Native subsistence hunting - Page 3

waterhawk · #61 11-10-2014, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Unless you were present when the treaties were signed, how can you know exactly what the natives were told? All that you have to go on is hearsay, that is over 100 years old. Just like everything else that is passed on from generation to generation, the original wording gets twisted to the point that the meaning of the words gets skewed to represent something that is quite different from the original intent. And when making deals or signing agreements, many people only see/hear what they want to see/hear, and they often ignore the other details, even though those details can be significant.

What was said by both sides at the time of treaty is well documented. There were government clerks present to record the proceedings. When the chiefs signed the Treaty their people were starving. The buffalo were basically gone and they were struggling to feed themselves. They would have never signed if they thought they were not guaranteed the right to hunt.

edmhunter · #62 11-10-2014, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Exactly....

Or taking your buddy (non indigenous) with no tag and no draw to harvest a legal (or not) ram while 3 guys who waited over 15years to draw one of 5 available tags look on....seems awesome!

LC

Touche L-C-! Like I said:

The entire native subsistence hunting rights is obsolete, out of date and quite frankly out of time and out of step with our modern times. It should be addressed, reevaluated and revamped. All we need now is a Politician with the guts to do it, Like that is going to happen!

Lefty-Canuck · #63 11-10-2014, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Sure, lets renegotiate. Canada can give back to the Indians the 121,000 square miles they gave up at Treaty. The Indians can hire some lawyers and see what kind of deal they can make this time.

What was your point in bringing up conjecture that they could not read and didn't know what they were doing?

I applaud the folks who are First Nations and hunt during regular hunting season and purchase tags like the vast majority of Canadians have to.

LC

Ranch11 · #64 11-10-2014, 08:21 AM

Personally, I think it's a joke. I work with a girl who lives on a métis settlement, both her and her husband drive brand new vehicles, they both work in the patch making ungodly money, live in a huge house, and they've shot 7 moose already this fall!
My family butchers one beef and it lasts the winter.
Rediculous!

Lefty-Canuck · #65 11-10-2014, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterhawk

What was said by both sides at the time of treaty is well documented. There were government clerks present to record the proceedings. When the chiefs signed the Treaty their people were starving. The buffalo were basically gone and they were struggling to feed themselves. They would have never signed if they thought they were not guaranteed the right to hunt.

Again you were there so you know that's the reason why....

Not getting trolled further into this conversation....nothing is going to change no point in even discussing it.

LC

Newview01 · #66 11-10-2014, 08:26 AM

Can we take a look at exactly how each tax dollar is spent and how much goes to these subsistence hunters, and that will give a very clear picture as to if they should be subsistence hunting. There is no grey area here. The people who are for it must have connections to it, because otherwise they would be defending the right to equal hunting rights..

waterhawk · #67 11-10-2014, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

What was your point in bringing up conjecture that they could not read and didn't know what they were doing?

I applaud the folks who are First Nations and hunt during regular hunting season and purchase tags like the vast majority of Canadians have to.

LC

There is no question that the Chiefs that signed Treaty Six could not read. Peter Erasmus interpreted for them. He was educated but it is questionable whether he understood all of the treaty. The Chiefs did not know what they were doing. They, however, are not the ones that are trying to change the deal

waterhawk · #68 11-10-2014, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Again you were there so you know that's the reason why....

Not getting trolled further into this conversation....nothing is going to change no point in even discussing it.

LC

Lefty: I don't want to irritate you. You are at a computer. Google history of Treaty Six. It is all there.

elkhunter11 · #69 11-10-2014, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterhawk

When the chiefs signed the Treaty their people were starving. The buffalo were basically gone and they were struggling to feed themselves. They would have never signed if they thought they were not guaranteed the right to hunt.

As I posted previously, people often only hear what they want to hear, so they likely never gave the phrase about the government having the right to impose hunting regulations, a second thought. They just accepted that they would be allowed to hunt, with no thought of what regulations could be imposed later.

