Status Natives

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Ya I have this bad tendency of loading my arguments with facts

You load your arguments all right, but it's not with facts.

[SmokinJoe]

This all as the better man gently closes the door and walks away, good bye

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

This all as the better man gently closes the door and walks away, good bye

See ya.

[Winch101]

We have on here debunked just about if not all the statements
That are in this thread about indian treaty rights . This discussion has been
Going on here for 2 yrs... Especially the oil and gas revenues ,if they exist
They are a minor part of the 750 million a year that goes to support
The social system that is reserves. The brunt of the shell out comes
Right out of Federal coffers....I don't blame you for trying to load
Up because in a very short time period when the white man is no longer
The political steward .......The second and third generation new
Canadians are likely to not be as open to this continuous pandering
That goes on today. The bigger portion of these Canadians have already
Gotten rid of that British Millstone around their neck in their country of
Origin .. The idea that if you repeat something often enough it becomes
True...should be your mantra ....like that nation to nation Balogna ....
If I was you guys I would tell Canada where they can stick their money
And pull out of confederation en mass.....you can make it on the old
Ways alone.....of this I am sure....

A little before bed light reading .....read the INAC Program Delivery
Especially .....the numbers are frightening ,really if you need
That kind of money from the Canadian Govt to subsist ....no wonder
Your crapping a brick....I think that figure includes all Frauds, Hotels
Airfare visits to Iran , Explosives Expenditures ,

Now I understand this a White Mans Government document and we
Know what liars they are .....pretty sure Duffy or Wallin didn't author it.


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...55123115,d.b2I

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I'm not making demands to change anything lol, you on the other hand are still dancing around my questions. I see you and smokingjoe and maybe a few others feel threatened by what I say because you know it makes sense and you are defending your kill at will rights. I get it, I don't blame you, as I stated I would love to have the card, but it still doesn't make it right. It still doesn't change the fact the treaties are out dated, I still think it's a load of bs that you want to honor an outdated treaty agreement because you believe it "should" be honored because it's a signed treaty not matter how redundant it is. You want the hunting part of the treaty upheld for reasons of greed plain and simple, otherwise you would have answered my question long ago rather than say "Kurt doesn't know the treaty like I do" or blow a bunch of smoke and mirrors surrounding the issue. I've said time and again I'm not trying to change anything, but I would like see changes made to stop the abuse, fair changes to anyone who TRUELY believes in the treaty agreements for what they were meant, not how you'd like them to be interpreted in your favor.

I really don't think it is fair for you to accuse others of dancing around your questions. You admitted a few days ago that you didn't know much about the treaty process, fair enough and good to admit. Often though, your questions show that and I have thought many are pointless.

Your take is those guys are threatened by you, my take has been that they have been very polite when your lack of knowledge comes out, and you lead with your chin.

No offense, but that is how I see it.

[brownbomber]

Originally Posted by Dacotensis

One of the biggest problems is a lack of civility.
When comments like this are thrown into people's faces while being laughed at, it insights disdain for the Indians "cause".
Where will that get any of us?

There is an obvious air of "don't hate the player. Hate the game".
That's an issue. It is ever prevalent amongst some Indians on this forum.
Hard to believe its allowed.
It shows a huge lack of respect. Something that I am sure is mentioned in the forum rules.
But I think the Indians should continue with this tactic.
Pretty soon it will go the same way it has for a few of our senators.

Again, not in my life time, but in my grandchilds? I dream big.
Change will come, lap it up while you can fellas.
Better have your children take advantage of some of the great Caucasion teachers that educate your children on the reserves.

Better yet, just get them to school.
Look no further than what happened in the northland school division.
And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talki g about here.
Mom taught on a reserve for over 20 years.
Both mom and dad were also stationed in fort chip in the late 60's

I've heard the good and the not.

Fair enough points. How do you feel about the members who post the "why don't you get a job like everyone else"?
Those are the ones that burn my biscuits the most. For those Indians like me that have a decent job house etc it's a unique situation. You are basically integrated into society people say things like "he's a good one" or "not all of then are bad look at Dave". I understand the intent of such statements, but they are almost as bad as the idiotic "get a job" crowd. But like others have said the whole system is stupid. I for one don't need somebody (govt) patting me on the head and saying what a good little indian you are now here is some money, run along.
What do we do? Slowly disassemble the system?
Federal funding, hunting, fishing, etc it's all bs to me, doesn't bug me one way or the other. But when it comes to jobs that's what I care about, thats real freedom and real equality. So basically that means equal access to employment, I know lots of places, yes natives get first shot and the other fun story about we worked on the Rez and had to hire locals and they sucked ( duh that's because anybody good already has a job). Just a shot like anyone else without thinking you won't be seen after payday.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by riden

I really don't think it is fair for you to accuse others of dancing around your questions. You admitted a few days ago that you didn't know much about the treaty process, fair enough and good to admit. Often though, your questions show that and I have thought many are pointless.

