Status Natives

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by riden

But the courts, when interpreting a treaty, very much look at them historically. And their opinion is really the opinion that counts, not mine or yours.

I don't understand your question. How do you separate between meat and trophy hunting for your purpose? I don't get that at all (or see the purpose honestly). I am a meat/moose hunter and I am shooting the first antlered moose that gives me a shot. I have shot some babies, a bunch of medium sized moose and ONE big one that qualified as a trophy. How do you separate?

Honestly Kurt, I have never really understood the distinction between trophy and meat hunting anyway. You eat a big one, you eat a small one. It's all the same thing. Maybe you see something I don't, natives here are shooting cows most of the times, and the odd bull.

What is the point?

Difference between meat and trophy is the parts that are scored. I know treaty Indians who shoot trophies and sell the score-able parts . I know it's illegal to sell the parts but it's not illegal for them to kill as many as they want, they don't have to register their kill and there's no one keeping tabs on them so it's easy to do.
If it was manditory to destroy all trophy attributes, ie crack skull plates and cut antlers thru the beam it would help eliminate abuse. I feel like a broken record for how many times I've stated this.

You could still keep the antlers for your wife, just not in a manner they could be legally scored or entered in a record book.

So in saying you don't understand the distinction between meat hunting and trophy hunting it would be fair to assume you agree with me? Hunting for meat, registering your kill and destroying the score able parts to hunt under treaty rights and having to buy a license and following the guidelines and laws of the Alberta hunting regulations if you want to harvest and retain a trophy animal without having to destroy its scoreable parts would be a fair conssesion? This is the only reason I've been posting on this thread.

[AntlerAssassin]

So much anger on here. Over he gets this. He gets that. Why cant I? Wheres my pie? There are far more serious issues in todays society than petty hunting rights. Majority here says " equality for everyone". Are hunting rights that the indigenous people have, all you worry about? I can think of many of issues to worry about in this world that will have impact on our well being.

This thread is so drawn out about the same comments over and over. I wonder what the ford forums are in uproar about these days.

[riden]

Originally Posted by jip911

I have often heard several FN members state "... If XYZ wouldn't have been in the treaties WE WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THEM"

Just what exactly do you think would have happened had you not signed them??? Do you honestly believe the "white man" would have turned the boats around and said "guess we will go elsewhere..."???? They would have come in force taken what they wanted and probably killed off any "Indians" that got in there way.

Just thinking out loud here, but I believe your elders knew that it was inevitable that the whitey's were coming and there wasn't a damn thing they could do to stop them... They had no choice but to sign the treaties...

The treaties simply avoided the inevitable battle...

I fail to see how in this day and age we are not all just Canadians white/black/red/blue or yellow.... Equal...

J

Don't be so sure, the Red River and North West rebellions were small groups of Metis from a very small area, and they gave the country of Canada a fair bit of trouble.

Our population was very small during this time, especially in the west. Alberta didn't become a province until 1905. Defeating the natives would have been no walk in the park, and I suspect we would be outnumbered. Our standing army would have been very small.

That is why the treaties were so lucrative to begin with.

To be fair though, Canada didn't want to do the same thing the US did. If you research their Indian wars, it is pretty sad. A lot of people believe the US hero Custer, was on a mission of wiping out entire villages of women, children and old braves to destroy the morale of braves. Rightly so, we didn't want that in our history.

[hal53]

Yup, this is getting old, to the FN, take what you need and leave the rest....we have people on here all the time yapping that they "need" all the supplemental tags to "feed my family", utter nonsense!!!!!, whole thread is nothing more than jealousy, at the very least this one stayed somewhat civil, but it has passed it's best before date....

[adaras]

Originally Posted by AntlerAssassin

So much anger on here. Over he gets this. He gets that. Why cant I? Wheres my pie? There are far more serious issues in todays society than petty hunting rights. Majority here says " equality for everyone". Are hunting rights that the indigenous people have, all you worry about? I can think of many of issues to worry about in this world that will have impact on our well being.

