Jasper National Park hunting agreement

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by sioux 1876

I am a treaty Indian.

My grandfathers, grandfathers hunted This land long before there was a park, before there was an Alberta before there was a Canada.

You guys are quick to get upset and frustrated.

The end goal is to manage and protect the animals. Just like you have bad apples we do too. I am not speaking for everyone but we frown or look down on individuals that trophy hunt.

I am sorry that you all feel this way. But your government has made this possible, take it up with them.

In the meantime I wil continue to hunt our traditional lands that we never surrendered, Canada cannot provide a bill of sale for this land.

On this site you have very little education or input from a treaty indian. I watch all the treads and have been talked to by the moderators about voicing my concern. To “tread lightly” or to watch my comments.

It is sad that you guys do not know our views or end goals. But you continue to benefit as a country from our natural resources.

How many of you actually know how to greet or say hello in your areas to that tribe?

How many of you know what treaty you are in?

Guarantee my post will be deleted, and I will be booted because the reality is…you don’t want to see a Treaty Indians points or views.

Eyahr Hey Nakoda

Well I enjoy perspectives so I say thank you, might not agree or agree but you came across respectful and that goes a long way and doesn’t matter what walk of life you come from.

[GMX]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

They cut the skull plate in half in Alaska.
What is the point of that (aside from entering into the book, which anyone I know doesn't do anyways)?

Forfeit the head and antlers on any animal killed under the guise of subsistence hunting!! How many "hunters" would show up for the hunt in Jasper if that were the case? I'd put a lot of money on one

On a side note, nice to hear firearms can now be carried in a national park

That would work as well but we all know our government is completely incompetent when it comes to fish and game management. Pretty much a moot point.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by sioux 1876

I am a treaty Indian.

My grandfathers, grandfathers hunted This land long before there was a park, before there was an Alberta before there was a Canada.

You guys are quick to get upset and frustrated.

The end goal is to manage and protect the animals. Just like you have bad apples we do too. I am not speaking for everyone but we frown or look down on individuals that trophy hunt.

I am sorry that you all feel this way. But your government has made this possible, take it up with them.

In the meantime I wil continue to hunt our traditional lands that we never surrendered, Canada cannot provide a bill of sale for this land.

On this site you have very little education or input from a treaty indian. I watch all the treads and have been talked to by the moderators about voicing my concern. To “tread lightly” or to watch my comments.

It is sad that you guys do not know our views or end goals. But you continue to benefit as a country from our natural resources.

How many of you actually know how to greet or say hello in your areas to that tribe?

How many of you know what treaty you are in?

Guarantee my post will be deleted, and I will be booted because the reality is…you don’t want to see a Treaty Indians points or views.

Eyahr Hey Nakoda

My great grandfather hunted in what are now national parks. For food. I also have ancestors that were forcibly removed from deeded property by the American government. Is there a line we can draw somewhere? Just curious.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

%100 they were viewed as trophies or at least momentous of the hunt and really I have no issue on how theses hunters view or choose to honor their animals/hunt. I don’t agree with the hunt or the grounds It was a “traditional hunt” but I have no issues with the hunters themselves

I won’t post everything on this forum but can say I am pretty confident at least theses ones were not sold

When you try to paint things worse than they are on nothing but speculation it takes away from the credibility of your opposition.

Seeing as you know everything what happened to the heads of the 5 Rams that were shot north of Waterton Park a few years ago? and I’m pretty sure the meat was left.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by ram crazy

Seeing as you know everything what happened to the heads of the 5 Rams that were shot north of Waterton Park a few years ago? and I’m pretty sure the meat was left.

I said I knew what happened with a few mounts from that hunt I didn’t say all or the meat for that matter. I know of the results of a father and son from BC who were part of that hunt. The post you quoted is in response to another member and is missing part of the conversation

Could I get more information on it yes would I do so to post it on AO No.

[elkhunter11]

This goes way beyond game management, or resource management, two people were recently killed by a bear in a national park. Those people were unarmed because of the regulations banning firearms in a national park. If it's more important to enforce this regulation, than protect human life, how can you possibly justify waving the regulation to allow a specific group of people to use firearms in a national park ,for a trophy hunt? Allowing this says that native hunting rights are more important than non native lives. Why can't the hunt be allowed to proceed with traditional archery gear, in the traditional manner? That would not be infringing on any treaty rights, yet it would not be violating the firearms prohibition, that is deemed more important than the lives of non natives in a national park.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

This goes way beyond game management, or resource management, two people were recently killed by a bear in a national park. Those people were unarmed because of the regulations banning firearms in a national park. If it's more important to enforce this regulation, than protect human life, how can you possibly justify waving the regulation to allow a specific group of people to use firearms in a national park ,for a trophy hunt? Allowing this says that native hunting rights are more important than non native lives. Why can't the hunt be allowed to proceed with traditional archery gear, in the traditional manner? That would not be infringing on any treaty rights, yet it would not be violating the firearms prohibition, that is deemed more important than the lives of non natives in a national park.

