metis info

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I understood you have concerns, and I also understand why.

Mandatory registration of all kills by people with harvest rights is something I’ve been hoping for for a long time now, I don’t seem to remember if you agreed with me on that in the past, is it something you think all First Nations and Metis should adapt? If nothing else at least it will be effective in helping keep track of accurate harvest numbers. Why isn’t that on the table??

Jimm said about 1100 members will be getting their harvest rights, that’s the number I used for my example. Also I found the harvest numbers for moose on mywildalberta, I took a 5 year average to get 7800 moose per year, it also has the information on number of Hunting licenses sold, 127,000 across Alberta. I am only guessing but I don’t think most are getting harvest rights so they can have another card to put in their wallet, and I don’t hear from many people that they prefer the taste of deer over the taste of moose. I don’t share your thoughts on what will happen with our moose population one bit.

Why is it you feel draw times will continue to get worse every year? They are based off of 2 factors, one is number of hunters applying, the second thing is number of animals. It’s a pretty simple concept. If animal populations go up, draw wait times go down. If populations go down draw wait times go up. Adding thousand(s) of unregulated hunters who will hunt year round will only sway the balance in one direction.

My predawn conclusion to this topic is that by adding thousands of unregulated hunters to an already depleting population of animals is further destroying my opportunities to hunt, to the point I’m doubtful my 6yr old son will ever have the opportunity to harvest a moose. This is something my grandfather (most likely great grandfather as well) has done, my father has done, I have done, and now is iffy at best that my son will be able to do. You don’t get it because you already have a right to unregulated harvesting, and it’s easy to tell how willing you are to give up that right, let alone have to apply for a draw at a chance to harvest a moose in a limited amount of time where you better have your schedule worked out or you’re sol until your next lotto win happens.

Conservation is not up to me or the members on this forum, it’s up to the government, and if it ever was up for discussion, or even a concern for our government they would have had an action plan in place before handing out harvest rights. Unfortunately the only plan they’ve ever implemented is the one they will continue to use, take away opportunities from the regulated community because there’s no red tape to work through. You should really consider these things when you think we are overreacting.

So I have to ask, what reasonable solutions would you suggest for conservation that doesn’t just involve taking more opportunities away from regulated harvesters to help bridge the gap? What compromise do you see the First Nation and Metis giving in to to help better things for licensed hunters who, up until this point have been the only ones losing opportunity while watching more opportunity being handed out? I know it’s a tough question, but I would really be interested to hear what you figure, I’m not being sarcastic or spiteful, it’s a genuine question. With the harvest rights just being granted right now to the Metis people, I honestly don’t see much hope in a compromise coming forward.

At the very least I hope you’re able to understand where I’ve been coming from, I hope you can understand this isn’t about wanting to strip people of their rights, it’s to preserve what little opportunity we regulated hunters have, and without proper management, conservation doesn’t stand a chance. Without conservation our opportunities don’t stand a chance. Little by little I’ve been watching it slip away.

Great posts by both of you, congrats. This is the type of discussion we need if we are to make progress. We all have an interest, we will all agree and disagree on issues but the differences should not divide us.

One of the solutions I can suggest is the provinces getting all sides involved in the science that they have in determining how they manage wildlife. If FN and Metis are considered part of the problem then they should be part of the solution......I wonder how many FNs and Metis are aware of the current big game populations within the province, how finite the populations have become.

I honestly believe bureaucrats/governments rub their hands with glee knowing the opinions expressed now and in the past on this forum when the Rights discussion comes up. It keeps us occupied and contained within a quagmire of crap whilst they whistle dixy in their office chairs.....

[Scouter]

Have we factored in how many will be getting harvesting license for trapping only. How many for fishing only. How about the harvesters that bird hunt only. How about the ones that hunt other big game and not just moose.
Lot of variables.

[LaCa]

I am a Metis Harvester. I've had my harvesting rights for the last 4 years, and have been hunting for many more than that. I have harvested one moose in these last four years. It was a bull, in October, which I was drawn for. That's right, I still apply for my draws. I have harvested two whitetail bucks in those same 4 years, never purchased or used any supplemental tags. These bucks were harvested in November, during day light hours, in the "Green Zone" aka crown land. I look at the draw application and result #s for the WMU's in the areas in around where I hunt so I have a decent idea of the hunter numbers/animal populations. I also purchase my angling license every year, wouldn't know how to set a net, not a big fan of that. I fill out my harvest report every year with AlbertaRelm.

