Subsistence hunting- OFFICIAL thread

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Winch101

Those treaties could be challenged and rescinded in a heart beat .
The first signer on the Canadian side is usually British Royalty
Followed by a Church member . The church one the biggest
abusers of natives in history ..ludicrous .
The biggest problem is we elect and trust govt to do the right
Thing and they don't . So apathetically we elect again and once
more over the barrel . I wish Quebec would separate ,would open
The door for the rest of us . Soon less than 50% of our people
Will be older than 2 nd generation Canadians .
For a hell of a lot more reasons than diseased animals
these treaties have to go . Be Canadian or go back where
You came from is a current popular agenda . Shouldn't just
Apply to middle eastern ,European , Asian immigrants .

Are those Elk being tested for CWD .If not ,why not .

The Treaties have been challenged..............there's over 200 Supreme Court of Canada Decisions regarding their interpretation.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Winch.

If you tear it up, then it's all on the table to be negotiated equally.

You want that? You realistically think this won't result in blood?

I'm for stability. Societal stability. If that means we get less antlers..... But we keep the oil, water, coal, oil sands, trees and property.....

I say we win with this contract.

Potty... We are young. I believe in justice. And equity.

Equity changes.... And I think a fair, public and open discussion is possible to make change happen.

It's us vs them... Think more "WE" , everyone would gain!

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Bessie, we are all Canadians, not just the aboriginals. It's 2015, time for EVERYONE to realize this.

Winch is onto something. Ditch the crown and redesign Canada. It's a lot of work, but will be worth the reward.

Agreed!

[chugg]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What's with the superiority complex? Why is it you have to stress "me with the rights" and "you with the privilege"?

We are Canadians, it's only because of your last names the you get to consider yourself as having rights and elkhunter only gets priveledges, it's got nothing to do with personal accomplishments or contributions, don't lose sight of that.

He is not telling anyone what they can or can't do, he is expressing his view. Why do you consider the wildlife on earth to be yours only? That wildlife was here long before any tribe was laying claim to the land.

I agree 100% with talking moose, a Canadian family in need should have every right to harvest animals from the land, that was Gods intention when he created them , I'm sure it wasn't his intention for the earths animals to be free game for status people only.

Also, did non native hunters really kill 1000 elk last week?

its not a complex thats the facts stated from the federal gov .
natives have hunting rights .fact none natives have a hunting privilege

[bessiedog]

Kurt
Potty

My point is... The cost to us (antlers), is minuscule to what we got.

Let's get some perspective on this issue...

That's why govt will do nothing.


You cannot ignore history or heritage..... Unless your last name is Stalin.


'wipe the slate clean' is usually a messy affair that I don't want my children going through.
Ps

I'm at the children's hospital right now.... Stability is kindof at the forefront if my brain.

[Elkaholic338]

This thread was intended to be a discussion of Subsistence hunting, and this leads to a deep discussion of treaty rights, and what is really subsistence hunting, so I will weigh in with my 2 cents worth as well.

I am all for subsistence hunting, if you are a family in need by all means shoot some meat so that you can eat, and I think that this should apply to all Albertans, not just select groups of people.

However where I have my biggest issue is with some of the so called subsistence hunters shooting large ammounts of animals and then wasting them, in the name of their rights. These are the same people that are saying that they are the most concerned about the future of the wildlife in Alberta, yet I have personally witnessed the aftermath of one hunter who shot 14 elk in one day in deep snow in February and took only the backstraps from them and the back hams from 3 of them, leaving the rest to be wasted. When I spoke to fish and wildlife about this and gave the plate # of the truck, they ran the plate and told me that there was nothing that could be done as it was "subsistence hunting".

This is not the only time that i have seen this, I worked as a butcher for several years, and have seen many times that these so called subsistence hunters were waiting for the shop to open in the morning, in june, with fresh killed elk meat, and bringing in only the back hams, and the backstraps, and when asked where the rest was, they said that it wouldnt all fit in the car so was left in the bush. many of them were waiting from about 5:30 am till 7 am when the shop opened and just sleeping in the vehicles, and we are supposed to believe that these animals were not shot at night?

