Status Natives

[moose maniac]

Originally Posted by bruceba

I'm Metis and very aware of my harvesting rights but this statement is really confusing to me. I was unaware that there were hoops to jump through and that anybody was giving harvesting rights away by jumping through hoops.

Because you are metis does'nt mean you automatically have hunting rights,you have to produce a pile of paperwork to srd to become a recognized metis harvester in Alberta.

[SDKiller]

What are the rules then for Metis Indians.

[Smokinyotes]

I could be wrong but if you are Metis then you have the same rights as any other Albertan. If you live on a designated Metis settlement then you may have harvesting rights on that settlement.

[1899b]

[Dirt2oil]

Originally Posted by 1899b

BINGO!!! wow how about that a Native man with probably little or no formal education making more sense than 90% of the comments on these native threads. Get used to it boys.
The original anthem

Oooohhhhh Kanata your homes built on native land ......... Keep the Indian oh canada going my native brothers!!!

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by moose maniac

Whiter than you? I doubt it

Scary hey?

Whiter than me, even tho they're Métis a few of them think it's a cheesy way to go and don't even bother to get their card. Now that's white!

[SmokinJoe]

This is my 3rd post on this thread, am I trolling?


Kurt get a grip, every time you post you make less and less sense, you have wrote about what your passing down to your sons, I hope your mentality and misguided beliefs are not what they are absorbing, the last thing this world needs is more narrow minded people.

As far as people whiter than yourself.... I don't think Adolf Hitler was as white as you.

And at the end of the day this is Canada, if you don't like it...leave

[BeeGuy]

Do they have paint chips now that you can hold up to your arm that will tell you what your character/nationality/ethnicity/cultural identity is?

awesome.

I would come in somewhere between yeti and abominable snowman.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

This is my 3rd post on this thread, am I trolling?


Kurt get a grip, every time you post you make less and less sense, you have wrote about what your passing down to your sons, I hope your mentality and misguided beliefs are not what they are absorbing, the last thing this world needs is more narrow minded people.

As far as people whiter than yourself.... I don't think Adolf Hitler was as white as you.

And at the end of the day this is Canada, if you don't like it...leave

Lol, what I pass on to my kids is hard work and respect will get you thru life without having to rely on others.

I believe they make hurt feeling reports you or anyone else can fill out after reading my opinions. Because I consider myself to be as much of a native of Canada as anyone else born here, you feel it appropriate to imply I'm a racist? Because I believe the treaties written over a century ago are outdated you think I have misguided beliefs?

It's greed on your part that would lead you to go on the defensive and not concede that the hunting rights are a joke the way they are written.

It only took one post on this thread from you for me to read that deep into you.

When I first started posting on this thread it was a civil debate, after 10 or so pages some of the posts from the defendants made me lose all hope on trying to let common sense and reality sink in to a few of them. I believe there are a few here with treaty rights who have read my posts, understood none were ever meant to insult treaty Indians. At the same time I have a right as a Canadian hunter to speak my mind on the topic, not everyone is going to like it, but it's Canada so too bad.

And by the way, I was not lying or even joking about my Métis friends who are both whiter than me (6'5", blond hair blue eye, looks like he just stepped off the Viking ship) and refused to get their cards because they don't see the need.

I'm not surprised you try playing the race card, not at all.

PS, I stopped making sense on this thread a little while ago, I made my point and waited for a viable argument against it, it never happened.

[SmokinJoe]

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Lol, what I pass on to my kids is hard work and respect will get you thru life without having to rely on others.

I believe they make hurt feeling reports you or anyone else can fill out after reading my opinions. Because I consider myself to be as much of a native of Canada as anyone else born here, you feel it appropriate to imply I'm a racist? Because I believe the treaties written over a century ago are outdated you think I have misguided beliefs?
It's greed on your part that would lead you to go on the defensive and not concede that the hunting rights are a joke the way they are written.
It only took one post on this thread from you for me to read that deep into you.

When I first started posting on this thread it was a civil debate, after 10 or so pages some of the posts from the defendants made me lose all hope on trying to let common sense and reality sink in to a few of them. I believe there are a few here with treaty rights who have read my posts, understood none were ever meant to insult treaty Indians. At the same time I have a right as a Canadian hunter to speak my mind on the topic, not everyone is going to like it, but it's Canada so too bad.

And by the way, I was not lying or even joking about my Métis friends who are both whiter than me (6'5", blond hair blue eye, looks like he just stepped off the Viking ship) and refused to get their cards because they don't see the need.

