is way out of line IMO.

My hat is off to you Kemp for trying to take care of this fawn, and it really is too bad it all went sour on you and the poor innocent little fawn..

I may be a hunter, but I'm not heartless..(contrary to popular belief. )

I'd also like to say that Kemp didn't come in here bashing all police officers and game wardens, like some have in the past. He wasn't complaining about the ticket, just the killing of the fawn, and for a good reason, so go easy on him eh. All Police and All game wardens aren't perfect ..eh:rolleyes::wacko::bang:

[The_Kat]

  kempronnie said:

yeah well i'm sure they thought it was bs back in the day when we took everything from them. so live with it.

This is what I was talking about...

  buckee said:

I don't see a problem with any of his posts Kyle.:disolve: I do see a problem with the way a few members jumped him, and put him in defence mode, without politely asking a few questions first. JMHO :disolve:

Native rights are different than our(whiteman's) rights whether you like the idea or not. They're reserve land is there's alone according to our laws too, so get used to it. To take your anger against native law verses whitemans law out on Kemp is way out of line All Police and All game wardens aren't perfect ..eh:rolleyes::wacko::bang:

ok, first off we gotta clear some things up....it isn't just my opinion that his post was out of line, several administrators and several well respected members felt that it was.

Second, native rights are different in their tribes jurisdiction to a degree. They are not above the laws of the "whiteman" as you stated, which happens to be American Federal and State laws. If this wasn't the case, then how would any native american ever go to jail? Theres maybe 6 lighthorseman per tribe which covers huge areas of land.

I'm not bashing or debating indian government, I'm bashing the attitudes that some natives seem to get thinking their government supercedes Federal and State government. A state or federal lawman can do whatever he pleases as long as he is serving, protecting, and upholding the laws of the USA. So to say they had no right is bass ackwards. They had all the right. The people whom possessed the deer were in direct violation of the law. One being a lawman ( The Sheriff ) should be reprimanded for owning the deer and knowingly breaking the law. The reason I know that you must possess a permit to own a wild animal is because my ex girlfriend's dad had a deer for an entire year when the game warden caught on and was forced to get a permit which cost around 500$ or lose the deer and face a hefty fine.

As for your remark about all cops aren't perfect.....who said they were? Do I take the word of a cop over a citizen first though???? You can bet your butt I do!

Bottom line is the tribe can whine all they want about what happened, but they will lose the battle. State government runs the show, not the tiny indian government.

Am I happy the lil deer was killed? Certainly not, but I was not there and don't know their full reasoning behind it. I guess we will wait to get THEIR side of the story.

And gosh I wish I knew how to do those quotes and red ink like you do lol...I can't figure it out

[camoman1]

OK, I wasnt going to put my two cents in, but here goes....

To me it seems Kemp got mixed up in a situation where he was trying to help but in the end it didnt turn out....

I dont really see the 'bashing' of the LEO's. Just because he referred to them by name is not bashing. Calling them 'heartless', well if the story happened as stated they seemed to be. He never called them idiots or morons etc. And I dont blame him for getting defensive, some of the first responses were rather quick to get on his case.

Im no expert on tribal laws so I wont even go into that. But I think this is just a case of someone being in the wrong place at the right time....to bad it didnt turn out well for everyone...deer included.

Just my thoughts.....I dont know enough about the incident or the laws to throw a judgement of those involved out there.

[Painted Horse]

I usually don't get invovled with forums like this, but wanted to let those who have responded to this story know that this did happen.