I think that all we are really looking for is some accountability from all people groups about the # of animals harvested, and that subsistence hunting be specifically that without the wastefullness or trophy hunting that seems to be quite prevelant. I dont care if they shoot bulls, cows, calves or whatever, I just want to see fairness for all of us that care for this great natural resource that we call hunting.

Just my opinion from some first hand dealings, take it for what you will.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by Sealclubber

I'd gladly give up my hunting rights if the govt gave us back the oil and ALL the money made off of it WITH INTEREST, we ceded land rights, not mineral rights. Want to renegotiate? There's a great starting point.

for many of the European descending Canadians, ignorance is bliss. Not their fault, it's inherent. It is however at their peril. Not that the growing Native political/financial power will be detrimental, but 'compromise' will be perceived as loss by those that give to obtain balance.

Our forefathers passed along a crude set of rules that they couldn't even honor, followed by years of 'let's pay them to go away' policy. It never worked then, and doesn't work now. First Nations, although struggling with their representation, are actively challenging the courts to uphold their legal rights, while we whine that our representatives can't get it right. It's outside of our comprehension, only because we were born and raised within the ignorance. I suspect that a new generation of 'Canadians' will emerge that embrace the diversity of culture, but it can only come when we stop teaching our children the ways of ignorance.

If Tom can manipulate the process so that Tom can harvest his trophy bull elk, is Tom's way good for all?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chugg

its not a complex thats the facts stated from the federal gov .
natives have hunting rights .fact none natives have a hunting privilege

I'm aware of the facts, the way in which you accuse elkhunter of telling you what to do when he was mearly stating an opinion is a complex.

Third time I'll ask, and I will continue to ask until you answer, did non native hunters kill 1000 elk last week? I really want to know if this is true as the only time I have heard this is from you, I'd like to know where you get these facts.

[bessiedog]

I am all for an accountability mechanism.

That couldnt possibly be problematic ala sec 1 of the Charter.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Kurt
Potty

My point is... The cost to us (antlers), is minuscule to what we got.

Let's get some perspective on this issue...

That's why govt will do nothing.


You cannot ignore history or heritage..... Unless your last name is Stalin.


'wipe the slate clean' is usually a messy affair that I don't want my children going through.
Ps

I'm at the children's hospital right now.... Stability is kindof at the forefront if my brain.

It's WAY deeper than antlers, I think that's what you have to get past

[Winch101]

Because our federal govt has been inefficient since it's inception
As a temporary govt . The only function of this govt is to redistribute
Taxpayers monies to their prioritized agendas and special interest groups .
Our system of democracy is a remnant of the British system ( they no longer
use ) A feudal system in a space age time . Their motto .....Baffle them with
Bull**** .
As Mb indicated any successful challenge by Canadians to treaty rights
Has as usual not been implemented by law. Gutless Federallicy at it's
Best . There will be blood , We have over immigrated for our system ,
These people will not tolerate the paying of the transom that has been
In place for the last 150 yrs.
Also our population has a lot of people who have come from countries
that have gotten rid of the Brits permanently .
You have noticed that only one province in this country is not looking
To achieve 3 rd world status and we are in it . The bleeding dry of this
Country by non self sufficient groups will end , it has to ,
And it won't be pretty .

[Don K]

Originally Posted by crownb

It is really sad, it sure looks like they really really needed that meat to survive. Maybe sell the truck and downgrade god knows I had to.

Exactly!

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Squeaker

With a Canadian co-op gas pump behind it lol wow how does a person even comment on that !!

It's a real lack of something that creates comments like that. It's one thing to state facts, another to completely ignore the obvious and flail away...

[chugg]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I'm aware of the facts, the way in which you accuse elkhunter of telling you what to do when he was mearly stating an opinion is a complex.

Third time I'll ask, and I will continue to ask until you answer, did non native hunters kill 1000 elk last week? I really want to know if this is true as the only time I have heard this is from you, I'd like to know where you get these facts.

0n this thread go back and look

[300magman]

Originally Posted by 45-70sapper

Lol at all the comments about honouring our word on the treaties and how white people shouldn't be question these things because "remember the Buffalo". I guess the mods promise of instant banning for racist comments only applied to racism directed towards natives.