I'm not surprised you try playing the race card, not at all.

Kurt: You have been holding forth about the hunting rights granted to Indians pursuant to the treaties. Have you read the treaties? Do you know the history leading up to the treaties? Do you know how the interpreters explained the wording of the treaties to the Indians at the time they were signed? Do you know what the Indians understood the treaties to mean at the time they signed them? Have you read the court decisions interpreting the treaties? I expect the truthful answer for you to all these questions are no. If you respond with a yes to any of these questions, I will be pleased to put some skill testing questions to you. If you don't know what your talking about, it is best not to get involved in the discussion. Ignorance is not a point of view.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Kurt: You have been holding forth about the hunting rights granted to Indians pursuant to the treaties. Have you read the treaties? Do you know the history leading up to the treaties? Do you know how the interpreters explained the wording of the treaties to the Indians at the time they were signed? Do you know what the Indians understood the treaties to mean at the time they signed them? Have you read the court decisions interpreting the treaties? I expect the truthful answer for you to all these questions are no. If you respond with a yes to any of these questions, I will be pleased to put some skill testing questions to you. If you don't know what your talking about, it is best not to get involved in the discussion. Ignorance is not a point of view.

I am not privy to how the treaties were interpreted, never claimed I was. Ignorance however can be interpreted as refusing to let logic and common sense be a part of decision making.

Because I don't think it's right that treaties give you the right to kill as many animals whenever you want it makes me ignorant? There is no way in the world you can convince me that it is needed, or defended by you other than for greed.


Answer me this honestly, what is wrong with the notion that you register you kills, and if you are hunting for sustenance why do you have a problem with destroying any trophy attributes? What would be wrong with following the guidelines of the Alberta hunting regulations? Why would you have a problem with this?

[waterhawk]

This is what treaty six says about the Indian's right to hunt and fish:

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government.

I believe in honoring agreements even if as time passes the terms of the agreement turn out not to be in my favor. The Indians were told they and their descendants would have the right to hunt and fish. When they signed the treaty this is one thing they would have clearly understood. Now you want the government to take that away from the descendants because it may be interfering with your desire to hang a large set of antlers on your wall. In my opinion, that dog don't hunt.

[BeeGuy]

Logic. Hmmmm.

Well, to be fair, if you want FN to give up their rights to F&W, then you'll have to return what they gave to the crown.


Kinda puts a hole in your logic hunh?


We struggle with such hardship with what we received in the crowns end of the bargain. Poor us.

Would you be happier if there was no FN at all?

I can think of a dozen animals taken by non-treaty hunters this season and 2 taken by treaty hunters. They are an enormous minority wrt animals taken. But that is not good enough.

[nof60]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

This is what treaty six says about the Indian's right to hunt and fish:

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government.

I believe in honoring agreements even if as time passes the terms of the agreement turn out not to be in my favor. The Indians were told they and their descendants would have the right to hunt and fish. When they signed the treaty this is one thing they would have clearly understood. Now you want the government to take that away from the descendants because it may be interfering with your desire to hang a large set of antlers on your wall. In my opinion, that dog don't hunt.

Buy a hunting license and join the 21rst century. I wish the gov had the cohones to actually enforce the treaties.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by nof60

Buy a hunting license and join the 21rst century. I wish the gov had the cohones to actually enforce the treaties.

Isn't it amazing just how many people, read that paragraph, but don't seem to want to acknowledge the statement in bold.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Isn't it amazing just how many people, read that paragraph, but don't seem to want to acknowledge the statement in bold.

Sadly for some, the bolded part is not the agreement, it is a condition.

It is amazing how willing people are to back peddle on this agreement.

Is this how you conduct your business?

[waterhawk]

It appears to the government has the ability to make regulations to limit the rights of Indians to exercise their treaty given hunting rights. What some of you guys are suggesting is that they use that ability to take away the right to hunt clearly given to the Indians in the treaties. The reason you want the government to do that is you believe Indian hunting effects your privilege to hunt. You need to be careful here. It seems to me if the government was to conclude there were not enough animals to accommodate both the Indians rights to hunt and your privilege to hunt, it is you that would lose ground.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

It appears to the government has the ability to make regulations to limit the rights of Indians to exercise their treaty given hunting rights. What some of you guys are suggesting is that they use that ability to take away the right to hunt clearly given to the Indians in the treaties. The reason you want the government to do that is you believe Indian hunting effects your privilege to hunt. You need to be careful here. It seems to me if the government was to conclude there were not enough animals to accommodate both the Indians rights to hunt and your privilege to hunt, it is you that would lose ground.

