Subsistence hunting- OFFICIAL thread

[Diesel.1974]

As of right now and the way the laws are written I seeing nothing illegal in the way First Nations are hunting. Whether I agree with the moral side of it is another issue.

Look at our magazine capacity laws. When the Fireram Act was re-written the spirit of the law was that no semi automatic center fire rifle magazine will contain more than 5 rounds of the designated caliber. The law makers didn't have the foresight to see that manufactures would try to circumvent the law by creating magazines which would be able to hold a variety of calibers or were designed for pistols but fit in rilfes.

Now, how many of us respect the original spirit of the magazine law, regardless of whether we agreed with it or not. Or, would we happily use a 10round pistol mag in our rifles.

The spirit of the original treaty's was to not interfer with the traditions of the First Nations, which included hunting. But in the late 1800's they could not see a future that had First Nations living in house, driving cars, and holding positions within our government. So like us with the magazine law, the First Nations are operating to the legal limit of the law.

I heard the "antler" idea but how many of you would agree to being told what you must do with legally harvested antlers. You are asking the First Nations to prove intention by cutting the antlers, this goes against our fundamental principal in law of "innocent until proven guilty" If the crown believes an offence has been committed, then they must prove it, not the other way anound.

As I see it there are 3 options

1. Trash the Treaty's and start over. We are a civil society and battles would be fought in courts as oppose to the battle field. How secure would you feel if your home was on land declared by the First Nation as theirs prior to the Treaty's

2. Increase non status hunting rights to the same as the first Nations. No tags, no draws, or no seasons for anyone. I hope no one wants this.

or

3. Open legislation for change. Now most of the posters here are calling for a change of "fairness for all" If you open the legislation remember it is open for all interest groups to put in there opinions. They are all voters and the politicians will want to please as many voters as possible.

So ask yourself, are we as a "non status hunters" group as organized, legally represented, and funded as well as:

1. First Nations
2. Outfiiters
3. Anti Hunters

The old saying goes. "Be careful what you wish for." We may end up with less than we already have. And yes many will argue "fear keeps you in line" but I believe my common sense plays a bigger role with a little fear mixed in.

[Kurt505]

I have a friend who is Metis and already bragging about nets and racks, and I'm 100% positive he's not the only one.

If left as is, this will lead to hard times for trophy hunters here. People saying too bad it's our right, you can't change it, it is what it is and will always stay the way it is will also be negatively affected by this mentality. There are just too many people with "rights" to kill what ever when ever for our wildlife populations to sustain for much longer, especially now with the number of rights exploding. A lot of the Metis are white guys who never had the priveledge before and will be using it to the max.

Self regulation will never happen, if there is no limit, regulation or registration, it won't be long now before there is no longer any resources. I'm not sure what the ratio is of Metis vs treaty but now they share the same hunting priveledges so the number of animals taken without a license is going to double. This doesn't just affect Canadians who require a license to hunt, it affects status Indians as well, now the white man can kill without a license.

Sustenance, sustinince, however you want to spell it should be allowed by any Canadian in need, our wildlife is not just the aboriginals resource, it's all Canadians resource and should be treated and regulated as such, to see it in any other way is wrong.

This is our country, if not, where is my homeland?

[Winch101]

All the media reports state that the season for draws is Feb 2-5

And one other later . That's when the 200 draw tags can be filled .

But previous to this Natives can go in there and shoot anything

Up to a certain number. Now who wouldn't think that is fair

If I was full blood I would be embarrassed .

I could be wrong about this . What is laughable is certain people

Clinging to the law of the land ,suddenly it's important .

No media release says anything about Native hunting on the base .

Wake up call .

[elkhunter1234]

So.. Has any non native hunters on this forum ever applied for a sudsistence licenses?? I have a few family members that are non hunters and are down on there luck and could use a 400 inch bull in there freezer (oh I'm sorry, ment to say some nice elk meat in a there freezer) honest question guys. I think i'm going into F&W today and get some answers. Would sure like to see the look on some faces when a non native showed up at the morning meeting and openly admits to only wanting to shoot a big bull cause everyone know that the bigger the bull the more meat right!!!

Jim...

