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

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

It appears to me that you may not be reading all of what I'm posting..
of course this may be due to you being blinded by your zest to attack the Rights of Indigenous people.


"The solution rests in dialogue and putting the resource front and centre and all parties having some common sense on what is sustainable. We will be faced with that here in the very near future."

"I am not denying the fact that we have abusers in our segment of society and they should be dealt with appropriately." I don't consider this defending the folks in question...again from my previous post.

No one has been able to answer if these folks were Treaty Indians or Metis.

Just as you accuse me of "leaping to their defense" while I clearly stated my opinion to the folks in question, you're just as guilty of jumping on the band wagon of the abolishment of all Treaty Rights and ripping up the Treaties.....Crownb and Elkhunter here is your rebuttal.

It doesn't matter whether they are Treaty or Metis, it's not the people, it's the fact they are given unregulated hunting rights.

This is a prime example why I have a problem with giving out these rights. If there was a mandatory animal registration for people with rights, and a maximum limit per year, crimes such as these would not be an issue people or wildlife would have to deal with.

I hope we see more crimes like this get on the public eye , maybe, just maybe there will be some sense of the senselessness of these rights.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

It doesn't matter whether they are Treaty or Metis, it's not the people, it's the fact they are given unregulated hunting rights.

This is a prime example why I have a problem with giving out these rights. If there was a mandatory animal registration for people with rights, and a maximum limit per year, crimes such as these would not be an issue people or wildlife would have to deal with.

I hope we see more crimes like this get on the public eye , maybe, just maybe there will be some sense of the senselessness of these rights.

I get what you are saying, but how would you set limits? Sometimes 1 or 2 people hunt for multiple families and it has been like that for ever.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

I get what you are saying, but how would you set limits? Sometimes 1 or 2 people hunt for multiple families and it has been like that for ever.

Everybody has a name, bob gets 2 moose, Sally gets 2 moose and so on. Once both Bob's moose have been harvested, than there can no longer be any moose harvested in Bob's name.

It isn't fool proof, but it's a lot better than the current system.

Also, the name of the shooter should be recorded. If Tom is shooting moose for everyone he knows, maybe Tom should put the gun down for a while... If you know what I mean.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Everybody has a name, bob gets 2 moose, Sally gets 2 moose and so on. Once both Bob's moose have been harvested, than there can no longer be any moose harvested in Bob's name.

It isn't fool proof, but it's a lot better than the current system.

Also, the name of the shooter should be recorded. If Tom is shooting moose for everyone he knows, maybe Tom should put the gun down for a while... If you know what I mean.

I know what you mean.

Realistically if something like this was ever implemented you and I would not be hunting. They have first rights and the lefties will make sure of it.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

I know what you mean.

Realistically if something like this was ever implemented you and I would not be hunting. They have first rights and the lefties will make sure of it.

Maybe you won't be.

If that were to happen the no trespassing signs would be up at my place and strictly enforced.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

It appears to me that you may not be reading all of what I'm posting..
of course this may be due to you being blinded by your zest to attack the Rights of Indigenous people.


"The solution rests in dialogue and putting the resource front and centre and all parties having some common sense on what is sustainable. We will be faced with that here in the very near future."

"I am not denying the fact that we have abusers in our segment of society and they should be dealt with appropriately." I don't consider this defending the folks in question...again from my previous post.

No one has been able to answer if these folks were Treaty Indians or Metis.

Just as you accuse me of "leaping to their defense" while I clearly stated my opinion to the folks in question, you're just as guilty of jumping on the band wagon of the abolishment of all Treaty Rights and ripping up the Treaties.....Crownb and Elkhunter here is your rebuttal.

We already have a system that puts the resource first by governing season dates and tag quotas that ensures sustainability. Unfortunately it only applies to one segment of society and others have free reign and are opposed to being regulated.

Where did I state that treaty rights should be abolished?

Rights come with responsibility, something that you seem to not want to accept.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by expmler

We already have a system that puts the resource first by governing season dates and tag quotas that ensures sustainability. Unfortunately it only applies to one segment of society and others have free reign and are opposed to being regulated.

Where did I state that treaty rights should be abolished?

Rights come with responsibility, something that you seem to not want to accept.

You seem to be implying that I am not responsible........I agree with you on the rights coming with responsibilities as this was stated many times to us by our elders...

Again you're not wanted to read what Im posting...what part of ALL don't you understand or refuse to understand...

