"Untouchables" getting pinched...nice to see!

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by rednuck

Most First Nations made a commitment to be subject to regulations in the treaties.

And Her Majesty the Queen hereby agrees with her said Indians, that they shall have right to pursue their vocations of hunting throughout the Tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may, from time to time, be made by the Government of the country

Of course some people would prefer to ignore the fact that the statement mentioned is a part of the treaty that was agreed to by both parties.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Of course some people would prefer to ignore the fact that the statement mentioned is a part of the treaty that was agreed to by both parties.

For some people all it takes is $$$concessions$$$ to remember that part.

Now we also have Metis people with rights in Alberta, White guys with rights!!!

And then we have the guys with rights in other provinces coming here to hunt because we haven't killed everything off here yet.

Where will it end? I'll tell you, with the growing population and the government handing out harvest rights to more people's, it ends when there is nothing left to harvest if it's not addressed soon.

So here it comes, "careful what you wish for, you'll lose your privledge first". Rather than regulating the harvest for everyone, it's better to continue handing out rights to unlimited harvests of a limited resource?

I don't understand the logic behind that line of thinking, maybe because there is no logic behind it. I could understand if it was a means of survival for a group of people, that their very existence depended on the unlimited? harvest of fish and game, but that is not the case for 99% of Canadians with rights in the year 2015.

If hunting and fishing is regulated for everyone in Canada, it will stay a part of our heritage forever. A true Steward of the land knows this, it wouldn't be a debate.

Say there are 100 guys with rights across Alberta who abuse them, with only 120 CO's in Alberta, what are the odds of them getting caught? Maybe 1 in 10? Now say they shoot 10 moose each in a year. That is about 900 moose taken per year for personal gains, not what rights were intended for, not good for the guys without rights, and certainly not good for the people with them. Having to register a kill and limit the amount you can kill isn't the end of the world, but it would be a huge step in wildlife conservation.

[rednuck]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

For some people all it takes is $$$concessions$$$ to remember that part.

The treaties also agreed upon $5 a year per person. They need to be modernized, but that would be an impossible feat in this day and age.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by crownb

Haha wow, somebody needs a hug

Thanks for recognising that. Thanks. What do you expect at 2 am with no one to talk to?

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Now we also have Metis people with rights in Alberta, White guys with rights!!!
.

So you've determined that Metis are white guys with rights? LOL cute.

You are acting like the current hunting regulations actually address conservation. I am curious to know how many animals you can legally harvest in aggregate each and every hunting season? And how can anyone justify the need to harvest a moose, an elk, several deer, a sheep, some bears, hundreds of grouse, rabbits, countless geese and ducks...etc?? Each and every year....

Before you go about trying to convince aboriginal people to willingly have restrictions put on their "legal rights" to harvest YOU should trim back your legal harvest levels to a reasonable level?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

So you've determined that Metis are white guys with rights? LOL cute.

You are acting like the current hunting regulations actually address conservation. I am curious to know how many animals you can legally harvest in aggregate each and every hunting season? And how can anyone justify the need to harvest a moose, an elk, several deer, a sheep, some bears, hundreds of grouse, rabbits, countless geese and ducks...etc?? Each and every year....

Before you go about trying to convince aboriginal people to willingly have restrictions put on their "legal rights" to harvest YOU should trim back your legal harvest levels to a reasonable level?

Lol!!!! But I'm not surprised with your response.

I have a friend, 6'-7 blond hair, blue eyes looks like a Viking with hunting rights. I have several white friends with hunting rights.

What is a reasonable amount of harvest for the white man CS?
What are my legal limits CS? How many of these legal limits do I harvest CS? Are you aware of the current draw systems in place for the residents of Alberta who currently don't have harvest rights? Do you have any idea of the meaning of conservation CS? Do you have more rights to animals on this planet than others who live here CS?

I know it's a hard sell to the greedy, but to anyone with any foresight or knowledge of the meaning of conservation, it's a no brainer, like some.

[elkhunter11]

And how can anyone justify the need to harvest a moose, an elk, several deer, a sheep, some bears, hundreds of grouse, rabbits, countless geese and ducks...etc?? Each and every year....

How can a native person justify the need to harvest several moose, several elk, several sheep as well as the deer, grouse, rabbits,geese and ducks every year?

At least with licensed hunters there are bag limits and the harvest is not unlimited. If the population drops, the number of tags or the bag limit is reduced accordingly.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

So you've determined that Metis are white guys with rights? LOL cute.

