Subsistence hunting- OFFICIAL thread

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Can you imagine a people, any people being so naïve or stupid enough to agree to these terms???? It was a swindle of the greatest magnitude...plain and simple. And some here want to go back and renegotiate.......I would gladly lobby to assist with any lobby to open the Treaty discussions but I really don't think the folks that want to do this understand what they're asking for....

Oldest story in the book. Look at history, it has been going on for ages. When a nation is defeated they are dictated terms of surrender. I am sure that the band leaders did what they could and what they thought was in the best interest of their people in their circumstance.

[riden]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

Oldest story in the book. Look at history, it has been going on for ages. When a nation is defeated they are dictated terms of surrender. I am sure that the band leaders did what they could and what they thought was in the best interest of their people in their circumstance.

Where are you getting the defeated part from? What surrender?

You are confusing US and Canadian history.

[elkhunter11]

I don't get the resentment toward natives for the treaties.

I reserve my resentment for the government, and our courts that keep giving more and more concessions to the natives, even though those concessions were not mentioned in the treaties. We don't have a justice system, instead we have a legal system meant to keep the judges and lawyers wealthy at the expense of the Canadian citizens. Instead of enacting laws to make Canadians equal, the politicians write racist laws that divide Canadians even more.

[SmokinJoe]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

You filled 3 of the 11 pages!

How do you really feel about that. Might have been trying to get the same point across every which way I possible could and it still wasn't being comprehended by a select few..

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

How do you really feel about that. Might have been trying to get the same point across every which way I possible could and it still wasn't being comprehended by a select few..

I feel your pain..... Trust me!

[Blackwolf]

I have for long time believed there are no natives in Canada. There is no legal definition of a Metis, therefore no Metis. If you can show me a true full blooded Native, then give him all the treaty rights, provided that he has never had alcohol as per the treaties. Otherwise we should all be Canadians, and giving rights of one people over another based on race is the worse case of racism.

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by riden

I don't get the resentment toward natives for the treaties.

Natives didn't write the treaties, the crown did. The treaties are very generous for the natives and it wasn't an accident. The crown knew full well they were generous and didn't care. Because they had a plan.


The US had just fought a long and bitter war against their native population, and we didn't want to repeat it, nor could we have won it as easily (without US or British help, we wouldn't have period). Some of the US tactics were shameful and I wouldn't want that part of our history, and more importantly, neither did our forefathers.

The treaties were designed to satisfy natives and avoid violence. The crown didn't care that they were generous because they had planned from the beginning to assimilate the natives and thought the treaties were only temporary. They believed residential schools and other policies would ensure treaties would only last 100 years or so, and every year there would be fewer beneficiaries.

They were dead wrong.

If anyone is at fault here, it is us, not the natives. They just agreed to the sweet deal we offered.

I think you have me confused with someone else.....I would never state "that was then and this is now...........times have changed". Unless the meds I'm taking for this damn cold have taken over my common sense. I'm still waiting for the crown to live up to he Treaties!!!!

Can you check where you found me stating this????? If I did I will retract immediately...

Just a couple of points. I have read the treaties over and over. They were not generous to the natives. They are very simple and basic.

Time and time again I have heard natives say they are waiting for the crown to live up to the treaties. I would like someone to explain to me exactly what it is in the treaties that is not being honoured?

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

Just a couple of points. I have read the treaties over and over. They were not generous to the natives. They are very simple and basic.

Time and time again I have heard natives say they are waiting for the crown to live up to the treaties. I would like someone to explain to me exactly what it is in the treaties that is not being honoured?

The "medicine chest clause" is an example where the government has been obligated to live up to the treaty far beyond what was written. It is now taken to mean free medical for all treaty members when its written that the Indian agent shall keep a medicine chest in his home for band members use. Not sure how that simple statement now has taxpayers on the hook for all medical needs that Canadians have to pay for...

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

Just a couple of points. I have read the treaties over and over. They were not generous to the natives. They are very simple and basic.

Time and time again I have heard natives say they are waiting for the crown to live up to the treaties. I would like someone to explain to me exactly what it is in the treaties that is not being honoured?

