Manitoba draws delayed

[sureshot]

As most know I moved to Manitoba last year, put in for my draw for elk this year. We received an email the other day saying the draws have been postponed till July 12, but now received another email saying the draws might not happen because of pressure from a Native American group, which would put an end to draws here and elk hunting for regular hunters. It came as quite a shock to everyone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[trapperdodge]

You may be looking at the future. I've spoken with native guys who claim all wildlife belongs to 'them'. The manitoba ndp are very sympathetic to FN issues.

[Ackleyman]

Wab Kinew. Trouble.

[Rusty50]

Free for one...Free for all

[waldedw]

Originally Posted by trapperdodge

You may be looking at the future. I've spoken with native guys who claim all wildlife belongs to 'them'. The manitoba ndp are very sympathetic to FN issues.

They also claim all the land is theirs, this is a sign of things to come, limp wristed noodles for leaders will continue to pander to special interest groups crying for more rights and holding their hands out for more free stuff A test for sure to see if they can push it through in Manitoba then the rest of the country to follow

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Rusty50

Free for one...Free for all

Yep

[Dewey Cox]

They can have Manitoba.
It will make a good buffer between us and canada

[X-Treme]

Native American group??

[3blade]

Originally Posted by Ackleyman

Wab Kinew. Trouble.

Exactly, this is not a “shock” to anyone. Him and Derek Nepanik are probably gonna announce a hunting season on white farmers like what happened in South Africa.

I wouldn’t invest a dollar in Manitoba (or BC) with the current climate around more equals pretend rights.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Exactly, this is not a “shock” to anyone. Him and Derek Nepanik are probably gonna announce a hunting season on white farmers like what happened in South Africa.

I wouldn’t invest a dollar in Manitoba (or BC) with the current climate around more equals pretend rights.

Oh brother, give your head a shake......

[Mb-MBR]

The department responsible for managing the natural resources in Manitoba is called Economic Development Investment, Trade and Natural Resources, that has a minister of the Afro Canadian persuasion (not that there's anything wrong with that) but I doubt he knows the difference between, an elk, a moose, a deer, a *******, a cow or a horse. It was certainly a disappointment when he was appointed to this position, how can we expect him to be passionate about something he knows nothing about.

The staff at the operating level is another thing, inept comes to mind, morale in that section of the department is lower than low.......and it won't get better anytime soon.

[Irina]

Undrip.

[elkhunter11]

A good friend has owned a section bordering Riding Mountain Park, and him and his family have had landowner tags every year for decades.A relative owns several sections by Ashern, and they also hunt elk on their land. I can pretty much guarantee that if they don't get their tags, there will be nobody hunting on either of their land.

[Howard Hutchinson]

Originally Posted by Irina

Undrip.

^^
This. It's all given to them by the provinces and then the UN takes it from them.
Though there were 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States)

[Mb-MBR]

Draws have been routinely delayed especially in the last number of years.

[rammer]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Draws have been routinely delayed especially in the last number of years.

This wasn’t routinely delayed, it was delayed from a native hunting group who wants sole access, so what’s the comparison?

[3blade]

Originally Posted by rammer

This wasn’t routinely delayed, it was delayed from a native hunting group who wants sole access, so what’s the comparison?

He’s one of them, and will always defend them and their nonsense. Long history of doing that on this forum.

Side note, many of us have native ancestry. The card holders are special only because the same federal government they rail against, has decided who’s native enough and who isn’t, and it falls in their favor. The hypocrisy is pretty thick.

[Mb-MBR]

Article in CBC news today..

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ions-1.7245120

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by 3blade

He’s one of them, and will always defend them and their nonsense. Long history of doing that on this forum.

Side note, many of us have native ancestry. The card holders are special only because the same federal government they rail against, has decided who’s native enough and who isn’t, and it falls in their favor. The hypocrisy is pretty thick.

Well, just like you're one of them, what's your point? I would urge folks to read the Sparrow SCC decision, which essentially provided direction to the various jurisdictions on the hierarchy they are supposed to follow when it comes to managing the natural resources, first is conservation of the species, then Rights holders, followed by resident stakeholders and then non-resident stakeholders. If the resource is diminished to a level of concern, its the non-resident (outfitting industry) that is the first to be impacted, followed by resident and then Rights holders.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.....

