Subsistence hunting- OFFICIAL thread

[iceburg]

Kurt 505, you have mentioned a couple times now that Metis have recently received hunting rights, what ruling are you referring to?

I would like to add one thing about this. In Sask when they opened up the season to include Metis, I believe it was 1994 'ish, the gong show was on. I lost alot of friends that were very vocal about the subsistence/treaty rights previously to this, who all of a sudden were Metis. I can't help but wonder exactly how much of this would go on if this was the case today.( I know it would go on, just how much, in fact maybe this is the population boom in Metis that is being reported) Everybody ask yourself and try to be honest, if you could do this, would you?
The biggest question that needs to be asked is, How much is being taken? Maybe 7%? Alot of speculation going on with extremely low facts to show this.Imo, Bob-along, Walking Buff, Smoking Joe, you guys have written very well in this area.

One last thing, is shooting a Suffield area bull really all that?? I was guiding in your province for moose a couple years ago, and one guy had a picture of a huge bull elk taken from there, no story to it,no calling season, it was the last day, drove 4 hrs down that morning, had been told where they were, drove through the pasture, shot him and drove home, and he waited along time for this?! In my books a well tricked 5x5 is a better hunt. I guess thats the difference between hunting and shooting......sorry for derail

[molly]

This is such a long thread, I may have missed it, but has anyone seen the photo posted on the Wild Elk Federation's Facebook page? It shows a truck overflowing with trophy elk heads. Disgusting. Subsistence hunting? Not in my books, it ain't.

[Jims71duster]

Lots of good comments on this thread, lots of bad comments as well, bunch of half truths from people that base comments on what they feel they should deserve, on both side. 12 pages of this at the top of the hunting thread can't look good to new people coming to check out the site, there's lots of hard working decent aboriginals on this site and there's a wedge being jammed between the two groups. There is a good reason that every time this came up it was shut down because it always went to the same place. The thread is an organized refereed fight and takes away from the integrity of the site and the purpose of its existence. The issue has been settled by the government. I will delete my account as to avoid the banned under my name.

[crownb]

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

Lots of good comments on this thread, lots of bad comments as well, bunch of half truths from people that base comments on what they feel they should deserve, on both side. 12 pages of this at the top of the hunting thread can't look good to new people coming to check out the site, there's lots of hard working decent aboriginals on this site and there's a wedge being jammed between the two groups. There is a good reason that every time this came up it was shut down because it always went to the same place. The thread is an organized refereed fight and takes away from the integrity of the site and the purpose of its existence. The issue has been settled by the government. I will delete my account as to avoid the banned under my name.

The only reason there is a wedge being jammed between two groups is because there shouldn't be two groups, level the playing field and there is no wedge!!! It is really unfortunate that you are leaving, I liked your to the point posts.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

Lots of good comments on this thread, lots of bad comments as well, bunch of half truths from people that base comments on what they feel they should deserve, on both side. 12 pages of this at the top of the hunting thread can't look good to new people coming to check out the site, there's lots of hard working decent aboriginals on this site and there's a wedge being jammed between the two groups. There is a good reason that every time this came up it was shut down because it always went to the same place. The thread is an organized refereed fight and takes away from the integrity of the site and the purpose of its existence. The issue has been settled by the government. I will delete my account as to avoid the banned under my name.

Too bad to see another contributing member hanging things up... It should not come to things like this but as resident hunters and taxpayers we need to stand up for what is fair and thats equality for everyone. Same rules should apply for all parties or we dont have a very bright future ahead of us. The way things are currently going its unsustainable....

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

Lots of good comments on this thread, lots of bad comments as well, bunch of half truths from people that base comments on what they feel they should deserve, on both side. 12 pages of this at the top of the hunting thread can't look good to new people coming to check out the site, there's lots of hard working decent aboriginals on this site and there's a wedge being jammed between the two groups. There is a good reason that every time this came up it was shut down because it always went to the same place. The thread is an organized refereed fight and takes away from the integrity of the site and the purpose of its existence. The issue has been settled by the government. I will delete my account as to avoid the banned under my name.

Jim, the wedge is clearly there whether this thread goes or stays, at least both sides get to discuss this matter in a civil, respectful manner. Like it or not it is what it is, if anything this should be shedding light to the ones on the other side of the fence.

Non status people have a right to voice their opinion on harvesting rights just as much as status people have a right to voice their opinion on upholding their heritage.

This is our Canada, all Canadians should have an equal opportunity to the plants, animals, and natural resources it holds, and that all most non status people posting on here are asking for. I don't think its out of line, nor do I think it gives a black eye to the forum. It's not being presented as bias to one side or the other, it's a very important issue relating to our fish and wildlife, which is what this forum is about.