Because I don't have any promise to honour. I have never, nor has anyone that I eleceted to represent me, made a promise to any native group about this subsistence hunting.

Nor do I "remember the Buffalo". Not that old. But its good to know that some members here assume that because white people played a big part in the massive decline in bison populations long before any of our families were born, the white people of today also played a part in that because of the colour of our skin.

We've been so trained to think that only white people can be racist, that when these blatantly racist comments come up no one bats an eye. Too bad, I really hoped that the mods would have been fair.

My question is, if we had separate, better maintained and faster roads that were only for non natives, but the roads for natives were still drivable, would there be public outcry? Of course, that would be descrimination. And it has no place in our society.

Here's something that may surprise some of you. Everyone in this country is equal. Being native does not make you better. Nor does being white or black or purple. We do not receive the experiences, knowledge and skills of our ancestors, you get born onto this earth and everything has to be learned.

And then you have the people saying that this is all about greed. I said it before, this is less about the actual killing of elk and more about the fact that special privileges are given to a group based solely on their ethnicity. If it is wrong to oppose that in modern canadian society, then I'm living in a totally different place than I thought.

x1,000.....that about sums it up. Well said

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by 300magman

x1,000.....that about sums it up. Well said

One of the posters here is using a racial slur for a user name...classy.

LC

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chugg

0n this thread go back and look

Ok, I just re-read through 9 pages up until your claim of 1000 elk taken by non native hunters last week, you're the only one who has claimed that. If this thread is where you claim to have gotten your facts I think you are mistaken.

[Winch101]

My last rant about the Brits ,

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/q...the-brits-pay/

We pay more for Queeny than the Brits do .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-emigrate.html

The largest immigration base to come here in the last 5 yrs are Brits , Why
They are fed up with their govt giving away their country .

I'm fed up with the type of immigration coming here ( Brits make sense )
Kudos to the Tories for cutting back on the numbers set in Liberal hay days .

Ottawa is just a cess pool of self indulgent bureaucrats , visionless ,
Cretins .
Our provincial govt makes Ottawacrats look good .


The best thread you will ever read on here , the most informative , will
give you in a nutshell what horse manure our current Govt wants you to
Swallow . Who the New stupids are in the ESRD .

Go to The Wolf Cull Thread on the Trapping Forum . My faith has been
Restored in purpose on here . Thanks to Rocky Mtn Music and Mr. Stewart
Read now

[EZM]

Maybe it's just too simple in my mind ......

The only issue I have is when a **person** is wasting game meat ..... they should be charged and prosecuted. period.

Now insert "sustenance hunter" or "licensed hunter" in to replace **person** in the above statement ........ and we are all covered.

End of story.

Nobody should have the right to allow fish or game to spoil when it could be used to feed or sustain others. That's just criminal. I don't care if the guy is purple, green or orange who pulled the trigger .... its wrong.

I am in support of sustenance hunting/fishing for **people** given the reasonable limitations of common sense in managing our limited resources.

[Snap Shot]

Originally Posted by 45-70sapper

Lol at all the comments about honouring our word on the treaties and how white people shouldn't be question these things because "remember the Buffalo". I guess the mods promise of instant banning for racist comments only applied to racism directed towards natives.

Because I don't have any promise to honour. I have never, nor has anyone that I eleceted to represent me, made a promise to any native group about this subsistence hunting.

Nor do I "remember the Buffalo". Not that old. But its good to know that some members here assume that because white people played a big part in the massive decline in bison populations long before any of our families were born, the white people of today also played a part in that because of the colour of our skin.

We've been so trained to think that only white people can be racist, that when these blatantly racist comments come up no one bats an eye. Too bad, I really hoped that the mods would have been fair.



My question is, if we had separate, better maintained and faster roads that were only for non natives, but the roads for natives were still drivable, would there be public outcry? Of course, that would be descrimination. And it has no place in our society.

Here's something that may surprise some of you. Everyone in this country is equal. Being native does not make you better. Nor does being white or black or purple. We do not receive the experiences, knowledge and skills of our ancestors, you get born onto this earth and everything has to be learned.