Quote:

There is no question that the Chiefs that signed Treaty Six could not read. Peter Erasmus interpreted for them. He was educated but it is questionable whether he understood all of the treaty. The Chiefs did not know what they were doing.

You are the one that quoted actual text from the treaty, so why would you quote that text, if as you maintain,the chief's never understood, or agreed to that text? If the chief's, or their representative, never understood the meaning of the text, then them signing the treaty was meaningless.

Lefty-Canuck · #70 11-10-2014, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Lefty: I don't want to irritate you. You are at a computer. Google history of Treaty Six. It is all there.

Yah I'll pass but thanks

LC

livinstone · #71 11-10-2014, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranch11

Personally, I think it's a joke. I work with a girl who lives on a métis settlement, both her and her husband drive brand new vehicles, they both work in the patch making ungodly money, live in a huge house, and they've shot 7 moose already this fall!
My family butchers one beef and it lasts the winter.
Rediculous!

Funny how that last survey miss the native out dated hunting but seemed to ask us how to get more money from us in tags 9-12 yrs draws system.But also listened to the radio sunday as they were quit happy with the heathy 7000 wolfs in the province that they said was a NICE BALANCE WHAT A JOKE AND SOMETIMES L WONDER WHY WE KEEP PAYING THEM TO SCREW US?

moose maniac · #72 11-10-2014, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranch11

Personally, I think it's a joke. I work with a girl who lives on a métis settlement, both her and her husband drive brand new vehicles, they both work in the patch making ungodly money, live in a huge house, and they've shot 7 moose already this fall!
My family butchers one beef and it lasts the winter.
Rediculous!

I bet there Reefer van was so full they couldn't fit in another 1/4 of a moose if they wanted to!!!!!

waterhawk · #73 11-10-2014, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

As I posted previously, people often only hear what they want to hear, so they likely never gave the phrase about the government having the right to impose hunting regulations, a second thought. They just accepted that they would be allowed to hunt, and signed the treaty.

You are the one that quoted actual text from the treaty, so why would you quote that text, if as you maintain,the chief's never understood, or agreed to that text? If the chief's never understood the meaning of the text, then them signing the treaty was meaningless.

Elkhunter: I have to be careful that I am not just barking back at you for the sake of barking. Lets think about what we are debating. There are two things. One is metis hunting rights and the other is status indian hunting rights. I don't know much about the metis thing. I googled it and it looks like there is a Metis Harvesting Act. It seems to be where "subsistence hunting" comes from. I won't debate the metis thing because I don't understand it. If that what we are talking about, then I will go have my breakfast.

sns2 · #74 11-10-2014, 08:40 AM

Things change...

Gov't breaks agreements all the time, just ask any union member who has had retirement benefits clawed back or taken away...

If I were king for a day, not PM because he's not a king, I would change the laws to allow subsistence hunting on all native lands from your place of residence all the way to the grocery store. Beyond that, it would be hunting according to any and all the regulations that all Alberta residents are forced to abide by. This would allow meat to be harvested for any cultural events and/or religious ceremonies.

We all know the stories. We all know First Nations peoples who drive nicer vehicles than most of us do.

Likewise, we all know that many do not.

The reality of it is that subsistence hunting, which is an appropriate conversation for this forum, is just one of many issues that don't work under the current treaty system.

I am glad this has so far been a reasonable discussion.

elkhunter11 · #75 11-10-2014, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Elkhunter: I have to be careful that I am not just barking back at you for the sake of barking. Lets think about what we are debating. There are two things. One is metis hunting rights and the other is status indian hunting rights. I don't know much about the metis thing. I googled it and it looks like there is a Metis Harvesting Act. It seems to be where "subsistence hunting" comes from. I won't debate the metis thing because I don't understand it. If that what we are talking about, then I will go have my breakfast.

