Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:41 AM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt2oil View Post
I'm an "under cover indian"/ European . I can grow facial hair and look more Italian lol
No such luck for me, had to run a little faster, hit a little harder, last a little longer and think quicker just to name a few to survive!!! I did forget on some occasions which I was supposed to do for the particular situation!!!!
  #122  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:48 AM
crownb's Avatar
crownb crownb is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Stony Plain
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt2oil View Post
I'm an "under cover indian"/ European . I can grow facial hair and look more Italian lol
Yeah all shapes and forms, I have a friend who I hunted with for several years, then one summer he had a family reunion and found out he was part métis, I think he was like 1/16 Indian, not sure exactly but it wasn't much. The funny thing is he is 6 foot 2 he has blue eyes and blonde hair, crazy. He still buys all his licenses and puts in for draws, this status never changed his actions, like he said why would it I know nothing if that past. There lies the problem, the other métis people who have found out later in life that they have status, all of a sudden want to become hunters and some of them that are hunters already think they are owed something. I am not grouping people or making generalizations, I am just saying that some individuals dot this, but definatly not all.
  #123  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:49 AM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crownb View Post
I think this is part of the solution, getting back to the tools that were available back when the law was made.
This line of thinking should go both ways, if one wants the Indian to go back to stick and string, so should all of the farmers, tell them to go back to one horse plows(or is it ploughs), tell the forestry companies to go back to the sweet saw and ask, tell the oil and gas companies to go back to an axe pick...you get the picture. Why would you want to send one segment of society back and let the other continue to exploit?

One cannot argue with the loss of habitat as the number one reason for loss of wildlife in this country.
  #124  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:51 AM
Alberta Bigbore's Avatar
Alberta Bigbore Alberta Bigbore is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 16,958
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt2oil View Post
I'm an "under cover indian"/ European . I can grow facial hair and look more Italian lol
Buckmaster says i look italian...... i can grow a beard and chest hair like a hillbilly ..... yet my brothers are bald as an eagle... like what gives
__________________
Alberta Bigbore
  #125  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:56 AM
canoes's Avatar
canoes canoes is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Eckville
Posts: 322
Default

I have a picture that was taken of my mom, dad, grandfather and aunt in Toronto. It was one of those taken (late 40"s) on the street by a photographer who would take your picture for a fee and send you the photo.

Its a black and white,, taken in the summer so they were tanned even darker. Well on the back of the picture it says "the negroes"

Larry
  #126  
Old 10-18-2013, 09:01 AM
canoes's Avatar
canoes canoes is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Eckville
Posts: 322
Default

Its good this thread has stayed civil and still open. I once sent Bigbore a private message. I told him he would pull the trigger so fast on closing a thread that by the time I finished typing what I wanted to say it was closed.

Either I type slow or I am slow thinker.
  #127  
Old 10-18-2013, 09:22 AM
crownb's Avatar
crownb crownb is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Stony Plain
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mb-MBR View Post
This line of thinking should go both ways, if one wants the Indian to go back to stick and string, so should all of the farmers, tell them to go back to one horse plows(or is it ploughs), tell the forestry companies to go back to the sweet saw and ask, tell the oil and gas companies to go back to an axe pick...you get the picture. Why would you want to send one segment of society back and let the other continue to exploit?

One cannot argue with the loss of habitat as the number one reason for loss of wildlife in this country.
Yeah maybe so, but that argument is not fair, the population has grown exponatially since those days, more people equals more food which means only one thing, more efficient farming practices. As far as forestry it is again population driven, more people means more living capacity and more infrastructure, which inturn means more efficient logging practices. Oil companies have become huge, again based on population, supply and demand. Now when it comes to sustinence hunting you have to agree that it had be one far easier to do with the modern tools we have, therefore the law shouldn't be no limit and no season, maybe something like you apply to the government for you sustinence hunting and based on the family you are feeding is the amount of tags you are issued, not sure just a suggestion but as far as comparing how everything has changed your right except the things you mentioned arnt law and they seem to be adjusting quite well.
  #128  
Old 10-18-2013, 09:23 AM
Draxx11 Draxx11 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 65
Default

Yep I'm another one of those undercover natives lol. Same as you Bigbore, only one of 5 brothers with any facial hair. Pretty fair skinned as far as a status native goes. It was funny growing up, I was in grade 7 shaving and my older brothers were just starting to spout some hairs lol.