The solution rests in dialogue and putting the resource front and centre and all parties having some common sense on what is sustainable. We will be faced with that here in the very near future."

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

You seem to be implying that I am not responsible........I agree with you on the rights coming with responsibilities as this was stated many times to us by our elders...

Again you're not wanted to read what Im posting...what part of ALL don't you understand or refuse to understand...

The solution rests in dialogue and putting the resource front and centre and all parties having some common sense on what is sustainable. We will be faced with that here in the very near future."

Are you telling me the hunting regulations I am subject to do not put the resource first?

Why are you opposed to being subject to those same regulations?

[elkhunter11]

The solution rests in dialogue and putting the resource front and centre and all parties having some common sense on what is sustainable. We will be faced with that here in the very near future

Dialogue is worthless unless all parties are willing to accept restrictions and make concessions in order to maintain our game populations. Unfortunately some parties absolutely refuse to make any concessions, or accept any restrictions. One party making all of the concessions is not common sense, and it is not a workable solution.

[Huntnut]

Originally Posted by JD 848

They want to kill the poplar so the pines can grow because the poplars grow to fast,one day only spraying with valpar and a small three foot poplar is dead.

The moose come along and the chemicals get into their systems and their livers get sick and their immune system is affected.If you replant right away in the spring and do proper forest prep, spraying can be avoided.If you cut an acre of trees replant it asap and in time things grow back.

Even though this is way off of what the op's topic is..................I used to work with companies like canfor that did the spraying. i can't remember the exact name of the spray but it was the forestry version of round up. When I did it they-(canfor) only sprayed cutblocks where the spruce and pine had too much competition. It had been tested and did not affect animals or people in any way. Yes it killed everything except the spruce or pine but the next year those cutblocks were full of moose and elk as plants that they feed were the first to come back. Flew over alot of 1 year old sprayed blocks and thats where all the animals were.

[crownb]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

It doesn't matter whether they are Treaty or Metis, it's not the people, it's the fact they are given unregulated hunting rights.

This is a prime example why I have a problem with giving out these rights. If there was a mandatory animal registration for people with rights, and a maximum limit per year, crimes such as these would not be an issue people or wildlife would have to deal with.

I hope we see more crimes like this get on the public eye , maybe, just maybe there will be some sense of the senselessness of these rights.

Exactly, you hit the nail right on the head, it's not the people, it's the fact that a specific group gets specific rights, how can this not cause conflict?

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Dialogue is worthless unless all parties are willing to accept restrictions and make concessions in order to maintain our game populations. Unfortunately some parties absolutely refuse to make any concessions, or accept any restrictions. One party making all of the concessions is not common sense, and it is not a workable solution.

Beatching on a website is just as worthless or may be even more worthless ..........Concessions can not happen unless there is dialogue, it appears you have no interest in even attempting the dialogue that is required...so with that attitude you can the results you deserve.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by expmler

Are you telling me the hunting regulations I am subject to do not put the resource first?

Why are you opposed to being subject to those same regulations?

You are talking about reneging on a commitment made in Treaty. If want the Indian side to make concessions are you willing to make concessions for the Indian?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Beatching on a website is just as worthless or may be even more worthless ..........Concessions can not happen unless there is dialogue, it appears you have no interest in even attempting the dialogue that is required...so with that attitude you can the results you deserve.

For dialogue to be meaningful, all parties would have to be willing to accept restrictions on their hunting.

Do you honestly belief that the native people would willingly abide by hunting seasons and bag limits, if that would help to save the game populations?

Unless they are willing to consider those types of concessions, just as everyone else does in order to conserve our game populations, then dialogue would be a waste of time.

You are talking about reneging on a commitment made in Treaty. If want the Indian side to make concessions are you willing to make concessions for the Indian?

Everyone but the natives has already made concessions. We abide by hunting seasons and bag limits, and regulations as to how we can hunt. We also wait many years to draw some tags, and we even close seasons altogether, to preserve the game populations. Those are some pretty significant concessions on our part.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

You are talking about reneging on a commitment made in Treaty. If want the Indian side to make concessions are you willing to make concessions for the Indian?

How about this..... It is no longer the 1800's, everything has changed, the Indian side has been paid billions of dollars over the years, there is no longer a need to hunt for food for the Indian any more than for the white man. You want concessions? How about the ability to show your children or grandchildren, or your children's grandchildren, real live moose, deer or elk? Why does it always have to be a concession from the white man? Why can it not be a common sense fact of life choice for you, for the good of our grandchildren?