Iceburg, I'm referring to the harvesting rights within their established homeland.

[iceburg]

These are not recent Metis rulings, they have always been able to do this.

[ken1989]

Definitely something has to change. I have a place in a village beside the lake in northern Saskatchewan. Several Metis and Treaty Natives live in the village. Many have jobs in the mines and oil field area. I have seen them shoot moose swimming in the lake, heard from locals about chasing wildlife with snowmobiles then shooting, and know they net fish year round and sell. Subsistance hunting should have limitations on how you hunt/fish and limitation of wildlife taken per year.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by iceburg

These are not recent Metis rulings, they have always been able to do this.

Once they have their homeland established/registered. I have a few Métis friends, I know what is going to come of this. It's like letting the dog off the chain so to speak.

[Winch101]

Change the constitution act of 1867 , then start over bringing
All issues up to date .
No matter where you look in Canada ,where there are derisive
Actions between Canadians , the Federal Govt is at fault .
Natives, Veterans , immigrants , Seniors , the Feds are there
With their dirty little hands . Seniors worked their whole lives
Paid taxes , they get crapped on they would love to get the
Funding natives get

To many loopholes in our laws ...
Also ,history shows any protests by white people in this country
Has been dealt with by violent measure ( Winnipeg strike 1919 )
Natives coddled again and again .



I still say pollution will kill all the game before hunting of any kind .

Start harassing your MLA , it will only change when nationwide
Govt does . The laws can be changed .

Best post. # 333, # 336

[elkdump]

I do believe that Canada's biggest internal military conflict was caused by the Government of the Day ignoring the Métis Community,,,

1885 it boiled over,

Some issues contributing to armed uprising,

Hunting
Land ownership
Broken Govt promises

The list is much longer and very complex

[norwestalta]

I don't have a problem with subsistence hunting. I think there are very few that need to hunt to survive. Like any system there is abuse. Doesn't matter what system people will abuse it. I live in between a metis settlement and a reserve and have not seen a decrease in wildlife populations. As a matter of fact the biggest moose I've seen in my area are within a stones throw from the reserve.
Don't label me as a Indian lover because I'm not. I do think that everyone should have equal rights no matter what color you are.

I wonder what kind of a free for all we'd have if we're all allowed the same rights as the natives?
There is a lot of greedy people on here that'll fill all their tags that they're allowed and end up wasting a lot of meat just because they can.

[Don K]

The biggest issue here is sustainability. It cant keep on like this! As the native and metis population grows and weighs the system down eventually things need to change or they break!


Taxpayers Have Been Overly Generous to First Nations

Canada's taxpayers have been increasingly generous to Aboriginal Canadians over the decades, but that reality is not often the narrative one hears from selected First Nations leaders. Instead, the oft-stated opinion is that taxpayers should ante up ever more.

For instance, former Assembly of First Nations chief Phil Fontaine once wrote that any "argument that enough money is already being spent must be regarded as thoroughly uninformed, or worse, shockingly mean-spirited." Last year, at the Assembly of First Nations' special chiefs meeting, out of 47 approved policy resolutions, 22 resolutions asserted inadequate funding, called for additional funding and/or called for exemptions from payments and taxes normally due.

The demand for more spending on Aboriginal matters is predictable as was Fontaine's career-long rhetorical assumption that analysis is inherently hostile. However, to move beyond mere opinion and conflicting ones at that, one must start with facts and analysis if one is to improve people's lives.

Thus, let's start with some hard numbers and look at the trend-line. In the federal department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, with data gleaned from federal archives, department spending per registered First Nations person jumped to $9,056 per person by 2012 from $922 in 1950 (and the figures are already adjusted for inflation so this is an apple-to-apple comparison). That is an 882 per cent increase.

In comparison, federal program spending on all Canadians (including native Canadians) rose to $7,316 per person in 2012 from $1,504 per capita back in 1950. That is a 387 per cent increase.

Provincially, data was more difficult to find but from the mid-1990s forward, here is what the numbers show: in 2012, the 10 provinces combined spent $812 per First Nations person, up 985 per cent from $75 per First Nations person in 1994.

In contrast, provincial government program spending on all citizens also rose but much more modestly, to $9,205 per person in 2012 from $7,340 in 1994, or a 25 per cent increase. Again, all numbers are adjusted for inflation (and population growth is accounted for because these are per person measurements).

Canadians should be clear on what the above numbers mean.

Some spending -- education expenditures on First Nations children, for example -- would occur even if the federal government was not involved. In a different legal arrangement, First Nations kids would anyway be in provincial schools and expenses would be incurred through provincial treasuries.