[Icon]

I was at CFB Suffield this past Monday. As I have mentioned in a previous post, yes there were FN hunters on the base taking bulls and some of them were nice bulls. But, there were plenty of FN hunters taking smaller immature bulls. In my mind, taking immature bulls is definitely a sign of Sustenance Hunting.

To say that the natives are just hunting for antlers is wrong. Yes, some of them are, but not all. Just like in all parts of society, there will be people taking advantage of situations that suit them, but others choose not to behave that way. This is just human behavior. Natives are no difference from the rest of society! Some bad apples should not cast the whole lot of them in the same light. I met some very helpful FN hunters on the base that pointed me to a cow that was in a herd of bulls. They even drove down the road to help me find that herd. Now I was not able to take that cow, but I was successful in getting a different cow elk, filling my freezer, and feeding my family.

Now I will say that I do not enjoy the different rules being applied to FN Hunters as opposed to non-FN Hunters. This does not apply just to the situation in Suffield, but all over the province. I do think that there should be a commonality to all hunters.

But I am a realist and have learned over the years that LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

[chugg]

Originally Posted by elkoholik

So 2 wrongs make a right???

Lets put the past behind us and learn format, the way it is going now we will have nothing to hunt and all will be screwed ALL. We need to all need to realize we live in the 21st century and laws/treaties need to be amended. Most would have no issue with Aboriginals hunting on reserve land but not on public land other than by the same rules the rest of us have to live by. Unfortunately changes such as this will not come easily but hopefully one day there will be a change and hopefully before the past becomes the present.

first nation 138 elk
none native hunters 1000 elk

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chugg

first nation 138 elk
none native hunters 1000 elk

Non native hunters killed 1000 elk last week?

[Sashi]

Originally Posted by Diesel.1974

As of right now and the way the laws are written I seeing nothing illegal in the way First Nations are hunting. Whether I agree with the moral side of it is another issue.

Look at our magazine capacity laws. When the Fireram Act was re-written the spirit of the law was that no semi automatic center fire rifle magazine will contain more than 5 rounds of the designated caliber. The law makers didn't have the foresight to see that manufactures would try to circumvent the law by creating magazines which would be able to hold a variety of calibers or were designed for pistols but fit in rilfes.

Now, how many of us respect the original spirit of the magazine law, regardless of whether we agreed with it or not. Or, would we happily use a 10round pistol mag in our rifles.

The spirit of the original treaty's was to not interfer with the traditions of the First Nations, which included hunting. But in the late 1800's they could not see a future that had First Nations living in house, driving cars, and holding positions within our government. So like us with the magazine law, the First Nations are operating to the legal limit of the law.

I heard the "antler" idea but how many of you would agree to being told what you must do with legally harvested antlers. You are asking the First Nations to prove intention by cutting the antlers, this goes against our fundamental principal in law of "innocent until proven guilty" If the crown believes an offence has been committed, then they must prove it, not the other way anound.

As I see it there are 3 options

1. Trash the Treaty's and start over. We are a civil society and battles would be fought in courts as oppose to the battle field. How secure would you feel if your home was on land declared by the First Nation as theirs prior to the Treaty's

2. Increase non status hunting rights to the same as the first Nations. No tags, no draws, or no seasons for anyone. I hope no one wants this.

or

3. Open legislation for change. Now most of the posters here are calling for a change of "fairness for all" If you open the legislation remember it is open for all interest groups to put in there opinions. They are all voters and the politicians will want to please as many voters as possible.

So ask yourself, are we as a "non status hunters" group as organized, legally represented, and funded as well as:

1. First Nations
2. Outfiiters
3. Anti Hunters

The old saying goes. "Be careful what you wish for." We may end up with less than we already have. And yes many will argue "fear keeps you in line" but I believe my common sense plays a bigger role with a little fear mixed in.

x2

[boonie]

This whole Suffield thing was managed wrong. I have no problem with Natives at the base but if this was an actual cull, cows would be taken. 400 bull elk is 400 less elk on the base but if 400 cows were taken then the number would of been 800 (pregnant cows). Those 400 cows not shot will calve and add 400 extra elk to the heard.
They could of opened up the bulls next year for everyone. Or they could of auctioned off some bull tags to raise lots of money for wildlife management.
Our government did not plan this out well at all, the way it is being done is just driving a wedge between everyone.