And for one of the previous comments, I think Dave reads just fine. You just misunderstood his point. He was stating that nobody had ancestors that hunted with a 300 win mag and a lifted truck. So why should we?
  #129  
Old 10-18-2013, 09:57 AM
338Bluff 338Bluff is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,844
Default

My ancestors hunted with a bow and arrow, stole horses, and raided the neighbors incessantly. They were Irishmen and Scots and definitely not nobles. Won't even get into what the 'eastern' in-laws were into.

That's a good point about the .300 win. Nobody had them 500 years ago.

In my opinion, FN folks pretty much hunt for the same reason as everyone else nowadays (except in some remote instances), To enjoy the outdoors and hold onto some of their heritage. As long as it is not abused (ie. overharvested,wasted meat or trafficking wildlife) I got no problems if they don't need a tag. If that was negotiated 150 years ago so that we could all drink double mocha lattes, budweiser beer, and drive big 4X4's then so be it. The fast is that there are not that many of them (per capita) that even bother to hunt and that is sad.

Lot of times where I've walked out to the road and struck up the conversation around hunting and game population with other hunters. Its always the same.....used be 100's of critters here until that bunch of FN guys with the reefer truck (usually sask plates....maybe on a black dually??) showed up here. You can also insert wolves into that conversation...only they don't have the reefer truck. It's comical because usually I have a gutted moose, deer, etc laying a mile back or hanging in camp. Some folks just need to learn how to hunt and quit worrying about what the other guy has.

Happy Hunting and be safe out there.
  #130  
Old 10-18-2013, 10:09 AM
canoes's Avatar
canoes canoes is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Eckville
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 338Bluff View Post
Its always the same.....used be 100's of critters here until that bunch of FN guys with the reefer truck (usually sask plates....maybe on a black dually??) showed up here.
There are 4 to 8 large animal vehicle collisions every hour in Canada.

That was taken from this site
http://www.wildlifecollisions.ca/thefacts.htm

People say hunting is wrong. Yes its far better to see the animal in the ditch dead?

Larry
  #131  
Old 10-18-2013, 11:47 AM
just_dave's Avatar
just_dave just_dave is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowhunter12 View Post
Obviously Dave doesn't know how the read properly. I said "their ancestors never hunted with 300 win mags and lifted f150's" refering to a lot of the native hunters hunting like that today. They claim they've been living of the land for hundreds of years I just think if they want to hunt year round they should do it in the same way their ancestors did... With a bow and arrow not rifles
Actually, you've confused reading skill with comprehension skill.

Unfortunately for you, your reading skills aren't acceptable by the standards you judge me with because you obviously can't even read your own posts. Your exact quote was, "Their ancestors never had 300 win mags and lifted f150 trucks," in post #98.
  #132  
Old 10-18-2013, 11:55 AM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crownb View Post
Yeah maybe so, but that argument is not fair, the population has grown exponatially since those days, more people equals more food which means only one thing, more efficient farming practices. As far as forestry it is again population driven, more people means more living capacity and more infrastructure, which inturn means more efficient logging practices. Oil companies have become huge, again based on population, supply and demand. Now when it comes to sustinence hunting you have to agree that it had be one far easier to do with the modern tools we have, therefore the law shouldn't be no limit and no season, maybe something like you apply to the government for you sustinence hunting and based on the family you are feeding is the amount of tags you are issued, not sure just a suggestion but as far as comparing how everything has changed your right except the things you mentioned arnt law and they seem to be adjusting quite well.
For the record, the term "subsistence" does not appear anywhere in any Treaty that I have read. It was inserted in the NRTA as a means of denying the Indian a commercial Right to the resources as a result of the greed of the Crown. They wanted sole access to the natural resources in this country.