Gimme gimmie gimmie. It's not like we are asking for anything other than wildlife conservation.

PS, the white man has been making concessions on this front all along in the form of strictly regulated hunting only.

Your people aren't the only Canadians with hunting as part of their heritage.

[claystone]

I seem to remember hearing stories of there being Buffalo in Canada by the millions , then some people came and hunted along side us and they had no regulations. Look what they did, that's why your regulated. It's your own groups idea of self entitlement. Killem all there's more were they came from. Now we all have to live in this imperfect world.were you can't ever wrap your head around the idea of first nation hunting rights. every thread that has anything to do with first nations your all over t, so yah I understand that you will never understand or get treaty hunting rights so give it a rest eh!

[Lefty-Canuck]

Again what happened in the past is the past...blame those from back then for their past indiscretions, if you keep holding onto the past how can you more forward to the future? Times have changed...why people feel the need to hold slights against others (who were not even born) from things that occurred before current time is beyond my understanding. Easier to point fingers at the past than it is to make way for the future...a culture of victims will never heal.

Let's worry about what is going on today because that is what affects our children's future and our children's children's future....the past is done with and there is no going back.

LC

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Again what happened in the past is the past...blame those from back then for their past indiscretions, if you keep holding onto the past how can you more forward to the future? Times have changed...why people feel the need to hold slights against others (who were not even born) from things that occurred before current time is beyond my understanding. Easier to point fingers at the past than it is to make way for the future...a culture of victims will never heal.

Let's worry about what is going on today because that is what affects our children's future and our children's children's future....the past is done with and there is no going back.

LC

People have two choices, they can sit on their bottoms and do nothing but complain about the past ,and their futures will be very limited, or they can choose to live in the present and build bright futures for themselves.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by claystone

I seem to remember hearing stories of there being Buffalo in Canada by the millions , then some people came and hunted along side us and they had no regulations. Look what they did, that's why your regulated. It's your own groups idea of self entitlement. Killem all there's more were they came from. Now we all have to live in this imperfect world.were you can't ever wrap your head around the idea of first nation hunting rights. every thread that has anything to do with first nations your all over t, so yah I understand that you will never understand or get treaty hunting rights so give it a rest eh!

First off, it's got nothing to do the people to me, it's about the wildlife, so let's not try and cast shadows.

There is no such thing as a buffalo.

Were you there when the bison were being slaughtered? Your parents? Me neither. Maybe if common sense was used sooner there would still be bison in the southern prairies. I truely would like to know where you live so I can understand how you cannot see how the world has changed since 1850.

So because the white man did it over a hundred years ago (over harvested)it's ok for you to do it now right? Because of your greed you will never understand conservation. Stewart's of the land? So long as you can feed your family moose meat that's all that matters. Other Canadians who've grown up on moose meat can have that right totally taken away, and that's ok. You are more like the people you speak of than you'd like to admit. You'd think you are the only Canadians that has hunting as a part of their life, so much so that you think you have more entitlement to the animals on this earth than anyone else.

You see what these rights are being used for here right? This isn't an isolated incident, and without any regulation it will only lead to an even worse situation as far as our wildlife goes. At what point does greed give way to common sense? When it's too late like in MB? And even then greed still trumps common sense. Why? Because your hunting rights are so important to your existence that only being allowed to shoot two moose a year would destroy your culture right?

Regulating your hunting rights would not affect your culture one iota, but it would help in preventing situations like this one from happening. Is it the accountability for action you have the issue with? Or just having to give something up?

I understand nobody likes to give something up, but there comes a time when you have to face the reality of the situation.

I'm not the only common player in this thread, and neither are you. We both have a mind to speak on this issue, this is where we both have equal rights.

[claystone]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

First off, it's got nothing to do the people to me, it's about the wildlife, so let's not try and cast shadows.

There is no such thing as a buffalo.

Were you there when the bison were being slaughtered? Your parents? Me neither. Maybe if common sense was used sooner there would still be bison in the southern prairies. I truely would like to know where you live so I can understand how you cannot see how the world has changed since 1850.

So because the white man did it over a hundred years ago (over harvested)it's ok for you to do it now right? Because of your greed you will never understand conservation. Stewart's of the land? So long as you can feed your family moose meat that's all that matters. Other Canadians who've grown up on moose meat can have that right totally taken away, and that's ok. You are more like the people you speak of than you'd like to admit. You'd think you are the only Canadians that has hunting as a part of their life, so much so that you think you have more entitlement to the animals on this earth than anyone else.

