Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Crow Indian Tribe V. United States, Hallee Kansman
Crow Indian Tribe V. United States, Hallee Kansman
Public Land & Resources Law Review
The protection status of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly bear continues to elicit debate and find its way into the courtroom. In Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, for the second time in the last decade, a court held the Service’s attempt to delist the Yellowstone Grizzly arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, the court found the Service’s evaluation of remnant populations, recalibration, and genetic health deficient. This case demonstrates the importance in and the resilient motivation behind preserving grizzly bear populations and genetics. As the practice of delisting a species under the Endangered Species Act continues, this case will provide important …
United States V. Washington, Kirsa Shelkey
United States V. Washington, Kirsa Shelkey
Public Land & Resources Law Review
Pacific Northwest Treaties, now known as the Stevens Treaties, were negotiated in the 1850’s between the U.S. and Indian tribes, including the Suquamish Indian Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam, Lower Elwha Band of Klallams, Port Gamble Clallam, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Nooksack Tribe, Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe, Upper Skagit Tribe, Tulalip Tribes, Lummi Indian Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, Puyallup Tribe, Hoh Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, Quileute Indian Tribe, Makah Indian Tribe, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (“Tribes”). The Stevens Treaties stated that “the right of taking fish, …
Crow Tribe Of Indians – Montana Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Crow Tribe Of Indians – Montana Compact, Ariel E. Overstreet-Adkins
Public Land & Resources Law Review
This order from the Montana Water Court approved the Crow Water Compact over objections by non-tribal water users in Montana. Although the Objectors have appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, this order represents the next-to-last step in a process, started in 1979, to define and quantify the reserved water rights for current and future uses of the Crow Nation in Montana. The order provides a clear roadmap for other Montana tribes still seeking to achieve approval of a water compact by the Montana Water Court, and for objectors who would attempt to invalidate a compact in future proceedings.