Metis Harvest

[SakoAlberta]

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

By almeans hunt because you enjoy it,,that is the sport part,,but to kill it for fun is still wrong based on the repeated statements about sustanance,,,take a picture of it. It doesn't have to hag on your wall to enjoy it nor does the picture need to be of it hanging from a tree with its cavity open.

This is not a racial thing. I've seen many moose racks over doors in Indian/Metis communities in the NWT that were taken for subsitence. Or drive by the 'smoke shack ' in Cape breton and count the moose/caribou racks. Although I've never personally had a mount done, I think its a personal thing. Some people may like to have pics/mounts to remind them of the beauty of the animal and memories of the hunt . I know I certainly like to look through albums with pics from previous hunts. Not all have dead animals in them but some do. Its part of the hunt.

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

Yet there is always peple pointing out things like the cow and 2 calves simply because it was indians. Everyone here knows full well there are lots alots of white poachers as well .

Of course there are lots of 'white' poachers but that's where the regulation comes in. Those non staus poachers can be charged and punished(never enough, it seems, but that should be a different thread) but the Indian with the three moose cannot be or won't be.


As far as the pics guys posted with a bunch of deer, not my cup of tea but I have little issue with it. As long as those deer were taken were it was determined the herd should be reduced(for various reasons) and the meat was all used, and they had the proper tags, then why is it a problem?I'm sure those deer will provide many good meals for the hunters and their families.

I would much sooner see those pics than a guy driving around with the hindquarters of a cow moose without a tag.

[Jims71duster]

Originally Posted by Waxy

I don't get it Jims71duster. I don't follow your whole line of thought.

Can the aboriginals and the metis not go to the grocery store the exact same way I can? Of course they can. Please don't try to tell me they hunt soley for the meat. It's dry behind my ears.

This isn't about need (subsistence), if it was about need, then no one would hunt. We produce enough food through agricultural means to more than feed everyone.

It really has nothing to do with need, it's all about want.

Like you say, if hunting was on a need for meat basis only, meaning 95% of the aboriginal population would not be allowed to hunt either, there would be a huge overpopulation of deer, moose, etc..., and the inevitable results of that would kick in. Is that a better solution than the current system in your mind?

Waxy

Thats my point waxy,,is the metis saying that it is needed for subsistence (there are a few other reasons listed ) worse than killing for fun. Even if they are just blowin smoke up our butts at least they have a pretense. All the rest are doing is killing for fun,,,which is worse,,, the lie or the arragance. All I am saying is there are allot of people throwing stones when they live in glass houses

[Jims71duster]

Originally Posted by SakoAlberta

This is not a racial thing. I've seen many moose racks over doors in Indian/Metis communities in the NWT that were taken for subsitence. Or drive by the 'smoke shack ' in Cape breton and count the moose/caribou racks. Although I've never personally had a mount done, I think its a personal thing. Some people may like to have pics/mounts to remind them of the beauty of the animal and memories of the hunt . I know I certainly like to look through albums with pics from previous hunts. Not all have dead animals in them but some do. Its part of the hunt.






Of course there are lots of 'white' poachers but that's where the regulation comes in. Those non staus poachers can be charged and punished(never enough, it seems, but that should be a different thread) but the Indian with the three moose cannot be or won't be.


As far as the pics guys posted with a bunch of deer, not my cup of tea but I have little issue with it. As long as those deer were taken were it was determined the herd should be reduced(for various reasons) and the meat was all used, and they had the proper tags, then why is it a problem?I'm sure those deer will provide many good meals for the hunters and their families.

I would much sooner see those pics than a guy driving around with the hindquarters of a cow moose without a tag.

sorry ,,,,double post!! lol

[Jims71duster]

Originally Posted by SakoAlberta

This is not a racial thing. I've seen many moose racks over doors in Indian/Metis communities in the NWT that were taken for subsitence. Or drive by the 'smoke shack ' in Cape breton and count the moose/caribou racks. Although I've never personally had a mount done, I think its a personal thing. Some people may like to have pics/mounts to remind them of the beauty of the animal and memories of the hunt . I know I certainly like to look through albums with pics from previous hunts. Not all have dead animals in them but some do. Its part of the hunt.






Of course there are lots of 'white' poachers but that's where the regulation comes in. Those non staus poachers can be charged and punished(never enough, it seems, but that should be a different thread) but the Indian with the three moose cannot be or won't be.


As far as the pics guys posted with a bunch of deer, not my cup of tea but I have little issue with it. As long as those deer were taken were it was determined the herd should be reduced(for various reasons) and the meat was all used, and they had the proper tags, then why is it a problem?I'm sure those deer will provide many good meals for the hunters and their families.

I would much sooner see those pics than a guy driving around with the hindquarters of a cow moose without a tag.