I was there when the fawn was found. I also know the two officers involved in this incident. I have worked cases with them and consider them to be friends of mine. That doesn't mean that I don't feel this situation could have been handled better. This incident did happen on the reservation. Regardless of which jurisdiction handled this situation, one simple phone or radio call would have produced an entirely different outcome. This is a sad story. What makes it so sad is the fact that a helpless animal was killed without a second thought. I am aware there are laws about possessing wildlife. Not everything is black and white. When you have been in law enforcement for as long as I have been, you come to realize things are pretty much grey. When the fawn was found, it was obvious that it had been without its mother for several days. Right or wrong to take the fawn, doesn't really matter now, its dead. If we had not removed the fawn, dogs in the area would have killed it. Once we did that, the wheels were set in motion. We knew that this deer would never be wild again. Its easy to say leave it and let nature take its course, until you are the one looking at those eyes and the kids are all yelling for you to do something to help the little guy. Anyways to make a long story short, on this reservation, tribal members can possess wildlife and there is nothing you or anybody else can do about. On this reservation, a non-tribal member can not shoot or remove big game animals from the reservation. On this reservation, the tribe does have jurisdicition over non-tribal members when it comes to game laws. I have been and will be a hunter all my life. I am not a "tree hugger", but I also do not believe in the senseless killing of any animal. It doesn't really matter who had jurisdiciton in this situation, what matters is an innocent animal was disposed of without a second thought until after it was already dead. Had those involved taken a minute to verify the story about the deer belonging to a tribal member, I can assure you it would have had a different outcome. By the time I learned that the state game warden had taken the fawn, it was dead. After it was dead, the state game warden called the tribal member and said had he known it was his fawn, he would have handled it differently. Too bad he waited until after he killed it. I was pretty upset over this when it happened because it was just so senseless. Several of us, including three young girls, had become attached to this fawn. I don't beleive this incident is over. A story will be appearing in the tribal newspaper with pictures of the tribal member's family and the fawn this week. The paper comes out on Thursday. For me, it all boils down to this. The officers were told by a non-tribal member who was in possession of a fawn, that he was babysitting fawn for the day, for a tribal member. They did not beleive him and killed it. At least I hope that is what happened, because I would hate to think these two officers were too busy to make a radio or phone call to see if the story was true. Sadly, my son was telling the true, and even sader, the fawn was killed without a second thought. For what it's worth, I have yet to talk to other law enforcement officers about this that don't think the killing of the fawn was senseless. For those of you in positions of power that read this reply, do the world a favor and take time to think before you act.

[The_Kat]

  Painted Horse said:

Not everything is black and white. When you have been in law enforcement for as long as I have been, you come to realize things are pretty much grey.

Anyways to make a long story short, on this reservation, tribal members can possess wildlife and there is nothing you or anybody else can do about. On this reservation, a non-tribal member can not shoot or remove big game animals from the reservation. On this reservation, the tribe does have jurisdicition over non-tribal members when it comes to game laws.

I've been in law enforcement for two years, which is far short of your time in, but I disagree with your grey area statement. Laws are very black and white.

What reservation, and what nation is this? The reason I ask is because I plan to research how this tribe came to be above the federal law and how the federal government/state government can't do anything about it even though the tribal government resides in the state of Montana. I know alot about tribal government, my former police partner is a light horseman now, and he did say some tribes have special refuges and stuff for hunting, but as far as he knew they could regulate game laws and civil/public laws to their own liking as long as it was within american laws, and didn't go against them or take away from them. On top of that I live in Oklahoma and have dealt with Native American Governments all my life as thats all Oklahoma is made up of. They do great things for their people, but their control over anything besides their people and their commerce and well being is LIMITED.

[Painted Horse]

Good luck on the research. Let me save you some time, the only jurisdiction the State of Montana has on Indian land is over gambling. That's why we don't have large casinos like some reservations in other states. Aside from that, local and state officers have no jurisdiciton over tribal members unless the tribe authorizes it. It doesn't matter if the tribal member is enrolled here or on another reservation from another state. On our reservation, the tribe has jurisdition over non-tribal members for game violations. I should know, I have to buy a state bird stamp and a tribal bird stamp to hunt pheasants on the reservation. The same goes for fishing. Our reservation does not allow non-tribals to hunt big game on the reservation under and conditions. Anyways, happy researching. And oh, if the laws are so black and white, why do you give warnings? About the "grey" statement, let me know what you think after another 30 years.

[Nut]

Here is a interesting read for you Kyle

http://books.google.com/books?id=jSaMPCLFEvgC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=montana+tribal+laws+wildlife&source=bl&ots=6V3gKQ4Y7v&sig=14H6Pgg3qDSZxXfD8hAiCjancvw&hl=en&ei=a1pASqy-M8GLtgfdqcGOAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10

My opinion is that is was not the best choice to move the deer in the first place. Secondly the first poster should have done research on what the majority of members are here. We are non-tribal, law abiding ,fair chase hunters who study wildlife and understand that to allow nature to follow its course is the only way to be. Plus they support LEO's heavily. (Posting the names of the LEO's alledgely involved is not proper either.)

