Metis hunting rights?

Originally Posted by Rafter

Flint,


Back to the T Shirt, "It Is An "Aboriginal Thing You Wouldn't Understand"

Thanks,
Rafter

Perhaps if you answered some of the legitimate questions asked here some of us of might understand but I'm guessing you'd rather we didn't. I'm guessing your motives are far from as pure as you'd like many of us to "understand".

Originally Posted by redranger15

We have the same thing going on here with the metis and wanting to hunt the whole province, just don't see myself getting worked up over something that I have know control over. If it's going to happen or not I don't have much control over it.

Well some of us here feel we do have some control. We'd still be stuck with the IMHA had we followed your tact!

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Absolutely but rights entrenched in our constitution are pretty well impossible to take away. The real fight right now is to ensure they do not receive additional rights that are not assured in the constitution...at least according to Powley.

SheepHunter,

Powley may be a thing of the past as we may all be referring to Jones-Hirsekorn in the near future.

You may find it odd, but I agree with your statement that the Metis should not "receive any additional rights that are not assured in the constitution".

Powley is just one of the many cases that are referred to in trial. I believe there were approx. 20 previous court case decisions cited at trial that had favorable decisions for the Metis. The Crown did not present one case that did not favor a Metis defendant who met the requirement as laid out by Powley. Actually they did not cite any previous litigation for good reason.

Thanks,
Rafter

Originally Posted by Rafter

SheepHunter,

Powley may be a thing of the past as we may all be referring to Jones-Hirsekorn in the near future.

You may find it odd, but I agree with your statement that the Metis should not "receive any additional rights that are not assured in the constitution".

Powley is just one of the many cases that are referred to in trial. I believe there were approx. 20 previous court case decisions cited at trial that had favorable decisions for the Metis. The Crown did not present one case that did not favor a Metis defendant who met the requirement as laid out by Powley. Actually they did not cite any previous litigation for good reason.

Thanks,
Rafter

LOL....if it was that simple this case wouldn't be in court now would it?

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Perhaps if you answered some of the legitimate questions asked here some of us of might understand but I'm guessing you'd rather we didn't. I'm guessing your motives are far from as pure as you'd like many of us to "understand".

Sheephunter,

Please list all the legitimate questions, it would be my pleasure to answer them for you.

Let me assure you my motives are "pure", just so you "understand"

Thanks,
Rafter

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

LOL....if it was that simple this case wouldn't be in court now would it?

Sheephunter,

I agree with you it is complicated.

Thanks,
Rafter

[Nester]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Not trying to discount your opinion and I think your opinion is shared by many Argo but the fact remains that the Metis are afforded certain extra rights under our constitution and that will never change. I guess my only point was that we need to keep our eye on the real issue here and that's that a group is looking for an extension of those rights. That's something that could change. It's easy to lose track of the real issue here.

Like how the constitution and supreme court of Canada gives all us Canadian`s property rights

Give your head a shake there sheephunter; they want something and there going for it. Unlike some that just use the internet to pîss and whine.



Some of these rumors that are posted here are just too ignorant to comment on

Originally Posted by Rafter

I wonder why people are so incredulous that a Metis would actually drive a few hundred miles to hunt in these times in the comfort of an air conditioned cart pulled by 350 horses.


Thanks,
Rafter

Rafter, I must say that I was really trying to gain an understanding from your posts of what it was you were actually fighting for but I think this post about sums it up........ It's not about subsistence for you is it?

Originally Posted by Nester

Give your head a shake there sheephunter; they want something and there going for it. :

No real need to shake my head, that's been pretty obvious since the Metis announced they were going to conduct an "illegal" hunt to draw this into court.

[Nester]

oh oh ....swhanky is getting an idea for yet another story

[Arn?Narn.]

let's try and stay on the dry sides of the gutter guys...

[redranger15]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Well some of us here feel we do have some control.

Let me know how that works out for you, good luck.

Originally Posted by redranger15

Let me know how that works out for you, good luck.

Worked out real well with the IMHA. Even if we lose, at least we were in the fight.......

[Arn?Narn.]

why fight when we can bitch on the interwebs..

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Rafter

During the early 1800's the Metis used to travel from Red River in what is now Manitoba all the way to the Rocky Mountains in what is now Alberta by horse and Red River cart to do their subsistance harvesting.

Thanks,
Rafter

The Metis DID NOT travel to what is now Alberta for the purpose of subsistence hunting, being defined as harvesting for FOOD. These journeys were made for the purpose of reaping financial reward through participation in the un-sustainable slaughter of bison for the robe trade!

Strict interpretation of Metis hunting in Alberta based on history suggests that they should have the right to harvest wildlife to extripation for financial reward.

My ancestors also settled in pre-confederation Alberta, and harvested wildlife for food while farming and doing business. Shouldn't all other cultures that lived and continue to live and practice their culture today have the same rights as the Metis are asking for?








From http://www.albertasource.ca/metis/en...ra_buffalo.htm

Buffalo Robe Trade
As trade decreased and the number of Métis employed in the trading companies began to diminish, Aboriginal and Métis emphasized another product, which stemmed from the bison or "buffalo" centred economy – the buffalo robe. The buffalo robe trade was part of the end of the buffalo. It has been suggested that the buffalo herds amounted to 60 million individual animals in North America before European settlement. The bison travelled in two vast herds, the southern herd and the northern herd, each with its own migration route. The northern herd travelled in a huge loop down through what is now Saskatchewan, south of Cypress Hills into Montana, and back up beside the Rockies, across the Oldman River, north across the Red Deer River and up to the North Saskatchewan, before bending back east and then south again.