Your point is very valid and odds are it would be excepted by a larger % of people if it was strictly done with traditional methods

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Your point is very valid and odds are it would be excepted by a larger % of people if it was strictly done with traditional methods

But it would not be accepted by the people conducting the hunt, because it wouldn't be so easy, and they would have to put in a lot more effort, or settle for lesser quality trophies, like their ancestors did.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

But it would not be accepted by the people conducting the hunt, because it wouldn't be so easy, and they would have to put in a lot more effort, or settle for lesser quality trophies, like their ancestors did.

Of course they FN would fight against it

But really we have plenty in the non FN hunting communities who want all special weapons seasons to become general season

There is always hunters who push for max opportunity with the least amount of restrictions

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

This goes way beyond game management, or resource management, two people were recently killed by a bear in a national park. Those people were unarmed because of the regulations banning firearms in a national park. If it's more important to enforce this regulation, than protect human life, how can you possibly justify waving the regulation to allow a specific group of people to use firearms in a national park ,for a trophy hunt? Allowing this says that native hunting rights are more important than non native lives. Why can't the hunt be allowed to proceed with traditional archery gear, in the traditional manner? That would not be infringing on any treaty rights, yet it would not be violating the firearms prohibition, that is deemed more important than the lives of non natives in a national park.

Great point.

[DirtShooter]

Lottery draw, archery only in the parks for everyone.

Grandfathers grandfathers, well just hunt like your grandfathers did using trad gear. You don't need modern gear if you're gonna claim traditional use. Sorry.

[DirtShooter]

Originally Posted by sioux 1876

I am a treaty Indian.

My grandfathers, grandfathers hunted This land long before there was a park, before there was an Alberta before there was a Canada.

You guys are quick to get upset and frustrated.

The end goal is to manage and protect the animals. Just like you have bad apples we do too. I am not speaking for everyone but we frown or look down on individuals that trophy hunt.

I am sorry that you all feel this way. But your government has made this possible, take it up with them.

In the meantime I wil continue to hunt our traditional lands that we never surrendered, Canada cannot provide a bill of sale for this land.

On this site you have very little education or input from a treaty indian. I watch all the treads and have been talked to by the moderators about voicing my concern. To “tread lightly” or to watch my comments.

It is sad that you guys do not know our views or end goals. But you continue to benefit as a country from our natural resources.

How many of you actually know how to greet or say hello in your areas to that tribe?

How many of you know what treaty you are in?

Guarantee my post will be deleted, and I will be booted because the reality is…you don’t want to see a Treaty Indians points or views.

Eyahr Hey Nakoda

I believe the bill of sale may be in the Indian Act of Canada.

Also please state the end goal you speak of? Is it to return all public land back to strictly the natives?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Of course they FN would fight against it

But really we have plenty in the non FN hunting communities who want all special weapons seasons to become general season

There is always hunters who push for max opportunity with the least amount of restrictions

Yes there are non FN hunters that want hunting to be as easy and convenient as possible, but they aren't claiming to be stewards of the land, and they aren't using the excuse about hunting being an important part of their culture and tradition. And they aren't hunting in a national park.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Yes there are non FN hunters that want hunting to be as easy and convenient as possible, but they aren't claiming to be stewards of the land, and they aren't using the excuse about hunting being an important part of their culture and tradition. And they aren't hunting in a national park.

Oh I agree I just see where that mindset of pushing to make it easier comes from with people in general

[Phil McCracken]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

This goes way beyond game management, or resource management, two people were recently killed by a bear in a national park. Those people were unarmed because of the regulations banning firearms in a national park. If it's more important to enforce this regulation, than protect human life, how can you possibly justify waving the regulation to allow a specific group of people to use firearms in a national park ,for a trophy hunt? Allowing this says that native hunting rights are more important than non native lives. Why can't the hunt be allowed to proceed with traditional archery gear, in the traditional manner? That would not be infringing on any treaty rights, yet it would not be violating the firearms prohibition, that is deemed more important than the lives of non natives in a national park.