And then you have the people saying that this is all about greed. I said it before, this is less about the actual killing of elk and more about the fact that special privileges are given to a group based solely on their ethnicity. If it is wrong to oppose that in modern canadian society, then I'm living in a totally different place than I thought.

This is bang on!! Exactly how I feel

[manosteel]

Originally Posted by bobalong

First off to my knowledge hunting rights were not "given" to the Natives, it was a negotiation and they were traded for land. For those of you who do not agree with this, maybe all treaties should be cancelled and all land that was "given" by the Natives to the crown, should be returned to them. I will agree this is not a very rational or reasonable suggestion, but neither is cherry picking the treaties and suggesting elimination of a few things that now, a hundred years later you don't like.

How can a comment stating that Natives are killing to much big game, be taken seriously when no one seems to know how much they are "taking" or how many people they are feeding?? I have read the comments about allowing 2 deer and one elk or moose per native family.....once again how big of a native family?.

I have also read about non-native members on here getting moose tags, elk tags and deer and possibly even antelope tags for their whole family in the same year. Husband gets one, wife gets one, a couple sons and a daughter get one, and they all shoot game......but that is ok???????

I have also read comments about Natives not hunting for subsistence, because they have expensive trucks, quads etc. Those same members then boast of making 150-200K, owing quads, 70K trucks, and boats, and hunting and shooing as many animals per year as legally possible. Some are single, or maybe have a wife, but no kids........so they are hunting only because they enjoy it. Needing the meat is so far down the least of priorities of why they hunt, it is not even worth mentioning. I don't really have a problem with that, but do not protest and demean Natives, that for many, shooting and eating wild game is necessary, not for all, but for some.

I also wonder about the comments that Natives should not be able to shoot big bulls. First off bulls are typically 40% larger than cows, so if you are hunting for meat, is this not a logical choice? Also wondering why on other posts, that members suggest that you should not shoot does/cows because they are more important to maintaining a population. This seems to only be a valid comment if your a native............or a landowner. Their justification for stating natives should not be allowed to shoot bulls...........because they want to, so they can put the racks on the wall. Greed and hypocrisy on this one.

Although I may not agree with everything in the treaties, and is there some abuse.... yes, but the deal was made, so honour your word. I have also read on here where a Native group applies to have some land returned to them that was in a treaty, and what are some of the first comments from members on here "They made the deal now live with it"......that saying goes both ways.

The whole native hunting bashing issue on this forum is so typical of many of the hunters on here. If even one little thing has the potential for removing a hunting opportunity for them, be it archers, muzzle loaders, natives, any and all are considered greedy and are criticized constantly. Some of you guys REALLY need to look in a mirror, if you truly want to see what greed looks like.

Great post, well written, reasoned and based on fact. Its no wonder it has not been attacked by hoard! Hard to attack something so straightforward and self-evident. And it is true that subsistence hunting is different from the Treaty right to hunt. Subsistence hunting anyone can do, a Treaty right to hunt is a right promised to the signatories of the Treaty in exchange for allowing their lands to be settled (some might even say it is a lease agreement rather than a land surrender agreement but I digress).

As for court cases, nearly all the treaty rights cases arose because the provinces or the Federal government tried to implement laws which broke their treaty promises outright or tried to limit them in some way. So for the fellow who said the treaties could be challenged and taken away or rights limited, its been tried already and continues to be tired to this day. I suggest taking a quick look at recent Treaty Rights and Aboriginal rights cases to see who has been winning on that front.

At the end of the day it is our education system that has failed all Canadians. It dose not teach us the true scope of Canadian History. If it did, these types of threads would be less.... predictable.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

That's not my position! nice try!

All CANADIANS, governed by all the same rules, " Equality " and equal opportunity for all ... ( not just hunting)

( that's my position, as stated numerous times)


From a friend at the base today!

His estimate has approximately 60 licensed hunters showed up for the cow hunt. Approximately 120 native hunters. Also the rumor on the base is that , once naive hunters hit the 500 mark, the base will shut down the native hunt!

You brought up the position of trophy hunting. I just imparted a question as to the value of the stance. Which was ignored....

