not honoring the treaty

Right, the Crow treaty of 1868, but this opinion will have implications for virtually all treaties throughout the Western 11 states, as virtually all of them establish, in trust, what're called "reserved federal rights" for hunting and fishing.

Other western state have managed to abide by this treaty with no issue.

That is not the case, at all. It might be the case for this specific treaty and tribal commission, and the lands related thereto in MT/ID/Wyo, but this precedent carries weight throughout all 190,000,000 acres of USFS lands. State agencies throughout the 11 western states will now need to promulgate regulatory models to accommodate the implications of off-rez hunting allowance, which western states have not managed to abide by at all, because, until now, it hasn't been a requirement backed up by supreme court jurisprudence.

It's not that states are "bad" at the provision of off-rez and off-season tribal hunting, it's just that none of them have had to do it on a large USFS-wide scale until now, and only have experience doing it with specific treaties and specific tribal commissions.

You could very well know everything I typed above, so I apologize if I come off as a bit lectury or am stating things already clear to you, but I just thought the way your comment was framed (or, perhaps just how I read it) was worth some clarification, as there will be lots of opinions and journalism in the coming weeks about this (as there already are) that're wayyy off the mark.