Your take is those guys are threatened by you, my take has been that they have been very polite when your lack of knowledge comes out, and you lead with your chin.

No offense, but that is how I see it.

No offense taken.

What facts are you, smokedjoe or anyone else looking for from me? It's a fact that my opinion is that the treaties are outdated, how can you dispute my OPINION.

My question was, do you see a problem with hunting for sustenance only under the treaty agreement and hunting for trophy under only the Alberta hunting regulations and laws? If your answer is yes, for any other reason than greed please explain because I fail to see any other explanation, at least any viable explanation.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by brownbomber

Fair enough points. How do you feel about the members who post the "why don't you get a job like everyone else"?
Those are the ones that burn my biscuits the most. For those Indians like me that have a decent job house etc it's a unique situation. You are basically integrated into society people say things like "he's a good one" or "not all of then are bad look at Dave". I understand the intent of such statements, but they are almost as bad as the idiotic "get a job" crowd. But like others have said the whole system is stupid. I for one don't need somebody (govt) patting me on the head and saying what a good little indian you are now here is some money, run along.
What do we do? Slowly disassemble the system?
Federal funding, hunting, fishing, etc it's all bs to me, doesn't bug me one way or the other. But when it comes to jobs that's what I care about, thats real freedom and real equality. So basically that means equal access to employment, I know lots of places, yes natives get first shot and the other fun story about we worked on the Rez and had to hire locals and they sucked ( duh that's because anybody good already has a job). Just a shot like anyone else without thinking you won't be seen after payday.

Brownbomber, I respect your posts and hope you don't think I'm in the "go get a job" crowd, because for the record I am not. I have several treaty friends, ALL of which have a job. I hope you don't take my opinion as being meant to insult treaty Indians, it is the treaty agreement I'm not in favor of.

I understand change can't happen overnight, but everything is constantly changing so I'm just posting how I'd like to see things change. Whether it's right or wrong, it's just my opinion.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No offense taken.

What facts are you, smokedjoe or anyone else looking for from me? It's a fact that my opinion is that the treaties are outdated, how can you dispute my OPINION.

My question was, do you see a problem with hunting for sustenance only under the treaty agreement and hunting for trophy under only the Alberta hunting regulations and laws? If your answer is yes, for any other reason than greed please explain because I fail to see any other explanation, at least any viable explanation.

Where are you getting sustenence from? I don't think sustenence has anything to do with it. Natives have historically hunted for food, hides and antlers. Natives have historically used the antlers of animals for many purposes. My wife has bought several antler carvings over the years.

I don't think sustenence hunting has anythig to do with the treaties at all.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by riden

Where are you getting sustenence from? I don't think sustenence has anything to do with it. Natives have historically hunted for food, hides and antlers. Natives have historically used the antlers of animals for many purposes. My wife has bought several antler carvings over the years.

I don't think sustenence hunting has anythig to do with the treaties at all.

I don't think "historically" has anything to do re-writing the treaty agreement, historically they never had trucks, lights, bolt action high powered rifles with 18x zoom either. A historic agreement is the one that's outdated and in need of revision in my opinion.

Me using the term sustenance hunting in a new agreement is revision I would like to see to help curb abuse of the system by allowing unlimited access to what is all Canadians resource.

Now will you answer my question?

[jip911]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Kurt why wouldn't we defend the treaties, it's all we have. We don't just defend the hunting portion, we defend it in its entirety, if the presenters at the time said this expires in 150 years we would not have signed them.

I have often heard several FN members state "... If XYZ wouldn't have been in the treaties WE WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THEM"

Just what exactly do you think would have happened had you not signed them??? Do you honestly believe the "white man" would have turned the boats around and said "guess we will go elsewhere..."???? They would have come in force taken what they wanted and probably killed off any "Indians" that got in there way.

Just thinking out loud here, but I believe your elders knew that it was inevitable that the whitey's were coming and there wasn't a damn thing they could do to stop them... They had no choice but to sign the treaties...

The treaties simply avoided the inevitable battle...

I fail to see how in this day and age we are not all just Canadians white/black/red/blue or yellow.... Equal...

J

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by jip911

I have often heard several FN members state "... If XYZ wouldn't have been in the treaties WE WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THEM"

Just what exactly do you think would have happened had you not signed them??? Do you honestly believe the "white man" would have turned the boats around and said "guess we will go elsewhere..."???? They would have come in force taken what they wanted and probably killed off any "Indians" that got in there way.

Just thinking out loud here, but I believe your elders knew that it was inevitable that the whitey's were coming and there wasn't a damn thing they could do to stop them... They had no choice but to sign the treaties...