So funding education through the federal department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada should not be mistakenly looked at as "extra" spending on Aboriginal matters.

Overall, here is what the numbers reveal: The trend-line over the decades, whether in Aboriginal (formerly Indian) Affairs or by provincial governments is clear: spending on Aboriginal matters, and after inflation and population growth is accounted for, is up -- way up, and beyond growth in government program spending on all Canadians.

In addition, examples exist of how taxpayers, via governments, are generous to Aboriginal Canadians.

Here's one and it is a an example of spending not required by treaties or by the constitution: In 2012, Health Canada spent $1.1-billion on supplementary benefits such as dental care, vision care and pharmaceutical drugs for eligible First Nations and Inuit Canadians. Most other Canadians must spend out of pocket or buy insurance for such items.

Back to the big picture: The question of whether taxpayers spend "enough" or "not enough" or "too much" money on Aboriginal matters cannot be answered with a general response.

Specific answers depend on the person, program, and First Nations reserve analyzed. Other factors such as whether tax dollars in specific instances help reduce dependency or exacerbate it, also matter to a complete answer.

But here is what is clear from the data: Whether measured in per capita amounts, or in total (as an example, adjusted for inflation, Aboriginal Affairs spending on Aboriginal matters rose to $7.9-billion in 2012 from $79-million in 1947), or relative to total government program spending, or relative to health benefits provided exclusively to First Nations and Inuit people, taxpayers have been increasingly generous to Canada's Aboriginal peoples.

Any debate over the "proper" amount of spending on Aboriginal matters in Canada should start right there: with the facts.

[Don K]

^^^^^ That's an example of what is happening today. What was agreed upon over 125 years ago isn't realistic today!!

[Don K]

And here is the real kicker...

When Statistics Canada released 2006 census data on aboriginals this week, it found 1,172,790 people in Canada identifying as First Nations, Inuit and Metis. In the past 10 years, that's a 45% increase in size, a growth rate nearly six times that of the non-native population, which expanded 8% in the same period. The median age for aboriginals, 27 years, is a full 13 years younger than among non-aboriginals. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where aboriginals make up the largest proportions, their median ages were 22 and 24 years respectively. About 1/5 of aboriginals are under 10, compared with just 11% of non-natives.

It's what is referred to as "the pig in the python," a massive cohort progressing steadily along the Canadian timeline. If anything like these rates simply hold steady over the next 25 years, there could be almost three million aboriginals in Canada by 2031, representing as much as 8% of the population. In provinces with heavier aboriginal concentrations and older non-native populations, such as Manitoba or Saskatchewan (natives make up 15% of the population in both cases, currently), demographers project that by the time today's high school graduates reach retirement age, aboriginals could very well make up more than half the population.

Thats why we need to reassess the social programs, transfer payments and less importantly, but important for those of us taxpaying canadians that are just as deserving as the aboriginals, our wildlife resources so that its fair and equal for all parties.

Until theres major changes there is no bright future for anyone... Its a broken system that needs change.

[chugg]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Just wait, it gets even better now that Metis have hunting rights now too.

kurt505 where did you get the facts from metis in Alberta can hunt within a certain area of their settlement only,

[Winch101]

That amount of money spent with little to no return is apprehensible .

First you have to wonder at the sanity of our elected officials .
Currently you see the reluctance of the Feds to prosecute
Criminal mismanagement of Band funds . All that money and
They want more . We should offer to buys those chips .

Pure craziness .....it will end and not well .

Don good again .....Fortunately for Canada , the Sikhs , Chinese, Arabs
Bosnians , Serbs , Syrians , and the rest of the immigrant base
Will not stand for this .
We ,the descendants of British , French , Scots , Irish etc have been
Placated by our Govt into believing all is well , It is not .
I really take exception to the number of people in Canada who
In their youth denied vehemently that they were native,and likely
Weren't .
But suddenly showed up on the free ride . This is massive welfare
On a scale unseen ever before in this world .


Ok back to the OP .......8000 elk a problem .....their going to cull 1000

That's nuts ,kill .....2/3 rds .....they are in a park ....they'll be ok

Breed and Feed , is all they do .

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chugg

kurt505 where did you get the facts from metis in Alberta can hunt within a certain area of their settlement only,

My Metis friends who received their paperwork. I'm not exactly sure on the procedure, as I'm not Metis, but in brief conversation I believe I heard them say they can pick between a couple locations? Not sure on why that is.

[roy9525]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

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.

Originally Posted by Don K

And here is the real kicker...

