Status Natives

[Nikanit]

Originally Posted by Alberta Bigbore

Dont talk like this.. you are apparently making judgements of what other forum members are thinking.

yeah! No kidding!

The guy quoting the word "wife"....why did you have to emphasize that? She's his wife. period. Just like I'm my husbands wife.

[froggy]

One thing I would like to add. I am sure it has come up allready but I ould like to say it again. Why should a certian group of people get more hunting or fishing rites then any other canadian??? I was born and raised in canada and so was the last three generation in my family and I have to wait and put in draws to hopefully get to shoot a moose or some other animal to fill my freezer for my family. There is other individuals who do not need any special requirements and can shoot as many animals and when ever they feel it is necessary. How is this fair!!!!!!!!!!!!

[elkhunter11]

One thing I would like to add. I am sure it has come up allready but I ould like to say it again. Why should a certian group of people get more hunting or fishing rites then any other canadian??? I was born and raised in canada and so was the last three generation in my family and I have to wait and put in draws to hopefully get to shoot a moose or some other animal to fill my freezer for my family. There is other individuals who do not need any special requirements and can shoot as many animals and when ever they feel it is necessary. How is this fair!!!!!!!!!!!!

We live in Canada, where the laws themselves are racist, let alone hunting and fishing rights. It seems that every minority race, and religion wants special rights, and they could care less about anyone else. It even goes as far as language. And it isn't likely to improve, anytime soon.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by froggy

One thing I would like to add. I am sure it has come up allready but I ould like to say it again. Why should a certian group of people get more hunting or fishing rites then any other canadian??? I was born and raised in canada and so was the last three generation in my family and I have to wait and put in draws to hopefully get to shoot a moose or some other animal to fill my freezer for my family. There is other individuals who do not need any special requirements and can shoot as many animals and when ever they feel it is necessary. How is this fair!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is not fair at all.

They gave us a whole country to do as we please with and in exchange they get to hunt it when they like. Not fair at all is it?

The only thing protecting us from the courts giving it back to them is they signed the contract.

[elkhunter11]

It is not fair at all.

They gave us a whole country to do as we please with and they get to hunt it when they like. Not fair at all is it?

The only thing protecting us from the courts giving it back to them is they signed the contract.

Just like everyone else, native people use our roads, our schools, our hospitals, our electricity, our natural gas,and our running water and sewer, our motor vehicles, our aircraft, and they take a part in governing our country, so they have in fact become part of us. I doubt that you will find many native people willing to give up all of these things, to live like their ancestors did.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Just like everyone else, native people use our roads, our schools, our hospitals, our electricity, our natural gas,and our running water and sewer, our motor vehicles, our aircraft, and they take a part in governing our country, so they have in fact become part of us. I doubt that you will find many native people willing to give up all of these things, to live like their ancestors did.

When I read this I thought that it pretty well summed it all up. I kept reading it and then I took out all of the words "our" and replaced it with the word "the". For the most part I lived like my grand parents up until I was sixteen and moved out on my own. Would I do it again? Only if I had to but I could do it because I know how. Lots would be in trouble though because they wouldn't have a clue of how to survive without the stuff we have and that includes natives. What good is a treaty then? So I guess all have lost something as time goes by.

[riden]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Many people have never bothered to read the actual text of the various treaties, so they are unaware of one statement in particular, that appears in many treaties. Taken from Treaty 5.

Quote:
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,


In other words, the government of Canada, can impose regulations on hunting and fishing by natives, without violating the terms of the treaties.

To be fair though, you stopped your quote mid sentence. What follows next limits the scope that that statement to mining, lumber and settlement only and that the regulations can only be applied to lands where they can't hunt. Ex: Can't hunt a National Park.

