I got this buddy....

[SmokinJoe]

I'd sure like to see something done as well, I'm tired of being painted by the same brush as a few bad apples. I'd like to see it simular to fishing laws, as status Indians we don't have to buy a license but we do have to abide by seasons, limits, and size reg. Maybe a program that sees first nations folks go get a tag printed without having to pay for it would work? This way conservation would be able to better track hunting numbers and make better decisions when allotting draw numbers. And ensure healthy numbers for generations to come. Might help the two different worlds understand eachother a little better.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

I'd sure like to see something done as well, I'm tired of being painted by the same brush as a few bad apples. I'd like to see it simular to fishing laws, as status Indians we don't have to buy a license but we do have to abide by seasons, limits, and size reg. Maybe a program that sees first nations folks go get a tag printed without having to pay for it would work? This way conservation would be able to better track hunting numbers and make better decisions when allotting draw numbers. And ensure healthy numbers for generations to come. Might help the two different worlds understand eachother a little better.

Seems like a reasonable start.

I'm not sure how it works exactly but can you hunt only on band or nation treaty lands...or on crown land anywhere in Canada?

The reason I ask is that it seems like there are a lot of guys running around with sometimes dubious claims that they are native hunting without a license.

For instance... the blue eyed blonde haired guy from Quebec whose last native relative was 7 generations ago... hunting in Alberta because he could get a card in Quebec even if he couldn't here.

It seems that the rules that determine status are not the same from place to place and I'm pretty sure that (for instance) a Mohawk from southern Quebec or Denai from the north hunting in Alberta is no longer on his traditional lands.

[vcool]

Originally Posted by muledeerking

Ok. well in Alberta if you buy every tag and fallow white man laws.There is still way more enough to feed your family and then some. So really what is the deal if you buy a tag or not? I see changes need to be made to these laws.

So does this mean if you're not white or male you "fallow" different laws? Native folks who have the ability to hunt without tags etc are following the laws as they are written.

What's the big deal if you buy a tag or not? What if you drove on a road every day and they asked you to pay money to maintain the road, but it was your choice if you were going to pay the toll, how many people do you think would be paying the toll? I am guessing not too many.

I like to invoke my rights as much as I can because their mine to enjoy, why would we treat this differently?

I agree with the other posters here, there are a few bad apples that get a bad rap, but this goes for all groups. There are lots of non native hunters that hunt in a less than ethical manner, the focus here should be on ALL hunters that give the rest of us a bad rap. It's real easy to make this in to an "us" and "them" sorta topic, but we're all on the same page here, having sustainable resources for future generations to enjoy.

[NBFK]

I'm glad his ancestors climbed mountains with bare feet and a butt flap. Then find a 185" ram and jabbed a pointy stick into it. Can't get mad at the guy for practicing his heritage.

Chris rock also stated something about a man and a woman having tongue rings.....

[Raptor]

This year he plans on hunting his usual moose, a couple deer, an elk, and big horn sheep.

Must be a pretty big family. My calculations would be about 1200 lbs of meat. Guess he doesn't buy any other kind of meat.

[Bound2Fish]

Originally Posted by Raptor

This year he plans on hunting his usual moose, a couple deer, an elk, and big horn sheep.

Must be a pretty big family. My calculations would be about 1200 lbs of meat. Guess he doesn't buy any other kind of meat.

Not to mention for a family of 4 that is 1 pound of meat per person per day.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Ibtl

[vcool]

Originally Posted by Bound2Fish

Not to mention for a family of 4 that is 1 pound of meat per person per day.

Just a guess but... to my understanding the meat is often shared with more than immediate family... including parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc who are unable to hunt for any variety of reasons, or were unsuccessful.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by vcool

Just a guess but... to my understanding the meat is often shared with more than immediate family... including parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc who are unable to hunt for any variety of reasons, or were unsuccessful.

unsuccessful on does? i dont think so. a lot of meat does get shared alright....with the dogs.

[SmokinJoe]

His family is allot larger than that allot of them children adopted

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by vcool

Just a guess but... to my understanding the meat is often shared with more than immediate family... including parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins etc who are unable to hunt for any variety of reasons, or were unsuccessful.

Thats how freinds that are status hunt.

The one that still lives on the res usually takes a extra one or two, dresses, cleans it and takes it to the Kehewin old folks home.

[SmokinJoe]

Originally Posted by IR_mike

Thats how freinds that are status hunt.

The one that still lives on the res usually takes a extra one or two, dresses, cleans it and takes it to the Kehewin old folks home.