You see what these rights are being used for here right? This isn't an isolated incident, and without any regulation it will only lead to an even worse situation as far as our wildlife goes. At what point does greed give way to common sense? When it's too late like in MB? And even then greed still trumps common sense. Why? Because your hunting rights are so important to your existence that only being allowed to shoot two moose a year would destroy your culture right?

Regulating your hunting rights would not affect your culture one iota, but it would help in preventing situations like this one from happening. Is it the accountability for action you have the issue with? Or just having to give something up?

I understand nobody likes to give something up, but there comes a time when you have to face the reality of the situation.

I'm not the only common player in this thread, and neither are you. We both have a mind to speak on this issue, this is where we both have equal rights.

All i see in the article is some guys got busted and rightly so. What I don't see is where they are first nation. If they are then they got what was coming to them, if they aren't then they still got what's coming to them. A couple people selling dried meat get caught well if there is still a demand for illegal sales then maybe Billy bob and Zeke will take a chance and take down a few swamp donkeys and sell them, there is still going to be people willing to buy. Ethical hunting on all sides is whats needed. You make it sound like Natives are killing moose like crazy, I actually never got one for two years now and not because I wasn't trying. I hunt because it's what I love to do and I do so responsibly, Me and all my familly.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by claystone

All i see in the article is some guys got busted and rightly so. What I don't see is where they are first nation. If they are then they got what was coming to them, if they aren't then they still got what's coming to them. A couple people selling dried meat get caught well if there is still a demand for illegal sales then maybe Billy bob and Zeke will take a chance and take down a few swamp donkeys and sell them, there is still going to be people willing to buy. Ethical hunting on all sides is whats needed. You make it sound like Natives are killing moose like crazy, I actually never got one for two years now and not because I wasn't trying. I hunt because it's what I love to do and I do so responsibly, Me and all my familly.

I am only assuming that they have rights, not that they are First Nation, otherwise I'm sure there would be charges of poaching or illegal harvest.

I know people who buy fish that come out of slave lake from First Nation people, Lots of fish. If there was regulations for the harvest of fish and wildlife in place for FN this would not happen. If you could only catch or kill as much as you could eat, the urge to sell it wouldn't be there. I don't think you abuse your rights, as a matter of fact I only believe a very small percentage of FN do, so I don't understand why the thought of having to report a kill or catch would be an issue at all to the people who don't abuse the rights. It makes no sense to me.

The problem is, it only takes one guy to legally kill 20,30,40 moose a year if he so chooses, and some do. Same goes for fish. This is why you see me on these threads, and this is why I don't agree with unregulated rights. I don't want your rights taken away, just the right to have no limits.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

You are talking about reneging on a commitment made in Treaty. If want the Indian side to make concessions are you willing to make concessions for the Indian?

As others have said, quite a bit has changed.

By all rights things should be changing on the Indians end. In modern day Canada, there is no such thing as a sustenance hunter. Sure we like to supplement our meat supply with wild meat, but hunting is no longer needed to survive. Most of us have jobs, and for those who don't, or can't there is disablilty, Canada pension, welfare, unemployment, and probably a few other ones. Not to mention other monetary values such as health care, no taxes for those living and working on reserve, education, reserve housing, education, grants, etc. So if you to live a traditional lifestyle, why not petition to give those up for the "right" to hunt unfettered by seasons and bag limits?

Back when the treaty negotiations where going on (when they started and stopped the first time...) Hunting equipment was quite a bit different; as well as retrieval, and handling. I hear a lot of talk about traditional ways, and culure being lost. Well why not show the rest of Canada and the youth how it was done 150 years ago, before guns and trucks? To truly pay homage, hunting by Indians should be done with traditional archery gear, no range finders and retrieval and access should be gained by muscle power (yours or horse's). Using smokeless powder, copper jacketed bullets and scopes, was not done back then, so why now?

And what about tradional preservation methods? One family would not have simply thrown a couple moose in the freezer in the 1700 or 1800s.

It could be argued that the game is rigged. The table is tilted; the groups identified as Native are far larger than they were historically and the arms race against the wildlife has advanced to the point that they are no longer recognizable as being period accurate equipment. We don't still run buffalo off a cliff. Why? Times have changed. Conditions have changed. The people changed.

[Red Bullets]

If we want to get historically technical...In Alberta, by 1877 the bison herds were gone. Then the great herds of beef were brought in by the ranchers.