I am not sure anyone is saying here they don't want the natives to hunt at all.

Many feel that harvest limits or harvest management and accountability is a direction to take things.

What is wrong with all user groups of a resource following certain regulations for the better of the game population?

LC

[roper1]

We all struggle trying to keep emotion & bias out of this thread but here's another crack at 'er. My son ( 27 years old ) was drawn for bull elk in 404 this year. I also applied as did his good friend as we often hunt as a threesome, especially mountains hunts as we live a couple hrs away so we tent it. I & his buddy did not get drawn so he hunted approx. 18-20 days out there, most by himself except the odd weekend when we could join him. If we had status rights we could join him whenever we felt like it. Oh, poor us!! However post after post here says: our elders were told we could fish & hunt and that's it - end of story. No, but wait it was entrenched in the Constitution and backed up by at least 200 Supreme Court decisions. We then say the white guy thrusts his laws upon the Indian. Supreme Court handy to back the treaty, not so much cross-border smuggling. The 1982 Constitution simply' Affirmed ' a 135 yr old document. Does anyone here use the same bank they did in 1982 ? The same vehicle ? The same phone ? Hell, the same wife ? It is difficult to come at the discussion from a 135 yr old perspective today unless it is really handy to your own thought process!!

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

I am not sure anyone is saying here they don't want the natives to hunt at all.

Many feel that harvest limits or harvest management and accountability is a direction to take things.

What is wrong with all user groups of a resource following certain regulations for the better of the game population?

LC

Based on the law, these groups are not equal.

If I was FN, I'm not sure I would be willing to report to the government, thereby acknowledging any authority over my right. An obligation to report would require some sort of penalty for not reporting.

[elkhunter11]

Sadly for some, the bolded part is not the agreement, it is a condition.

It is amazing how willing people are to back peddle on this agreement.

Is this how you conduct your business?

When you sign a contract/agreement, do you not read the conditions of that contract first? If you see conditions in that contract/agreement that you don't find acceptable, do you sign that contract anyways? When I conduct business, I read all of the conditions specified in the contract/ agreement, and I only sign if I am willing to accept those conditions. If I find a condition unacceptable, I don't sign the contract/agreement.

It appears to the government has the ability to make regulations to limit the rights of Indians to exercise their treaty given hunting rights. What you guys are suggesting is that they use that ability to take away the right to hunt clearly given to the Indians in the treaties. The reason you want the government to do that is you believe Indian hunting effects your privilege to hunt. You need to be careful here. It seems to me if the government was to conclude there were not enough animals to accommodate both the Indians rights to hunt and your privilege to hunt, it is you that would lose ground.

Just because you regulate a person's right to hunt and fish, does not mean that you are taking away their right to hunt and fish. A native can't legally hunt on private property, without permission, but he still has the right to hunt? A native can't go into Banff, and start shooting the elk in the streets, but that doesn't mean that his right to hunt has been taken away. The treaties give the natives the right to hunt and fish, but those treaties don't specify that they have the right to do so, whenever, and wherever they please. Those treaties also quite clearly specify that those rights, are subject to regulations that may be handed down by the government of Canada.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by roper1

We all struggle trying to keep emotion & bias out of this thread but here's another crack at 'er. My son ( 27 years old ) was drawn for bull elk in 404 this year. I also applied as did his good friend as we often hunt as a threesome, especially mountains hunts as we live a couple hrs away so we tent it. I & his buddy did not get drawn so he hunted approx. 18-20 days out there, most by himself except the odd weekend when we could join him. If we had status rights we could join him whenever we felt like it. Oh, poor us!! However post after post here says: our elders were told we could fish & hunt and that's it - end of story. No, but wait it was entrenched in the Constitution and backed up by at least 200 Supreme Court decisions. We then say the white guy thrusts his laws upon the Indian. Supreme Court handy to back the treaty, not so much cross-border smuggling. The 1982 Constitution simply' Affirmed ' a 135 yr old document. Does anyone here use the same bank they did in 1982 ? The same vehicle ? The same phone ? Hell, the same wife ? It is difficult to come at the discussion from a 135 yr old perspective today unless it is really handy to your own thought process!!

Suggesting that the age of a treaty/contract has any relevance to whether it should be honoured or not is ridiculous.

What it suggests to me is that the FN's should be given neither respect or consideration as human beings in how we deal with them.