Interestingly enough with the Metis, they are not defined as Indians under the NRTA and they could very well argue they have a commercial right to the natural resources.

In conclusion, it you think being out on the land is strictly a killing thing, then I have no words that would explain the lifestyle.

As usual, I stand to be corrected...
  #133  
Old 10-18-2013, 12:14 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mb-MBR View Post
For the record, the term "subsistence" does not appear anywhere in any Treaty that I have read. It was inserted in the NRTA as a means of denying the Indian a commercial Right to the resources as a result of the greed of the Crown. They wanted sole access to the natural resources in this country.

Interestingly enough with the Metis, they are not defined as Indians under the NRTA and they could very well argue they have a commercial right to the natural resources.

In conclusion, it you think being out on the land is strictly a killing thing, then I have no words that would explain the lifestyle.

As usual, I stand to be corrected...
If the government did allow the Indian commercial rights to Canada's resources it would mean there would be no regulation and I'm sure we all know where our resources would be without regulation.

Do you, at this day and age, feel the right to harvest unlimited wildlife year round, a vital part or aboriginal peoples survival? What would happen if aboriginal people had to register their harvest and were only allowed to harvest what is open for each wmu, without having to pay for a hunting license? Would they die off? Would they lose their culture because they could only harvest their limit? You yourself said it's not just a killing thing, so do you think it would be a fair concession?
  #134  
Old 10-18-2013, 12:37 PM
bowhunter12 bowhunter12 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Alberta
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by just_dave View Post
Actually, you've confused reading skill with comprehension skill.

Unfortunately for you, your reading skills aren't acceptable by the standards you judge me with because you obviously can't even read your own posts. Your exact quote was, "Their ancestors never had 300 win mags and lifted f150 trucks," in post #98.
My apologies for snapping on you like that Dave. I took your comment the wrong way. I did phrase that wrong. Sorry again for that
  #135  
Old 10-18-2013, 01:19 PM
pickrel pat pickrel pat is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta Bigbore View Post
Buckmaster says i look italian...... i can grow a beard and chest hair like a hillbilly ..... yet my brothers are bald as an eagle... like what gives
Dont sweat it "son".
  #136  
Old 10-18-2013, 01:22 PM
Big Daddy Badger Big Daddy Badger is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta Bigbore View Post
Buckmaster says i look italian...... i can grow a beard and chest hair like a hillbilly ..... yet my brothers are bald as an eagle... like what gives
ABB= Alfonso Budda-Bing?
  #137  
Old 10-18-2013, 01:23 PM
just_dave's Avatar
just_dave just_dave is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bowhunter12 View Post
My apologies for snapping on you like that Dave. I took your comment the wrong way. I did phrase that wrong. Sorry again for that
Hey, it's all good!

Very respectable of you. I can admire that.

I won't pretend I'm perfect. I erase more posts than I actually post.
  #138  
Old 10-18-2013, 01:23 PM
Big Daddy Badger Big Daddy Badger is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mb-MBR View Post
Hey BDB..................that's a good one to start the weekend, thank you!!!
Well...I wouldn't try milking her... without hobbles and a muzzle.
  #139  
Old 10-18-2013, 02:49 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
If the government did allow the Indian commercial rights to Canada's resources it would mean there would be no regulation and I'm sure we all know where our resources would be without regulation.

Who said there would be no regulation, besides you wouldn't have to worry about your 3 percent going to Indians and immigrants then, you should be lobbying for this!!!
Do you, at this day and age, feel the right to harvest unlimited wildlife year round, a vital part or aboriginal peoples survival?