I know what you are saying,, all I am pointing out is that everyone is saying that the metis don't need subsistence hunting,, I am not argueing that fact. all I am saying is that lots of peple say they can go to the store a buy meat like everyone else.At least they are saying its for subsistence (truth or not I dont know) I would rather 50 % of those who say it get it than let people who say others shold go buy it so they can use it for sport. I'm sure that those 10 deer (or whatever) where eaten, but was it needed or where those animals killed for fun and consumed merely to justify the sport. You guys need to realize its a 2 edged sword. I know you love your sport as do I. There are 2 evils here,,,which is worse. ( as for you first statement I ment no rasizms or did I mean to imply any)

[Rob Miskosky]

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

All the rest are doing is killing for fun,,,which is worse,,, the lie or the arragance.

Pretty engulfing statement Jims71duster.

Was it not Ortega who said: "One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted."

Not sure how many hunt to kill for fun. The fun is not in the killing, but rather in the spirit of the hunt.

[SakoAlberta]

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

I know what you are saying,, all I am pointing out is that everyone is saying that the metis don't need subsistence hunting,, I am not argueing that fact. all I am saying is that lots of peple say they can go to the store a buy meat like everyone else.)

Agreed. That's why these subsitence permits should be used for anybody with a need, regardless of ancestry and only used when needed.

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

I'm sure that those 10 deer (or whatever) where eaten, but was it needed or where those animals killed for fun and consumed merely to justify the sport.

I'm not sure its ever 'needed' in this day and age. For me, its 'chosen', not 'needed'. I choose to have wild meat because I enjoy it and I know its healthy for me and my family. I also enjoy the hunt. (Enjoy is to put it mildly)


I have seen a few that enjoy the killing, not the hunting and some practises that border on unethical that lead me to conclude it is the kill and not the hunt that motivates them. Sometimes, I think they just lose sight what got them into the field and it becomes a competition. I hope these people are few and, from my observations, I think they are.

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

Pretty engulfing statement Jims71duster.

Was it not Ortega who said: "One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted."

Not sure how many hunt to kill for fun. The fun is not in the killing, but rather in the spirit of the hunt.

Hey Rob isn't is funny how everyone can have a hunting culture or hunting heritage except us white boys?

[bowchaser]

whether it's the kill or the hunt is irrelevant, to each their own. The point is that we do it whatever our motives, within the framework of a structured managed system. We pay for the opportunity and the experience. There is no person in this province, except maybe the homeless, who needs to hunt to survive. So, therefore they should pay for tags, and hunt within the framework of the existing management system. This has nothing to do with hunting rights, this is unfortunately the first item on their list to make a stand on. Next it will be free education, free gas, etc. etc. hence the term freeloader...

[Jims71duster]

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

Pretty engulfing statement Jims71duster.

Was it not Ortega who said: "One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted."

Not sure how many hunt to kill for fun. The fun is not in the killing, but rather in the spirit of the hunt.

Really,,,then hunt them and take a picture

[Rob Miskosky]

I do that too. But I also appreciate a good deer steak or moose roast on occasion as well. Think you're missing the point here.

[Jims71duster]

Originally Posted by bowchaser

whether it's the kill or the hunt is irrelevant, to each their own. The point is that we do it whatever our motives, within the framework of a structured managed system. We pay for the opportunity and the experience. There is no person in this province, except maybe the homeless, who needs to hunt to survive. So, therefore they should pay for tags, and hunt within the framework of the existing management system. This has nothing to do with hunting rights, this is unfortunately the first item on their list to make a stand on. Next it will be free education, free gas, etc. etc. hence the term freeloader...

carefull there,,,,,,a mind that is that closed might snap shut one day and be smothered by the crap trapped in side. Kinda stings a bit when someone goes after your moral fiber does'nt it..It's not to each his own when you attack the ab's is it. Its kinda funny lmao

[Jims71duster]

thx for the open minded conversation sako. I t is enjoyable

[SakoAlberta]

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

thx for the open minded conversation sako. I t is enjoyable

Likewise

[grandslamer]

ther is now metis agreement as such anymore the goverment has changed it so that not anyone can hunt unlike the interm agreement that thankfully expired but what in place now will mostly elimanate metis harvesting the numbers from fw that if they r lucky under 200 people will acually qualify for hunting subsistance licences

[.264 Win Mag]

So if my Grandparents poached deer to survive through the great depression when no other food could be afforded all the time, or food that was provided for them by railcar was rotten, does that make it a part of my heritage and ancestery?? And how come all groups of different races want "equal rights" until it affects them! Nekred I toatally agree you that it should be based on financial need, and even then closely montiered to be sure it is not being abused.

