Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:38 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
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.
You're not listening to me either that or you refuse to hear or see what I'm putting in print.

Are there any non resident mule deer licenses in Alberta?

If government waits till none are left then they're abandoning their responsibility to manage the resource effectively. If they feel the population is in danger, they can restrict or curtail Rights based harvesting RIGHT NOW.

I do not know how much clearer I can make this point. I've said it in at least three posts already. The Alberta government can take action RIGHT NOW, if they feel the mule deer population is in a conservation crisis.

The other option is to open up the Treaties and that would require a Constitutional amend and there's a formula for that. I believe 70 percent of the provinces plus the federal government would have to agree, perhaps you should raise it with your MP to see what his appetite is to do so. The Indians have no control over opening up the constitution to revisit the Treaties.
  #152  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:41 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pseelk View Post
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.
If they are a protected species under SARA or another form of legislation and if the government that listed the Grizzly protected due to conservation measures and IF the government Consulted the Rights holders, it can restrict or limit the harvest of Indian/Metis, this applies not only to Grizzly bears but any other species as well.
  #153  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:43 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pseelk View Post
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.
If that minister allowed the deer population to get down to one, he would have abandoned his responsibility to manage the resource effectively. Conservation of the resource is the crown's number one priority. Not who gets to kill the last of its kind. It should never get to that....
  #154  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:45 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck View Post
How are the moose populations doing in Manitoba?

LC
In the tank in some areas and closed to all, including Indians. In certain areas some areas are open to Treaty harvest but not areas where there is a high density of moose.
  #155  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:50 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
Many Treaties excluded any special rights to fish. Your analogy doesn't really fit.

Please explain, I am speaking of the prairie provinces?
[
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?
I am saying the government has its disposal right now the ability to manage the resources so they do not fall below sustainable numbers. The species does not have to be declared endangered.
  #156  
Old 10-18-2013, 05:52 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
You're not listening to me either that or you refuse to hear or see what I'm putting in print.

Are there any non resident mule deer licenses in Alberta?

If government waits till none are left then they're abandoning their responsibility to manage the resource effectively. If they feel the population is in danger, they can restrict or curtail Rights based harvesting RIGHT NOW.

I do not know how much clearer I can make this point. I've said it in at least three posts already. The Alberta government can take action RIGHT NOW, if they feel the mule deer population is in a conservation crisis.

The other option is to open up the Treaties and that would require a Constitutional amend and there's a formula for that. I believe 70 percent of the provinces plus the federal government would have to agree, perhaps you should raise it with your MP to see what his appetite is to do so. The Indians have no control over opening up the constitution to revisit the Treaties.
The government can shut down hunting all together if they want, but what's that got to do with it? All I'm doing is throwing my opinion out there on treaty rights. I don't agree with the way they're written up. It was written up over 100yrs ago. Do you understand the technological advances over the last century? Heck when I was young we had a colecovision hooked up to a black and white tv as a video game console, two sticks and square that was supposed to be a ball was the extent of the graphics.

Simply put, the treaty is outdated, it does not apply to life in 2013. It's not 1892 anymore!
  #157  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:00 PM
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 Mb-MBR View Post
[B]
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.
I believe one self goes down for a permit... treaty number is used on the flags to run one 200 meter net , on one body of water, at one time.
__________________
Alberta Bigbore
  #158  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:03 PM
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 pseelk View Post
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.
Have to register grizzlies...bighorns..caribou....mountain lion.... and mountain goat.
__________________
Alberta Bigbore
  #159  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:03 PM
crownb's Avatar
crownb crownb is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Stony Plain
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pseelk View Post
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.
Why is there no response to this, what a great point.
  #160  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:04 PM
crownb's Avatar
crownb crownb is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Stony Plain
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta Bigbore View Post
Have to register grizzlies...bighorns..caribou....mountain lion.... and mountain goat.
If you register it is it still dead. Hmmmm.
  #161  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:05 PM
Alberta Bigbore's Avatar
Alberta Bigbore Alberta Bigbore is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 16,958
Thumbs up

Yes. You are correct!
__________________
Alberta Bigbore
  #162  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:15 PM
crownb's Avatar
crownb crownb is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Stony Plain
Posts: 1,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta Bigbore View Post
Yes. You are correct!
Looks like we are making progress, we agree on something. This is an issue that neither you or I are going to solve, it is nice to have some good conversation on here for a change. Good job on keeping peace during this thread, happy hunting to you.
  #163  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:16 PM
claystone's Avatar
claystone claystone is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 305
Default

Originally Posted by pseelk View Post
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.

