Quote:
Originally Posted by sheephunter
What was there to report????? It was all legal under the IMHA just as it will be again if some of the Metis get their way with the current court case. I see no one has answered my question yet as to why the rights afforded the Metis under the current provincial interpretation of Powley are not sufficient. Why do Metis want the right to drive hundreds of miles to shoot trophy animals? It seems to me the current interpretation of Powley offers loads of opportunity for subsistence hunting. What am I missing?
|
What you are missing is that the Metis want some hunting and fishing rights as the aboriginals have. To go where they please and hunt what they please without any interference from state, church, anti-hunting group or pro hunting group. Hunting is a bigger part of their heritage then white man. The Metis are originally half French and First Nation......therefore they deserve more hunting and fishing rights then the white man. If they want a trophy or a non trophy then that should be their right. If they want to travel from Medicine Hat to High Level and hunt, then that should be their right. We the white man took away their natural rights (the right to live, where they want and how they want-the right to hunt and fish) through white laws, warfare and forced onto reservations. It's time they fought back and rightly so. If you are so worried about your trophies then continue your "fish in a barrel hunt" in Africa on someone else's dime. The white man has had their way long enough. Study pre and post confederation history......you might learn something for a change Schwanky instead of thinking of me, me, me.