The treaties simply avoided the inevitable battle...

I fail to see how in this day and age we are not all just Canadians white/black/red/blue or yellow.... Equal...

J

I thought I was out of this but I have to comment on this post. The answer to your question is the today Indians would be in a position to legally lay claim to most of Alberta. Look what has happened in Alberta with the Lubicon Cree and the Indian land claims in British Columbia.

[Junglefisher]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

I thought I was out of this but I have to comment on this post. The answer to your question is the today Indians would be in a position to legally lay claim to most of Alberta. Look what has happened in Alberta with the Lubicon Cree and the Indian land claims in British Columbia.

Pretty much the situation in Australia. No treaty, they claimed the land under "Terra nullius" meaning that no one owned the land. 200 odd years later, courts are starting to say that the original owners still have the rights to the land.

[FisherPotch]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I don't think "historically" has anything to do re-writing the treaty agreement, historically they never had trucks, lights, bolt action high powered rifles with 18x zoom either. A historic agreement is the one that's outdated and in need of revision in my opinion.

Me using the term sustenance hunting in a new agreement is revision I would like to see to help curb abuse of the system by allowing unlimited access to what is all Canadians resource.

Very valid and exactly why the treaties are outdated! I said it, outdated! No offense intended its just reality. A system is being abused by some and it's easy to see if we look with our eyes. My thread " hiway 831 elk" is a prime example and I'd like to hear what some of the posters on this thread would have to say in my thread. Please give it a read.

The treaties stopped a bloody battle then...... But we are paying for it now! And the battle is still on going.

We need to learn from the past, take bison for example and the over harvest. We need to learn from these mistakes and this ongoing abuse and make appropriate changes. I'd like my daughter to have the same oportunities I have had. Even though my hunting and fishing oportunities has been extremely limited when compared to status natives.


IMHO treaties are a bloody joke, and I'd put my arse on the line to have them abolished! EQUALITY FOR ALL CANADIANS!! Now that's something worth fighting for!

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by jip911

I have often heard several FN members state "... If XYZ wouldn't have been in the treaties WE WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THEM"

Just what exactly do you think would have happened had you not signed them??? Do you honestly believe the "white man" would have turned the boats around and said "guess we will go elsewhere..."???? They would have come in force taken what they wanted and probably killed off any "Indians" that got in there way.

Just thinking out loud here, but I believe your elders knew that it was inevitable that the whitey's were coming and there wasn't a damn thing they could do to stop them... They had no choice but to sign the treaties...

The treaties simply avoided the inevitable battle...

I fail to see how in this day and age we are not all just Canadians white/black/red/blue or yellow.... Equal...

J

That there is about the only way to look at......realisticly.

[FisherPotch]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

I thought I was out of this but I have to comment on this post. The answer to your question is the today Indians would be in a position to legally lay claim to most of Alberta. Look what has happened in Alberta with the Lubicon Cree and the Indian land claims in British Columbia.

I think his point was there wouldn't be "today Indians"

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by FisherPotch

I think his point was there wouldn't be "today Indians"

I am not sure what you mean by this. If the Indians would not have signed the treaties there is no doubt that many of them would have died out in fighting with the police/army or through starvation. Some of them would, however, have made it though. Those small sum would today have a legal claim to most of Alberta and its resources. All citizens have the benefit of English common law that protects the weaker from the more powerful. We would expect that law to protect us from a group stronger than ours forcing us off our land. We in Alberta should be damn glad the treaties were signed and stop whining about some small little benefit that the Indians obtained (hunting) that we think hurts us.

[pickrel pat]

If i say...... Moved to say.....sweden... And became a resident, would i have the exact same hunting priveleges as everyone else?

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

If i say...... Moved to say.....sweden... And became a resident, would i have the exact same hunting priveleges as everyone else?

I am a simple red neck. I don't know what you mean by this. Do you know anything about the Sami people?

[FisherPotch]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

I am not sure what you mean by this. If the Indians would not have signed the treaties there is no doubt that many of them would have died out in fighting with the police/army or through starvation. Some of them would, however, have made it though. Those small sum would today have a legal claim to most of Alberta and its resources. All citizens have the benefit of English common law that protects the weaker from the more powerful. We would expect that law to protect us from a group stronger than ours forcing us off our land. We in Alberta should be damn glad the treaties were signed and stop whining about some small little benefit that the Indians obtained (hunting) that we think hurts us.

I'm fairly certain few Albertans would share your point of view. This is a democracy, too bad we couldnt put it to a vote and see what happens.

Small little benefit?!?! Omg you are well informed.

[Winch101]

This no doubt leads to a multitude of problems .
These lawyers are on retainers and get paid ,no matter what.
I am sure no one thought that some of these half baked ideas
Like Idle No More....we're thought up by natives. You have
A hoard of Ambulance chasers.....just living at the trough
That is Indian Affairs...".