[grandslamer]

the thing is it is based on financial need anyone nomatter what race (yes including whites ) are eligible for this as longas u meet the requirement such as poverty u will recieve a tag to hunt what ever species you want as long as a biologist agrees the the herd can suport the hunt

[outlaw'd]

and so it starts again.............I read in a thread that this issue would be brought up again to divert the attention away from other issues regarding hunting, and its true. Too bad the energy spent on this topic isn't used towards the open spaces program, american backed outfitting going on in this province, and all around general poaching.................the good part is makes for pretty humourous reading

So you are saying the Metis challenging Alberta law in regards to their rights according to Powley is not an issue critical to Alberta's sportsmen? Give the guys some credit here, I'm sure they can focus their attention in several directions at once. I see this issue every bit as important as Open Spaces or did you miss the fight as to how we got here...remember a little thing called the IMHA????? For some of us, that battle is all too fresh in our minds. I don't see that we must concentrate on a single issue when there are multiple issues facing Alberta's sportsmen right now. Trivalizing something like the Metis issue is definitely not a road I'm willing to walk down. I'm pretty sure I can keep up to speed on the half dozen or more important issues facing Alberta's sportsmen today and I'm sure most others on the board can too! Open Spaces is far from the only issue hunters need to focus on right now! It's a critical one yes....but most definitely not the only one.

[Vindalbakken]

This is a critical issue to Alberta hunters. The Powley decision put the onus on us - the Alberta people - to come up with a reasonable solution to Metis hunting rights. Our gov't has come up with groundbreaking ideas on this one. I hope the gov't wins the court case and their interpretation of what will pass the Powley test holds. The granting of "subsistence licences" regardless of ancestry is a bold move - and very CANADIAN.

Well stated my friend!

[outlaw'd]

nope............what I'm saying is that the Metis issue seems to pop up, IMHO, to distract from the other issues. Fact of the matter is, from my point of view anyway, its the other way around. The Alberta government is challenging the constitutional rights afforded to the Metis people, according to Powley. Another thing, I don't recall saying that anyone in here wasn't capable of focusing on more than one thing. You seem to get wound up when you feel members in here are putting words in your mouth, afford me the same courtesy.

Originally Posted by outlaw'd

nope............what I'm saying is that the Metis issue seems to pop up, IMHO, to distract from the other issues. Fact of the matter is, from my point of view anyway, its the other way around. The Alberta government is challenging the constitutional rights afforded to the Metis people, according to Powley. Another thing, I don't recall saying that anyone in here wasn't capable of focusing on more than one thing. You seem to get wound up when you feel members in here are putting words in your mouth, afford me the same courtesy.

Actually this just didn't pop up...the Metis made a stand...drew a line in the sand if you will....just this past weekend and brought it once again to the forefront with their actions. I'm sure they didn't hold the hunt this past weekend to distract from other issues and as this issue has suddenly thrust itself to the forefront along with Open Spaces, it would only make sense to me that sportsmen take notice. Your attempt to trivalize it is certainly doing Alberta sportsmen a diservice.

Not sure how deep your understanding is of the Metis issue but the Alberta government is most definitely not challenging any of the Metis rights afforded them in the constitution. Powley left it to the provinces to interpret how they applied the decision and that's what Alberta did. It's the Metis that are challenging that interpretation...not the Alberta government and as far as I know, no one is challenging the constitution.

[outlaw'd]

"Not sure how deep your understanding is of the Metis issue but the Alberta government is most definitely not challenging any of the Metis rights afforded them in the constitution."

Attempting to close half of the province down to Metis hunters is not challenging the constituton?

"It's the Metis that are challenging that interpretation...not the Alberta government and as far as I know, no one is challenging the constitution."

I dunno Sheep..............who decided to draw the line across the province, and designate exactly where the Metis people are "allowed" to hunt, or not "allowed" to hunt. It'd be the government I'd think. Heres a quote I got off of a Native/Aboriginal site.

"Aboriginal rights are those rights which peoples have due to traditional use and occupancy of land. These rights encompass all aspects of life, including culture, land and traditions."

[bowchaser]

I have no clue what you're talking about, clearly either do you. If someone hunts to hear the bang, see the flop, so be it that's none of your concern what anyone's motives are. The entire point is, it is allowed whatever your motives and everyone should play by the same rules. We all agree, none of us actually need the meat, yes we do it for the experience, being with family, and love having the meat as well. Therefore, only the people who can prove a dire need to survive on wild game should be allowed these tags, whether they are metis, white, purple, or yellow.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

Thats my point waxy,,is the metis saying that it is needed for subsistence (there are a few other reasons listed ) worse than killing for fun.

It is if it's simply a lie to disguise the fact they're hunting for the very same reasons as everyone else.