Sounds like a breach to me! They should have headed towards sanctions or war over a treaty violation !

[Big Thumper]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Sounds like a breach to me! They should have headed towards sanctions or war over a treaty violation !

Quite certain that the agreement by the Indians to "Never possess any liquor on their reserves." may have been breached frequently. This clause was common to most treaties and was certainly in Treay six in western Canada.

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Off the top I want you to know I did attempt to reply to your early post but it was difficult (to me on my phone) to respond to your comments within the quote.

Natives sitting down with wildlife groups and the government is the only way we can effect positive change. I certainly agree the the treaties are not the place to make changes.

If push ( by the government and/or licenced hunters) came to shove ( by Treaty Nations), the first party would end up on their butt damn quick.


Absolutely there are real challenges ahead for wildlife management that we have not yet seen before. In Alberta, We have been very fortunate so far to not really have had anything but minor situations of wildlife concerns involving overharvest by licenced or treaty hunters. This will change as the demand increases. It has happened in Manitoba, Saskatchewan is getting closer to the tipping point in areas (eastern border). It will eventually happen here.

Then again I really doubt that Suffield will be the concern that puts us over the edge. The local social acceptance of this herd is such that a couple years of high harvest is just what the locals and government want. Once the population is down to socially accepted levels it simply will not have the same draw for either treaty hunters or "trophy" hunters. I suspect this problem will Peter out....

I am well aware of the problems going on in Manitoba and Saskatchewan as I live on the Man/Sask. on the Sask. side. The overhunting that is going on in Manitoba is spilling over into Sask. With the severe winters we have had our populations are at all time lows. Harvest is now exceeding each years production.
In my mind natives sitting down with wildlife groups will do nothing to solve the wildlife issues. It is the Natives and Metis that need to go to government if they want to solve the problem. For those not who are not of Native ancestry the law is very clear, When population decrease to the point that it will impact treaty rights the licensed seasons will be closed but the problem still goes on. Native populations are still going to grow. Metis population are exploding now that they have been given the rights of first nations. These two groups need to meet with the government and bring about laws that will ensure that wildlife is managed in a manner that will benefit all. The Metis have put on self imposed limits but no one pays attention to the or abides by them as there is no consequence for their actions. Yes, me as a licensed hunter will be loosing my rights to hunt but unless these two groups do something, they will not be far behind.

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by riden

Where are you getting the defeated part from? What surrender?

You are confusing US and Canadian history.

I am not referring to the US. The Northwest Rebellion was about as violent as it got. With Middleton's forces and the hanging of a few Metis and several Native chiefs along with the disappearance of the buffalo and smallpox they realized that something had to be done. It is not always an all our war that causes a nation to surrender. Here again one needs only to look at history.

[purgatory.sv]

I have only hunted to eat and enjoy the outdoors; I have seen how it is now a business not an event?

To be honest we did hunt for food in the beginning, but as things changed it was not always necessary.


Today I see pressure to take but not an understanding of a balance?

I appreciate your posts they give me reference.






I sent this post to another contributor.

If reward can be separated from want; a balance could be reached?

[Squeaker]

Originally Posted by 300magman

x1,000.....that about sums it up. Well said

Originally Posted by ATE

Nothing based on ancestory is fair. That's why kingdoms are getting scarce in the world.
"It's the law...." ? It used to be the law that women couldn't vote, people fought for equality and the law changed. These unequal laws can also change.

Measure the subsistence hunting and then we can manage it, but there is an equality issue.

x2:

[Squeaker]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

How do you really feel about that. Might have been trying to get the same point across every which way I possible could and it still wasn't being comprehended by a select few..