[buckee]

  Painted Horse said:

I usually don't get invovled with forums like this, but wanted to let those who have responded to this story know that this did happen.

I was there when the fawn was found. I also know the two officers involved in this incident. I have worked cases with them and consider them to be friends of mine. That doesn't mean that I don't feel this situation could have been handled better. This incident did happen on the reservation. Regardless of which jurisdiction handled this situation, one simple phone or radio call would have produced an entirely different outcome. This is a sad story. What makes it so sad is the fact that a helpless animal was killed without a second thought. I am aware there are laws about possessing wildlife. Not everything is black and white. When you have been in law enforcement for as long as I have been, you come to realize things are pretty much grey. When the fawn was found, it was obvious that it had been without its mother for several days. Right or wrong to take the fawn, doesn't really matter now, its dead. If we had not removed the fawn, dogs in the area would have killed it. Once we did that, the wheels were set in motion. We knew that this deer would never be wild again. Its easy to say leave it and let nature take its course, until you are the one looking at those eyes and the kids are all yelling for you to do something to help the little guy. Anyways to make a long story short, on this reservation, tribal members can possess wildlife and there is nothing you or anybody else can do about. On this reservation, a non-tribal member can not shoot or remove big game animals from the reservation. On this reservation, the tribe does have jurisdicition over non-tribal members when it comes to game laws. I have been and will be a hunter all my life. I am not a "tree hugger", but I also do not believe in the senseless killing of any animal. It doesn't really matter who had jurisdiciton in this situation, what matters is an innocent animal was disposed of without a second thought until after it was already dead. Had those involved taken a minute to verify the story about the deer belonging to a tribal member, I can assure you it would have had a different outcome. By the time I learned that the state game warden had taken the fawn, it was dead. After it was dead, the state game warden called the tribal member and said had he known it was his fawn, he would have handled it differently. Too bad he waited until after he killed it. I was pretty upset over this when it happened because it was just so senseless. Several of us, including three young girls, had become attached to this fawn. I don't beleive this incident is over. A story will be appearing in the tribal newspaper with pictures of the tribal member's family and the fawn this week. The paper comes out on Thursday. For me, it all boils down to this. The officers were told by a non-tribal member who was in possession of a fawn, that he was babysitting fawn for the day, for a tribal member. They did not beleive him and killed it. At least I hope that is what happened, because I would hate to think these two officers were too busy to make a radio or phone call to see if the story was true. Sadly, my son was telling the true, and even sader, the fawn was killed without a second thought. For what it's worth, I have yet to talk to other law enforcement officers about this that don't think the killing of the fawn was senseless. For those of you in positions of power that read this reply, do the world a favor and take time to think before you act.

  Quote

Good luck on the research. Let me save you some time, the only jurisdiction the State of Montana has on Indian land is over gambling. That's why we don't have large casinos like some reservations in other states. Aside from that, local and state officers have no jurisdiciton over tribal members unless the tribe authorizes it. It doesn't matter if the tribal member is enrolled here or on another reservation from another state. On our reservation, the tribe has jurisdition over non-tribal members for game violations. I should know, I have to buy a state bird stamp and a tribal bird stamp to hunt pheasants on the reservation. The same goes for fishing. Our reservation does not allow non-tribals to hunt big game on the reservation under and conditions. Anyways, happy researching. And oh, if the laws are so black and white, why do you give warnings? About the "grey" statement, let me know what you think after another 30 years.

First off, welcome to the Realtree forums Painted Horse and thank you for stepping in on behalf of your son to clearify things and vouch for him. I for one respect that and your reply was great. :clap:No argument from me.

Hey, when that news clipping comes out, I'm sure we'd all like to read it now..LOL. I know I would.