[Pointer man]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Article in CBC news today..

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ions-1.7245120

I don't remember reading about 308's, F-150's and Reefer trucks in the history books. Traditional outdoors heritage my azz.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Pointer man

I don't remember reading about 308's, F-150's and Reefer trucks in the history books. Traditional outdoors heritage my azz.

Well, I don't remember reading about bulldozers, chainsaws, backhoes, helicopters, drilling machines in history books either, what's your point?

[Pointer man]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Well, I don't remember reading about bulldozers, chainsaws, backhoes, helicopters, drilling machines in history books either, what's your point?

Non-indigenous hunters aren't standing on a soap box talking about traditional hunting rights, thought it was kind of obvious.

And before this goes south, I have a card so it's not a Race thing. I just choose not to use it and view the situation with wide open eye's.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Pointer man

Non-indigenous hunters aren't standing on a soap box talking about traditional hunting rights, thought it was kind of obvious.

And before this goes south, I have a card so it's not a Race thing. I just choose not to use it and view the situation with wide open eye's.

I have a card and hunt with a long bow, have done so for the last 35 years and I do use my card to have access to the land. And obviously you didn't read the article I posted, otherwise you wouldn't have posted your soapbox comment.

I'm not advocating for one over the other. As a hunter I have empathy for those that look forward to venturing out onto the land, especially in the fall. If we wait for government to resolve we're all screwed, Manitoba is a prime example......

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

I have a card and hunt with a long bow, have done so for the last 35 years and I do use my card to have access to the land. And obviously you didn't read the article I posted, otherwise you wouldn't have posted your soapbox comment.

I'm not advocating for one over the other. As a hunter I have empathy for those that look forward to venturing out onto the land, especially in the fall. If we wait for government to resolve we're all screwed, Manitoba is a prime example......

And if the government shuts down sport hunting, most landowners will shut down access to their private land, and everyone loses. I already know of several landowners that only allow licensed hunters to hunt on their land, because as they told me" nobody will have more rights on their land, than they do".

[dth_]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Well, just like you're one of them, what's your point? I would urge folks to read the Sparrow SCC decision, which essentially provided direction to the various jurisdictions on the hierarchy they are supposed to follow when it comes to managing the natural resources, first is conservation of the species, then Rights holders, followed by resident stakeholders and then non-resident stakeholders. If the resource is diminished to a level of concern, its the non-resident (outfitting industry) that is the first to be impacted, followed by resident and then Rights holders.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.....

The issue here, and especially in Manitoba, is that there is a certain portion of first nations hunters that would kill every Moose, Deer, Elk, Caribou, etc. that they lay eyes on just so a white guy can't have it. That is the motivation, not conservation.

I lived in Manitoba, at one time there was an individual out of PLP driving around jacklighting deer and cutting the heads off, bragging online that he had shot +30 whitetail bucks that white guys now couldn't have. F&W refused to have anything to do with it, even though it clearly wasn't sustenance hunting. They felt powerless to even bother and believed it would cause more issues. I had a family member witness first hand the reserve deer hunt at Sandy Bay. Sounds great on paper, a hunting party goes out and hunts meat for the elders and everyone shares the bounty. Until you see the pile of unprocessed carcasses left rotting for months.

FN and rights based hunters really need to start self regulating a little bit with the goals of conservation of the animals in mind. I have FN hunting rights and by and large I really believe most FN hunters do not go beyond topping up their freezer, or take cows in areas without the population to support it and support conservation practices. As someone who witnessed first hand what happened to the moose population in Manitoba while I lived there, as long as there is one small group of individuals that will intentionally and maliciously overhunt to displace another groups rights and they are enabled by the government to do so, the losers will be the wildlife.

[Stinky Buffalo]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Don't hate the player, hate the game.....

You summed it up well.

Looking at the info in the link you posted, this is going to have a lot of outfitters concerned. As you described, they are at the end of the food chain as far as the resource goes, and they are the ones that have made investments, provide employment, and in many cases, have deep generational ties to the business and land they operate on.