I don't believe that I have mentioned metis once in this thread, but we have been talking about the treaties, which the metis didn't sign. As such, it should be pretty obvious as to what the topic being discussed is. It sounds like you are having difficulties understanding the topic, just as you claim that the native chiefs didn't understand what they were signing, when they signed the treaties.

edmhunter · #76 11-10-2014, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moose maniac

I bet there Reefer van was so full they couldn't fit in another 1/4 of a moose if they wanted to!!!!!

Isn't that the TRUTH! Too bad so many are so afraid to speak plainly, openly and honestly about it, without deviating from it and sighting ancient treaties that are out of date and no longer belong in the 21st century! Thank God for AOS!

waterhawk · #77 11-10-2014, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I don't believe that I have mentioned metis once in this thread, but we have been talking about the treaties, which the metis didn't sign. As such, it should be pretty obvious as to what the topic being discussed is. It sounds like you are having difficulties understanding the topic, just as you claim that the native chiefs didn't understand what they were signing, when they signed the treaties.

No point being nasty. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. No mention of subsistence hunting in the treaties. There is no question that the chiefs that signed treaty six had no more than a basic understanding of what they were signing. That they were going to continue to hunt was one thing they did understand. It is questionable that they understood private ownership. There are many that believe they thought they were agreeing to share the 121,000 square miles with the whites. They had no concept of an individual owning land. Probably about the same that we have no concept of someone owning the air.

waterhawk · #78 11-10-2014, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moose maniac

I bet there Reefer van was so full they couldn't fit in another 1/4 of a moose if they wanted to!!!!!

I have been hearing about this reefer van for years. I have spent a lot of time in the bush and never run into it. Can anyone actually say they have seen it.

mmars89 · #79 11-10-2014, 09:07 AM

I have not bought meat in years, my family and I eat nothing but wild game and wild fish. I am not status, I follow the general hunting/fishing regulations. I hunt strictly with archery tackle and fish with a fly rod and I do so completely on foot (no motors, no horses)... For me that's the sport side of it.

I'm not saying that one thing is right and one thing is wrong, I'm saying it's quite possible to provide for your family even with the odds stacked against you.

That said, In this day and age I think we should be more concerned about the animals rather than the groups of people hunting them. The animals population and well being should determine how we hunt them, regardless if you're white, black, brown, yellow or purple. Preservation and sustainability trumps all.

edmhunter · #80 11-10-2014, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterhawk

I have been hearing about this reefer van for years. I have spent a lot of time in the bush and never run into it. Can anyone actually say they have seen it.

Feel free to go online and look it up, especially Manitoba!

waterhawk · #81 11-10-2014, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmhunter

Feel free to go online and look it up, especially Manitoba!

What do I need to google to look at this?

elkhunter11 · #82 11-10-2014, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterhawk

No point being nasty. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. No mention of subsistence hunting in the treaties. There is no question that the chiefs that signed treaty six had no more than a basic understanding of what they were signing. That they were going to continue to hunt was one thing they did understand. It is questionable that they understood private ownership. There are many that believe they thought they were agreeing to share the 121,000 square miles with the whites. They had no concept of an individual owning land. Probably about the same that we have no concept of someone owning the air.

You make it sound like the natives gave their land to private individuals, and enjoy no benefits from that land, when that is not at all the case. The land belongs to the government, for all citizens to use . So yes, they are sharing the land with all nationalities. They are also using the roads, schools, hospitals, electric power, natural gas, and running water, that exists on that land.
Further, if they didn't understand the private ownership of the land, then how could they possibly agree to give away that land? If according to them, nobody owned the land, how could it be theirs to give away?

Back to the topic, unless the regulations apply to everyone, we can't properly manage the game populations, and in the end, we will all lose the opportunity to enjoy huntable game populations.

edmhunter · #83 11-10-2014, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterhawk

What do I need to google to look at this?

