"Untouchables" getting pinched...nice to see!

[albertabighorn]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Whichever you have, it should be taken away, if you are convicted of trafficking in wildlife.

I couldnt agree more.

[claystone]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I don't see why they don't just have their hunting "rights" taken away permanently. Hunting rights are not a matter of life or death in 2015, it's something they are abusing, so take them away along with the fines. I know the chances of them getting caught hunting are extremely slim because they wouldn't look suspicious if they were spotted hunting, but if losing hunting rights was a penalty, I guarantee it would make them think twice before pulling the trigger.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see anything in the article that says they were first nation. First nation hunters don't have hunting rights to lose like the story says. We have Treaty rights and a Federal Court likely wouldn't touch it. Meti on the other hand is a different story.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by claystone

Maybe it's just me but I don't see anything in the article that says they were first nation. First nation hunters don't have hunting rights to lose like the story says. We have Treaty rights and a Federal Court likely wouldn't touch it. Meti on the other hand is a different story.

Rights, privileges, whatever you, or anyone would like to call them, they should not be allowed to hunt anymore, period.

It's the same as calling someone "First Nation", who's to say anyone who claims to be First Nation is actually a First Nation. There has been speculation recently over who actually was the First Nation people.

[45/70/500]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Rights, privileges, whatever you, or anyone would like to call them, they should not be allowed to hunt anymore, period.

It's the same as calling someone "First Nation", who's to say anyone who claims to be First Nation is actually a First Nation. There has been speculation recently over who actually was the First Nation people.

IBTL

[pseelk]

Originally Posted by expmler

"We" don't have hunting rights, "they" do.

That is right.In Canada you have to be a minority to have rights.

[crownb]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Rights, privileges, whatever you, or anyone would like to call them, they should not be allowed to hunt anymore, period.

It's the same as calling someone "First Nation", who's to say anyone who claims to be First Nation is actually a First Nation. There has been speculation recently over who actually was the First Nation people.

Yes and yes

[Opa]

Originally Posted by claystone

Maybe it's just me but I don't see anything in the article that says they were first nation. First nation hunters don't have hunting rights to lose like the story says. We have Treaty rights and a Federal Court likely wouldn't touch it. Meti on the other hand is a different story.

Their actions and last names tell the whole story-need any more be said?

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Rights, privileges, whatever you, or anyone would like to call them, they should not be allowed to hunt anymore, period.

It's the same as calling someone "First Nation", who's to say anyone who claims to be First Nation is actually a First Nation. There has been speculation recently over who actually was the First Nation people.

Makes no difference anyways....the original FNs your talking about don't have any special rights....it's the ones that were here when Canada was formed that do have rights, and they are recognized and affirmed in law.

These poachers shouldn't get jail time...they should get flayed with a horse whip...one good whipping and I bet they wouldn't do it again.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

Makes no difference anyways....the original FNs your talking about don't have any special rights....it's the ones that were here when Canada was formed that do have rights, and they are recognized and affirmed in law.

Correct.

You got my point.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Rights, privileges, whatever you, or anyone would like to call them, they should not be allowed to hunt anymore, period.

It's the same as calling someone "First Nation", who's to say anyone who claims to be First Nation is actually a First Nation. There has been speculation recently over who actually was the First Nation people.

Not according to the courts...........but I am wanting to hear more about your theory or where your speculation came from???? Please enlighten us or at least me....?

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Opa

Their actions and last names tell the whole story-need any more be said?

Story was on Global Edmonton tonight, they kind of skipped over that part of the story, gotta wonder who'd buy that fly infested meat they showed drying on the racks. Had the opportunity to watch it prepared that way, no way I'd go near it.

Grizz

[JD848]

I 'd rather eat the soles on my boots before eating that crap,322 packs of moose jerky in 42000 is about 133 bucks per bag.You can get a pretty good size bag of hamburger meat when it's on sale at Costco's for 3 bags of that dried out fly crap infested jerky.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Not according to the courts...........but I am wanting to hear more about your theory or where your speculation came from???? Please enlighten us or at least me....?

No, the courts give the rights to the people the Europeans took the land from, the problem is, is that the courts weren't always here.

As for my "theory", there is more and more evidence suggesting who the first people on North American soil really were. It kind of blows holes in the reasoning behind of the laws that were made 150yrs ago or so though, you might not want to look it up.

Google will help you out, if you want to embrace it. I think it's best to further this discussion on another thread.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, the courts give the rights to the people the Europeans took the land from, the problem is, is that the courts weren't always here.