I suppose if I were so inclined to go find a Grizz for food I could but it would be a hell of a lot easier to go get a swamp donkey or road mouse they are everywhere.

Last edited by claystone; 10-18-2013 at 06:24 PM.
  #164  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:45 PM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mb-MBR View Post
The other option is to open up the Treaties and that would require a Constitutional amend and there's a formula for that. I believe 70 percent of the provinces plus the federal government would have to agree, perhaps you should raise it with your MP to see what his appetite is to do so. The Indians have no control over opening up the constitution to revisit the Treaties.
You are right, the government can do anything they want. That doesn't mean they should.

For instance, they can throw innocent people in jail, or they could take everything you own for a tax bill you don't owe.

Those treaties are legally binding contracts, if the government can rewrite them without the agreement of the treaty holders, then no contract is safe.

Is that acceptable to you?

And just so some fool can't claim I like the present situation, let me state clearly that I do not.

I believe those treaties are working against both side in the society we now have.

But one has to keep in mind that it is not native who have depleted game populations. It's the Millions of non natives and their land development, modern weapons, and motorized access to the wilderness that has done that.

Maybe I shouldn't speak for all areas of this province, but I sure can speak to what I have observed in this area.

I have not seen an increase in the native populations of any of the groups in the Peace District, and not so long ago there was a lot more game here then there is now.

More then anything else, what I have seen is the influx of hunters from other parts of the province, and to an extent, from the whole world.

I know it's not scientific, but it's not rocket science either.
More hunters, less game. It's not hard to figure that out.

Look how many hunters are worried about the dramatic increase in Wolf numbers. Last I saw, Wolves don't hunt with bow and arrow or with rifles.
It's their numbers that are the problem is it not?
__________________
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

George Bernard Shaw
  #165  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:49 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
The government can shut down hunting all together if they want, but what's that got to do with it? All I'm doing is throwing my opinion out there on treaty rights. I don't agree with the way they're written up. It was written up over 100yrs ago. Do you understand the technological advances over the last century? Heck when I was young we had a colecovision hooked up to a black and white tv as a video game console, two sticks and square that was supposed to be a ball was the extent of the graphics.

Simply put, the treaty is outdated, it does not apply to life in 2013. It's not 1892 anymore!
Government and the provinces are still taking up land for settlement so it still applies to them. That is their treaty Right to do so.

I'll simplify this, it want me to stop exercising my Rights, you go convince the government to do likewise. When you have them convinced, come see me, I'll rip up card, deal or no deal?????
  #166  
Old 10-18-2013, 06:54 PM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

It just occurred to me.

All you people complaining about native hunting rights, do you realize your argument inadvertently supports the assertion at least one native group made, that non native hunting should be shut down to protect the Moose populations.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get most of it but not all.

It seems to me that a couple thousand treaty hunters are far less of a threat to game populations then tens of thousands of non treaty hunters.

If the government can take away their rights, they can take away yours just as easily.
__________________
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

George Bernard Shaw
  #167  
Old 10-18-2013, 07:01 PM
canoes's Avatar
canoes canoes is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Eckville
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KegRiver View Post
It just occurred to me.

All you people complaining about native hunting rights, do you realize your argument inadvertently supports the assertion at least one native group made, that non native hunting should be shut down to protect the Moose populations.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get most of it but not all.

It seems to me that a couple thousand treaty hunters are far less of a threat to game populations then tens of thousands of non treaty hunters.

If the government can take away their rights, they can take away yours just as easily.
It would be good to know how many native hunters there are compared to non native. Also game taken by each group.
  #168  
Old 10-18-2013, 07:10 PM
Lefty-Canuck's Avatar
Lefty-Canuck Lefty-Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KegRiver View Post
It just occurred to me.

All you people complaining about native hunting rights, do you realize your argument inadvertently supports the assertion at least one native group made, that non native hunting should be shut down to protect the Moose populations.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get most of it but not all.

It seems to me that a couple thousand treaty hunters are far less of a threat to game populations then tens of thousands of non treaty hunters.