I do it because I have a Treaty Right to do it and abide by the take what I need principle.
What would happen if aboriginal people had to register their harvest and were only allowed to harvest what is open for each wmu, without having to pay for a hunting license?

I don't know what would happen. The crown has been given authority by the Supreme Court of Canada the ability to infringe a Treaty Aboriginal Right if they can demonstrate a valid conservation requirement to do so but they also must consult meaningfully with the Rights holders. The Crown also has to demonstrate that they took other measures, for example cut back on non resident licenses for that particular species to show it is a concern. The Rights are not absolute and the crown can infringe but it has to be honorable in the process.


Would they die off? Would they lose their culture because they could only harvest their limit?

My ability to exercise my Rights is important to me and my family and I believe would have a detrimental affect to my children, grand children and great grand children if that connection were to be interfered with or taken away. The Aboriginal youth who are occupying our jails, joining gangs, committing suicide, dropping out of school are a prime example of our people who have lost that connection to the land our elders and our nation.

You yourself said it's not just a killing thing, so do you think it would be a fair concession?
Rights holders have to have a vested interest in the resource, other than the ability to kill or harvest. For example, any First nation who wants to get into outfitting industry are usually told they can't because the resource is fully allocated but that same First Nation person can go out and take an animal a day if he wanted. The Sparrow Supreme Court decision created a hierarchy to the resource, first being conservation to ensure the resource is healthy, the second priority is for Rights holders, then licensed hunters, then non resident licensed hunters.


You have to take a look at the BIG PICTURE, other than your taxes and hunting Rights, if you want top dwell on strictly those two, you may not be able to comprehend what needs to be done.
  #140  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:01 PM
crownb's Avatar
crownb crownb is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Stony Plain
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mb-MBR View Post
For the record, the term "subsistence" does not appear anywhere in any Treaty that I have read. It was inserted in the NRTA as a means of denying the Indian a commercial Right to the resources as a result of the greed of the Crown. They wanted sole access to the natural resources in this country.

Interestingly enough with the Metis, they are not defined as Indians under the NRTA and they could very well argue they have a commercial right to the natural resources.

In conclusion, it you think being out on the land is strictly a killing thing, then I have no words that would explain the lifestyle.

As usual, I stand to be corrected...
No where did I say that subsistence was in a treaty, and by no means do I think being out on the land is a killing thing, I was just talking as to what the original poster was referring to subsistence hunting, any response to my comments on farming, forestry and oil activity?
  #141  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:22 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Mb-MBR, to your first point, I find it hard to believe that even you think it would be self regulated responsibly without any type of accountability. It wouldn't, and it would have nothing to do with my 3%.

To your second point, sure you do it because it's your right and maybe you only take your share, but I have seen first hand a reefer truck with three elk laying on the road and I could not count how many were already loaded but I could see it was more than three, and there was only two of them there. I don't know their story, I just know there was a lot more there than two huge families could eat in a year.

To your third point, the crown wouldn't stir the pot unless there was gross negligence, not worth their time to pursue any actions.

To your fourth point, like I said, you yourself said it isn't about the killing, taking all legal species that a white man is allowed to take can fill your freezer for the year, there is plenty of things to learn outdoors in the wild other than killing. The problem on the reserves are a product of the reserve. 10% of the Canadian population is responsible for 35% of the prison population. This is not because of their race, it's because they are given too much, spoiled if you will. The ones who work for all they have aren't the ones in prison.

For your fifth point, all outdoorsmen have a vested interest in our outdoors, not just ones with treaty rights, it's something that has been passed down to me and I am currently passing it on to my sons. And you are totally wrong about native outfitters, I WORK FOR ONE!

From your posts I can't help but think you feel you have more rights to Canada than I should have, and don't think it's right for you to have any restrictions placed on you. With great power comes great responsibility, (Spider-Man) but not everyone has the self control.