Now although that's traditionally correct(hunting party's taking care of their elderly and incapable) it is illegal. In a couple of different ways, first an Indian as declared by the Indian act can only hunt for his immediate family, and places like old folks homes must abide by food legislation only using government inspected meat. So although he is doing what his ancestors have done since the beginning of time, in the eyes of the law he has committed an offense.

[brownbomber]

So although he is doing what his ancestors have done since the beginning of time, in the eyes of the law he has committed an offense.

so that's why you invite all the elders in your community over for a feast, nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with them taking leftovers to the old folks home.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Now although that's traditionally correct(hunting party's taking care of their elderly and incapable) it is illegal. In a couple of different ways, first an Indian as declared by the Indian act can only hunt for his immediate family, and places like old folks homes must abide by food legislation only using government inspected meat. So although he is doing what his ancestors have done since the beginning of time, in the eyes of the law he has committed an offense.

Really? This will be news to many....

A nation wide federal law regarding Treaty rights?

Each Treaty has it's own set of rules.

[SmokinJoe]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Really? This will be news to many....

A nation wide federal law regarding Treaty rights?

Each Treaty has it's own set of rules.

Yes, and so does every province regarding the same matters, however they all seem to be interpreted by case law that happens around the country within different territory's and from different treaties. So yes in the beginning different treaties were based on different rules by those rules are governed now by the respected provincial territory that is being hunted. And here in Alberta state an Indian as defined by the Indian act.

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Yes, and so does every province regarding the same matters, however they all seem to be interpreted by case law that happens around the country within different territory's and from different treaties. So yes in the beginning different treaties were based on different rules by those rules are governed now by the respected provincial territory that is being hunted. And here in Alberta state an Indian as defined by the Indian act.

OH well....

The way I see it the animal is dead and someone will use it.

And I wont paste it on the hiway.

As long as the meat is not SOLD but consumed amongst the hunters local community no prob.

If the hunter is driveing across the province of Alberta for the chance to shoot a sheep under the guise of subsistence hunting for example he might as well buy 500$ worth of lobster locally save on fuel and vehiculer wear and tear as aboriginal people in PEI have traditionally eaten lobster.

To rerly to 7 rem mags earlier post subsistence hunting should mean as long as the animal appears healthy and safe for consumption the first animal seen should be dropped.

It does not matter if its a calf moose or a 180" WT.....if your hunting to eat take the first oppurtunity to follow the law as it is meant.

[SmokinJoe]

So back to the point of this thread... Does conservation have any effect on what we consider acceptable practice for a subsistence hunt? Because taking the first healthy animal for consumption is not necessarily the best decision when it comes to ensuring that future generations will be able to provide for them selves. It's the same reason that tags say the word male/female in front of the desired species.

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

So back to the point of this thread... Does conservation have any effect on what we consider acceptable practice for a subsistence hunt? Because taking the first healthy animal for consumption is not necessarily the best decision when it comes to ensuring that future generations will be able to provide for them selves. It's the same reason that tags say the word male/female in front of the desired species.

Mimic nature and take that seasons young or take the old.

Most importantly........














Quit trolling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[leo]

I will say that I do not agree with all the current laws governing native hunting rights. I fully believe that all laws and rights need to be reviewed and updated to keep them applicable with new generations. Having said that, it is the law and if your cousin or yourself are not breaking any laws, I can't really find fault with these actions. Enjoy your priveliges and never abuse them!

Leo

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Yes, and so does every province regarding the same matters, however they all seem to be interpreted by case law that happens around the country within different territory's and from different treaties. So yes in the beginning different treaties were based on different rules by those rules are governed now by the respected provincial territory that is being hunted. And here in Alberta state an Indian as defined by the Indian act.

And Alberta encompasses several different Treaties, where case law has produced different hunting and fishing harvest rights for the respective treaty.


Can you provide legislation or case law that proves your statement?
"first an Indian as declared by the Indian act can only hunt for his immediate family"


I appreciate the way you claim to use your Treaty Status. The catalyst for Treaty harvest regulation has to come from the individual Nations. Which Nation are you from? Are you lobbying your Nation to develop a Harvest management/registry program?

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

So back to the point of this thread... Does conservation have any effect on what we consider acceptable practice for a subsistence hunt? .

in my opinion it does, and the most obvious example is the killing of trophy bighorns in the crowsnest area. natives travelling from all over the province to kill rams on winter range underthe guise of subsistence is absolutely causing game managers to look at changes to hunting regulations for other albertans.

whether its alaskas answer for it, or restricting harvest to females only and no sheep period.....the harvest of trophy animals seems to be what aggravates other albertans more than anything. i could list many examples that i know of firsthand.