When Statistics Canada released 2006 census data on aboriginals this week, it found 1,172,790 people in Canada identifying as First Nations, Inuit and Metis. In the past 10 years, that's a 45% increase in size, a growth rate nearly six times that of the non-native population, which expanded 8% in the same period. The median age for aboriginals, 27 years, is a full 13 years younger than among non-aboriginals. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where aboriginals make up the largest proportions, their median ages were 22 and 24 years respectively. About 1/5 of aboriginals are under 10, compared with just 11% of non-natives.

It's what is referred to as "the pig in the python," a massive cohort progressing steadily along the Canadian timeline. If anything like these rates simply hold steady over the next 25 years, there could be almost three million aboriginals in Canada by 2031, representing as much as 8% of the population. In provinces with heavier aboriginal concentrations and older non-native populations, such as Manitoba or Saskatchewan (natives make up 15% of the population in both cases, currently), demographers project that by the time today's high school graduates reach retirement age, aboriginals could very well make up more than half the population.

Thats why we need to reassess the social programs, transfer payments and less importantly, but important for those of us taxpaying canadians that are just as deserving as the aboriginals, our wildlife resources so that its fair and equal for all parties.

Until theres major changes there is no bright future for anyone... Its a broken system that needs change.

and that sums it up, thanks Don

[chugg]

Originally Posted by bobalong

That is fine, but why the opposition to having the size of family and number of animals taken documented and controlled?

I do not have a problem with that, but who determines what it is the appropriate amount for a family for a year. It your are single or have a family and are non-native do you want someone else telling you what is the appropriate amount of meat for you to eat in a year.

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???????

Do they do it every year like natives do?
Possibly not for all species, but a family of 5 can still shoot quite a few deer, and if they bow hunt as well, non-natives can still harvest quite a bit of game every year.




No one is protesting those natives that are actually subsistence hunting.

Once again, without knowing how much game is taken and for how many people, how could you know that they are not all subsistence hunting?

I thought the idea of the suffield hunt was to reduce population, hence why cows should be shot not bulls.

I believe that reducing the heard population is the main focus, but there are already hundreds of cows being harvested. To my knowledge natives are not required to hunt their animals by sex, subsistence hunting has different treaty rules. Allowing only natives to shoot bulls, IMO maybe wasn't the right choice, I do not know the reasons ESRD chose to do this. My guess is that they wanted elk shot quickly, they may have anticipated the shyte show that would develop with non-natives shooting bulls, and we can see by the discussions on that, if they did predicate that scenario, they were pretty much right on.

All anybody wants is for everyone to be treated the same and not have different rules based on skin color.

I don't believe this is race issue, it is a treaty issue. I am not talking specifically about the Suffield hunt, but Native hunting in general, which is all this discussion is really about. I think people have to look at themselves regarding making deals with someone. If you make a deal with someone, and then day, months, years later you feel that overall you got a good deal......but over time one small aspect of that deal is now better for the other party, you should be able to just negotiate that part, but keep all the good stuff where you did way better?

well said i agree 100%

[chugg]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

My Metis friends who received their paperwork. I'm not exactly sure on the procedure, as I'm not Metis, but in brief conversation I believe I heard them say they can pick between a couple locations? Not sure on why that is.

Metis in Alberta do not have the same Hunting rights as treaty natives. Only if you are from a settlement.

[claystone]

Originally Posted by Don K

And here is the real kicker...

When Statistics Canada released 2006 census data on aboriginals this week, it found 1,172,790 people in Canada identifying as First Nations, Inuit and Metis. In the past 10 years, that's a 45% increase in size, a growth rate nearly six times that of the non-native population, which expanded 8% in the same period. The median age for aboriginals, 27 years, is a full 13 years younger than among non-aboriginals. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where aboriginals make up the largest proportions, their median ages were 22 and 24 years respectively. About 1/5 of aboriginals are under 10, compared with just 11% of non-natives.

It's what is referred to as "the pig in the python," a massive cohort progressing steadily along the Canadian timeline. If anything like these rates simply hold steady over the next 25 years, there could be almost three million aboriginals in Canada by 2031, representing as much as 8% of the population. In provinces with heavier aboriginal concentrations and older non-native populations, such as Manitoba or Saskatchewan (natives make up 15% of the population in both cases, currently), demographers project that by the time today's high school graduates reach retirement age, aboriginals could very well make up more than half the population.

Thats why we need to reassess the social programs, transfer payments and less importantly, but important for those of us taxpaying canadians that are just as deserving as the aboriginals, our wildlife resources so that its fair and equal for all parties.