I wanted to sit back and read the posts in this thread without comment, but it's gotten a bit ridiculous. Please don't paint all Metis Harvesters with the same broad brush, it is fairly offensive. I don't post often as you can see from my numbers, but I am a passionate outdoorsmen, and I care about the area that I grew up in and hunt in.

[Scouter]

Should we not also factor in the Métis from the south which are not eligible?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by LaCa

I am a Metis Harvester. I've had my harvesting rights for the last 4 years, and have been hunting for many more than that. I have harvested one moose in these last four years. It was a bull, in October, which I was drawn for. That's right, I still apply for my draws. I have harvested two whitetail bucks in those same 4 years, never purchased or used any supplemental tags. These bucks were harvested in November, during day light hours, in the "Green Zone" aka crown land. I look at the draw application and result #s for the WMU's in the areas in around where I hunt so I have a decent idea of the hunter numbers/animal populations. I also purchase my angling license every year, wouldn't know how to set a net, not a big fan of that. I fill out my harvest report every year with AlbertaRelm.

I wanted to sit back and read the posts in this thread without comment, but it's gotten a bit ridiculous. Please don't paint all Metis Harvesters with the same broad brush, it is fairly offensive. I don't post often as you can see from my numbers, but I am a passionate outdoorsmen, and I care about the area that I grew up in and hunt in.

Perfect example of why harvest rights are not needed in 2019. Seriously it’s like promising someone a horse to use for transportation. Strictly a political move.

[iceburg]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Perfect example of why harvest rights are not needed in 2019. Seriously it’s like promising someone a horse to use for transportation. Strictly a political move.

The message I got from his post was to plz not paint all with one brush, but here you are painting all proposed Metis harvesters the same as this individual, because he doesn't need it, none of them need it. I'm not sure if you communicated properly, but at the risk of dragging this back to the drivel it was for a few pages, and now that you few seem to be playing nicer, my takeaway is that you are jealous it's not you who get's in on this.( from the comments you've made)under the disguise of animal populations.....just my perception

[marky_mark]

Originally Posted by Scouter

Should we not also factor in the Métis from the south which are not eligible?

How many Métis settlements are south of red deer
Asking for a friend ?

[Scouter]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

How many Métis settlements are south of red deer
Asking for a friend ?

None . But how many Métis harvesters are south of Red Deer. That is the number we need

[Scouter]

How can we predict huge Métis population increases when comparing to Manitoba and Red River....

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by iceburg

The message I got from his post was to plz not paint all with one brush, but here you are painting all proposed Metis harvesters the same as this individual, because he doesn't need it, none of them need it. I'm not sure if you communicated properly, but at the risk of dragging this back to the drivel it was for a few pages, and now that you few seem to be playing nicer, my takeaway is that you are jealous it's not you who get's in on this.( from the comments you've made)under the disguise of animal populations.....just my perception

No, my stance is/was that this was a political move by our govrnment with zero intent on preserving people or heritage, but just to gain brownie points at the cost of our wildlife.

. In the past 5 years I think I’ve shot 1 moose and 1 elk total, that alone should speak volumes as to how much I want to be able to jump in this unregulated harvesting group. I know that there are plenty of regulated hunters who have harvested a pile more than me, and I know there are some who poach. The difference is with the regulated hunters there are laws that prevent abuse under the risk of prosecution.

LaCa probably represents 90% of the Alberta Hunting population, both regulated and unregulated, but that 10% can make a big dent, as noted by JD with 5 pregnant cows being shot. It would be nice to prosecute that/those individuals.

[moosesniper]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Do you mean 2 extra moose every 3 years? I assume you hunt in a zone where you get a moose draw every 3 years?

I also assume that everyone applying for harvest rights intends to use them, so that would roughly translate to 2 moose every three years x number of granted harvesters. I also assume that the success rate will be 100% given the fact they can hunt all year round. Now factor in abuse rate because no matter how good of morals most people have there is always some who will break the rules, whether it be killing more than they need, killing for trophy purposes or claiming an animal for someone without harvest rights. I’m not sure what that number will be but it will definitely be there, let’s say 10% just for arguments sake. I’ll grab a low ball number as I’m sure it will be much higher, but for now (this will only include the new ones, not their future generations) 1100.

