[QUOTE=Squeaker;2702324]Oh I'd be more than pleased to go above MOM and deal with it my self ...Tell me smoking joe why is it whats good for one man isn't good for another ? In my books if one person gets to hunt we all should and should be fair to all I
If it were up to me every animal in this territory would be governed by First Nations, at the end of the day there would be effort in managing them, First Nations people would do anything to protect its culture. Unlike the province who at the end of the day don't give a hoot about its wildlife, nearly gives lip service to avoid confrontation. Further more I would also put every tag on a draw to monitor how many hunts happen in specific zones period. Outfitters would be the next target, they need to understand they have a privilege to conduct business in this territory, it's not their right. As far as good for one man, well, in an ideal world that would work for a little while. But until you and others can change the way you look at things, not gonna happen |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=SmokinJoe;2702361]
Quote:
It seems that you want to control how everyone but you and yours hunts, and you appear to think that for some reason, only you are qualified to make those decisions. That is quite the holier than thou attitude you have. As far as changing the way that people look at things, it's not Kurt505 that needs to change. If you want to see who really needs to rethink things, try looking in a mirror.:) |
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=elkhunter11;2702363]
Quote:
|
Quote:
Gordon |
[QUOTE=elkhunter11;2702363]
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
LC |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Why can't we just be honorable for a change, and live up to our promises, without all the "poor, me too's"?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
First off to my knowledge hunting rights were not "given" to the Natives, it was a negotiation and they were traded for land. For those of you who do not agree with this, maybe all treaties should be cancelled and all land that was "given" by the Natives to the crown, should be returned to them. I will agree this is not a very rational or reasonable suggestion, but neither is cherry picking the treaties and suggesting elimination of a few things that now, a hundred years later you don't like.
How can a comment stating that Natives are killing to much big game, be taken seriously when no one seems to know how much they are "taking" or how many people they are feeding?? I have read the comments about allowing 2 deer and one elk or moose per native family.....once again how big of a native family?. I have also read about non-native members on here getting moose tags, elk tags and deer and possibly even antelope tags for their whole family in the same year. Husband gets one, wife gets one, a couple sons and a daughter get one, and they all shoot game......but that is ok??????? I have also read comments about Natives not hunting for subsistence, because they have expensive trucks, quads etc. Those same members then boast of making 150-200K, owing quads, 70K trucks, and boats, and hunting and shooing as many animals per year as legally possible. Some are single, or maybe have a wife, but no kids........so they are hunting only because they enjoy it. Needing the meat is so far down the least of priorities of why they hunt, it is not even worth mentioning. I don't really have a problem with that, but do not protest and demean Natives, that for many, shooting and eating wild game is necessary, not for all, but for some. I also wonder about the comments that Natives should not be able to shoot big bulls. First off bulls are typically 40% larger than cows, so if you are hunting for meat, is this not a logical choice? Also wondering why on other posts, that members suggest that you should not shoot does/cows because they are more important to maintaining a population. This seems to only be a valid comment if your a native............or a landowner. Their justification for stating natives should not be allowed to shoot bulls...........because they want to, so they can put the racks on the wall. Greed and hypocrisy on this one. Although I may not agree with everything in the treaties, and is there some abuse.... yes, but the deal was made, so honour your word. I have also read on here where a Native group applies to have some land returned to them that was in a treaty, and what are some of the first comments from members on here "They made the deal now live with it"......that saying goes both ways. The whole native hunting bashing issue on this forum is so typical of many of the hunters on here. If even one little thing has the potential for removing a hunting opportunity for them, be it archers, muzzle loaders, natives, any and all are considered greedy and are criticized constantly. Some of you guys REALLY need to look in a mirror, if you truly want to see what greed looks like. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I think the horn should be cut and handed into F&W.
or a 3 point or less for bulls |
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Bob, is this you?..
"Idealism increases in direct proportion to ones distance from the problem" John Galsworthy Or do you have some skin in the game? |
Quote:
My question was not about a single species, but multi species for a family. Once again why is it ok for a non-native family to shoot a moose, maybe two, and an elk, maybe two or three deer and an antelope, but a Native should only be allowed half or less than that amount? You have probably cherry picked the most vulnerable big game species of all, and although I don't know, I doubt if Antelope is high on the list if you are hunting for meat, but point taken. |
I will only say this. One could argue till they are blue in the face about first nation hunting rights. But you will never change these treaties. Instead I believe we need to encourage native hunters to hunt in a a way that does not abuse the system. I would be the first to call out a non native for abusing the system, ie; putting in draws for non hunting family members, night hunting, baiting, etc. I will also call out a native hunter for abusing their treaty rights and shooting animals only for trophy value beyond reason. We hunt for trophies so they can too, but they should limit that to a single animal. If they want to shoot multiple elk or moose or deer they should stay within reason. Filling half tons with stacks of antlers is not right for any hunter, native or not. If the abuse continues I only see the divide between native and non native hunters growing wider. The answer to this issue lies with all true hunters native and non, providing an example and calling to account those in our hunting spheres that choose to abuse our hunting culture. The greatest reward for a hunter is knowing you have hunted hard and fairly and come away successful.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you need subsistence hunting to feed your families the first animal you see your gonna shoot ..Not driving hundreds of KM to go shoot a trophy class bull elk.. Does this not make sense ? |
There has been and still is talk within FNs to try figure out a way to ensure sustainability of our outdoor resources. I personally have a part in it. Believe it or not the province is next to impossible to work with, conservation is not very high on the priority list, and priority gets lower and lower with the price of oil, different cuts in different sectors
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What's the difference in going to where a guy usually hunts and driving for 4 days and a couple thousand kilometres and not seeing one or driving 400 and seeing 1000, what would you do? It's not a problem it's a solution |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.