Until theres major changes there is no bright future for anyone... Its a broken system that needs change.

Why do you beleive taxpayers pay for everything native? And I can tell you that if a native is lucky enough to get a job on reserve he doesn't pay taxes. But like the majority of natives that isn't so. So we work off reserve and pay taxes just like you claim to, so I guess my taxes are paving your mainstreet. And the resoure money going to first nations doesn't exist?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chugg

Metis in Alberta do not have the same Hunting rights as treaty natives. Only if you are from a settlement.

I know they don't have the same rights as status. My friends are not directly from a settlement yet still get rights so I don't know what to tell you.


We both agree that non status hunters never killed 1000 elk last week though right? I still haven't found anything on that, have you?

[chugg]

Originally Posted by claystone

Why do you beleive taxpayers pay for everything native? And I can tell you that if a native is lucky enough to get a job on reserve he doesn't pay taxes. But like the majority of natives that isn't so. So we work off reserve and pay taxes just like you claim to, so I guess my taxes are paving your mainstreet. And the resoure money going to first nations doesn't exist?

good point

[chugg]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I know they don't have the same rights as status. My friends are not directly from a settlement yet still get rights so I don't know what to tell you.


We both agree that non status hunters never killed 1000 elk last week though right? I still haven't found anything on that, have you?

I'm sure your metis friends have rights but their hunting rights are the same as yours.
There were 660 tags allotted on the base from Sept to January and 500 in February, 300 off the base, so it seems to me non native hunters had a pretty decent shot at it. Pardon me not 1000 elk last week, and if 1000 elk were taken by non native hunter then good on you, there is an elk over population problem

[ken1989]

If you work for a reserve you do not pay taxes. I know people not living on a reserve but work on a reserve and do not pay taxes.

I know treaty people not living on a reserve working in oil field in Cold Lake and Fort MacMurray and do not pay taxes. There is some Native Company coordinating this. I know this to be absolutely true.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chugg

I'm sure your metis friends have rights but their hunting rights are the same as yours.
There were 660 tags allotted on the base from Sept to January and 500 in February, 300 off the base, so it seems to me non native hunters had a pretty decent shot at it. Pardon me not 1000 elk last week, and if 1000 elk were taken by non native hunter then good on you, there is an elk over population problem

The Suffield thing doesn't bother me, I understand it's to eradicate some of the herd, I'm not a trophy elk hunter. A three point bull is about the most sought after trophy I'm looking for. ESRD are to blame for Suffield, if they had started out this hunt with the guys who have priority draws everyone would be happy, but...... That's not what happened and it's causing some noses to be put out of joint and causing un-due tension between native and non native hunters.

My issue is with the way status harvesting is allowed to go on totally unregulated. Like everything else in life, even though it's only a few wrecking things for the many. Like everything else in life, it should change before it's too late. I would think most understand this concept but greed is often a weighing factor on ones view.

[chugg]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

The Suffield thing doesn't bother me, I understand it's to eradicate some of the herd, I'm not a trophy elk hunter. A three point bull is about the most sought after trophy I'm looking for. ESRD are to blame for Suffield, if they had started out this hunt with the guys who have priority draws everyone would be happy, but...... That's not what happened and it's causing some noses to be put out of joint and causing un-due tension between native and non native hunters.

My issue is with the way status harvesting is allowed to go on totally unregulated. Like everything else in life, even though it's only a few wrecking things for the many. Like everything else in life, it should change before it's too late. I would think most understand this concept but greed is often a weighing factor on ones view.

Very good point

[chugg]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

The Suffield thing doesn't bother me, I understand it's to eradicate some of the herd, I'm not a trophy elk hunter. A three point bull is about the most sought after trophy I'm looking for. ESRD are to blame for Suffield, if they had started out this hunt with the guys who have priority draws everyone would be happy, but...... That's not what happened and it's causing some noses to be put out of joint and causing un-due tension between native and non native hunters.

My issue is with the way status harvesting is allowed to go on totally unregulated. Like everything else in life, even though it's only a few wrecking things for the many. Like everything else in life, it should change before it's too late. I would think most understand this concept but greed is often a weighing factor on ones view.

Just Keep in mind though, a lot of us status hunters are very ethical and the few wrecking things for all applies to non native hunters as well

[chugg]

Originally Posted by ken1989

If you work for a reserve you do not pay taxes. I know people not living on a reserve but work on a reserve and do not pay taxes.

I know treaty people not living on a reserve working in oil field in Cold Lake and Fort MacMurray and do not pay taxes. There is some Native Company coordinating this. I know this to be absolutely true.

I work very hard and I pay taxes but this thread isn't about taxes