I'm only making a point that you can have your cake and eat it too, I'd just like to see changes to help preserve our hunting bounties and privledges. I don't want your rights taken away, just fairly updated.
  #142  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:30 PM
crownb's Avatar
crownb crownb is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Stony Plain
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Mb-MBR, to your first point, I find it hard to believe that even you think it would be self regulated responsibly without any type of accountability. It wouldn't, and it would have nothing to do with my 3%.

To your second point, sure you do it because it's your right and maybe you only take your share, but I have seen first hand a reefer truck with three elk laying on the road and I could not count how many were already loaded but I could see it was more than three, and there was only two of them there. I don't know their story, I just know there was a lot more there than two huge families could eat in a year.

To your third point, the crown wouldn't stir the pot unless there was gross negligence, not worth their time to pursue any actions.

To your fourth point, like I said, you yourself said it isn't about the killing, taking all legal species that a white man is allowed to take can fill your freezer for the year, there is plenty of things to learn outdoors in the wild other than killing. The problem on the reserves are a product of the reserve. 10% of the Canadian population is responsible for 35% of the prison population. This is not because of their race, it's because they are given too much, spoiled if you will. The ones who work for all they have aren't the ones in prison.

For your fifth point, all outdoorsmen have a vested interest in our outdoors, not just ones with treaty rights, it's something that has been passed down to me and I am currently passing it on to my sons. And you are totally wrong about native outfitters, I WORK FOR ONE!

From your posts I can't help but think you feel you have more rights to Canada than I should have, and don't think it's right for you to have any restrictions placed on you. With great power comes great responsibility, (Spider-Man) but not everyone has the self control.

I'm only making a point that you can have your cake and eat it too, I'd just like to see changes to help preserve our hunting bounties and privledges. I don't want your rights taken away, just fairly updated.
Perfection!!!
  #143  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:52 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Mb-MBR, to your first point, I find it hard to believe that even you think it would be self regulated responsibly without any type of accountability. It wouldn't, and it would have nothing to do with my 3%.

Who says it wouldn't be regulated or self regulated???? The provinces and the feds have all kinds of regulation for commercial enterprise

To your second point, sure you do it because it's your right and maybe you only take your share, but I have seen first hand a reefer truck with three elk laying on the road and I could not count how many were already loaded but I could see it was more than three, and there was only two of them there. I don't know their story, I just know there was a lot more there than two huge families could eat in a year.

I've seen the same but not from Rights hunters, what's the point?

To your third point, the crown wouldn't stir the pot unless there was gross negligence, not worth their time to pursue any actions.

The provinces are vested with the responsibility of managing the natural resources as identified under the NRTA. This includes the ability to infringe on Treaty and Aboriginal Rights. You mean to tell me, the Alberta government would let your deer, elk, moose, and other wildlife expire into extinction without acting???? That would be gross mismanagement. Maybe the state of the big game population is not as bad as you think it is if the big game managers within the Alberta government do not see the need to take any action. By law they have to.
To your fourth point, like I said, you yourself said it isn't about the killing, taking all legal species that a white man is allowed to take can fill your freezer for the year, there is plenty of things to learn outdoors in the wild other than killing. The problem on the reserves are a product of the reserve. 10% of the Canadian population is responsible for 35% of the prison population. This is not because of their race, it's because they are given too much, spoiled if you will. The ones who work for all they have aren't the ones in prison.

You should do some research on the highlighted portion of your post.

For your fifth point, all outdoorsmen have a vested interest in our outdoors, not just ones with treaty rights, it's something that has been passed down to me and I am currently passing it on to my sons. And you are totally wrong about native outfitters, I WORK FOR ONE!

I didn't say all outdoorsmen didn't have a vested interest in the resource, Its great that you work for a "native" outfitter, I bet you don't see him out there running around killing everything he sees, right? Probably not because he HAS A VESTED INTEREST in the resource, its more valuable to him alive and to allow others pay him good cash to do so.