[chugg]

Originally Posted by elkhunter1234

So.. Has any non native hunters on this forum ever applied for a sudsistence licenses?? I have a few family members that are non hunters and are down on there luck and could use a 400 inch bull in there freezer (oh I'm sorry, ment to say some nice elk meat in a there freezer) honest question guys. I think i'm going into F&W today and get some answers. Would sure like to see the look on some faces when a non native showed up at the morning meeting and openly admits to only wanting to shoot a big bull cause everyone know that the bigger the bull the more meat right!!!

Jim...

why does that matter what they harvest big bulls little bulls thats their right you who has a privilege to hunt not a right to hunt tell the first nation what they can harvest and what they can't .i seen how much of that animal gets used and yes even the horns big or small .If the animal harvested is a 400 '' bull then so be it good for them .

[Talking moose]

Sustenance hunting should be allowed to any Canadian resident who files tax of making less than 30k the previous year. Would make more sense than a treaty making 150k a year as compared to others making 30k and being denied.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Squeaker

We know what trophies are and I am standing my ground for the younger generations to get the chance the same way we all want the fairness...that was you earlier comment was the word fair .. so I keep asking why is it ok for you to go do this and I cant ? or my son who has just as much right as your son ..you said fair so I am going with whats fair for you should be fair for me ..and you keep dancing all around that comment leading away with different comments. what I wanna know is why its ok for you and not for me ?

I think you have to separate "Right" from "privilege". Indians under Treaty were assured they could continue with their way of life and the queen's agents in negotiating Treaties promised, you will keep what you already have and can continue to do the things you always have, what the queen offers is above and beyond what you already have.

You and others may not like the answer but the Supreme Court of Canada has reaffirmed this in over 200 SCC decisions. The Sparrow SCC Decision established a hierarchy for the crown to consider, first being conservation of the resource, second Rights based harvesting, third resident hunting and fourth non-resident hunting....

[Lefty-Canuck]

With the base being Federal lands...it is basically a large piece of Private Property....the base themselves could stop allowing access to anyone they want at any time, they can decide who can and can't access the area without any reason.

Someone somewhere is giving the green light to let this go on...consider who that is and why.

Also why are there pictures floating around of them hunting on the block? No one else is allowed cameras in there. At least they are following the rules of wearing orange...

LC

[Diesel.1974]

I don't believe the government will ever reduce or change the Native hunting rights.

So the only way for everyone to be equal would be for us to be awared the same status in regards to hunting. maybe it would require an application to the human rights commission that you are being discriminated against, based on your ethinic hertitage. You would argue that hunting has been part of your ethinic traditions dating back hundreds of years. Whether you are from Canada or not, your ancestors hunted for food, there wasn't always a safeway around. You would argue that current laws restrict my ability to practice my heritage and ethinic culture and that a must pay fees and duties in order to do so. And further more I am restricted to certain times of the year in which i can practice these traditions.

The government hates when they are accused of racism and promoting a non multi cultural society. For better effect we should find an active AO member of a visible minority other than First Nations to make the application and see the governments response.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

With the base being Federal lands...it is basically a large piece of Private Property....the base themselves could stop allowing access to anyone they want at any time, they can decide who can and can't access the area without any reason.

Someone somewhere is giving the green light to let this go on...consider who that is and why.

LC

I don't know much about the Suffield but if it is federal lands as LC has stated and is a base, FNs would have to get permission just like anyone else. It appears this is a cull as opposed to a hunt..

[45-70sapper]

Lol at all the comments about honouring our word on the treaties and how white people shouldn't be question these things because "remember the Buffalo". I guess the mods promise of instant banning for racist comments only applied to racism directed towards natives.

Because I don't have any promise to honour. I have never, nor has anyone that I eleceted to represent me, made a promise to any native group about this subsistence hunting.

Nor do I "remember the Buffalo". Not that old. But its good to know that some members here assume that because white people played a big part in the massive decline in bison populations long before any of our families were born, the white people of today also played a part in that because of the colour of our skin.

We've been so trained to think that only white people can be racist, that when these blatantly racist comments come up no one bats an eye. Too bad, I really hoped that the mods would have been fair.

My question is, if we had separate, better maintained and faster roads that were only for non natives, but the roads for natives were still drivable, would there be public outcry? Of course, that would be descrimination. And it has no place in our society.