You are acting like the current hunting regulations actually address conservation. I am curious to know how many animals you can legally harvest in aggregate each and every hunting season? And how can anyone justify the need to harvest a moose, an elk, several deer, a sheep, some bears, hundreds of grouse, rabbits, countless geese and ducks...etc?? Each and every year....

Before you go about trying to convince aboriginal people to willingly have restrictions put on their "legal rights" to harvest YOU should trim back your legal harvest levels to a reasonable level?

If you think that the current hunting regulations provide more than anyone would reasonably need, what would be the opposition to having natives follow those same regulations?

[tchardy1972]

Originally Posted by expmler

If you think that the current hunting regulations provide more than anyone would reasonably need, what would be the opposition to having natives follow those same regulations?

Bingo.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by expmler

If you think that the current hunting regulations provide more than anyone would reasonably need, what would be the opposition to having natives follow those same regulations?

His answer will be to provide for the young and elders who are unable to provide for themselves.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

His answer will be to provide for the young and elders who are unable to provide for themselves.

And yet some people have posted their disapproval that licensed hunters give wild game to their family and friends.

I give wild game to my elder relatives who no longer hunt, and children that are too young to hunt, eat the wild game that I kill. The current hunting regulations have not prevented that from happen.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Lol!!!! But I'm not surprised with your response.

I have a friend, 6'-7 blond hair, blue eyes looks like a Viking with hunting rights. I have several white friends with hunting rights.

What is a reasonable amount of harvest for the white man CS?
What are my legal limits CS? How many of these legal limits do I harvest CS? Are you aware of the current draw systems in place for the residents of Alberta who currently don't have harvest rights? Do you have any idea of the meaning of conservation CS? Do you have more rights to animals on this planet than others who live here CS?

I know it's a hard sell to the greedy, but to anyone with any foresight or knowledge of the meaning of conservation, it's a no brainer, like some.

So it's OK, that the regulations allow you to legally shoot way way more than you could possibly need....but you have a problem with a status aboriginal shooting a couple of moose per year? I'm just trying to get a handle on this double standard stuff.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

So it's OK, that the regulations allow you to legally shoot way way more than you could possibly need....but you have a problem with a status aboriginal shooting a couple of moose per year? I'm just trying to get a handle on this double standard stuff.

Haha....yah "double standard" alright Couple or 10 or 20

regulated (tags required, season defined, limits in place) vs. nonregulated (no tags, nonrestrictive, no limits)

What don't you understand?

The point is why can't everyone follow the same rules regardless of who your mom and dad were and where they came from?

....but you already knew that....

LC

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by expmler

If you think that the current hunting regulations provide more than anyone would reasonably need, what would be the opposition to having natives follow those same regulations?

I have no opposition to them following the regs if they like...but in reality they don't have to because that is the law. A law which they didn't make by the way.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

How can a native person justify the need to harvest several moose, several elk, several sheep as well as the deer, grouse, rabbits,geese and ducks every year?

I would suppose because eating the wild meat is an integral part of their diet and cultural framework? Unless they are illegally selling it, the presumption would be that they are eating it instead of buying beef from costco.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

So it's OK, that the regulations allow you to legally shoot way way more than you could possibly need....but you have a problem with a status aboriginal shooting a couple of moose per year? I'm just trying to get a handle on this double standard stuff.

I am allowed to kill one moose per year, and only if I am lucky enough to draw a tag. You can kill as many moose as you want every year.

I am allowed to kill one trophy sheep every two years, you can kill as many as you want every year.

I have waited 12 years to draw a pronghorn tag, and had I drawn it this year, I likely will be waiting 20 years to draw another tag.

As far as deer are concerned, if I am willing to travel to several locations, and I am lucky enough to draw Camp Wainwright tags every few years, I can kill several deer, but as many as I can kill, you can kill hundreds f you choose to.

Can you get a handle on that double standard?

I would suppose because eating the wild meat is an integral part of their diet and cultural framework? Unless they are illegally selling it, the presumption would be that they are eating it instead of buying beef from costco.

Well guess what, while I was growing up, wild meat made up a large portion of my diet, and hunting was a tradition in our family. As hard as it may be for you to believe, a person doesn't have to be native to eat a lot of wild game, and to hunt because it is a tradition in your family.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Haha....yah "double standard" alright Couple or 10 or 20

regulated (tags required, season defined, limits in place) vs. nonregulated (no tags, nonrestrictive, no limits)

LC

I am curious why it's OK that you can legally hunt and shoot way more than you could possibly need.... but find it necessary to whine if some native shoots moose to feed his community?? He shoots moose, not sheep, goats, antelope, deer, elk or migratory birds...just moose. He leaves the rest for licensed and regulated hunters...but that isn't enough?