[elkhunter11]

What follows next limits the scope that that statement to mining, lumber and settlement only

Keep reading, it is you that stopped in mid sentence, since there are two parts to the statement, one being the regulations mentioned, and the other being excepting certain tracts of land.You missed one key phrase, applying to the second part, that being,"or other purposes", which is not defined, and is so broad that it could be applied to agriculture, recreation or "other purposes".

that the regulations can only be applied to lands where they can't hunt. Ex: Can't hunt a National Park.

Could you point out the wording in the treaty that specifies that?

[riden]

“Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they,
the said Indians, shall have the 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 their purposes
by Her Said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by
any of the subjects thereof of duly authorized therefore by the
said Government.”

[elkhunter11]

“Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they,
the said Indians, shall have the 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,

That would be part one which allows the regulation of native hunting.

and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time, be required or
taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or their purposes
by Her Said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by
any of the subjects thereof of duly authorized therefore by the
said Government.”

That would be part 2 which specifies disallowing hunting native hunting altogeter in certain locations. And as previously posted, the "other purposes" leaves a very broad loophole, to include land for many purposes.

[riden]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That would be part one which allows the regulation of native hunting.



That would be part 2 which specifies disallowing hunting native hunting altogeter in certain locations. And as previously posted, the "other purposes" leaves a very broad loophole, to include land for many purposes.

And you think the court will interpret it that way? I think it is a huge reach trying to extend this to recreation. The intent of this is to allow resource development. Other purposes could be defined as oil and gas, uranium, resources they didn't extract in the 19th century.

If this were a loophole as you suggest, natives would be losing every harvesting case before the courts, but they are not.

[elkhunter11]

And you think the court will interpret it that way? I think it is a huge reach trying to extend this to recreation. The intent of this is to allow resource development. Other purposes could be defined as oil and gas, uranium, resources they didn't extract in the 19th century.

If this were a loophole as you suggest, natives would be losing every harvesting case before the courts, but they are not.

Part one doesn't post any requirements for those regulations, it just states that regulations can be imposed.

As for part the native harvesting cases, the government hasn't imposed any regulations, so you can't convict someone of violating regulations that don't exist. The government is avoiding imposing regulations on native hunting, because it is such a touchy topic, that could cost them votes.

As for the second part, it's not just for resource development, the game corridors along certain roads being just one example. As well, landowners can refuse any native access to hunt on their property, with no requirement for them to provide any reason at all.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Part one doesn't post any requirements for those regulations, it just states that regulations can be imposed.

As for part the native harvesting cases, the government hasn't imposed any regulations, so you can't convict someone of violating regulations that don't exist. The government is avoiding imposing regulations on native hunting, because it is such a touchy topic, that could cost them votes.

As for the second part, it's not just for resource development, the game corridors along certain roads being just one example. As well, landowners can refuse any native access to hunt on their property, with no requirement for them to provide any reason at all.

Just when I thought I was done, they drag me back in!!!!

Not sure why politicians would be afraid of the votes, FNs make up less than 10% of the population and out of that probably less than 5% percent vote, so I don't believe that's a valid reason.

I do believe I've stated this in this thread already, that the crown can impose conservation measures applicable to FNs if a species is threatened. But prior to doing so, it has a legal obligation to consult and accommodate meaningfully with the Rights holders.

Governments have imposed numerous regulations that impact Treaty Rights, most are for safety reasons.

[savagencounter]

Is this moronic whining post still ongoing. Close it and guys go hunting. Dislike it all u want but status hunting is hear to stay. The new Albertans and east coast part timers are a bigger concern to game populations than the very few status hunters that still hunt IMO. How bout the 100000 new hunters that are added to the pool yearly is that fair for competition on both sides or rich hunters with yearly moose tags or transient hunters from out east who can buy a tag as soon as they get a win card. How many status hunters really hunt not many. But with all the new hunters expect everything on draw and no more supplental deer tags. Status hunters are a very very small population. Think about it.