This thread is so drawn out about the same comments over and over. I wonder what the ford forums are in uproar about these days.

Can't agree more!!! But this whole arguing about hunting shows how low and childish we are, I hope we won't wake up when the imam will call for prayers and marry Christmas will be illegal.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Difference between meat and trophy is the parts that are scored. I know treaty Indians who shoot trophies and sell the score-able parts . I know it's illegal to sell the parts but it's not illegal for them to kill as many as they want, they don't have to register their kill and there's no one keeping tabs on them so it's easy to do.
If it was manditory to destroy all trophy attributes, ie crack skull plates and cut antlers thru the beam it would help eliminate abuse. I feel like a broken record for how many times I've stated this.

You could still keep the antlers for your wife, just not in a manner they could be legally scored or entered in a record book.

So in saying you don't understand the distinction between meat hunting and trophy hunting it would be fair to assume you agree with me? Hunting for meat, registering your kill and destroying the score able parts to hunt under treaty rights and having to buy a license and following the guidelines and laws of the Alberta hunting regulations if you want to harvest and retain a trophy animal without having to destroy its scoreable parts would be a fair conssesion? This is the only reason I've been posting on this thread.

No, I don't agree with you.

If it is already illegal to sell an animal or part of an animal, how does making it illegal twice help?

Honestly, I have always felt what Alaska did was simply petty and vindictive.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by riden

No, I don't agree with you.

If it is already illegal to sell an animal or part of an animal, how does making it illegal twice help?

Honestly, I have always felt what Alaska did was simply petty and vindictive.

What did Alaska do?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by riden

No, I don't agree with you.

If it is already illegal to sell an animal or part of an animal, how does making it illegal twice help?

Honestly, I have always felt what Alaska did was simply petty and vindictive.

Making it law to register and destroy would give the F&W officers a leg to stand on while trying to prosecute crimes.

If you don't agree with me it can only be because you want to kill every trophy animal you come accross whenever you come accross it.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

What did Alaska do?

Any antlered animal taken by a native under subsistence hunting has the skull plate cut in half. Which disallows it from being entered in a record book.

Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

LC

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Any antlered animal taken by a native under subsistence hunting has the skull plate cut in half. Which disallows it from being entered in a record book.

Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

LC

Agreed.

[elkhunter11]

Any antlered animal taken by a native under subsistence hunting has the skull plate cut in half. Which disallows it from being entered in a record book.

Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

A great compromise, as it allows the native to kill what he wants, and even use the antlers or horns to carve, or to be used to make tools or decorations, but it prevents people from trophy hunting, under the guise of subsistence hunting.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Marxman: You have lost me. I think I have been paying attention. Why should I pay the bills?

Marxman: Where are you? It is getting close to my bedtime.

[riden]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

What did Alaska do?

Native hunters must crush skull plates and cut off antlers, basically what Kurt is suggesting.

[roper1]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Suggesting that the age of a treaty/contract has any relevance to whether it should be honoured or not is ridiculous.

What it suggests to me is that the FN's should be given neither respect or consideration as human beings in how we deal with them.

Sadly, this is more or less sop.


There are many important legal documents much older than these treaties. To suggest that their age plays any relevance in their persistence is a leap.

The 2nd and 4th amendments in the states are both older than these treaties, and a great inconvenience for the government and corporations. Perhaps they should just dissolve them?

Talk about leap!!! Are you really trying to say that because someone wants to at least discuss old treaties it then means Indians don't qualify for consideration as human beings?? Are you serious ?? West Germany wanted the wall to come down. Do you really think that was so they could disrespect the East Germans?? I for one don't think my native friends that think the treaties need revisiting think the white guy don't qualify as humans. I've lived and worked in the US a couple of times. You know what is really cool about the 2nd and 4th amendments. They apply to everyone.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Making it law to register and destroy would give the F&W officers a leg to stand on while trying to prosecute crimes.