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I am allowed to kill one moose per year, and only if I am lucky enough to draw a tag. You can kill as many moose as you want every year.

I am allowed to kill one trophy sheep every two years, you can kill as many as you want every year.

I have waited 12 years to draw a pronghorn tag, and had I drawn it this year, I likely will be waiting 20 years to draw another tag.

As far as deer are concerned, if I am willing to travel to several locations, and I am lucky enough to draw Camp Wainwright tags every few years, I can kill several deer, but as many as I can kill, you can kill hundreds f you choose to.

Can you get a handle on that double standard?

Wow, that sounds like your pretty hard done by. Do you think your not getting your fair share? You don't have the ability to hunt out of province, or the country for that matter??

I haven't met a native yet that kills hundreds of deer per year, so I have to assume your just exaggerating what is happening in real life to give a worst case scenario as an example?

[Matt L.]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

I am curious why it's OK that you can legally hunt and shoot way more than you could possibly need.... but find it necessary to whine if some native shoots moose to feed his community?? He shoots moose, not sheep, goats, antelope, deer, elk or migratory birds...just moose. He leaves the rest for licensed and regulated hunters...but that isn't enough?

Oh give me a break CS, you know damned well many natives shoot more than just a moose every so often. Quit being so bloody obtuse.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

He shoots moose, not sheep, goats, antelope, deer, elk or migratory birds...just moose. He leaves the rest for licensed and regulated hunters...but that isn't enough?

:sHa_sarcastic lol::sHa_sarca sticlol:

Now tell us the one about Goldilocks and the three bears. There are natives who drive many miles to hunt trophy sheep in wmu 437 and 438. There were natives that drove many miles to Suffield for a chance to harvest trophy elk. In both cases, licensed hunters have waited many years for the opportunity to hunt trophy sheep in 437 or 438, or to hunt antlered elk near Suffield, let alone on the base itself.

Wow, that sounds like your pretty hard done by. Do you think your not getting your fair share? You don't have the ability to hunt out of province, or the country for that matter??

I have worked and paid my taxes for 35 years, right here in Alberta, so why should I have to travel and pay big money to hunt, when a native can hunt pretty much whatever he wants, whenever he wants, even if he hasn't contributed anything to the province of Alberta?

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

Oh give me a break CS, you know damned well many natives shoot more than just a moose every so often. Quit being so bloody obtuse.

Well I do know that they don't all shoot 20 or 30 moose per year either, and I do know that the vast majority don't even hunt. So which side of this discussion is being obtuse??

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

So it's OK, that the regulations allow you to legally shoot way way more than you could possibly need....but you have a problem with a status aboriginal shooting a couple of moose per year? I'm just trying to get a handle on this double standard stuff.

What am I allowed to shoot way way more of CS? What if I only like to eat moose? Am I allowed to shoot way way more than I can possibly eat?

Do you think things through before you type them, because it's the double standard I have the problem with. Do you have a problem with comprehension? Because I have stated time and time again that I don't have a problem with harvesting of a couple animals per year, it's the unlimited harvest I have the problem with. YOU are the one that has a problem with a status aboriginal only being able to harvest a couple moose a year, not me.

All you see is a white man trying to take away your rights, you're scared, so you try to come up with an excuse as to why you need the ability to have unlimited rights to the animals on earth. Then once you see there is no excuse for it you say "it says so in our treaty agreement". So what! Nobody had the foresight in 1850 to realize the advancement in technology, the growth of the population, health care, grocery stores, apartment complexes, Pop and chips that come out of a machine!

Rather than being pro active to a situation, it's better to have our wildlife collapse than to start taking measures to ensure conservation because it's "in our treaty agreement".

I know you can't understand what I'm writing here, this is intended for people who have the best interest of our fish and wildlife in mind, so I full expect a borage of questions from you, and I am willing to continue to outline my thoughts and reasons behind them for you. You help my cause by bring up all the reasons why there needs to be amendments made in 2015 to a treaty agreement from the 1800's.

[wbl170]

So....all the large bull elk shot at Suffield earlier this year by the natives were souly for the meat? Regarding tags alotted or drawn for the sportsman that are regulated, I would dare to say that many are not filled. Wether due to sufficient meat for personal use has been attained or simply not necessary to "fill" the tag.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

I am curious why it's OK that you can legally hunt and shoot way more than you could possibly need.... but find it necessary to whine if some native shoots moose to feed his community?? He shoots moose, not sheep, goats, antelope, deer, elk or migratory birds...just moose. He leaves the rest for licensed and regulated hunters...but that isn't enough?