1100 x 2 = 2200

2200 + 10% = 2420 every 2 years for the first few years, then will rise with population growth.

I haven’t looked into it, but maybe someone like Walking Buffalo knows what the harvest number is for regulated hunters in comparison?

How long will future draw waits be? How will the moose population handle the added pressure? I only see it as a negative result for both.

So you know kurt I dont disagree with all of your argument. It would be nice and I hope that the MNA will have some sort of regulations on how many animals a person can harvest.

Going back to that being only 1 extra moose every 3 years. That is because my wife hunts as well so that makes it 2 moose for 3 years. For my family we will harvest 1 moose per year not 2.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by moosesniper

So you know kurt I dont disagree with all of your argument. It would be nice and I hope that the MNA will have some sort of regulations on how many animals a person can harvest.

Going back to that being only 1 extra moose every 3 years. That is because my wife hunts as well so that makes it 2 moose for 3 years. For my family we will harvest 1 moose per year not 2.

Fair enough.

My wife doesn’t hunt but my oldest son does, my Dad is in his 70’s and still hunts but my mom doesn’t eat moose meat so my Dad will usually give us half of his moose because my family loves moose meat. Between the two families we have about 2-3 moose every 5 years with a couple elk and deer in the mix. Hunting is a tradition in our family with 3 generations all hunting together, I’d hate like hell to lose that. With any luck my son, who will be 17 this year will get his first moose draw and first opportunity at harvesting a moose this fall. He’s held a hunting license since he was 12 and has been looking forward to having a chance to harvest a moose. I think he is just as deserving at having this opportunity as any other Albertan. I fear if things keep going the way they are that in 6 years when my youngest son gets a hunting license he will be in his 20’s before he has this opportunity, if he’s lucky.

I don’t think it’s greedy or a case of wanting to be an unregulated harvester at all. It’s 100% about conservation so we all get the opportunity to do what our fathers did.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Perfect example of why harvest rights are not needed in 2019. Seriously it’s like promising someone a horse to use for transportation. Strictly a political move.

Sorry to point this out Kurt, it is not was not a political move. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed some Metis had rights in certain areas of Canada, those that met the Powley test.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Sorry to point this out Kurt, it is not was not a political move. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed some Metis had rights in certain areas of Canada, those that met the Powley test.

And what was wrong with the last set of rules. They served just fine. Why the massive expansion?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Sorry to point this out Kurt, it is not was not a political move. The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed some Metis had rights in certain areas of Canada, those that met the Powley test.

Don’t be sorry for pointing out how it was granted, it’s still the same thing as giving a horse for someone to use for transportation. Why was it asked for in today’s day and age? To make a political statement no? It certainly wasn’t for self preservation, you know what I mean?

Why is harvest rights important for the Metis and First Nation people?

[Jamie]

So, why the massive expansion to the hunting area? Can no one give me that answer?

My guess it was just more social engineering by the NDP. Yet another great reason to get rip of these guys.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Why was it asked for in today’s day and age? To make a political statement no? It certainly wasn’t for self preservation, you know what I mean?

Why is harvest rights important for the Metis and First Nation people?

You yourself answer your own questions as to why such things are important.

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Fair enough.

My wife doesn’t hunt but my oldest son does, my Dad is in his 70’s and still hunts but my mom doesn’t eat moose meat so my Dad will usually give us half of his moose because my family loves moose meat. Between the two families we have about 2-3 moose every 5 years with a couple elk and deer in the mix. Hunting is a tradition in our family with 3 generations all hunting together, I’d hate like hell to lose that. With any luck my son, who will be 17 this year will get his first moose draw and first opportunity at harvesting a moose this fall. He’s held a hunting license since he was 12 and has been looking forward to having a chance to harvest a moose. I think he is just as deserving at having this opportunity as any other Albertan. I fear if things keep going the way they are that in 6 years when my youngest son gets a hunting license he will be in his 20’s before he has this opportunity, if he’s lucky.

I don’t think it’s greedy or a case of wanting to be an unregulated harvester at all. It’s 100% about conservation so we all get the opportunity to do what our fathers did.

[jakebrake]

This is going to be a free for all

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

You yourself answer your own questions as to why such things are important.