This covers it all.....


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...55123115,d.b2I

History would have played out this way......Brits and Aboriginals have a war .
Brits likely conquer......because of firepower.....but suffer losses .
French rise up and finish off British . Fleur de lis in every provincial
Coat of arms......Poutine number one seller at McDonelle...?Cafe...

It is really untenable how ungrateful ,first inhabitants are about
Being rescued from this uncivilized existence ....History tells that
Had the Brits backed off for a while in the west .....the tribes here
Would have likely wiped each other out ,or at very least enslaved
The other.....reducing the number of treaty participants

[marxman]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

I am not sure what you mean by this. If the Indians would not have signed the treaties there is no doubt that many of them would have died out in fighting with the police/army or through starvation. Some of them would, however, have made it though. Those small sum would today have a legal claim to most of Alberta and its resources. All citizens have the benefit of English common law that protects the weaker from the more powerful. We would expect that law to protect us from a group stronger than ours forcing us off our land. We in Alberta should be damn glad the treaties were signed and stop whining about some small little benefit that the Indians obtained (hunting) that we think hurts us.

This makes no sense i dont see how you can get along in real life. I think you should go home

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Winch101

This no doubt leads to a multitude of problems .
These lawyers are on retainers and get paid ,no matter what.
I am sure no one thought that some of these half baked ideas
Like Idle No More....we're thought up by natives. You have
A hoard of Ambulance chasers.....just living at the trough
That is Indian Affairs...".

This covers it all.....


https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...55123115,d.b2I

No doubt it's the bureaucrats that are the biggest waste on the system, on both sides of the fence.

What I don't understand is why most people living on reserves don't maintain their housing? I know this has nothing to do with this thread, but in the link you posted it showed the young lady, living with her two children in a mold infested house. Why does it get to that point? Are they not allowed to do maintenance to their houses? I honestly don't know how things work in this regard.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by FisherPotch

I'm fairly certain few Albertans would share your point of view. This is a democracy, too bad we couldnt put it to a vote and see what happens.

Small little benefit?!?! Omg you are well informed.

Lets be careful about asserting the majority should decide about minority rights and privileges. A Canada wide vote on banning hunting might be a big shock to you. I may not be well informed. I am just a simple Alberta red neck. It seems to me, however, that giving the Indians the right to hunt in exchange for all the land and resources in Alberta is a small benefit to them.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by marxman

This makes no sense i dont see how you can get along in real life. I think you should go home

This is the type of bullying I saw whenever Indians or Metis OA members voiced their opinions on hunting rights. My people have been in Canada since 1840's. My home is here.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

This is the type of bullying I saw whenever Indians or Metis OA members voiced their opinions on hunting rights. My people have been in Canada since 1840's. My real home is here.

Sadly, those you are defending don't agree with you, heck after reading some of your posts I'm not sure even you agree with you! Lol, I'm kidding I think you think your a Canadian, but I don't think you give yourself enough credit.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I don't think "historically" has anything to do re-writing the treaty agreement, historically they never had trucks, lights, bolt action high powered rifles with 18x zoom either. A historic agreement is the one that's outdated and in need of revision in my opinion.

Me using the term sustenance hunting in a new agreement is revision I would like to see to help curb abuse of the system by allowing unlimited access to what is all Canadians resource.

Now will you answer my question?

But the courts, when interpreting a treaty, very much look at them historically. And their opinion is really the opinion that counts, not mine or yours.

I don't understand your question. How do you separate between meat and trophy hunting for your purpose? I don't get that at all (or see the purpose honestly). I am a meat/moose hunter and I am shooting the first antlered moose that gives me a shot. I have shot some babies, a bunch of medium sized moose and ONE big one that qualified as a trophy. How do you separate?

Honestly Kurt, I have never really understood the distinction between trophy and meat hunting anyway. You eat a big one, you eat a small one. It's all the same thing. Maybe you see something I don't, natives here are shooting cows most of the times, and the odd bull.

What is the point?

[igorot]

I guess we are all barking on the wrong tree. Laws of the land are not written on stone. If we want change then we might as well spend our effort and lobby to the right entity not with each other, after all we are all outdoors people. Lets not test mother nature as her wrath is beyond us and be grate full of her bounty.

Just my 2 cents

[marxman]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

This is the type of bullying I saw whenever Indians or Metis OA members voiced their opinions on hunting rights. My people have been in Canada since 1840's. My home is here.

Ok you can stay if youpay the bills otherwise you should leave. Suddenly you have a problem with that? You havent been paying attention.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by marxman

Ok you can stay if youpay the bills otherwise you should leave. Suddenly you have a problem with that? You havent been paying attention.

Marxman: You have lost me. I think I have been paying attention. Why should I pay the bills?