As for my "theory", there is more and more evidence suggesting who the first people on North American soil really were. It kind of blows holes in the reasoning behind of the laws that were made 150yrs ago or so though, you might not want to look it up.

Google will help you out, if you want to embrace it. I think it's best to further this discussion on another thread.

Well if you thought it best to discuss in another thread why did you raise it here? And if its on the "interweb" or google guess it must be true....!

Regardless, not sure how that will bolster the argument you're trying to make here. The courts actually acknowledge the Rights that were agreed to by the two sovereign nations that entered into Treaty.

[Opa]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Well if you thought it best to discuss in another thread why did you raise it here? And if its on the "interweb" or google guess it must be true....!

Regardless, not sure how that will bolster the argument you're trying to make here. The courts actually acknowledge the Rights that were agreed to by the two sovereign nations that entered into Treaty.

The internet probably has some fact, rather than stories that have been passed on from generations back. Think about it-good bs usually gets more recognition than fact!!!! Not to say that google is factual, but verbal communication tends to get skewed, especially in the interpretation and repetition thereof.

[elkhunter11]

Enough of the race B.S. As I posted previously, I could care less what race a person is, if that person is convicted of trafficking in wildlife, then that person should not be allowed to hunt or fish, regardless of that person's race.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Well if you thought it best to discuss in another thread why did you raise it here? And if its on the "interweb" or google guess it must be true....!

Regardless, not sure how that will bolster the argument you're trying to make here. The courts actually acknowledge the Rights that were agreed to by the two sovereign nations that entered into Treaty.

Lol, go back and read how I related it to this topic.

Why is it you always have to say "ya, well that's not what the courts say blah blah blah"? You know as well as I do what that reeks of. I said this pos should get his right, privledge, whatever you want to call it, to hunt taken away for abusing it. It's another example of how a clause from over a century ago is being used as an excuse to kill wild animals, in this case for profit, under the guise of "sustenance".

[claystone]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Lol, go back and read how I related it to this topic.

Why is it you always have to say "ya, well that's not what the courts say blah blah blah"? You know as well as I do what that reeks of. I said this pos should get his right, privledge, whatever you want to call it, to hunt taken away for abusing it. It's another example of how a clause from over a century ago is being used as an excuse to kill wild animals, in this case for profit, under the guise of "sustenance".

I still don't see anything about them being native, French last names, addresses not on reserve or Metis settlement. loss of hunting rights for 6 to 16 years, sounds like non native french Canadians. But then I have to agree everyone caught of trafficking wildlife should receive the same punishment equally.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by claystone

I still don't see anything about them being native, French last names, addresses not on reserve or Metis settlement. loss of hunting rights for 6 to 16 years, sounds like non native french Canadians. But then I have to agree everyone caught of trafficking wildlife should receive the same punishment equally.

You are correct, and I totally agree with you. I don't know the race, religion, or creed of the offenders, all I know is no matter what any of that is, they should have their ability to legally hunt taken away along with the fines, and the same should go for anyone caught doing the same thing. If they did not have hunting rights, I think there would be charges of poaching along with illegal trafficking of wildlife, no?

I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that they have "rights".

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Lol, go back and read how I related it to this topic.

Why is it you always have to say "ya, well that's not what the courts say blah blah blah"? You know as well as I do what that reeks of. I said this pos should get his right, privledge, whatever you want to call it, to hunt taken away for abusing it. It's another example of how a clause from over a century ago is being used as an excuse to kill wild animals, in this case for profit, under the guise of "sustenance".

The courts are there to interpret and provide clarity to the law so as to protect citizens of this country from a "kangaroo court system" which appears to be something you might support. It is there to make sure agreements, Treaties and laws are adhered to so sovereign nations, counties, parties, individuals are forced to live up to their word. If we did not have the courts and relied on individuals such as your self to live up to their word it would be an uncivilized society....

If you are so quick to want to rip up a" clause from over a century ago" because you do not support, believe or no long wish to abide by the words of your ancestors then why cant the Indian want to rip up the same agreement and reclaim the land back as the rightful owners?

And the word you've quote "sustenance" is not contained in any Treaty that I'm aware of but appears it the "1930 Natural Resource Transfer Agreement" which is not a century old (at least not by my math).....which poses another problem. The courts have ruled that the Metis are not Indians for the purposes of the NRTA, which poses another issue, if the Metis are not Indians under the NRTA, they can quite conceivably argue they have a commercial right to the natural resources of this land....I'm sure the courts will have to rule on this at some point and time.