I continued to offer advice on how to procede with opening a dialogue with the parties. Which was also nearly completely ignored ( by all but one).


As a person of passionate blood connectors to Greek societal structure and its positive worldwide adoption, surely you understand the call to abandon Canada's frameworks and to start over is going to take a more potent catalyst than some elk bone. Socrates to Potty. ... wth are you thinkin..... lol...


The IS potential to start a meaningful dialogue with Treaty Nations, but it sure isn't going to get started by crying for equality.


I do have a strong concern for the future of wildlife and the accessibility of this resource to all Canadians. The current system is destined for failure. We are already seeing the effects of multi factional user issues in Manitoba. We will inevitably have the same situation arise in Alberta.

Unfortunately the is no viable pressure points for the governments to open the door. I suggest that it will have to start at the dirt level, the common citizen and our organizations.

Currently I hold no hope that this is possible mostly due to individual emotional poisoning of any process that might start a dialogue.

A couple years ago I advised an Alberta conservation group during an executive meeting of a process to garner local Treaty nations input and support to help limit specific hunting activities on their traditional lands. I even had the Nations representatives ready on speeddial. Nope... not a chance. Non native bias was too strong to even try.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Nope... not a chance. Non native bias was too strong to even try.

This is very interesting, can you elaborate on this a little more?

[nube]

Originally Posted by 300magman

x1,000.....that about sums it up. Well said

One of the best posts yet

[nube]

Originally Posted by 45-70sapper View Post
Lol at all the comments about honouring our word on the treaties and how white people shouldn't be question these things because "remember the Buffalo". I guess the mods promise of instant banning for racist comments only applied to racism directed towards natives.

Because I don't have any promise to honour. I have never, nor has anyone that I eleceted to represent me, made a promise to any native group about this subsistence hunting.

Nor do I "remember the Buffalo". Not that old. But its good to know that some members here assume that because white people played a big part in the massive decline in bison populations long before any of our families were born, the white people of today also played a part in that because of the colour of our skin.

We've been so trained to think that only white people can be racist, that when these blatantly racist comments come up no one bats an eye. Too bad, I really hoped that the mods would have been fair.

My question is, if we had separate, better maintained and faster roads that were only for non natives, but the roads for natives were still drivable, would there be public outcry? Of course, that would be descrimination. And it has no place in our society.

Here's something that may surprise some of you. Everyone in this country is equal. Being native does not make you better. Nor does being white or black or purple. We do not receive the experiences, knowledge and skills of our ancestors, you get born onto this earth and everything has to be learned.

And then you have the people saying that this is all about greed. I said it before, this is less about the actual killing of elk and more about the fact that special privileges are given to a group based solely on their ethnicity. If it is wrong to oppose that in modern canadian society, then I'm living in a totally different place than I thought.
One of the best posts yet

[crownb]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

One of the posters here is using a racial slur for a user name...classy.

LC

It takes all kinds!!!! Lol

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

This is very interesting, can you elaborate on this a little more?

Just use this thread as an example. Lol.. (seriously)

Posts such as 45-70sapper that recieve plenty of support truely qualify the difficulties.
Sapper ( possibly a vet or active soldier) feels that history can be forgotten and agreements broken when it suits his desire. True, but usually only in a forceful situation. Should we forget our commitments to war veterans when it suits us? Should we disolve the foundations of law in order to tweek the rules?

I believe the roadblocks I mentioned earleir had less to do with outright racism or patriarchial exclusionism, but more with an uneasy stance on how to develop a working relationship when most had little to no understanding of the native's cultural and legal positions. Quite simply the idea was lost due to it being new ground that these outdoors people were skeptical to explore.


I suggest taking a different road than most here can see on the map. Lets work with the Treaty 6, 7 and 8 Nations to improve/strengthen wildlife management through consultation and a fostering of localized responsibility/control.