If the government can take away their rights, they can take away yours just as easily.
The difference being non treaty are managed through draw and tag sales and numbers are known. Treaty have little or no restrictions and numbers are unaccounted for.

LC
  #169  
Old 10-18-2013, 07:48 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
Government and the provinces are still taking up land for settlement so it still applies to them. That is their treaty Right to do so.

I'll simplify this, it want me to stop exercising my Rights, you go convince the government to do likewise. When you have them convinced, come see me, I'll rip up card, deal or no deal?????
Lol!!! Your dancing around my point. If you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with BS right?

I've actually stated, I DONT WANT YOUR RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY, I would love to see them updated. Read my posts, because even I have forgotten how many times I've stated that!!!

I'm not talking about settlement land here, I'm talking about harvesting rights. The land settlement thing is on another thread.
  #170  
Old 10-18-2013, 07:50 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Communist state
Posts: 13,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KegRiver View Post
It just occurred to me.

All you people complaining about native hunting rights, do you realize your argument inadvertently supports the assertion at least one native group made, that non native hunting should be shut down to protect the Moose populations.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get most of it but not all.

It seems to me that a couple thousand treaty hunters are far less of a threat to game populations then tens of thousands of non treaty hunters.

If the government can take away their rights, they can take away yours just as easily.

They already have, most of Alberta is on a draw system, and what isn't is already shut down for moose.

Last edited by Kurt505; 10-18-2013 at 08:04 PM.
  #171  
Old 10-18-2013, 07:51 PM
canoes's Avatar
canoes canoes is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Eckville
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck View Post
The difference being non treaty are managed through draw and tag sales and numbers are known. Treaty have little or no restrictions and numbers are unaccounted for.

LC
They really only know how many draws there were and the number of tags sold. Not the actual number of animals?

The mandatory registration of certain species applies to native hunters as well.

Larry
  #172  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:03 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Lol!!! Your dancing around my point. If you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with BS right?

I've actually stated, I DONT WANT YOUR RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY, I would love to see them updated. Read my posts, because even I have forgotten how many times I've stated that!!!

I'm not talking about settlement land here, I'm talking about harvesting rights. The land settlement thing is on another thread.
No, you are not understanding the Treaties, you seem to think they're a one way agreement, which they are not. Please explain to me what your concept of the Treaties are, maybe we'll make some progress.

I am pretty sure I told you how they are updated, I even suggested you contact your MP, which is the acronym for your Member of Parliament.

I'll even make it simpler for you, I'll agree that I support your wishes to update the Treaties now have at her. Do you know what your next step is? I'll give you a clue, read my previous posts. :
  #173  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:20 PM
Lefty-Canuck's Avatar
Lefty-Canuck Lefty-Canuck is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Look behind you :)
Posts: 27,775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canoes View Post
They really only know how many draws there were and the number of tags sold. Not the actual number of animals?

The mandatory registration of certain species applies to native hunters as well.

Larry
The point being they have historical data and surveys to pull information off of for landowner tags, outfitter allocations, resident and nonresident tags sold....where is the record of how many animals were taken by treaty hunters last year or any year?

I have said before that if the native people's are truly concerned about game management then why don't they volunteer harvest information like the rest of the user groups? Maybe if they did it would put some if the sore feelings to rest....see my point?

LC
  #174  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:33 PM
Dacotensis's Avatar
Dacotensis Dacotensis is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sherwood Forest
Posts: 5,176
Default

I think MB-Mbr And Canuck shooter are the same person.
Both like to dance around issues, skirt direct questions.
At the very least you two are clones. Or grow clones. And consume them.

It's difficult to have a discussion with people like that.

Might as well give it up.

And keg, I would think that with the introduction of farming practices that at least deer populations are greater now than they ever were in the past 200 years.
There are some positives.
__________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
Ronald Reagan

Either get busy living, or get busy dying!
  #175  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:41 PM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canoes View Post
It would be good to know how many native hunters there are compared to non native. Also game taken by each group.

That would be very interesting.
I suspect that over all, the numbers of animals taken by treaty hunters would be afar far less then some think they are.

Some folks don't have enough sense to stop digging while they still can.
__________________
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

George Bernard Shaw
  #176  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:45 PM
hal53's Avatar
hal53 hal53 is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lougheed,Ab.
Posts: 12,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KegRiver View Post
That would be very interesting.
I suspect that over all, the numbers of animals taken by treaty hunters would be afar far less then some think they are.