Good point.

Unfortunately, we live in a country that has different rules for different people. Not only this, also in many more ways.

For the record, I do not have a problem with "traditional ways". Seems the "meaning" has greatly changed in the past decades, and many seem to "forget" about it.

As to trophy hunting in the park, I don't believe this being "traditional" at all.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by DirtShooter

I believe the bill of sale may be in the Indian Act of Canada.

Also please state the end goal you speak of? Is it to return all public land back to strictly the natives?

How many billion dollars do you suppose Canada has paid out to FN in cash and benefits? This has always been about money, and it always will be. And no matter how much is paid out, it will never end.

[Ackleyman]

Alberta is 255,541 square miles. Lots of places to hunt besides National Parks.

[Pekan]

Newsflash:

I just heard that FN harvesters took the opportunity to do some turkey hunting in the Porcupine hills. On the banded birds that hung around the road. The birds that were brought in from BC towns like Kimberley and Trail. The birds that were basically tame from living in towns.
So whatever thousands of dollars and volunteer hours were spent to trap, transport, and relocate that flock was all so a few guys could spend 2 minutes killing them in the first year.

Pretty sad, pathetic, and ignorant.

Hopefully the ACA will use this as a learning experience and only relocate birds to private land or to places that aren't as easy to access....

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by Smoky buck

Of course they FN would fight against it

But really we have plenty in the non FN hunting communities who want all special weapons seasons to become general season

There is always hunters who push for max opportunity with the least amount of restrictions

This is true. The difference is some hunting communities seem to get whatever they ask for.
At what point can the answer be ''no'' to some of the asks?
Never I guess...

[britman101]

Recent article from the Calgary Herald on this hunt and implications for other National Parks across Canada.
And as per the last line in the article the animals harvested will also be invited to the ceremony.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ations-jasper#

[Ronji]

Invited to the ceremony? How thoughtful.

[Mountain Guy]

Originally Posted by britman101

Recent article from the Calgary Herald on this hunt and implications for other National Parks across Canada.
And as per the last line in the article the animals harvested will also be invited to the ceremony.

https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...ations-jasper#

Message seems pretty clear to me.
Keep tourists out ( and maybe us residents too? ) to save the last few caribou.
I guess this will also make more room for more groups to enter to manage the land and the wildlife.

[DirtShooter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

How many billion dollars do you suppose Canada has paid out to FN in cash and benefits? This has always been about money, and it always will be. And no matter how much is paid out, it will never end.

I thought it was in the hundreds of billions but I am not 100% sure.

[JeanCretien]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

They should be forced to comply with the firearms prohibitions within the park. And they could do so by using archery gear.

Totally


And to FN have traditionally hunted full curl rams for hundreds of thousands of years.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1899b]

Originally Posted by DirtShooter

I thought it was in the hundreds of billions but I am not 100% sure.

How much money does Canada spend on First Nations?
about $35.5 billion
It is projected to rise from about $25 billion in fiscal 2021-22 to about $35.5 billion in 2026-27, an increase of 42 percent in nominal dollars. Indigenous spending continues to rise as a proportion of the federal budget, from 6.1 percent in 2019-20 to 7.7 percent in 2026-27—an increase of 26 percent in seven years.Jun 28, 2022

[DirtShooter]

Originally Posted by 1899b

How much money does Canada spend on First Nations?
about $35.5 billion
It is projected to rise from about $25 billion in fiscal 2021-22 to about $35.5 billion in 2026-27, an increase of 42 percent in nominal dollars. Indigenous spending continues to rise as a proportion of the federal budget, from 6.1 percent in 2019-20 to 7.7 percent in 2026-27—an increase of 26 percent in seven years.Jun 28, 2022

Okay so soon enough it will be $100 billion

[huntinstuff]

Originally Posted by sioux 1876

I am a treaty Indian.

My grandfathers, grandfathers hunted This land long before there was a park, before there was an Alberta before there was a Canada.

You guys are quick to get upset and frustrated.

The end goal is to manage and protect the animals. Just like you have bad apples we do too. I am not speaking for everyone but we frown or look down on individuals that trophy hunt.

I am sorry that you all feel this way. But your government has made this possible, take it up with them.

In the meantime I wil continue to hunt our traditional lands that we never surrendered, Canada cannot provide a bill of sale for this land.

On this site you have very little education or input from a treaty indian. I watch all the treads and have been talked to by the moderators about voicing my concern. To “tread lightly” or to watch my comments.