[elkhunter11]

How bout the 100000 new hunters that are added to the pool yearly

100,000 new resident hunters per year? Let's forget the fairy tails, and get to the facts.

http://mywildalberta.com/BuyLicences...tatistics.aspx

The total of all resident hunters in Alberta was about 111,500 hunters in 2012, an increase of about 9,000 hunters over the past three years, or about 3,000 new resident hunters per year.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

100,000 new resident hunters per year? Let's forget the fairy tails, and get to the facts.

http://mywildalberta.com/BuyLicences...tatistics.aspx

The total of all resident hunters in Alberta was about 111,500 hunters in 2012, an increase of about 9,000 hunters over the past three years, or about 3,000 new resident hunters per year.

And how many First Nations hunters are there? 2 or 3 thousand and dropping?

I can assure you there isn't 3,000 new first nations hunters each year.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

And how many First Nations hunters are there? 2 or 3 thousand and dropping?

I can assure you there isn't 3,000 new first nations hunters each year.

Any numbers on game sex,species that the FN take? Maybe if they reported their kills and we kept track it would put it in perspective and the folks crying foul would stop.....are the FN folks willing to report their kills in an annual basis?

LC

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Any numbers on game sex,species that the FN take? Maybe if they reported their kills and we kept track it would put it in perspective and the folks crying foul would stop.....are the FN folks willing to report their kills in an annual basis?

LC

I'm sure there would be something else to complain about if this were to occur. If you really believe the bolded print above would cease, you have a much different view of Canada.

That's like saying if I gave up my Treaty Card and any affiliated Rights I would no longer be subject to racism!! Highly unlikely.

[elkhunter11]

And how many First Nations hunters are there? 2 or 3 thousand and dropping?

I can assure you there isn't 3,000 new first nations hunters each year.

And how many of those 3000 new hunters can legally shoot a grizzly, or a mountain goat, or a wmu 437 bighorn within the next ten years? How many of those 3000 new hunters can go out and kill a pronghorn, or an antlered elk, just outside of Suffied, without getting in line for many years? How many of them can kill as many animals as they want, whenever they want? The point is that those 3000 new hunters have to wait in line with everyone else for all of the draw tags, so it's not as if they result in an increase to the harvest. On the other hand, if two natives go into wmu 437, and kill two rams, those two rams amount to a significant percentage of the wmu 437 harvest. If they kill two mountain goats, the percentage, compared to the total mountain goat harvest, is even more significant. The point is, that even a few hundred unregulated hunters, can make a huge impact with some species.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

I'm sure there would be something else to complain about if this were to occur. If you really believe the bolded print above would cease, you have a much different view of Canada.

That's like saying if I gave up my Treaty Card and any affiliated Rights I would no longer be subject to racism!! Highly unlikely.

You clearly misunderstood what I posted....I am talking about the white man crying foul on the natives.

If the native people would report harvest accurately them maybe the white man would see how much they harvest....that could put it in perspective.

Depending on what the numbers look like the white man might be ok with the level of FN harvest....

As it is now there is no number so the amount if FN harvest could be small or massive we don't know we can only guess.

So you are reading something in my post that was not there...not really surprised though you seem to like to put words in my mouth.

LC

[Lefty-Canuck]

Not sure how it works in Manitoba where you are from but is there an accurate survey done of the FN folks to know how many deer, moose, elk, etc that they harvest each year and the sex of the animals?

Would be nice if all user groups could work together in a game management strategy that benefits all of our furniture generations.

LC

[brownbomber]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Not sure how it works in Manitoba where you are from but is there an accurate survey done of the FN folks to know how many deer, moose, elk, etc that they harvest each year and the sex of the animals?

Would be nice if all user groups could work together in a game management strategy that benefits all of our furniture generations.

LC

That really should be part of the deal. Not hard to report what and where game has been taken.

[csteeves]

I am so confused why everyone thinks us White People got ripped trading hunting rights (and in some cases Medical and other rights) for the beautiful country of Canada. Good deal IMO.