Even if they are just blowin smoke up our butts at least they have a pretense.

So you'd rather someone lied to you than gave you an honest straightforward answer regarding their intentions?

I don't like FALSE pretenses.

All the rest are doing is killing for fun,,,which is worse,,, the lie or the arragance. All I am saying is there are allot of people throwing stones when they live in glass houses

This in and of itself is a very arrogant statemtent.

First off, it's not a real comparison. That's like me asking you whether you're stupid or just plain dumb. You're suggesting that everyone "kills for fun", or is lying about killing for fun. Where's the truth in that?

I think do understand your point more clearly - if you're hunting for any reason other than subsistence, you're not doing it out of need. Essentially, I agree with you, and I stated as much in my last response to you. None of us hunt because we need to, we hunt because we want to and choose to. We hunt for both the enjoyment of the hunt itself, and the meat.

I realize you're doing it for effect, but reducing that to "killing for fun" is rather ridiculous. I think the crass manner in which you've chosen to make your point is tainting the real thrust of your argument.

At any rate, I'll just state my position on this topic -

When it comes right down to it, I do not believe that anyone in this province needs to hunt for subsistence. I am willing to overlook this fact in those few rare cases where need can be shown, and the hunt itself can be shown to be economically viable (ie comparable to a trip ot the grocery store.) However, that should be an opportunity open to ALL people, and not be limited in any way by race or creed. Furthermore, those opportunities should be done strictly within the framework of proper wildlife management principals.

Our wildlife is a public resource, and as such, should be equally available to everyone. On that same note, it should also be managed for the benefit of everyone.

Waxy

Originally Posted by outlaw'd

"Not sure how deep your understanding is of the Metis issue but the Alberta government is most definitely not challenging any of the Metis rights afforded them in the constitution."

Attempting to close half of the province down to Metis hunters is not challenging the constituton?

"It's the Metis that are challenging that interpretation...not the Alberta government and as far as I know, no one is challenging the constitution."

I dunno Sheep..............who decided to draw the line across the province, and designate exactly where the Metis people are "allowed" to hunt, or not "allowed" to hunt. It'd be the government I'd think. Heres a quote I got off of a Native/Aboriginal site.

"Aboriginal rights are those rights which peoples have due to traditional use and occupancy of land. These rights encompass all aspects of life, including culture, land and traditions."

Ah, now it's becoming clear why you were trying to discount this thread.

Anyhow, there is most definitely no contitutional challenge here and it will be a long time before this case reaches the supreme court. And the fact still remains that it's the Metis challenging the Alberta government's interpretation of Powley. Powley gave the province the task of implimenting that decision and that's what they did. I can understand that you may be emotional about this issue but that still doesn't change the process of law.

Attempting to close half of the province down to Metis hunters is not challenging the constituton?

Most definitely not...that was the Alberta government's interpretation of Powley and now the Metis are challenging that interpretation.

I dunno Sheep..............who decided to draw the line across the province, and designate exactly where the Metis people are "allowed" to hunt, or not "allowed" to hunt. It'd be the government I'd think.

Yes, and that was the way they interpreted Powley.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Waxy

However, that should be an opportunity open to ALL people, and not be limited in any way by race or creed. Furthermore, those opportunities should be done strictly within the framework of proper wildlife management principals.

OK, I hear you. So what you are saying is that if any aboriginal band had a provision, even in a legal treaty they signed to have hunting rights, you would say "throw it out the window". I think that is what most here are saying. I don't happen to agree, but at least I understand your position, if what I said is accurate.

[outlaw'd]

" that was the Alberta government's interpretation of Powley and now the Metis are challenging that interpretation. "

I guess for myself, the next question would be how did the Alberta gov't reach this interpretation. Is there some documentation that actually shows that " back in the day ", the Metis residents would come to this imaginary line, realize where they were, and turn around and not cross it? Sounds pretty far fetched to me. You are right insofar as this is going to be tied up in court for quite some time, and cost the taxpayers a few $$$, but in my opinion, I don't really think the restrictions that the Alberta gov't is trying to impose will fly. I might be wrong, but we'll see. Reading on the MNA website, I see there are changes being developed to show accountability for game that is taken by Metis harvesters, and to discern who can qualify to do so. The accountability factor seemed to be one of the biggest concerns that Alberta hunters had. I wonder if there will be a step towards accountability with the First Nations people as well. Kinda doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

I'm sure the government did their due dilligence before coming up with this plan and I for one hope the courts side with the Alberta government on this issue. It seems a fair compromise to me if this really is about subsistence hunting. If it's not really about that, then I guess it may not seem fair to some.

[outlaw'd]

" It seems a fair compromise to me if this really is about subsistence hunting."

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, same as me. Now my question is why should a constitutional right have to be compromised?