Here's something that may surprise some of you. Everyone in this country is equal. Being native does not make you better. Nor does being white or black or purple. We do not receive the experiences, knowledge and skills of our ancestors, you get born onto this earth and everything has to be learned.

And then you have the people saying that this is all about greed. I said it before, this is less about the actual killing of elk and more about the fact that special privileges are given to a group based solely on their ethnicity. If it is wrong to oppose that in modern canadian society, then I'm living in a totally different place than I thought.

[Sealclubber]

I'd gladly give up my hunting rights if the govt gave us back the oil and ALL the money made off of it WITH INTEREST, we ceded land rights, not mineral rights. Want to renegotiate? There's a great starting point.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by chugg

why does that matter what they harvest big bulls little bulls thats their right you who has a privilege to hunt not a right to hunt tell the first nation what they can harvest and what they can't .i seen how much of that animal gets used and yes even the horns big or small .If the animal harvested is a 400 '' bull then so be it good for them .

What's with the superiority complex? Why is it you have to stress "me with the rights" and "you with the privilege"?

We are Canadians, it's only because of your last names the you get to consider yourself as having rights and elkhunter only gets priveledges, it's got nothing to do with personal accomplishments or contributions, don't lose sight of that.

He is not telling anyone what they can or can't do, he is expressing his view. Why do you consider the wildlife on earth to be yours only? That wildlife was here long before any tribe was laying claim to the land.

I agree 100% with talking moose, a Canadian family in need should have every right to harvest animals from the land, that was Gods intention when he created them , I'm sure it wasn't his intention for the earths animals to be free game for status people only.

Also, did non native hunters really kill 1000 elk last week?

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Sealclubber

I'd gladly give up my hunting rights if the govt gave us back the oil and ALL the money made off of it WITH INTEREST, we ceded land rights, not mineral rights. Want to renegotiate? There's a great starting point.

Ask your Chief for it...apparently they are keeping the most of it....

[Sealclubber]

Originally Posted by hal53

Ask your Chief for it...apparently they are keeping the most of it....

Obviously you can't see the intent of my statement brah.

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You desire a negotiation to restrict treaty hunting for the purpose of increasing trophy potential for licenced hunters that admittedly are not hunting for the meat. ?

Do you think the prospect of change has much traction with this position?

.

That's not my position! nice try!

All CANADIANS, governed by all the same rules, " Equality " and equal opportunity for all ... ( not just hunting)

( that's my position, as stated numerous times)


From a friend at the base today!

His estimate has approximately 60 licensed hunters showed up for the cow hunt. Approximately 120 native hunters. Also the rumor on the base is that , once native hunters hit the 500 mark, the base will shut down the native hunt!

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

That's not my position! nice try!

All CANADIANS, governed by all the same rules, " Equality " and equal opportunity for all ... ( not just hunting)

( that's my position, as stated numerous times)


From a friend at the base today!

His estimate has approximately 60 licensed hunters showed up for the cow hunt. Approximately 120 native hunters. Also the rumor on the base is that , once native hunters hit the 500 mark, the base will shut down the native hunt!

So there are limits then.....what's the problem? The Constitution states existing Treaty and Aboriginal Rights will be recognized....

[bluetick]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Glad your finally stepping off your high horse. Welcome to ground level. Now that your here let me tell you that I know way more about your peoples history than you do about mine. When you know my peoples history and who we are today and who we want to be in the future, we will discuss this again, I guarantee you will change your opinion. Until then I'm going to bed,

Sorry to say but after reading the entire thread I FEEL JOE IS ON HIS HIGH HORSE <
I would attend to agree with Squeaker on this matter .fair is fair and when Joe comments I have a privilege and he has a right to hunt I get extremely offended .
You were born in the same generation as me if not later than me .My family has been in Canada since the early 1700,s on the east coast .

I do not want you to lose your rights ,Just pull you down to earth and give you a privilege like the rest of us poor folk.
When the government can grow some testies to deal with the treaties in a fair manner ,we will all get along much better .
I think sustenance should be relevant to the area or province of destination and the region in which you reside .
Government projects like Suffield should not be a relevant hunting grounds for Native hunts .
If you want some meat put in for the draw or go out the forestry or reserve and shoot your game .
Take the horns from all trophy animals unless taken under a licensed hunt would help as well..