For whomever the poster was before on the issue of treaty or destruction, I suggest you follow up on the Blackfoot Confederacy.
.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackfoot_Confederacy

Sure an end would have come but it would have significantly changed our collective history.

[adaras]

Natives where hunting buffalo without limits all year for thousands of years! But the white man exterminate the buffalo in less than a year

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

You clearly misunderstood what I posted....I am talking about the white man crying foul on the natives.

If the native people would report harvest accurately them maybe the white man would see how much they harvest....that could put it in perspective.

Depending on what the numbers look like the white man might be ok with the level of FN harvest....

As it is now there is no number so the amount if FN harvest could be small or massive we don't know we can only guess.

So you are reading something in my post that was not there...not really surprised though you seem to like to put words in my mouth.

LC

I'm pretty sure I have a good grasp on what you're saying. What I'm saying is, if you think the griping would end, I happen to think it wouldn't, WITH SOME, there will be always be something else to gripe about when it comes to the Indian.

I do agree with you, BB and others though, that there has to be a meeting of the minds by both licensed hunter and Rights based hunters to ensure game populations are not depleted. How we get there is the question. If we leave it to government it will never happen (solely my opinion). Attacking the Treaties and Rights based hunters flaunting their Rights will never lead to the productive discussions required.

The concept of my culture is I am borrowing what I harvest from my grandchildren.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by adaras

Natives where hunting buffalo without limits all year for thousands of years! But the white man exterminate the buffalo in less than a year

True!

The inconvenient truth perhaps?

But I believe it took more then a year, more then ten years even.

Still, a parsec in time compared to the history of First Nations hunting.

[j m]

Originally Posted by adaras

Natives where hunting buffalo without limits all year for thousands of years! But the white man exterminate the buffalo in less than a year

Before the Spanish brought the horse to NA, I doubt there was a very high success rate going after buffalo with a bow and lance on foot. The rifle also made huge difference. Both whites and natives hunted them with no restrictions and the population crashed. I can actually say I saw a buffalo on the way home from work last week so they weren't exterminated.

So have we learned from the past what unregulated hunting can do to game populations or should we go down that road again?

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by j m

Before the Spanish brought the horse to NA, I doubt there was a very high success rate going after buffalo with a bow and lance on foot. The rifle also made huge difference. Both whites and natives hunted them with no restrictions and the population crashed. I can actually say I saw a buffalo on the way home from work last week so they weren't exterminated.

So have we learned from the past what unregulated hunting can do to game populations or should we go down that road again?

There sure was, they use to drive them off cliffs. They also only hunted them for meat, not like the white man who just wanted the fur.

[Full Curl Earl]

They would drive 500 buffalo of the cliff and salvage only some, as it was impossible to select how many animals would go over. There is plenty of waste and selfishness in the native community, as there is with Non Status folks. But I will never understand how a Status guy wants the meat from 3 - 380 to 405" bull elk at Suffield? There were all kinds of young bulls that would have been much better eating. Weren't these bulls transplanted by white folks with agreements and consultation from the queens Brits?
I have no problem with treaty harvest for meat, never have, but trophy hunting, come on. In Alaska subsistence hunters must immediately cut all horned game antlers through the main beams and break the skull plates. If you want to chase horns in Alberta apply like the rest. I am surprised treaty Indians are not trying to stop the Metis hunting. This should be a much larger concern as the demographic is usually Easterners and above average income earners with the means to hunt many places and many times a year.

[thunderheart]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

There sure was, they use to drive them off cliffs. They also only hunted them for meat, not like the white man who just wanted the fur.

indeed ....

http://www.retronaut.com/wp-content/...falo-Hides.jpg

http://www.retronaut.com/wp-content/...-Skulls-2.jpeg

greedy FNs.. killing for food ... cuts into the whites bank account ....

oh wait .. maybe was the greedy whites that cut into fns food source