From Deseret News archives:

Tribal connectons in question on deer hunting case

Published: Thursday, March 1, 2007 12:45 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
The case of a Uintah County deer hunter, whose tribal membership is in question, has created a confusing tangle of land ownership and tribal hunting rights that the Utah Supreme Court must now straighten out and make sense of.

Justices heard oral arguments Wednesday in the case of Rickie Reber, a 54-year-old hunter originally convicted in 2002 of hunting without a license after he aided his 13-year-old son in taking a trophy buck without a state permit. Reber claims a 4 percent blood tie to the Native American line and that he is a member of a non-federally recognized Uintah band. He also argues that the killing of the deer took place on tribal land, and given his heritage, did not need a state hunting permit.

However, attorneys for the state say the land, which is managed by the BLM with hunting and fishing activities regulated by the state Division of Wildlife, is about 20 miles away from Ute tribal lands. Reber claims the Uintah band was ousted from the Ute tribe some time ago, but remains a cohesive group.

The case has illustrated the confusion that can be caused by land and tribal designations when it comes to hunting and fishing rights. Maps produced by a national map publisher differ in geographic boundaries than maps produced by the state.

Story continues below
The Utah Court of Appeals overturned Reber's conviction, stating that the site of the hunt was indeed on tribal land. However, an attorney for the Ute Indian Tribe says the tribe agrees with the state in that the land is not theirs but rather managed by the state and federal BLM.

Assistant Utah Attorney General Joanne Slotnik said typically tribes have jurisdiction in which both the perpetrator and the victim of a crime are tribal members. In this case, there was no tribal victim.

"The only victim in this case is the deer and the deer is not an Indian," Slotnik told the justices.

Slotnik said the appeals court erred when it concluded the killing of the deer took place on tribal land. Charles Kaiser, attorney for the Ute Indian Tribe, told justices his clients do not lay claim to that piece of land.

However, Reber's attorney, Michael Humiston, said whether the Ute Tribe claims the land or not, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 1997 ruling did say that land belonged to the tribe, whether they like it or not now.

Justices said they lacked the jurisdiction to determine if the Uintah Tribe was a legitimate tribe under the law and expressed concern that the would not be able to address certain areas of the case because of that.

Humiston said wether the Uintah band is a federally-recognized tribe does not affect his client's claim that he had a right to hunt without a state license.

A ruling is expected in the coming months.


E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

I grew up in Utah, moved to Detroit, joined the UAW union where I worked for...

Arpaio is one of the last true law enforcers in the West. He has done more...

Bishop Burton: These are good times

In Utah the unempolyment rate could top out at 10%. All the homes that have...

Evidently no one asked you thank you very much.....

BYU says Hall incident resolved

A farce says you? Who are you? We have a nice little trophy representing such...

If it was Kyle's son that grabbed the phone and threw it good for him. I am...

Well put, until you laid it at the foot of Utah's investment in education....

Please, Please no happy talk! I am out of a job, lost my wife, my dog died...

MWC '09 season in review

I live up here in Big-10 country so I see a lot of their teams and I can tell...

I've always loved watching Harpring. I love the way he plays. He was the...

Advertisements