Edited June 23, 2009 by buckee

[fort_peck_reservation_indi]

i just have to respond to this guy......................umm first off tribal law IS American Law!!...what do u think we are? foreigners in our own country? in fact...i believe some of you folks refer to us as "American Indians" or "Native Americans", so i believe that qualifies us to be Americans! Also your statement shows your lack of knowlege or understanding of tribal laws and its very apparent that you cannot comprehend that complexities of jurisdictional issues in "indian country"

by the way there is a section in Federal Law that is actually called "Crimes in Indian Country" this section deals with crimes committed on an indian reservations by both enrolled members of that tribe and non enrolled members of that tribe (white, black, hispanic, asian peoples), when Tribal and State Law cannot or do not prosecute these crimes.

pidamya (thank you) your fellow american "indian" citizen

[fort_peck_reservation_indi]

  The_Kat said:

Too bad for the fawn.....FYI it is illegal to possess a wild animal without a permit. Thats a federal law......even indian tribes are not above it. I'll be perfectly honest with you on the tribal law thing. I think it's a bunch of BS. You live in America, and you should be governed by American Law!

I just have to respond to this guy...........umm first off Tribal Law IS American Law!!...what do u think we are? foreigners in our own country? in fact...i believe some of you folks refer to us as "American Indians" or "Native Americans", so i believe that qualifies us to be Americans!

Also your statement shows a great lack of knowlege and/or understanding of tribal laws and its very apparent that you do not comprehend the complexities of jurisdictional issues in "indian country"

by the way there is a section in Federal Law that is actually called "Crimes in Indian Country" this section deals with crimes committed on indian reservations by both enrolled members of that tribe and non enrolled members of that tribe ie; white, black, hispanic, asian peoples when Tribal and State Law cannot or do not prosecute these crimes.

pidamiya (thank you) your fellow "AMERICAN Indian" citizen

Edited June 23, 2009 by fort_peck_reservation_indian

[buckee]

Welcome to the Realtree forums fort_peck_reservation_indian :disolve:

[fort_peck_reservation_indi]

i believe most of you folks who are posting responses to this thread have never been to an indian reservation here in montana.

it seems that the majority of you live in areas where either native and non native people do not get along; or you live where you might only have read about american indians in your middle school social studies class...let me try to enlighten you a lil bit...

first off my reservation "the fort peck indian reservation" is larger the state of conneticut. (approx. 3200 sq miles.)....."no im not exaggerating just look at a map".... we have over 10,000 proudly enrolled tribal members comprised of both the dakota (sioux) and nakota (assiniboine) tribes.

secondly here in northeast montana (where my reservation is located) there are other citizens that live on or near my reservation that are comprised of mainly scandanavian, or scottish/irish peoples...

meaning there are still alot of "Cowboys and Indians" here in northeast montana, however we were all taught to respect each others history and traditions and not make light of each other or disrespect each others culture, in fact we have the "Brockton, MT Warriors", the "Poplar,MT Indians" the "Glasgow,MT Scotties" and the "Culbertson, MT Cowboys" as a few of our local school mascots...and believe me! each town is damned proud of their local High School Sports Teams!!!

lastly here on the Fort Peck Reservation we love our outdoors, there is no other place in the world where you can hunt for a whitetail or muley, or a buffalo, an antelope, or maybe come across an elusive Elk or Moose, or go upland bird hunting for (pheasant/sharptail grouse/prarie chicken/hungarian partridge) or waterfowl shooting for (geese/ducks) or go coyote/gopher hunting all in one day. we can also go fishing for walleye, sauger, ling, northern pike, paddlefish, catfish, perch or bass in our souther border, "the Missouri River".......HOWEVER!! we were all taught from day one by our fathers, grandfathers and uncles not to waste game and to respect our wildlife. these things were given to us by our mother earth to feed our families and/or clothe ourselves.....

(and yes as a tribal member i would be legally allowed by our tribal law...the only law that has jurisdiction over big game animals on my reservation.... to keep any wild animal if it is abandoned)

but folks the bottom line is this, everyone of you guys who is on this thread and may have posted some of your thoughts through either ingnorance/arrogance or spite towards native americans are prolly the same people who have the same story and upbringing as all of us native american hunters/outdoorsman do.....

you and i were taught the same core values and principles to respect and be grateful for our great outdoors and our wildlife, so does this make me so different than you?

thank you

here is a brief history of my reservation the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.