Without developing a symbiotic relationship the choices remain one of divisions. The current legal standing of Treaty hunting will squash common licenced hunting into oblivion if further travel down this path is taken. Recent (Manitoba, Territories, BC) treaty decisions are quickly putting the licenced hunter into the history books. Some time it is wise and profitable to shut up, swallow some pride and make a deal. Who knows, perhaps the new agreements might even be honoured.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Just use this thread as an example. Lol.. (seriously)

Posts such as 45-70sapper that recieve plenty of support truely qualify the difficulties.
Sapper ( possibly a vet or active soldier) feels that history can be forgotten and agreements broken when it suits his desire. True, but usually only in a forceful situation. Should we forget our commitments to war veterans when it suits us? Should we disolve the foundations of law in order to tweek the rules?

I believe the roadblocks I mentioned earleir had less to do with outright racism or patriarchial exclusionism, but more with an uneasy stance on how to develop a working relationship when most had little to no understanding of the native's cultural and legal positions. Quite simply the idea was lost due to it being new ground that these outdoors people were skeptical to explore.


I suggest taking a different road than most here can see on the map. Lets work with the Treaty 6, 7 and 8 Nations to improve/strengthen wildlife management through consultation and a fostering of localized responsibility/control.

Without developing a symbiotic relationship the choices remain one of divisions. The current legal standing of Treaty hunting will squash common licenced hunting into oblivion if further travel down this path is taken. Recent (Manitoba, Territories, BC) treaty decisions are quickly putting the licenced hunter into the history books. Some time it is wise and profitable to shut up, swallow some pride and make a deal. Who knows, perhaps the new agreements might even be honoured.

Was it just the white man side who wanted nothing to do with it, or is it fair to say it was a pot meet kettle type scenario? In general I see a stronger opposition to revamping the treaties from the aboriginal side.

If it were to go the way of non status people not having a license to hunt, are we expected to use tax payers dollars to enforce the law? I can't see that happening. Even if it did, I wouldn't be scared of poaching, who's going to report me? Joe farmer who's not allowed to hunt now either? This would most definitely lead to a total collapse of our wildlife IMO.

[wwbirds]

so far it has been quite reasonable on putting forth ideas and opinions but as has been suggested the rights cannot be amended without negotiation. Natives negotiated these rights and renegotiating would be very expensive.
a little history:

Compared to land title that derives from Crown grant—which is how most privately held land is owned—Aboriginal title is sui generis, that is, it is unique, of its own kind. Instead of deriving from grant by the sovereign Crown, as all title in fee simple does, Aboriginal title derives from the Aboriginal peoples’ original possession and occupation of the land before the assertion of British sovereignty over the land.

British colonial policy recognized that Aboriginal tribes were sovereign nations whose title to the land was recognized by English law and international law. Treaties were made in Canada and the United States with First Nations because under international law they were sovereign nations which owned the land they occupied, and treaties were a lawful means of extinguishing that ownership so that it could transfer to the British Crown.


A long read but for those who feel "natives" lost the war a little more information why the British had to negotiate treaties if International Law on Natives being a Sovereign Nation is not enough.

Read Kent Johnston or McNeil on aboriginal jurisdiction! The British could not defeat the French without native help and warriors so were inclined to make deals. When the US was seeking to claim portions of Canada the Natives also fought along side the English and shortened the War of 1812.

excerp:When Europeans first arrived in North America they were entirely dependent
upon the political and social goodwill of the indigenous nations and societies
living here. Any intended occupation of lands and economic or military alliances
was necessarily done through the meeting of the international representatives
of those nations concerned. During those times, Indian Nations were in a much
stronger position because of their numbers and independence. Early land transactions
were carried out to keep peace and maintain alliances between Nations,
both European and Native. In the following centuries, due to the depletion of
those natural resources which to a large degree composed the economic base
governing the indigenous life style, indigenous influence and control over
European expansionism diminished in varying degrees. In short, the exploitation
of aboriginal peoples and lands was an event that occurred hand-in-hand with
white expansion. However, although expansion was occurring, the aboriginal
influence and jurisdiction never diminished to the point where the ideas and
terms of "a voluntary surrender of sovereignty", or, "conquered peoples" could
be applied. In fact, the opposite is true of aboriginal influence and jurisdiction
in Canada's affairs in that these powers were exercised when they were most
crucial to the survival of the Indian Nations of these lands. Two examples can
be noted here:
i) Between 1750 and 1763, the Odawa war chief Pontiac and his allies defeated
the British forces in a war over land rights. This led to the enactment of
the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