I’m able to enjoy it while under regulations, just like any other Albertan is. It’s not a means of survival for any race, and it can still be a part of tradition while being regulated, no?

[Wolftrapper]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I’m able to enjoy it while under regulations, just like any other Albertan is. It’s not a means of survival for any race, and it can still be a part of tradition while being regulated, no?

This really sums it up completely. There is no logical argument against it.
If there is someone out there that absolutely needs to harvest an animal to survive, I will donate some of my beef to them.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I’m able to enjoy it while under regulations, just like any other Albertan is. It’s not a means of survival for any race, and it can still be a part of tradition while being regulated, no?

You are right in saying it is not a means of survival to most people. For some still living on the land it is still a means.

And in 1908 in the Code of Ethics of hunting that was adopted by several associations in Canada and the US it said this...

4) In the settled and civilized regions of North America there is no real necessity for the consumption of wild game as human food: nor is there any good excuse for the sale of game for food purposes.

[R3illy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

So I have to ask, what reasonable solutions would you suggest for conservation that doesn’t just involve taking more opportunities away from regulated harvesters to help bridge the gap? What compromise do you see the First Nation and Metis giving in to to help better things for licensed hunters who, up until this point have been the only ones losing opportunity while watching more opportunity being handed out? I know it’s a tough question, but I would really be interested to hear what you figure, I’m not being sarcastic or spiteful, it’s a genuine question. With the harvest rights just being granted right now to the Metis people, I honestly don’t see much hope in a compromise coming forward.

At the very least I hope you’re able to understand where I’ve been coming from, I hope you can understand this isn’t about wanting to strip people of their rights, it’s to preserve what little opportunity we regulated hunters have, and without proper management, conservation doesn’t stand a chance. Without conservation our opportunities don’t stand a chance. Little by little I’ve been watching it slip away.

I understand perfectly the point your making and agree with the underlying concerns 100%. I just disagree with the execution of things. To answer your question on what the solution looks like i'd say it starts with us having a better understanding of our animal numbers. From there if all parties sat down together with an open mind that would be all i would hope for.

IMO i think we should track the number of animals harvested but i remember a recent thread that dived into this topic for all hunters(licensed and not licensed) and the vast majority didn't want it.

There will need to be a compromise at some point on unlimited harvest.

Originally Posted by Jamie

So, why the massive expansion to the hunting area? Can no one give me that answer?

My guess it was just more social engineering by the NDP. Yet another great reason to get rip of these guys.

Simple answer here. F&W decided to pick a random size for metis settlements. They didn't factor into anything like where that settlement traditionally hunted. They just created an artificial zone with no input from those who would hunt it.

[marky_mark]

.

[marky_mark]

I understand perfectly the point your making and agree with the underlying concerns 100%. I just disagree with the execution of things. To answer your question on what the solution looks like i'd say it starts with us having a better understanding of our animal numbers. From there if all parties sat down together with an open mind that would be all i would hope for.

IMO i think we should track the number of animals harvested but i remember a recent thread that dived into this topic for all hunters(licensed and not licensed) and the vast majority didn't want it.

There will need to be a compromise at some point on unlimited harvest.

A prime example of this is cfb wainwright.
They have a very accurate count on animal numbers
They release “x” amount of licenses based on the population
Now the fn guys roll in and there is no way to regulate how many hunters show up or how many animals they are going to harvest
Iirc they stated that if this unregulated harvesting continues they will have to shut down the entire hunt
The same gong show happened at suffield. People haven’t forgotten the truck loads of elk that were shot. How many of those were fed to their dogs because they weren’t dressed for days?
It’s instances like these that make everyone cringe about this deal.

Simple answer here. F&W decided to pick a random size for metis settlements. They didn't factor into anything like where that settlement traditionally hunted. They just created an artificial zone with no input from those who would hunt it.

The old zones where 160km from the settlements
So from kikino you can hunt past Edmonton to the sw
Past cold lake to the east etc
Those are huge areas.
I’m sure no one travelled that far on foot pre 1900

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by R3illy

I understand perfectly the point your making and agree with the underlying concerns 100%. I just disagree with the execution of things. To answer your question on what the solution looks like i'd say it starts with us having a better understanding of our animal numbers. From there if all parties sat down together with an open mind that would be all i would hope for.

IMO i think we should track the number of animals harvested but i remember a recent thread that dived into this topic for all hunters(licensed and not licensed) and the vast majority didn't want it.