If you don't agree with me it can only be because you want to kill every trophy animal you come accross whenever you come accross it.

It could also be because I think it is a bad idea

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by riden

It could also be because I think it is a bad idea

We can beat each other up on this one. I know where you stand, you know where I stand.

No hard feelings, just a friendly debate.

[SmokinJoe]

Well all my red brothers, lets give these guys a reason to hate us... We will get a reefer truck and go to suffield, make some day trips down to Medicine Hat for antelope, swing over to the mountains and take some sheep, work our way back north and pull some moose out of a hard to draw area.


This thread was ok until Indians started dying, needs a lock now not going anywhere now.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

We can beat each other up on this one. I know where you stand, you know where I stand.

No hard feelings, just a friendly debate.

I just cannot wrap my head around why you don't want natives trophy hunting. I wish more natives here did! If they were trophy hunting, they would be more selective and kill a lot less animals leaving more for non-native hunters.

That's how I see it.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Well all my red brothers, lets give these honkers a reason to hate us... We will get a reefer truck and go to suffield, make some day trips down to Medicine Hat for antelope, swing over to the mountains and take some sheep, work our way back north and pull some moose out of a hard to draw area.


This thread was ok until Indians started dying, needs a lock now not going anywhere now.

So spouting a racist slur is ok from your side of the fence?

LC

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by riden

I just cannot wrap my head around why you don't want natives trophy hunting. I wish more natives here did! If they were trophy hunting, they would be more selective and kill a lot less animals leaving more for non-native hunters.

That's how I see it.

You haven't been reading my whole posts I guess???

I never said I didn't want natives trophy hunting, not once. In fact I said I'd like to see equal oppertunity for everyone to trophy hunt. What would be wrong with only being allowed to hunt under the laws of the Alberta hunting regulations? Then you could experience the true meaning of trophy hunting. When your only allowed to kill one of each species you make damn sure it's the one you want! Otherwise it's not truely a trophy in my opinion.

Like I said, the only logical reason I can see for thinking it's such a bad idea is greed. What other reason could there be?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Well all my red brothers, lets give these honkers a reason to hate us... We will get a reefer truck and go to suffield, make some day trips down to Medicine Hat for antelope, swing over to the mountains and take some sheep, work our way back north and pull some moose out of a hard to draw area.


This thread was ok until Indians started dying, needs a lock now not going anywhere now.

Epic

[AntlerAssassin]

Originally Posted by hal53

Yup, this is getting old, to the FN, take what you need and leave the rest....we have people on here all the time yapping that they "need" all the supplemental tags to "feed my family", utter nonsense!!!!!, whole thread is nothing more than jealousy, at the very least this one stayed somewhat civil, but it has passed it's best before date....

I agree. Pure jealousy. They say its about saving the resource from being raped. But its really about wanting what the neighbours have.

[SmokinJoe]

How is honker a racist slur? The word Indian has been used here all over by people with no business using it. Give your head a shake lefty. Kurt I left this thread about 7 hours ago and you still don't make any sense. Go to bed. This thread has gone nowhere, like the future of your arguments, people don't even know what they are arguing about anymore. Plain simple

[FisherPotch]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Well all my red brothers, lets give these honkers a reason to hate us... We will get a reefer truck and go to suffield, make some day trips down to Medicine Hat for antelope, swing over to the mountains and take some sheep, work our way back north and pull some moose out of a hard to draw area.


This thread was ok until Indians started dying, needs a lock now not going anywhere now.

No one is dying and it's not necessary to lock.

I'm intrigued by Alaskas idea!!! I wonder if by chance it would increase numbers of trophy animals just by a tad??? Just a little???

[Sealclubber]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

As far as trophie animals go here's the deal. If First Nations people hunted trophies, it would stop us from killing females of the representative species, as you may know killing a cow moose is like killing 5,

Dear Winch, as simple as you sound it would seem that you have the whole world figured out.... Not. As far as taxes go I bet I paid more in taxes than you made last year, live in a house 2 times the size, and most likely have 3 times the education. Treaties are here to stay, when I woke up this morning the sun rose, I looked at the river it was still flowing, even had a green patch or two on my yard.