ii) In 1812, the Shawnee war chief Tecumseh summoned a large amount of
First Nations military support against the invading U.S. forces. This occurred
after years of fighting against U.S. expansionist forces in the Ohio
valley, and has been recognized as a deciding factor in the War of 1812.
Such examples, together with their surrounding circumstances, clearly demonstrate
the fact that not only were the political, military and social alliances of
the First Nations a prime factor necessary to the development of "Canada",
but the benefits of friendly international relationships were quite openly sought
and accommodated by the colonizing foreign nations. The treaty and other
international relationships that were formed both before and after those significant
wars reflect a recognized need for peace and alliance between the
military powers. They also serve to underline the historical fact that many
First Nations were approached with offers of international relationships and
agreements because they were seen as holding legal rights which made their
consent necessary in order to legitimize transactions concerning the surrender
of lands and resources. It is within this perspective that our aboriginal title,
jurisdiction and sovereignty are seen.
Certain rights were granted through these treaties. Other powers and rights
however have been retained by the Indian Nations because those rights were
never included in those agreements. Among those unceded rights are the rights
of Indian Nations to determine their own citizenship, forms of government,
administration of justice, law enforcement, taxation, domestic relations of
citizens, property use and education. Many lands have been settled by non-
Indian people without the procedures of treaty making and today the Canadian
government is faced with many land claims and court cases stemming from the
unextinguished aboriginal title and jurisdiction concerning those lands. These
developments, viewed in the light of the previously outlined context, emphasize
the viewpoint that all of the original Indian sovereignty and legal interests over
lands and resources that have not been properly surrendered or extinguished
remain intact and available to the Indian Nations.
It is now necessary however to seek political solutions to the many
problems which have been introduced by the often haphazard imposition of
alien laws and systems on the Indian Nations of this land. Indian peoples,
through their own methods of transmitting their histories, know that there was
never a time of saying "We will henceforth stop being Mohawks, Sioux, Cree
and Ojibways, and become Canadians". The fact that Indians exist as distinct,
identifiable groups having cultures, languages, territories and governments,
supports their efforts and claims to be recognized and dealt with as nations
within the context of international laws and procedures.

The English granted these rights as Treaties and a Reward for loyalty when aboriginals outnumbered them 11 to 1 in North America.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Was it just the white man side who wanted nothing to do with it, or is it fair to say it was a pot meet kettle type scenario? In general I see a stronger opposition to revamping the treaties from the aboriginal side.

If it were to go the way of non status people not having a license to hunt, are we expected to use tax payers dollars to enforce the law? I can't see that happening. Even if it did, I wouldn't be scared of poaching, who's going to report me? Joe farmer who's not allowed to hunt now either? This would most definitely lead to a total collapse of our wildlife IMO.

Absolutely there are mixed emotions and desires/agendas on both sides. Even on the smallest scale there will be differences of opinions. But there are ways to work this out without redoing the treaties. It can all be done through consultation and localized agreements.

One of the points I am trying to get across here (and has been mentioned by others)is that approaching the wildlife issue from the tact of opening the treaties is like releasing a million fish into the ocean in order to catch a particular one instead of just catching that fish while it is in the tank.

Opening the treaties means putting EVERYTHING on the table....

Look at what happened with aboriginal control of wildlife from a new court decision regarding historical land use. Licenced hunting has basically been abolished.... Do we want to make that bet again and lose?

This is a new direction being introduced into Treaty decisions and other Nations are paying attention. Through court decisions, all wildlife is being transferred into aboriginal control based on historical land use. The only recourse for licenced hunting is now limited to consultation with the controlIing Nation. There is a real possibility that in the future all hunting licences will be issued by the local Indian Nation (s).

Compliance, enforcement. .... yup, it would be a big mess for those who would care, which is NOT the majority of Canadians.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Sealclubber

I'd gladly give up my hunting rights if the govt gave us back the oil and ALL the money made off of it WITH INTEREST, we ceded land rights, not mineral rights. Want to renegotiate? There's a great starting point.

The oil would still be in the ground... Unless we directionally drilled.