From your posts I can't help but think you feel you have more rights to Canada than I should have, and don't think it's right for you to have any restrictions placed on you. With great power comes great responsibility, (Spider-Man) but not everyone has the self control.

I don't think I said I had more rights to Canada that but if you feel that I do, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.


I'm only making a point that you can have your cake and eat it too, I'd just like to see changes to help preserve our hunting bounties and privledges. I don't want your rights taken away, just fairly updated.
As I said if previously, if the crown felt the resources were in danger of extinction they have all the powers granted and available to them RIGHT NOW to take the necessary action, even the ability to restrict, curtail, eliminate all Indian hunting for that species.


For example, in Alberta, if I am not mistaken, if a First Nation person wanted to set a net, he/she would have to get a permit, right or wrong?????? You will have to tell me, this is my understanding. So it is happening for fish, I think.
  #144  
Old 10-18-2013, 04:53 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crownb View Post
Perfection!!!
Pleas read response.................carry on.
  #145  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:15 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mb-MBR View Post
As I said if previously, if the crown felt the resources were in danger of extinction they have all the powers granted and available to them RIGHT NOW to take the necessary action, even the ability to restrict, curtail, eliminate all Indian hunting for that species.


For example, in Alberta, if I am not mistaken, if a First Nation person wanted to set a net, he/she would have to get a permit, right or wrong?????? You will have to tell me, this is my understanding. So it is happening for fish, I think.
Mule deer hunting has gone to draw for most areas even for archery for the white man, how far does it go before treaty rights are restricted? When there are none left?

You haven't made a good argument as to why treaty rights shouldn't be updated other than because you like them.
  #146  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:16 PM
pseelk's Avatar
pseelk pseelk is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 2,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mb-MBR View Post
As I said if previously, if the crown felt the resources were in danger of extinction they have all the powers granted and available to them RIGHT NOW to take the necessary action, even the ability to restrict, curtail, eliminate all Indian hunting for that species.


For example, in Alberta, if I am not mistaken, if a First Nation person wanted to set a net, he/she would have to get a permit, right or wrong?????? You will have to tell me, this is my understanding. So it is happening for fish, I think.
However as it stands right now Natives can hunt grizzly bears all they want even though they are considered threatened.If we accidently kill one F&W are ready to take our first born for the offense.
  #147  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:19 PM
pseelk's Avatar
pseelk pseelk is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 2,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Mule deer hunting has gone to draw for most areas even for archery for the white man, how far does it go before treaty rights are restricted? When there are none left?

You haven't made a good argument as to why treaty rights shouldn't be updated other than because you like them.
Afew years back ,When discussing native hunting rights with the Minister of Natural resources we were told if there was only one deer left in this province, it would be a Native who gets to shoot it.
  #148  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:20 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mb-MBR View Post
As I said if previously, if the crown felt the resources were in danger of extinction they have all the powers granted and available to them RIGHT NOW to take the necessary action, even the ability to restrict, curtail, eliminate all Indian hunting for that species.


For example, in Alberta, if I am not mistaken, if a First Nation person wanted to set a net, he/she would have to get a permit, right or wrong?????? You will have to tell me, this is my understanding. So it is happening for fish, I think.

Many Treaties excluded any special rights to fish. Your analogy doesn't really fit.
You could use Caribou or Grizzly bears for your example. See how that works.


Much more importantly....

Are you seriously making an argument that the present harvesting rights are OK because the government might curtail treaty harvest when the animals are declared Endangered?
  #149  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:23 PM
Smokinyotes Smokinyotes is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: onoway, Ab
Posts: 6,956
Default

I vote Kurt505 for Prime Minister. !!!!!
  #150  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:28 PM
Lefty-Canuck's Avatar
Lefty-Canuck Lefty-Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,775
Default

How are the moose populations doing in Manitoba?

LC
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.