As for the rest of it, I do trophy hunt, but also have a handful of tags in the truck, I still put in for special sheep draws and suffield elk, I buy waterfowl stamps and obide by limits, why? Because I respect that people put in for draws their whole life for a chance to hunt these areas. As an outfitter I support the ideas of trophy zones, even tho I don't own tags in the areas. As Indians were strong believers in conservation and there is effort in place to give the education to our hunters to make sure generations to come will have the same hunting opportunity as us now.

We didn't write the treaties, we just live their consequences, have since they were signed and will until the end of time. There needs to be more light shined on the topic so that both sides understand each other.

As far as government handouts and misappropriation of funds at the band level? The system is desgned to fail, by the time money gets to the Indian, it's filtered down thru levels of government supposed to legislate how it's spent. Then once it reaches the band level there's not enough to get by, so most councils take the money and waste it on their family. Sad but true. Education is another part that is designed to fail. Most of our post secondary is used for academic driven careers, so there's a pile of Indian out there with band administration degrees but only one band administrator in each band.... Imagine if there was trade schools where we could turn out welders, carpenters, ect that were Indian operated for Indians, then these Indians that you think are draining the tax accounts would be paying taxes working off reserve. As far as the tax dollars being used for Indians.... Well I hate to burst your bubble but it does not come from tax dollars, in fact it comes from oil revenue from federal land, which we agreed to share, but still we are shorted, government says that's our share of roads and infrastructure, but we still seem to hear complaints from hillbillies about how we're on a free ride.

I've said it once before and I will say it again. These treaties are laws that help form this great nation of ours, if you don't like them. Leave, I'm sure we can replace you with a nice phillipeno family.

The word Indian sucks, Columbus was lost looking for India, then we saved his sorry ass and he called us Indians. Thank god he was not looking for Nigeria

Joe I read this thread in its entirety damn near bawled my eyes out laughing but yeah I can say that ain't to many guys out there I'd trust to hold my coffee cup in the bush n yer one of em. Give em hell bro!

[FisherPotch]

Originally Posted by AntlerAssassin

I agree. Pure jealousy. They say its about saving the resource from being raped. But its really about wanting what the neighbours have.

No one here asked to be status.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

You haven't been reading my whole posts I guess???

I never said I didn't want natives trophy hunting, not once. In fact I said I'd like to see equal oppertunity for everyone to trophy hunt. What would be wrong with only being allowed to hunt under the laws of the Alberta hunting regulations? Then you could experience the true meaning of trophy hunting. When your only allowed to kill one of each species you make damn sure it's the one you want! Otherwise it's not truely a trophy in my opinion.

Like I said, the only logical reason I can see for thinking it's such a bad idea is greed. What other reason could there be?

Semantics, its all the same in the end. I have read your posts.

Like I said, it seems petty to me. I don't see how it is greedy in anyway.

[riden]

Originally Posted by AntlerAssassin

I agree. Pure jealousy. They say its about saving the resource from being raped. But its really about wanting what the neighbours have.

x3

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

How is honker a racist slur? The word Indian has been used here all over by people with no business using it. Give your head a shake lefty. Kurt I left this thread about 7 hours ago and you still don't make any sense. Go to bed. This thread has gone nowhere, like the future of your arguments, people don't even know what they are arguing about anymore. Plain simple

Sorry Joe if I misunderstood your intent....I took honker as a variation of the work Honky which is a known racial slur against the white man...

Indian is however an accepted description word for a First Nations person is it not?

I am trying to figure when someone or something implied that First Nations folks were dying....???

LC

[SmokinJoe]

No lefty it's not, if we were Indians we would drive cabs and work in convenience stores, it needs to be re written in laws and Canadian departments. I use the term honker to resemble geese just making noise