For some hunters, they may not care if all of the outfitters were gone. But the next rung up the chain are the non-resident hunters, then the resident hunters... etc.

I think Wab will have a tough time managing expectations with this issue. Fixing that department will be no easy task. But the two biggest questions are, how much of a priority is it, and secondly, is there enough willingness and social license do do it?

[outofbounds]

Originally Posted by 3blade

Exactly, this is not a “shock” to anyone. Him and Derek Nepanik are probably gonna announce a hunting season on white farmers like what happened in South Africa.

I wouldn’t invest a dollar in Manitoba (or BC) with the current climate around more equals pretend rights.

A link to Supreme Court rulings for what was referenced as "the pretend rights"

https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc...m/609/index.do

Historical policy on the part of the Crown can neither extinguish the existing aboriginal right without clear intention nor, in itself, delineate that right. The nature of government regulations cannot be determinative of the content and scope of an existing aboriginal right. Government policy can, however, regulate the exercise of that right but such regulation must be in keeping with s. 35(1).

"Section 35(1) does not promise immunity from government regulation in contemporary society but it does hold the Crown to a substantive promise. The government is required to bear the burden of justifying any legislation that has some negative effect on any aboriginal right protected under s. 35(1)."

Sparrow Test to identify whether an identified right IS existing, if so then identifies how the government may be justified in infringement on said right.

As seen in BC, a stroke of the pen can change it all overnight, Salmon quotas, grizz hunt, moose allocations in the Skeena region. Some say socially engineered by this group or that group for their own respective agendas.

What weight did the outfitter's voice carry, or the resident hunters/fisherman have in those instances?

From the CBC article on the current MB draw delay:

"After the draws were delayed, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation told its members it would "take any steps necessary to defend our outdoor heritage and legally enshrined right to hunt," while the Manitoba Lodges and Outfitters Association cautioned the government against "valuing one group more than another," which it told members was "counterproductive to the reconciliation process but will cause further division amongst Manitoba residents."

As mentioned prior in this post:
Conservation
Rights Holders as defined
Resident Stakeholders
Non-Resident Stakeholders

Perceived value of one group more than the other is a common debate with management and allocations including here on this forum not only FN and Non-FN, but also resident and non-resident. Access to opportunity or limits placed on that opportunity by time to acquire priority, and diminished trophy class, all part of past debates when access to resources by the 3 mentioned groups is discussed.

There is a large division among these groups as it sits in all provinces, not limited to MB and AB. The decisions made by those bestowed the duty to manage these resources will further deepen the wedge between the groups no matter the outcome.
However, to think that the constitutionally protected rights "are pretend" is not basing fact on the matter!
As they are applicable here.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Stinky Buffalo

You summed it up well.

Looking at the info in the link you posted, this is going to have a lot of outfitters concerned. As you described, they are at the end of the food chain as far as the resource goes, and they are the ones that have made investments, provide employment, and in many cases, have deep generational ties to the business and land they operate on.

For some hunters, they may not care if all of the outfitters were gone. But the next rung up the chain are the non-resident hunters, then the resident hunters... etc.

I think Wab will have a tough time managing expectations with this issue. Fixing that department will be no easy task. But the two biggest questions are, how much of a priority is it, and secondly, is there enough willingness and social license do do it?

The question is,does Kinew actually want to work to resolve anything, or will this just be an opportunity to do some virtue signaling?

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And if the government shuts down sport hunting, most landowners will shut down access to their private land, and everyone loses. I already know of several landowners that only allow licensed hunters to hunt on their land, because as they told me" nobody will have more rights on their land, than they do".

Thats been going on for years and I don't see it stopping anytime soon, so not news.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The question is,does Kinew actually want to work to resolve anything, or will this just be an opportunity to do some virtue signaling?

In order to do their job efficiently the government has to bring staff into that department, its being triaged and is hemorrhaging at the seams. They also need to bring all of the various natural resource sectors under one department, if they want to make it viable again.

I don't see anything changing this year and would be surprised if the draws that were impeded are nothing more than then a delay.