[gunslinger]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

And Alberta encompasses several different Treaties, where case law has produced different hunting and fishing harvest rights for the respective treaty.


Can you provide legislation or case law that proves your statement?
"first an Indian as declared by the Indian act can only hunt for his immediate family"


I appreciate the way you claim to use your Treaty Status. The catalyst for Treaty harvest regulation has to come from the individual Nations. Which Nation are you from? Are you lobbying your Nation to develop a Harvest management/registry program?

Jesus Dale you would have to be a damn lawyer to understand what your saying here, Im a rig hand type this sh$t in english.lol

[scrapper]

Hey it is what it is, those are his rights and it sounds like he has combined those rights with good ethics. Can't say I have a problem with this at all, look at it this way he just automatically gets drawn for everything every year...lucky bugger.

[Penner]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

What are your takes on this? He has talked to some game wardens and they don't seem to have an answer.. Please keep your comments tasteful, base argument on facts, and keep in mind this is a public forum.

Thanks...

I’m a 4th generation Canadian! My family has been hunting well over a hundred years and this tradition has also been passed down to me. I’m of Caucasian decent. Why do I need to follow a different set of rules than your buddy?

[huntinstuff]

So, to be clear, he does everything I do, except he doesnt need to buy tags because he is a native and I am not.

But if he and I apply for a job, and I get the job and the employer tells him "Randy got the job because he's white", that's racism.

Ok.

The sooner this Country treats all citizens equally, the better.

[SmokinJoe]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

And Alberta encompasses several different Treaties, where case law has produced different hunting and fishing harvest rights for the respective treaty.


Can you provide legislation or case law that proves your statement?
"first an Indian as declared by the Indian act can only hunt for his immediate family"


I appreciate the way you claim to use your Treaty Status. The catalyst for Treaty harvest regulation has to come from the individual Nations. Which Nation are you from? Are you lobbying your Nation to develop a Harvest management/registry program?

Yes, read the regs.

[SmokinJoe]

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

So, to be clear, he does everything I do, except he doesnt need to buy tags because he is a native and I am not.

But if he and I apply for a job, and I get the job and the employer tells him "Randy got the job because he's white", that's racism.

Ok.

The sooner this Country treats all citizens equally, the better.

This thread is not regarding what you think of a treaty that's over a hundred years old. The treaty's state as long as the grass grows, sun shines, and Rivers flow will these treaties be in effect, this thread is about weather provincial law should be altered to consider conservation in sustenance hunting. Has nothing to do with racism, if you would like to talk about racism and how we can rid of it pleas private message me, this thread is making some headway, and as of right now is relatively clean and not offending anyone..

[SmokinJoe]

Originally Posted by Penner

I’m a 4th generation Canadian! My family has been hunting well over a hundred years and this tradition has also been passed down to me. I’m of Caucasian decent. Why do I need to follow a different set of rules than your buddy?

We never fought any wars, we just signed treaties that the white people presented to us. From then we were suppressed anyway, pushed on to reserves, taken from family and put into residential schools, thrown in jail for practicing our culture, ect ect. Poverty still exists in native communities, it's nice to hear your family has deep roots in this country, however his roots go deeper, like from the beginning of time. The crown and Canada have obligation to their native people thru treaties, we didn't make the rules we just follow them as demeaning as they are, but they are all we have. Did you know that into the 70s Indians had to get permission to leave their reserve? Cmon, the issue is not about whats fair to you, the issue is conservation, once again if you need an explanation as to what's fair and what's not, private message me.

[huntinstuff]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

This thread is not regarding what you think of a treaty that's over a hundred years old. The treaty's state as long as the grass grows, sun shines, and Rivers flow will these treaties be in effect, this thread is about weather provincial law should be altered to consider conservation in sustenance hunting. Has nothing to do with racism, if you would like to talk about racism and how we can rid of it pleas private message me, this thread is making some headway, and as of right now is relatively clean and not offending anyone..

I mentioned nothing of treaties
I said nothing offensive
I stated facts

The sooner we are equal, the better. In plain terms, same laws for all.

White, black, red, yellow. Buy tags.

You cant have effective conservation if there are 100,000 or more potential unaccountable variables.

[SmokinJoe]

So did you have to write the first 3/4 of that, all that you needed to say was the last part. Once again not about buying tags... Or being equal, or racisim. There will never be a law that forces first nations people to buy tags, will never happen. The only thing we can hope for is the creation of some sort of mechanism that allows for a more accurate harvest report.