This gave the new 'Albertans' the right to have beef in their diets...

An if you read historical accounts alot of the new canadians didn't hunt. They brought beef, chickens, pork, sheep and vegetable seeds with them to their homesteads. So if you look back the family 'tradition' of hunting it maybe isn't as deep as you think.

Should a licenced hunter allowed to harvest several animals and then give half of it away to friends and family?

Maybe Alberta should have government hunters and then hunters buy a licence to go pick up their ration of wild meat once a year.

[hunterfisher]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

If we want to get historically technical...In Alberta, by 1877 the bison herds were gone. Then the great herds of beef were brought in by the ranchers.

This gave the new 'Albertans' the right to have beef in their diets...

An if you read historical accounts alot of the new canadians didn't hunt. They brought beef, chickens, pork, sheep and vegetable seeds with them to their homesteads. So if you look back the family 'tradition' of hunting it maybe isn't as deep as you think.

Should a licenced hunter allowed to harvest several animals and then give half of it away to friends and family?

Maybe Alberta should have government hunters and then hunters buy a licence to go pick up their ration of wild meat once a year.

Holy chit, I know it's early but what am I reading?

[crownb]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

If we want to get historically technical...In Alberta, by 1877 the bison herds were gone. Then the great herds of beef were brought in by the ranchers.

This gave the new 'Albertans' the right to have beef in their diets...

An if you read historical accounts alot of the new canadians didn't hunt. They brought beef, chickens, pork, sheep and vegetable seeds with them to their homesteads. So if you look back the family 'tradition' of hunting it maybe isn't as deep as you think.

Should a licenced hunter allowed to harvest several animals and then give half of it away to friends and family?

Maybe Alberta should have government hunters and then hunters buy a licence to go pick up their ration of wild meat once a year.

Haha wow, somebody needs a hug

[crownb]

Originally Posted by claystone

All i see in the article is some guys got busted and rightly so. What I don't see is where they are first nation. If they are then they got what was coming to them, if they aren't then they still got what's coming to them. A couple people selling dried meat get caught well if there is still a demand for illegal sales then maybe Billy bob and Zeke will take a chance and take down a few swamp donkeys and sell them, there is still going to be people willing to buy. Ethical hunting on all sides is whats needed. You make it sound like Natives are killing moose like crazy, I actually never got one for two years now and not because I wasn't trying. I hunt because it's what I love to do and I do so responsibly, Me and all my familly.

It's nice to see some good debate back and forth on this thread, usually it just boils down to name calling and it's over. Everything you say here is true, except when you refer to billy bob and zeke, I don't think that they are making dried moose meat. If they were the charges would have been a whole lot different than what they were. I believe you and your family about your harvests, but with a non restricted system there will be abusers. One person could kill more moose in a year than your whole family might harvest in a lifetime.
Times have changed and people have changed in all walks of life, it's time for a now solution!!!

[elkhunter11]

Should a licenced hunter allowed to harvest several animals and then give half of it away to friends and family?

If a licensed hunter is killing several animals per year, then he is being allowed to kill those animals because our biologists have determined that him killing those animals is not threatening the population. Either there is a very healthy population of those particular animals, or he may have waited several years to draw the tags to kill some of those animals. In either case, the harvest is being regulated to protect the population. That isn't the case with unregulated hunting. In Operation Tamarack, another case of trafficking in wildlife, a couple of people had killed more moose in one area, than there were tags issued for licensed hunters in the area. The actions of these individuals did long term damage to the moose population, to the point that the population still hasn't recovered in that area.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

You are talking about reneging on a commitment made in Treaty. If want the Indian side to make concessions are you willing to make concessions for the Indian?

I am talking about putting the resource first.

Your refusal to answer my questions directly just proves my point that your "RIGHTS" come first before the sustainability of the resource.

[Lefty-Canuck]

If a licensed hunter shares his harvest legally without making gain or taking compensation so what? After the tag is filled as long as the meat is utilized and not wasted...what's the issue?

Licenses and tags are issued as part of a management strategy....unlicensed harvests are not even tracked. How can one effectively "manage" a population when a significant factor in certain areas is unregulated harvest?

LC

[rednuck]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

You are talking about reneging on a commitment made in Treaty. If want the Indian side to make concessions are you willing to make concessions for the Indian?

Most First Nations made a commitment to be subject to regulations in the treaties.

And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees with her said Indians, that they shall have right to pursue their vocations of hunting throughout the Tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may, from time to time, be made by the Government of the country