Quote:
Originally Posted by crownb
Yeah maybe so, but that argument is not fair, the population has grown exponatially since those days, more people equals more food which means only one thing, more efficient farming practices. As far as forestry it is again population driven, more people means more living capacity and more infrastructure, which inturn means more efficient logging practices. Oil companies have become huge, again based on population, supply and demand. Now when it comes to sustinence hunting you have to agree that it had be one far easier to do with the modern tools we have, therefore the law shouldn't be no limit and no season, maybe something like you apply to the government for you sustinence hunting and based on the family you are feeding is the amount of tags you are issued, not sure just a suggestion but as far as comparing how everything has changed your right except the things you mentioned arnt law and they seem to be adjusting quite well.
|
For the record, the term "subsistence" does not appear anywhere in any Treaty that I have read. It was inserted in the NRTA as a means of denying the Indian a commercial Right to the resources as a result of the greed of the Crown. They wanted sole access to the natural resources in this country.
Interestingly enough with the Metis, they are not defined as Indians under the NRTA and they could very well argue they have a commercial right to the natural resources.
In conclusion, it you think being out on the land is strictly a killing thing, then I have no words that would explain the lifestyle.
As usual, I stand to be corrected...