I agree to disagree and again what makes your point better than anyone else's ? you couldn't seem to comprehend my point and fairness.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

I value your input as I think you see the long term issues that uncontrolled hunting will bring. Natives sitting down with wildlife groups will not solve the issue. We can sit and discuss the issues and problems but nothing will be resolved. It is the natives themselves that need to approach the government and ask to have changes to our hunting regulations. It does not need to be a change in treaties. If they do not do this we may as well do away with our game managers, seasons and limits for all. Without limits and seasons there will be abuse by Natives and Metis hunters. If same rules were applied to Whites, Blacks and Orientals the same abuses would be found. Abuse does not recognise race or color. Things have to change or our wildlife will only exist in special preserves.

This is what needs to happen but unfortunately it likely never will.

Wildlife will continue to do well on a lot of private land as well. I know in my neck of the woods native hunting is nearly non existent as the landowners will have none of it...

[dshaw]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

I am well aware of the problems going on in Manitoba and Saskatchewan as I live on the Man/Sask. on the Sask. side. The overhunting that is going on in Manitoba is spilling over into Sask. With the severe winters we have had our populations are at all time lows. Harvest is now exceeding each years production.
In my mind natives sitting down with wildlife groups will do nothing to solve the wildlife issues. It is the Natives and Metis that need to go to government if they want to solve the problem. For those not who are not of Native ancestry the law is very clear, When population decrease to the point that it will impact treaty rights the licensed seasons will be closed but the problem still goes on. Native populations are still going to grow. Metis population are exploding now that they have been given the rights of first nations. These two groups need to meet with the government and bring about laws that will ensure that wildlife is managed in a manner that will benefit all. The Metis have put on self imposed limits but no one pays attention to the or abides by them as there is no consequence for their actions. Yes, me as a licensed hunter will be loosing my rights to hunt but unless these two groups do something, they will not be far behind.

x2!!!! and who will they blame when that time comes? I can only guess but I hope they look at themselves and realize they were part of the problem. In my opinion the first change that needs to occur is to have kills registered and some data to help with the conservation efforts of the future for all our future generations.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Don K

This is what needs to happen but unfortunately it likely never will.

Wildlife will continue to do well on a lot of private land as well. I know in my neck of the woods native hunting is nearly non existent as the landowners will have none of it...

Just wait, it gets even better now that Metis have hunting rights now too.

[Gate guy]

I have an issue with sustenance hunting and that there are clearly 2 sets of rules in play.....
I have sent an email to srd and I emplor all of you to do the same

Albertans, canadians..... One set of laws for all !

[slough shark]

In my mind it is really fairly simple, they get to hunt the same time with the same tags as non-natives with the same tags they just don't have to pay for them. There has never been a year where I wouldn't be able to sustain myself with what I had the chance to harvest.

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by expmler

All anybody wants is for everyone to be treated the same and not have different rules based on skin color.

That is fine, but why the opposition to having the size of family and number of animals taken documented and controlled?

I do not have a problem with that, but who determines what it is the appropriate amount for a family for a year. It your are single or have a family and are non-native do you want someone else telling you what is the appropriate amount of meat for you to eat in a year.

I have also read about non-native members on here getting moose tags, elk tags and deer and possibly even antelope tags for their whole family in the same year. Husband gets one, wife gets one, a couple sons and a daughter get one, and they all shoot game......but that is ok???????

Do they do it every year like natives do?
Possibly not for all species, but a family of 5 can still shoot quite a few deer, and if they bow hunt as well, non-natives can still harvest quite a bit of game every year.




No one is protesting those natives that are actually subsistence hunting.

Once again, without knowing how much game is taken and for how many people, how could you know that they are not all subsistence hunting?

I thought the idea of the suffield hunt was to reduce population, hence why cows should be shot not bulls.

I believe that reducing the heard population is the main focus, but there are already hundreds of cows being harvested. To my knowledge natives are not required to hunt their animals by sex, subsistence hunting has different treaty rules. Allowing only natives to shoot bulls, IMO maybe wasn't the right choice, I do not know the reasons ESRD chose to do this. My guess is that they wanted elk shot quickly, they may have anticipated the shyte show that would develop with non-natives shooting bulls, and we can see by the discussions on that, if they did predicate that scenario, they were pretty much right on.

All anybody wants is for everyone to be treated the same and not have different rules based on skin color.