He doesn't shoot sheep? How do you know?

Why can't we we all be equals?

LC

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What am I allowed to shoot way way more of CS? What if I only like to eat moose? Am I allowed to shoot way way more than I can possibly eat?

Do you think things through before you type them, because it's the double standard I have the problem with. Do you have a problem with comprehension? Because I have stated time and time again that I don't have a problem with harvesting of a couple animals per year, it's the unlimited harvest I have the problem with. YOU are the one that has a problem with a status aboriginal only being able to harvest a couple moose a year, not me.

All you see is a white man trying to take away your rights, your scared, so you try to come up with an excuse as to why you need the ability to have unlimited rights to the animals on earth. Then once you see there is no excuse for it you say "it says so in our treaty agreement". So what! Nobody had the foresight in 1850 to realize the advancement in technology, the growth of the population, health care, grocery stores, apartment complexes, Pop and chips that come out of a machine!

Rather than being pro active to a situation, it's better to have our wildlife collapse than to start taking measures to ensure conservation because it's "in our treaty agreement".

I know you can't understand what I'm writing here, this is intended for people who have the best interest of our fish and wildlife in mind, so I full expect a borage of questions from you, and I am willing to continue to outline my thoughts and reasons behind them for you. You help my cause by bring up all the reasons why there needs to be amendments made in 2015 to a treaty agreement from the 1800's.

http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife...ns-Jul2009.pdf

According to this site the Source of Indian hunting rights isn't from some 1800's treaty, please lets stick to the facts.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

He doesn't shoot sheep? How do you know?

Why can't we we all be equals?

LC

We are equals, only our government has passed laws that give status indians some privileges most of us don't have. Just like they passed laws that some people could make money without paying income tax on it. I'm not sure that a person being privileged makes anyone less equal does it?

[crownb]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What am I allowed to shoot way way more of CS? What if I only like to eat moose? Am I allowed to shoot way way more than I can possibly eat?

Do you think things through before you type them, because it's the double standard I have the problem with. Do you have a problem with comprehension? Because I have stated time and time again that I don't have a problem with harvesting of a couple animals per year, it's the unlimited harvest I have the problem with. YOU are the one that has a problem with a status aboriginal only being able to harvest a couple moose a year, not me.

All you see is a white man trying to take away your rights, your scared, so you try to come up with an excuse as to why you need the ability to have unlimited rights to the animals on earth. Then once you see there is no excuse for it you say "it says so in our treaty agreement". So what! Nobody had the foresight in 1850 to realize the advancement in technology, the growth of the population, health care, grocery stores, apartment complexes, Pop and chips that come out of a machine!

Rather than being pro active to a situation, it's better to have our wildlife collapse than to start taking measures to ensure conservation because it's "in our treaty agreement".

I know you can't understand what I'm writing here, this is intended for people who have the best interest of our fish and wildlife in mind, so I full expect a borage of questions from you, and I am willing to continue to outline my thoughts and reasons behind them for you. You help my cause by bring up all the reasons why there needs to be amendments made in 2015 to a treaty agreement from the 1800's.

Thank you, another thing was when this arrangement was made the natives were allowed to kill all the animals they wanted, now that was not with a rifle or a jacked up 4 wheel drive. They used spears and bow and arrows made from willows. Some were lucky to catch a horse but most didn't have a horse even.
My theory is to go back to that way of hunting and then keep your current rights, fair is fair.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

We are equals, only our government has passed laws that give status indians some privileges most of us don't have. Just like they passed laws that some people could make money without paying income tax on it. I'm not sure that a person being privileged makes anyone less equal does it?

Drinking early today?

LC

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

http://esrd.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife...ns-Jul2009.pdf

According to this site the Source of Indian hunting rights isn't from some 1800's treaty, please lets stick to the facts.

Sorry, 1930.

And yes, I fully agree sticking to the facts helps with the confusion for everyone.

Is it a fact that without unlimited harvest rights your way of life, your health, or your culture will be at risk? If so explain how while sticking to the facts. This will go a long way for making your case. See, I'm helping you out here by outlining how to make your case for the need to have unlimited harvesting a need for you

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Sorry, 1930.

And yes, I fully agree sticking to the facts helps with the confusion for everyone.

Is it a fact that without unlimited harvest rights your way of life, your health, or your culture will be at risk? If so explain how while sticking to the facts. This will go a long way for making your case. See, I'm helping you out here by outlining how to make your case for the need to have unlimited harvesting a need for you

Ok, you don't really have to stick to the facts I guess...