And just to shed more light on this, if nothing changed under 40 plus years of PC rule in Alberta with respect to understanding and implementing Treaty, one would think they must have some validity. Because lord knows if any one entity would attempt to eliminate, rescind, rip up these most sacred documents it would be them. But hasn't happened....

So my blah, blah, blah is very relevant to this discussion, whether you like it or not.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

The courts are there to interpret and provide clarity to the law so as to protect citizens of this country from a "kangaroo court system" which appears to be something you might support. It is there to make sure agreements, Treaties and laws are adhered to so sovereign nations, counties, parties, individuals are forced to live up to their word. If we did not have the courts and relied on individuals such as your self to live up to their word it would be an uncivilized society....

If you are so quick to want to rip up a" clause from over a century ago" because you do not support, believe or no long wish to abide by the words of your ancestors then why cant the Indian want to rip up the same agreement and reclaim the land back as the rightful owners?

And the word you've quote "sustenance" is not contained in any Treaty that I'm aware of but appears it the "1930 Natural Resource Transfer Agreement" which is not a century old (at least not by my math).....which poses another problem. The courts have ruled that the Metis are not Indians for the purposes of the NRTA, which poses another issue, if the Metis are not Indians under the NRTA, they can quite conceivably argue they have a commercial right to the natural resources of this land....I'm sure the courts will have to rule on this at some point and time.

And just to shed more light on this, if nothing changed under 40 plus years of PC rule in Alberta with respect to understanding and implementing Treaty, one would think they must have some validity. Because lord knows if any one entity would attempt to eliminate, rescind, rip up these most sacred documents it would be them. But hasn't happened....

So my blah, blah, blah is very relevant to this discussion, whether you like it or not.

Ya... Ok.

[crownb]

I vote Kurt505 to the Supreme Court!!!!

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by crownb

I vote Kurt505 to the Supreme Court!!!!

Don't you have to be a senile old fool, preferably from Quebec to be appointed to the supreme court? Who else could come up with the asinine rulings that they keep rendering?

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Don't you have to be a senile old fool, preferably from Quebec to be appointed to the supreme court? Who else could come up with the asinine rulings that they keep rendering?

Better start a petition, the PCs may not be around come this fall.

[Lefty-Canuck]

There was another case recently (Battle Lake)where sustenance fishermen were selling their catch illegally...these are the folks who are supposed to be "in tune" with nature and their surroundings...

Sad to see people taking advantage.

LC

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Better start a petition, the PCs may not be around come this fall.

Lol, ya, then nobody will be working, or paying taxes.

Careful what you wish for.

[Lefty-Canuck]

I am curious how is the moose population in MB doing after all the over harvest in recent years? Any sign of recovery? It is a real shame to see that happen.

LC

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Lol, ya, then nobody will be working, or paying taxes.

Careful what you wish for.

And the new government will resume their agenda to disarm all Canadians. I guess that it will be more difficult to poach animals to sell without firearms.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I am curious how is the moose population in MB doing after all the over harvest in recent years? Any sign of recovery? It is a real shame to see that happen.

LC

Well LC if you wish to get involved lets go.......................what knowledge do you have as to the reason for the decline in the moose population? Or are you making assumptions again...folks like you merely push the "Blame it on the Indian Button" with absolutely no facts to support such ludicrous statements.

Do you know or are aware of the forestry impact and the roads they build to create access? Are you aware of the severe winter tick die offs that we've had here? Are you aware of the introduction or emergence of the wolf populations in these areas? Are you aware of he severe winters we've had here three out of the last four years? All of which contribute to the decline but folks of your ilk, push that button repeatedly because its easier to do to then to open your eyes and take a look at the whole picture.

I am not stating that the Indians do not contribute to the decline but to blame them(us) solely is insulting.......As a matter of fact a GHA here still allows Rights based hunting to occur but has areas that are off limits and surveys in successive years showed the population decline halted and increased in year 3No surveys were conducted this past winter due to low snow count... so to answer your question yes the populations are recovering to a point where there will be an opportunity for all to harvest again.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Just asking a question, hoping you would answer rather than go on the offensive ..touchy topic I presume?

Try not to put words in my mouth...just asking...in fact I did not suggest anything to the effects you are. Guilty conscience perhaps?

You seem so interested what goes on in my backyard I am curious what happens in yours.

Folks like me...what kind of folks are those? Have we met? Condescend much? Judge much?

IF I used the term "you people" or your "ilk" you would call me an "R" name...how about that

LC