There will need to be a compromise at some point on unlimited harvest.



Simple answer here. F&W decided to pick a random size for metis settlements. They didn't factor into anything like where that settlement traditionally hunted. They just created an artificial zone with no input from those who would hunt it.

The reason we were divided and viewed tracking numbers as pointless is because there is no way possible of getting accurate number unless ALL HUNTERS are involved. You are 100% correct that accurate numbers need to be recorded, and 100% correct that there has to be a compromise and it HAS to start with unregulated hunters. It’s common sense and you just outlined it yourself. If it was mandatory to register all animals we’d both be happy.

I don’t even understand why we ever argue about this when we both are agreeing 100%???

[R3illy]

I've said all along people have valid concerns. Heck i jumped to the wrong conclusions that were cleared up by some users. The disagreement stems from the solutions thrown out by many which is to get rid of metis rights. This over simplifies the problem/solution.

If you ask most hunters about how our govt manages our wild life most would share many different concerns. First nations issues would only be one aspect. There would be lots of other changes many would love see from the govt in regards to our wild life management plans.

[Nyksta]

Id suggest a solution to settle both sides interests could be a licenced and issued special tag where if a person could articulate their need for sustenance food, or cultural reasons, then they could be issued tags to represent that, so long as the wmu numbers could support the harvest. The special issued sustenance/cultural tag could even have a longer season to consider the needs.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Nyksta

Id settle for a licenced and issued tag system where if a person could articulate their need for sustenance food, or cultural reasons, then they could be issued tags to represent that, so long as the wmu numbers could support the harvest. The special issued sustenance/cultural tag could even have a longer season to consider the needs.

That approach makes some sense, except I would be careful of "cultural reasons". Just look at the salmon situation in BC. The amount of Salmon each
FN individual consumes annually for "ceremonial" reasons in that Province is absolutely mind boggling.
We don't need any moose meat stands along our Hiways.

[Red Bullets]

I could be totally wrong on this but maybe someone could clarify.

One thing that could come into play is traditional hunting territories. A Metis hunter can cover more ground but will have to consider that First Nations have traditional hunting territories too. There are 45 distinct First Nations in Alberta that live on 140 reservations. Each of those Nations has a traditional hunting territory. Metis will most likely have to respect those hunting territories' boundaries.

[7magtime]

Originally Posted by marky_mark

I understand perfectly the point your making and agree with the underlying concerns 100%. I just disagree with the execution of things. To answer your question on what the solution looks like i'd say it starts with us having a better understanding of our animal numbers. From there if all parties sat down together with an open mind that would be all i would hope for.

IMO i think we should track the number of animals harvested but i remember a recent thread that dived into this topic for all hunters(licensed and not licensed) and the vast majority didn't want it.

There will need to be a compromise at some point on unlimited harvest.

A prime example of this is cfb wainwright.
They have a very accurate count on animal numbers
They release “x” amount of licenses based on the population
Now the fn guys roll in and there is no way to regulate how many hunters show up or how many animals they are going to harvest
Iirc they stated that if this unregulated harvesting continues they will have to shut down the entire hunt
The same gong show happened at suffield. People haven’t forgotten the truck loads of elk that were shot. How many of those were fed to their dogs because they weren’t dressed for days?
It’s instances like these that make everyone cringe about this deal.

Simple answer here. F&W decided to pick a random size for metis settlements. They didn't factor into anything like where that settlement traditionally hunted. They just created an artificial zone with no input from those who would hunt it.

The old zones where 160km from the settlements
So from kikino you can hunt past Edmonton to the sw
Past cold lake to the east etc
Those are huge areas.
I’m sure no one travelled that far on foot pre 1900

Thanks for bringing up those examples of unregulated but "monitored" subsistence hunting in Wainwright & Suffield. Do people think some of the questionable things done on those "monitored" hunts will explode when no one is around to see or police them on Crown land? We all know that there's a few bad apples in every group but if there's enough unregulated bad apples in this group, they can do a lot of damage to ungulate/fish populations in a fairly short time. This almost always leads to removing hunting opportunities for the regulated group.....
Like Kurt has been saying, there has been no sustainability or conservation thoughts put into this agreement(only political) and any of us or our kids from the regulated group looking to hunt in the future should be worried...