The new Fort Peck Indian Agency was established in 1871 to serve the Assiniboine and Sioux Indians. The Agency was located within the old stockade of Fort Peck, purchased from traders Durfee and Peck.

In 1878, the Fort Peck Agency was relocated to its present day location in Poplar because the original agency was located on a flood plain, suffering floods each spring.

Attempts by the U.S. government to take the Black Hills and bind the Sioux to agencies along the Missouri in the 1860s resulted in warfare, reopening the issues that had been central to the Great Sioux War (1866-68). As part of the Sioux agreed to come in to agencies, part chose to resist. Army efforts to bring in the other Sioux (characterized as "hostiles") led to battles in the Rosebud country, and culminated in the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876. As the victors dispersed, Sitting Bull led followers north into the Red Water country, where contact with the Sioux of Fort Peck Agency kept the Hunkpapas and assorted Tetons supplied. When military pressure increased, Sitting Bull led most of his followers into Canada in 1877. The military presence increased in an effort to induce Sitting Bull to surrender..Camp Poplar (located at Fort Peck Agency) was established in 1880. Finally, without supplies and barely tolerated by Indians in the area of present day southern Saskatchewan, Sitting Bull came in to surrender at Fort Buford on July 19, 1881. Some of his Hunkpapas stragglers intermarried with others at Fort Peck and resided in the Chelsea community. The early 1880s brought many changes and much suffering. By 1881, all the buffalo were gone from the region. By 1883/84, over 300 Assiniboines died of starvation at the Wolf Point sub-agency when medical attention and food were in short supply. Rations were not sufficient for needs, and suffering reservation-wide was exacerbated by particularly severe winters. The early reservation traumas were complicated by frequent changes in agents, few improvements in services, and a difficult existence for the agency's tribes. Negotiations the winter of 1886-87 and ratified in the Act of May 1, 1888, established modern boundaries.Also in 1887, Congress passed the Dawes Act, which provided the general legislation for dividing the hitherto tribally-owned Indian reservations into parcels of land to be given to individuals. During the turn of the century, as the non-Indian proceeded to inhabit the boundary areas of the Reservation, the prime grazing and farmland areas situated within the Reservation drew their attention. As more and more homesteaders moved into the surrounding area, pressure was placed on Congress to open up the Fort Peck Reservation to homesteading.

Finally, the Congressional Act of May 30, 1908, commonly known as the Fort Peck Allotment Act, was passed. The Act called for the survey and allotment of lands now embraced by the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and the sale and dispersal of all the surplus lands after allotment. Each eligible Indian was to receive 320 acres of grazing land in addition to some timber and irrigable land. Parcels of land were also withheld for Agency, school and church use. Also, land was reserved for use by the Great Northern (Burlington Northern) Railroad. All lands not allotted or reserved were declared surplus and were ready to be disposed of under the general provisions of the homestead, desert land, mineral and townsite laws.

In 1913, approximately 1,348,408 acres of unallotted or tribal unreserved lands were available for settlement by the non-Indian homesteaders. Although provisions were made to sell the remaining land not disposed of in the first five years, it was never completed. Several additional allotments were made before the 1930s.

Educational history on the Reservation includes a government boarding school program which was begun in 1877 and finally discontinued in the 1920s. Missionary schools were run periodically by the Mormons and Presbyterians in the first decades of the 20th century, but with minimal success. The Fort Peck Reservation is served by five public school districts, which are responsible for elementary and secondary education. In addition, an independent post-secondary institution is located on the Reservation: Fort Peck Community College, which offers nine associate of arts, six associate of science, and ten associate of applied science degrees.

Fort Peck Reservation is home to two separate Indian nations, each composed of numerous bands and divisions. The Sioux divisions of Sisseton/Wahpetons, the Yanktonais, and the Teton Hunkpapa are all represented. The Assiniboine bands of Canoe Paddler and Red Bottom are represented. The Reservation is located in the extreme northeast corner of Montana, on the north side of the Missouri River.