Some folks don't have enough sense to stop digging while they still can.
I agree, the FN harvest is likely 1/10th or less of the poacher "harvest"
__________________
The future ain't what it used to be - Yogi Berra
  #177  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:48 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
No, you are not understanding the Treaties, you seem to think they're a one way agreement, which they are not. Please explain to me what your concept of the Treaties are, maybe we'll make some progress.

I am pretty sure I told you how they are updated, I even suggested you contact your MP, which is the acronym for your Member of Parliament.

I'll even make it simpler for you, I'll agree that I support your wishes to update the Treaties now have at her. Do you know what your next step is? I'll give you a clue, read my previous posts. :
Lol, I can see I've struck a nerve with you. It's not my goal to change the treaty, I have been saying all along that I think it should be updated, meaning amended to modern society.

I realize they are for both sides, I wanted to know if you feel they are reasonable the way they are written? I think they are not, no where near in fact. By the way you've felt the need to explain what you meant by MP leads me to believe this is some new knowledge for you that you'd like to share with us. Be careful what you wish for, people in parliament might figure out it only takes one moose, one elk and one deer to feed a family for a year.
  #178  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:49 PM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacotensis View Post
I think MB-Mbr And Canuck shooter are the same person.
Both like to dance around issues, skirt direct questions.
At the very least you two are clones. Or grow clones. And consume them.

It's difficult to have a discussion with people like that.

Might as well give it up.

And keg, I would think that with the introduction of farming practices that at least deer populations are greater now than they ever were in the past 200 years.
There are some positives.
Greater then the last fifty years for sure, but before that, I doubt it very much.

When I was a kid I used to use game trails in the bush that were a foot wide and several inched deep, pounded into the soil by a thousand hooves.

I can still find those trails but it is hard, even though I know exactly where they are. They are so overgrown they are almost completely gone.

Wild fires and Buffalo used to keep great swaths of land free of trees.
Not plowed and planted to grain that is of little value to a Deer.

The natural way was a mixture that Deer love and thrive on.

I can show you a couple such areas that remain to this day. Native grasslands in the middle of the Boreal Forest. Not surprisingly they are Deer havens, even now.
__________________
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

George Bernard Shaw
  #179  
Old 10-18-2013, 08:53 PM
manosteel manosteel is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 255
Default

No, MB-Mbr and Canuck have actually spelled it out correctly and from how I read their posts, rather clearly. They have a excellent understanding of treaty rights, and to an extent, constitutional law.

Treaties are an agreement and are very similar to a contract, but a contract of the highest order; it requires two parties to agree on certain things, it is negotiated and certaintly not imposed (a brief review of the peace & friendship treaties out east to those found in the west (i.e. treaties 1 through 8) will revel the progression of concession given by both parties). To think otherwise is to be wilfully blind to Canadian history ( and I am not talking about the sorry excuse of Canadian history taught in our schools)

When you argue for the restriction of Native hunting please understand that will unavoidably lead to the end of non-native hunting. As others have stated don't ask for what you want unless you know what you will get.


Carry on....
  #180  
Old 10-18-2013, 09:10 PM
Mb-MBR Mb-MBR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,222
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt505 View Post
Lol, I can see I've struck a nerve with you. It's not my goal to change the treaty, I have been saying all along that I think it should be updated, meaning amended to modern society.

I realize they are for both sides, I wanted to know if you feel they are reasonable the way they are written? I think they are not, no where near in fact. By the way you've felt the need to explain what you meant by MP leads me to believe this is some new knowledge for you that you'd like to share with us. Be careful what you wish for, people in parliament might figure out it only takes one moose, one elk and one deer to feed a family for a year.
No not really been dealing with folks like you for most my life and I'm still here.

Take your first paragraph, that's pure hypocrisy, you say you don't want to change the Treaty but you want to update or amend. How do you propose to update or amend without changing? By magic?

As for the folks in parliament, I'm sure this is high on their radar and will be right on it as soon as the scandals are settled.

You haven't really answered any of my questions that would lead to a productive discussion. Instead you obfuscate by asking the same question repeatedly.

To answer your question on their reasonableness, no they are not reasonable. The Indians were swindled of this great country in exchange for measly hunting rights and to live on land that is left over.
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 04:32 AM.


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