I don't believe this is race issue, it is a treaty issue. I am not talking specifically about the Suffield hunt, but Native hunting in general, which is all this discussion is really about. I think people have to look at themselves regarding making deals with someone. If you make a deal with someone, and then day, months, years later you feel that overall you got a good deal......but over time one small aspect of that deal is now better for the other party, you should be able to just negotiate that part, but keep all the good stuff where you did way better?

[Cowtown guy]

Bob, you hit the nail on the head once there for sure. If we don't know what is being taken how do we allot tags properly?

[Xbolt300]

Well of you guys want it to be fair why don't. You guys go live on a reserve and that. Everyone wats to be equal and shoot what ever they want but when everything's dead and gone then bam more whining will happen I can't believe the cry babies in this place like holy **** grow up bunch of racist ppl I hope this thread gets posted in the magazine to show what a bunch of babies we all our

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by Xbolt300

Well of you guys want it to be fair why don't. You guys go live on a reserve and that. Everyone wats to be equal and shoot what ever they want but when everything's dead and gone then bam more whining will happen I can't believe the cry babies in this place like holy **** grow up bunch of racist ppl I hope this thread gets posted in the magazine to show what a bunch of babies we all our

This thread is not about racism. Never was. Please leave that word out of this thread. It's about substenance hunting.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Xbolt300

Well of you guys want it to be fair why don't. You guys go live on a reserve and that. Everyone wats to be equal and shoot what ever they want but when everything's dead and gone then bam more whining will happen I can't believe the cry babies in this place like holy **** grow up bunch of racist ppl I hope this thread gets posted in the magazine to show what a bunch of babies we all our

Actually most people don't want to have everyone out shooting whatever they want. Rather most people want to have everyone follow the same rules, so that our game populations can be properly managed , so that they aren't all dead and gone. As for the racist comment, racism by definition is having special rights or privileges based on race, so only the people that want that, are racists. Most of us want equality for all Alberta residents, which is the opposite of racism.

[crownb]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Actually most people don't want to have everyone out shooting whatever they want. Rather most people want to have everyone follow the same rules, so that our game populations can be properly managed , so that they aren't all dead and gone. As for the racist comment, racism by definition is having special rights or privileges based on race, so only the people that want that, are racists. Most of us want equality for all Alberta residents, which is the opposite of racism.

Wow!!!! Slow clap, excellent point, only the people who want special rights and privileges based on race are racist, I think we all know who that is, the only way to have fairness and to be able to debate something properly is if we all start on a level playing field, it is so obvious. We need equality I mean this is 2015 in Canada and we are still operating on treaties written during horse and buggy days.

[Lefty-Canuck]

You guys assume ESRD encouraged the Native hunting....perhaps the surrounding landowners, base and CFB Suffield administration had more to do with it than ESRD or F&W?

LC

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Xbolt300

Well of you guys want it to be fair why don't. You guys go live on a reserve and that. Everyone wats to be equal and shoot what ever they want but when everything's dead and gone then bam more whining will happen I can't believe the cry babies in this place like holy **** grow up bunch of racist ppl I hope this thread gets posted in the magazine to show what a bunch of babies we all our

Thanks for illustrating one of the points be made .....people expressing an opinion respectfully is not rascism.

LC

[Jims71duster]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

I have for long time believed there are no natives in Canada. There is no legal definition of a Metis, therefore no Metis. If you can show me a true full blooded Native, then give him all the treaty rights, provided that he has never had alcohol as per the treaties. Otherwise we should all be Canadians, and giving rights of one people over another based on race is the worse case of racism.

No métis,, in your mind. What's a legal definition of a Blackfoot, Cree etc

[Jims71duster]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Actually most people don't want to have everyone out shooting whatever they want. Rather most people want to have everyone follow the same rules, so that our game populations can be properly managed , so that they aren't all dead and gone. As for the racist comment, racism by definition is having special rights or privileges based on race, so only the people that want that, are racists. Most of us want equality for all Alberta residents, which is the opposite of racism.

That's only the first half of the definition, the second half is quite the opposite.