It is sad that you guys do not know our views or end goals. But you continue to benefit as a country from our natural resources.

How many of you actually know how to greet or say hello in your areas to that tribe?

How many of you know what treaty you are in?

Guarantee my post will be deleted, and I will be booted because the reality is…you don’t want to see a Treaty Indians points or views.

Eyahr Hey Nakoda

No one will boot you for voicing an opinion. They will boot you for comments that generalize people to a certain mindset tho.

FN aren't the only ones who were moved out of that territory. They just didn't identify as a group.

"Traditional" is an inaccurate term for what goes on. FN never saw a rifle until "white" people showed up. I am well familiar with how animals were killed back before euopeans showed up. Show me a hunt like that. You'll need more guys. And I bet your level of actual respect will increase.

Applying today's technology to yester years is an incompatable. They don't fit together. An event like a band of brothers gathering to kill for food in the true tradition of native culture would be something I'd personally celebrate and respect.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by 1899b

How much money does Canada spend on First Nations?
about $35.5 billion
It is projected to rise from about $25 billion in fiscal 2021-22 to about $35.5 billion in 2026-27, an increase of 42 percent in nominal dollars. Indigenous spending continues to rise as a proportion of the federal budget, from 6.1 percent in 2019-20 to 7.7 percent in 2026-27—an increase of 26 percent in seven years.Jun 28, 2022

The amount that has been spent on FN from the beginning of the handouts in Canada would pale the amount paid to those citizens of Abu Daubi,
Question is .. How many of the average FN people actually rec'd any real benefits from all that money.?.. and the Show goes on and on and getting bigger all the time.
Far too many Chiefs for less than 300,000 FN people.

[1899b]

Originally Posted by Salavee

The amount that has been spent on FN from the beginning of the handouts in Canada would pale the amount paid to those citizens of Abu Daubi,
Question is .. How many of the average FN people actually rec'd any real benefits from all that money.?.. and the Show goes on and on and getting bigger all the time.
Far too many Chiefs for less than 300,000 FN people.

My father picked up his buddy from the Edmonton airport a couple weeks ago. He came from Fort Smith (we used to live there) and was in the city to buy his new truck with his "reconcilliation money"

Interesting to say the least...

[outofbounds]

When referencing traditional hunt the two nations, the Stoney and the Simpcw share reference to the 1872 treaty between the nation's to share the resources from the foothills regions from the headwaters of the Athabasca southward in the foothills. There is oral and written history of Hudson Bay traders first encounters and travel with the Stoney back in 1670. Anthony Henday also encountered and traveled with the Stoney in the 1750's. The Stoney people hunted buffalo and all big game. To the european traders and explorers they were invaluable as guides and hunters. With the establishment of Rocky Mountain House and Edmonton House they traded furs, hides and also fresh meat and bone marrow. Their invaluable guide service and provision of meat was not limited to traders, other explorers, surveyors and missionaries also were provisioned with meat and guided through the foothills. Yes, firearms were also acquired through trade and introduced into their hunting methods, this included the early primitive weapons right on into lever action repeaters as they evolved and became part of trade goods available on the routes or at trade posts. One can search old photos dating back well into the 1880-90s and see the longbow had been commonly replaced by firearms which progressed with time and availabilty, no different than any other trade goods that made their way across Ruperts Land. The Simpcw also traded and guided traders acquiring trade goods while provisioning those on the trade routes with fresh meat and fish. Hunting methods varied and in some cases noted in HBC logs included setting snares for big game on well used game trails, night hunt of known water holes and the construction of fish barriers.
Those whom were in receipt of provisions certainly did not care whether they were harvested by either long bow or firearm nor other method. The provision of a hunt and feast to celebrate a treaty or deal has long been recognized. The current, again limited to specific numbers of specific species to be harvested. Antlers were also trade goods prior if not used for tools. Can one say different to the days of buffalo robe trade days where best hides were young cows, the more antler, better trade result just the same as better quality hides and furs. Hudson Bay logs indicate antlers by the pound were a common trade item along with elk teeth.
Should one insist of traditional hunt methods, they must be willing to consider all forms as acceptable not just what suits the first to come to mind being stick and string.
Where this agreement goes beyond tomorrow will be interesting to see, it is much more than skull plates and inches of horn, opportunity or lack there of. The traditional use of the area now known as a National Park was utilized long prior to the establishment of parks and railway destinations by those who are celebrating the hunt. Also recognizing both of whom were not the only inhabitants of the area for it's resources and bounty post expansion westward by the fur trade.