Sadly, this is more or less sop.


There are many important legal documents much older than these treaties. To suggest that their age plays any relevance in their persistence is a leap.

The 2nd and 4th amendments in the states are both older than these treaties, and a great inconvenience for the government and corporations. Perhaps they should just dissolve them?

[1899b]

I am a French Canadian and my family has a pic of my Great Great Grandmother. There is no mistaking she is 100% outright native. Before my Uncle succumbed to cancer he was on his way to getting his Metis card. He was a huge hunter, reloader and sportsman. I don't think it was a coincidence that all of a sudden he wanted his card.

I'm pretty sure he had no interest in beating a drum and shoutin KI-I-I-I!!!!!
Nor do i for that matter in regards to getting the card or beating a drum.........

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

When you sign a contract/agreement, do you not read the conditions of that contract first? If you see conditions in that contract/agreement that you don't find acceptable, do you sign that contract anyways? When I conduct business, I read all of the conditions specified in the contract/ agreement, and I only sign if I am willing to accept those conditions. If I find a condition unacceptable, I don't sign the contract/agreement.



Just because you regulate a person's right to hunt and fish, does not mean that you are taking away their right to hunt and fish. A native can't legally hunt on private property, without permission, but he still has the right to hunt? A native can't go into Banff, and start shooting the elk in the streets, but that doesn't mean that his right to hunt has been taken away. The treaties give the natives the right to hunt and fish, but those treaties don't specify that they have the right to do so, whenever, and wherever they please. Those treaties also quite clearly specify that those rights, are subject to regulations that may be handed down by the government of Canada.

As you identified, the crown has indeed regulated from time to time, yet has upheld their right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered.

It appears you wish to remove that right in order to level the playing field.

It will never happen.

Of course, with the appropriate offer on the table, it may be possible to re-negotiate or enter into a new agreement.

[waterhawk]

[QUOTE=elkhunter11;2166040]When you sign a contract/agreement, do you not read the conditions of that contract first? If you see conditions in that contract/agreement that you don't find acceptable, do you sign that contract anyways? When I conduct business, I read all of the conditions specified in the contract/ agreement, and I only sign if I am willing to accept those conditions. If I find a condition unacceptable, I don't sign the contract/agreement.


elkhunter11: The problem with this point is that none of the Indians that were around at the time of the treaty could read. The interpreters used by the government had only limited ability to read. Neither the Indians or the interpreters would have any idea about what regulations meant. All the Indians would have understood was their and their descendants right to hunt was secured. This was extremely important to them because at the time the treaties were signed the Indians were starving because the buffalo had been killed off to the point close to extinction.. If the Indians had thought that in the future their right to hunt would be restricted to accommodate hunting by settlers and their descendants, I am sure they would have refused to sign.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Logic. Hmmmm.

Well, to be fair, if you want FN to give up their rights to F&W, then you'll have to return what they gave to the crown.


Kinda puts a hole in your logic hunh?


We struggle with such hardship with what we received in the crowns end of the bargain. Poor us.

Would you be happier if there was no FN at all?

I can think of a dozen animals taken by non-treaty hunters this season and 2 taken by treaty hunters. They are an enormous minority wrt animals taken. But that is not good enough.

Bee, I know you like picking fights with me just as much as you like putting words in my mouth. You either have a chip on your shoulder or a selective comprehension issue.

NOT ONCE IN ANY POST DID I SAY I WANTED THEIR HUNTING RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. And as a matter of fact I have clearly stated in many posts the exact opposit. I simply want more rights for the "other" Canadians, you got a problem with that? Buy some Kleenex.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Bee, I know you like picking fights with me just as much as you like putting words in my mouth. You either have a chip on your shoulder or a selective comprehension issue.

NOT ONCE IN ANY POST DID I SAY I WANTED THEIR HUNTING RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. And as a matter of fact I have clearly stated in many posts the exact opposit. I simply want more rights for the "other" Canadians, you got a problem with that? Buy some Kleenex.

So you want FN hunting rights to stay the same?

and you want non-status Canadians to be able to hunt unrestricted?

no need to get emotional

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

So you want FN hunting rights to stay the same?

and you want non-status Canadians to be able to hunt unrestricted?

no need to get emotional

Lol, I guess it's the later.

Get you mom to read my posts, maybe she can help explain them to you. Good luck with that.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Lol, I guess it's the later.

.

That would be awesome!

for one season....then it would suck forever.