The Reservation is 110 miles long and 40 miles wide, encompassing 2,093,31 acres (approximately 3,200 square miles). Of this, approximately 378,000 acres are tribally owned and 548,000 acres are individually allotted Indian lands. The total of Indian owned lands is about 926,000 acres. There are an estimated 10,000 enrolled tribal members, of whom approximately 6,000 reside on or near the Reservation. The population density is greatest along the southern border of the Reservation near the Missouri River and the major transportation routes, U.S. Highway 2 and the Amtrak routing on the tracks of the Burlington Northern Railroad.

The Fort Peck Tribes adopted their first written constitution in 1927. The Tribes voted to reject a new constitution under the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934. The original constitution was amended in 1952, and completely rewritten and adopted in 1960. The present constitution remains one of the few modern tribal constitutions that still includes provisions for general councils, the traditional tribal type of government. The official governing body of the Fort Peck Tribes is the Tribal Executive Board, composed of twelve voting members, plus a chairman, vice-chairman, secretary-accountant, and sergeant-at-arms. All members of the governing body, except the secretary-accountant are elected at large every two years......

btw here are a few links for ya www.rcso17.org and www.fortpecktribes.org

and http://montanakids.com/history_and_prehistory/indian_reservations/fort_peck.htm

and lastly http://www.fptc.org/code.htm# this is the tribal law that governs all the people who hunt, fish and trap on my reservaion, just go and click on fish and game management section #19 you all then can read up...

ps.....hey paintedhorse i think the kid who said he's been a cop for a couple of years can use the last link here to use for his research!!! lol

Edited June 23, 2009 by fort_peck_reservation_indian

[woolybear]

  fort_peck_reservation_indian said:

but folks the bottom line is this, everyone of you guys who is on this thread and may have posted some of your thoughts through either ingnorance/arrogance or spite towards native americans are prolly the same people who have the same story and upbringing as all of us native american hunters/outdoorsman do.

:flex: That about sums it up in a nutshell from my experience fishing the Seneca Res here for darn near 20 years now. Can't say I've ever met a better group of nature respective folks than I have on tribal lands.

While some outside the Res will scouff at the thought of having to purchase a seperate reservation lisence to play by their rules, I'm truely glad that it filters out the worms that hoard the shores of these tributary streams and creeks further downstream and offers everyone the oppertunity in the first place.

Most I find that come from outside the nation boundaries are willing to abide the set rules are die hard nature lovers in every aspect there is respecting the land fully. That's more than I can say for some local state owned and governed propperties I've been on.

Back to topic- good news is you did what felt right for that little fawns survival and that's commendable as all get out in my book, I don't care where ya live, reservation or not, or what the state governing officials have to say about it right or wrong in their eyes.

Next time just don't speed and keep it hush hush.Every encounter like that will lead to being scrutinized when it's posted on a forum like this. It's just human nature to speculate and ask "what if", but in the end you know you did all you could for that fella.

Getting back off topic again(sort of). Here NY State troopers patroll and enforce all NYS traffic laws on state highways running through any town or reservation, PERIOD.

Slow down next time brotha and keep it in your pants till ya get to where ya gotta go..:oops:

[wtnhunt]

Welcome to the forums Ronnie and the new members posting in this thread. I would encourage you to post introductions to yourselves and let us know a little more about you.

I believe states laws regarding possession of wild game can actually vary some. Obviously any federal laws have to be complied with, but who is to say that the sheriff did not have the authority to have possession of this animal and where is a link to federal law regarding possession of whitetailed deer? There are federal laws for some species, are whitetails a species that fall under federal guidelines?

I know here in this state you do have to have a license to possess any wild game animals, but there are licensed folks with shelters who can take in injured or abandoned wildlife. We had a fawn here on our small farm that I ran over accidentally while raking hay. The warden let me bring it back to the house while waiting for him to come and get it, and he took it to a shelter for observation.

[RangerClay]

  The_Kat said:

This is what I was talking about...

ok, first off we gotta clear some things up....it isn't just my opinion that his post was out of line, several administrators and several well respected members felt that it was.

Bottom line is the tribe can whine all they want about what happened, but they will lose the battle. State government runs the show, not the tiny indian government.

  Nut said:

My opinion is that is was not the best choice to move the deer in the first place. Secondly the first poster should have done research on what the majority of members are here. We are non-tribal, law abiding ,fair chase hunters who study wildlife and understand that to allow nature to follow its course is the only way to be. Plus they support LEO's heavily. (Posting the names of the LEO's alledgely involved is not proper either.)