Title "Where Have All The Moose Gone"

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...239835201.html

waterhawk · #84 11-10-2014, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

You make it sound like the natives gave their land to private individuals, and enjoy no benefits from that land, when that is not at all the case. The land belongs to the government, for all citizens to use . So yes, they are sharing the land with all nationalities. They are also using the roads, schools, hospitals, electric power, natural gas, and running water, that exists on that land.
Further, if they didn't understand the private ownership of the land, then how could they possibly agree to give away that land? If according to them, nobody owned the land, how could it be theirs to give away?

Back to the topic, unless the regulations apply to everyone, we can't properly manage the game populations, and in the end, we will all lose the opportunity to enjoy huntable game populations.

You are correct that Crown land belongs to the government, for all citizens to use. This is probably close to what the Indians understood was going to happen. What did happen is a lot of the land they gave up was transferred to private individuals and the Indians were no longer able to hunt on it.

The Indians had no concept of private ownership. They did understand group ownership. For example, they understood that the land north of the Battle River was cree land and they were more than prepared to fight to protect it. The river has that name for a reason. They would not have understood if one cree indian claimed he owned a piece of that land and other cree could not go there.

cfinn · #85 11-10-2014, 09:36 AM

lets reveiw the cost of todays "sustinence hunter". I spent a lot of time in the northern communities and have a fairly good understanding of what goes on.

They use to have an old gun, a box of ammo, an older pick up, and may be some old skidoo tundra sled which they leave there back yard to go a couple miles to the bush or a field they had permission and find a critter. hunting season done. the moose/deer cost about $20 for the year.

now, the "needs" have changed. we were out setting up our rifles pre-bowhunting season this summer when a truck load of sustinence hunters showed up. All they wanted to do was shoot something "because they can".

My friends that live on a reserve live in a house they don't own or have to pay for (no mortgage), drive a $90K truck, one for the wife too, have 2 new s x s's, ($40K), and a couple old wrecked quads in the yard for back up. put them on a nice tandem trailer, some have enclosed trailers so there buddy's dont steal them. picked up a couple new guns each fall and bunch of ammo (ammo costs havent gone down). Gas, time off work, etc, etc. put it all together and it doesn't quite make sense. They'll be reading this shortly and a text will follow i am sure, but they will also admit it and laugh.

Most of us hunt because its a passion we all share, not because it is a cost effective way to fill the freezer. some guys can do it fairly cheap but not too many.

Bottom line, you could go to a local farm and buy a fresh beef/pork/bison and butcher yourself for a lot less time and cost.

waterhawk · #86 11-10-2014, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmhunter

Title "Where Have All The Moose Gone"

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...239835201.html

I read the article. I did no see a reference to a reefer van. I am going to hang Christmas lights. I have been putting it off, waiting for the coldest possible day.

ResidentSpokesman · #87 11-10-2014, 09:47 AM

My biggest beef with sustenance hunting is that it is racism in its purest form. Giving "rights" to one group and denying them to another group based soley on race is racist.

Everybody cries about racism these days, we have to tip toe around muslims, indians etc, everybody is too afraid to offend them by speaking up about the discrimination against us gringos.

How about one set of rules for everyone, regardless of race?

IHUNT · #88 11-10-2014, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ResidentSpokesman

My biggest beef with sustenance hunting is that it is racism in its purest form. Giving "rights" to one group and denying them to another group based soley on race is racist.

Everybody cries about racism these days, we have to tip toe around muslims, indians etc, everybody is too afraid to offend them by speaking up about the discrimination against us gringos.

How about one set of rules for everyone, regardless of race?

moose maniac · #89 11-10-2014, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmhunter

Isn't that the TRUTH! Too bad so many are so afraid to speak plainly, openly and honestly about it, without deviating from it and sighting ancient treaties that are out of date and no longer belong in the 21st century! Thank God for AOS!

Don't catch on to sarcasm all that well do you.

edmhunter · #90 11-10-2014, 09:55 AM

Sarcasm?