[SonofDixie]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Sustenance hunting should be allowed to any Canadian resident who files tax of making less than 30k the previous year. Would make more sense than a treaty making 150k a year as compared to others making 30k and being denied.

X100..... they're allowed to hunt to feed their families..... but all other Canadians aren't?

[Winch101]

The Brits have go . Then our indigenous people can go to
Buckingham Palace for the cheques . But we better hurry up
While Britain is still British and not Muslim .

I am surprised young Trudeau our next prime
Minister is not bandying about the idea .....
That Canada has got to cut itself loose from
That cash anchor that is the UK .

[bessiedog]

Treaties are contracts..... You guys are basically advocating the tearing up of a long standing contract where 'we' got ownership of a schwack of land and resources. For a shot at antler.....?

Contract law is as fundamental a rule of law concept as property rights.


You guys ate familiar with the Rule of Law.....?

Governments are long lasting entities. 'I didn't sign anything is a super silly one'

If you follow that then:

You have no right to use the highways that we're built by someone else...

You have no right to your parents land via inheritance...

It really is as simple as that.

You wanna abandone rule of law.... Go for it.

Warning... The above requires the use of the non-heuristic part of the brain.


I thought big antlers were supposed to signify a hunters skill and prowess at hunting.

Big antlers at Suffield is nothing to cherish in my opinion.


It's funny what we hunters value sometimes. No?


Potty... Equality is not justice.

And YOU and I are fast going to be the minorities....

[Winch101]

Those treaties could be challenged and rescinded in a heart beat .
The first signer on the Canadian side is usually British Royalty
Followed by a Church member . The church one the biggest
abusers of natives in history ..ludicrous .
The biggest problem is we elect and trust govt to do the right
Thing and they don't . So apathetically we elect again and once
more over the barrel . I wish Quebec would separate ,would open
The door for the rest of us . Soon less than 50% of our people
Will be older than 2 nd generation Canadians .
For a hell of a lot more reasons than diseased animals
these treaties have to go . Be Canadian or go back where
You came from is a current popular agenda . Shouldn't just
Apply to middle eastern ,European , Asian immigrants .

Are those Elk being tested for CWD .If not ,why not .

[pottymouth]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Treaties are contracts..... You guys are basically advocating the tearing up of a long standing contract where 'we' got ownership of a schwack of land and resources. For a shot at antler.....?

Contract law is as fundamental a rule of law concept as property rights.


You guys ate familiar with the Rule of Law.....?

Governments are long lasting entities. 'I didn't sign anything is a super silly one'

If you follow that then:

You have no right to use the highways that we're built by someone else...

You have no right to your parents land via inheritance...

It really is as simple as that.

You wanna abandone rule of law.... Go for it.

Warning... The above requires the use of the non-heuristic part of the brain.


I thought big antlers were supposed to signify a hunters skill and prowess at hunting.

Big antlers at Suffield is nothing to cherish in my opinion.


It's funny what we hunters value sometimes. No?


Potty... Equality is not justice.

And YOU and I are fast going to be the minorities....

Canada is a young country.... That's the problem, but one day we will figure it out. Everything can be changed for the better!

[bessiedog]

Winch.

If you tear it up, then it's all on the table to be negotiated equally.

You want that? You realistically think this won't result in blood?

I'm for stability. Societal stability. If that means we get less antlers..... But we keep the oil, water, coal, oil sands, trees and property.....

I say we win with this contract.

Potty... We are young. I believe in justice. And equity.

Equity changes.... And I think a fair, public and open discussion is possible to make change happen.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Winch.

If you tear it up, then it's all on the table to be negotiated equally.

You want that? You realistically think this won't result in blood?

I'm for stability. Societal stability. If that means we get less antlers..... But we keep the oil, water, coal, oil sands, trees and property.....

I say we win with this contract.

Potty... We are young. I believe in justice. And equity.

Equity changes.... And I think a fair, public and open discussion is possible to make change happen.

Bessie, we are all Canadians, not just the aboriginals. It's 2015, time for EVERYONE to realize this.

Winch is onto something. Ditch the crown and redesign Canada. It's a lot of work, but will be worth the reward.