Finally back on topic.

What do you have to gain by telling us about this deer. I believe the only reason you came here was to gain support in bashing two LEO's. I read your post shortly after you made it and it had brackets. That means you were probably copying and pasting this all over the net. I have trouble believing that once this deer was killed you said to yourself, "I have to go tell the Realtree Forums". You came here, you made the post and you made sure to mention the officers names. This was an LEO bashing thread from the start, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it.:angry: Maybe you need you move on and get over it.

[stevebeilgard]

wow. what a post. i've lived near reservations for 40 years, and know and work with them all the time. in 1978 i set up the desert big horn sheep hunting program with Monroe Beecher, the Hualapai tribal game manager. i've also hunted on tribal lands.

while i see a bunch of problems here, i mostly agree with the indian side of this controversy. i support our police fully, but think we have two here who should have been doing a little bit of research. federal highways go through the reservations all over the nation, and are owned by the feds via the right of emminent domain. the highway patrol and game warden were there legally doing their job, and the tribal council will not be able to go after them. BUT, did they do the correct thing? again this is a yes and no. the state game warden did what he was supposed to do and not allow private ownership of a wild game animal. the highway patrol did it's job properly by issueing a ticket for speeding and getting the kid with the deer to stay where he was. yet, a few phone calls could have avoided this whole situation. tribal law here overrode (imo) federal highway law, and the tribal police should have gotten involved with a call from the highway patrol. i hope everyone learned a bit from this situation.

i think this was a slam against the two named officers, not police in general. cops, indians, you, and i are first and formost, people. some of us are good and some are pure evil, but we all make mistakes. i think the two officers could have handled this a bit different. that does not make them, or any other police, bad. it simply shows a possible error in judgement. which of us has never made a poor decision?

the experience i've had with much dealings with the indians has been overall very good and i'd do it again. this sheriff wasn't looking for a pet, he was trying to help an animal. right or wrong legally, he was doing what his heart told him was right and that is how all good folks should make a decision. legally, i see the mistake was getting on that federal highway and getting caught. both those officers did what they had to do within the law and did it. i'll not criticise that one bit.

we have a bad situation here with both sides right. i see errors in judgement, tribal v/s federal-state law, and even some disrespect of customs here but nothing illegal except the speeding. you know, the exact things that keep attorneys busy. lol

finally, a very large WELCOME to our newest members. i hope to see you guys around a bit. this is a great place filled with wonderful people, and i think you'll fit right in.

[elkoholic]

This is indeed an interesting post. It shows the propensity of certain individuals to jump to conclusions, point fingers and call for a public lynching. The points addressed in the original post concerning the actions taken also appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that could have been avoided all together. Too bad for the fawn, but it is a wild animal that should have been left where it was. It's role in the natural world was forever changed when it was made a "pet". Nature is neither cruel nor kind, it just is. When it comes to tribal law versus state/federal law there is probably the kind of quagmire that the lawyers all start to drool over. While there is some animosity amongst the groups, there is cooperation for the most part. Legal and just does not always match what is in the heart.

[The_Kat]

Steve b made my point! This is what I've been saying all along. Good luck winning your case...your gonna need it. I'd love to debate this further but I'm back in okc with dad n on my cell.

[kempronnie]

  fort_peck_reservation_indian said:

I just have to respond to this guy...........umm first off Tribal Law IS American Law!!...what do u think we are? foreigners in our own country? in fact...i believe some of you folks refer to us as "American Indians" or "Native Americans", so i believe that qualifies us to be Americans!

Also your statement shows a great lack of knowlege and/or understanding of tribal laws and its very apparent that you do not comprehend the complexities of jurisdictional issues in "indian country"

by the way there is a section in Federal Law that is actually called "Crimes in Indian Country" this section deals with crimes committed on indian reservations by both enrolled members of that tribe and non enrolled members of that tribe ie; white, black, hispanic, asian peoples when Tribal and State Law cannot or do not prosecute these crimes.

pidamiya (thank you) your fellow "AMERICAN Indian" citizen

.l