A market for the robes developed in the eastern states, not only for coats and robes for carriages, but also as a source of leather for industrial belts. As prices, driven by demand, increased in the south, some of the northern Aboriginal buffalo robe product made its way into the American markets. The HBC, realizing they were losing profits, increased their prices as a result. Since much of the bison came from the Aboriginal communities it is estimated that the Aboriginal people were only eating four out of every one hundred animals they slaughtered. The Métis who at this stage sought an alternate income other than the fur trade had a number of economic strategies. They did some subsistence farming, they fished, trapped and hunted, and they combined the buffalo robe trade with freighting goods between the large trade centres. The Métis took on a middleman position, purchasing hides from the Aboriginal people and re-selling them to the HBC or to companies across the line.

Over time, the Métis took on more of the hunting and hide preparation. Whole communities moved out to the plains in the fall to hunt buffalo all winter. They settled where there was shelter, and where they knew the buffalo could be found. These outposts became winter villages, and before 1870 some were becoming permanent settlements. The Métis people from St. Albert and Lac Ste. Anne (a little north and west of Fort Edmonton) made use of the territory between Battle River and Red Deer River, settling at the river fords and around Buffalo Lake. The best known hivernant settlements were Tail Creek, on Red Deer River southwest of Buffalo Lake, and Buffalo Boss Hill, on the eastern side of the lake.

The involvement of the Aboriginal and Métis communities in the hide trade resulted in the disappearance of the buffalo and their whole economy and way of life. By 1860, it was becoming obvious to everyone in the area that the buffalo were disappearing; they were already scarce in the Canadian prairies. The Great White Hunt across the northern states, from 1870 to 1873, in which over 5000 white hunters and skinners participated, took over 3 million buffalo and spelled the end of the great herds. By 1887 it was estimated that there were 1100 buffalo left alive, and by 1890, the estimate fell to 750 animals.

From http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/dspace/handle/2149/81
open file f09.pdf near the bottom.

As early as 1850 the Metis had become commodity manufacturers, particularly of buffalo robes for eastern capitalist markets. Both Ens and Foster demonstrate that the Metis were divided into a merchant class and a buffalohunting class who worked almost entirely on the production of buffalo hides for the Eastern markets. In turn the Metis were paid in manufactured goods, upon which they increasingly relied.

The Metis then were not pushed out of Red River, rather they were
attracted by opportunity to move into the Western interior.^ Many like
Diane Payment now accept Ens's thesis but argue as well that racism and
economic hardships imposed by unfair land allocation practices contributed
to drive the Metis into the South Saskatchewan area. She notes in her book
that the Metis adapted well to their new economic realities and achieved
considerable success as farmers, merchants and professionals particularly
with the demise of the buffalo.

[Nester]

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

let's try and stay on the dry sides of the gutter guys...

»This is a topic that can`t stay out of the gutter as some members personal beliefs are rather biased








Can`t see the forest for the trees.

[Arn?Narn.]

I'm the first generation in my family born in confederation (Canadian)

My family settled in Newfoundland while the Beothuks were still around...

Sadly, ...the Beothuks were erased from existence.

My family also lived off the land for many years,..but very different from how the first nations did...

[NCC]

Trophy hunting during the the IMHA are not all rumours. I know one family who registered 2 rams, a grizzly bear, and a couple of cougars during the first year of the agreement. They also shot 2 trophy antelope and a 195" mule deer. One guy I work with shot a moose in a draw area and another guy from work shot a mule deer buck in a draw zone. These two guys had both obtained their Metis cards so they could participate in Native hockey and fastball tournaments. All four of these 4 guys are hard working upstanding people who believed they were acting within the rules of the IMHA.

If completely unregulated Metis hunting returns, there will be those who take advantage of it. The Metis Nation can pretend that they will regulate hunting abuses themselves, but what right do they have to strip a member of his Metis status? Is the new agreement going to be for all Metis people or only for those that are in good standing with the Metis Nation of Alberta? How can the Metis Nation remove someone's Metis status once it has been geneoligically traced? It would be like the government telling me I'm no longer Dutch.

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by Nester

»This is a topic that can`t stay out of the gutter as some members personal beliefs are rather biased








Can`t see the forest for the trees.

Many personal beliefs are biased...the way of the world I suppose...

[flint]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I'm not missing anything...I know exactly what they want and the supreme court of Canada has difined their rights and they are different from that of the First Nation people. I fully support the Metis rights as defined by Powley but I don't support an extension of those rights.

By the rest of comments it's pretty obvious you have no understanding of the history of the Metis people in Canada. Perhaps you should heed your own advice about studying history.

As for your other personal attacks...I say again.....

But I am flattered that you so closely follow my hunting adventures. Good to see another loyal viewer
......

I wouldn't call slaughtering 8 mule deer doe's and shooting fish in a barrel an adventure, but whatever makes you happy.

[Arn?Narn.]

In the gutter we go..head first arse over kettle !!!!!

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by flint

I wouldn't call slaughtering 8 mule deer doe's and shooting fish in a barrel an adventure, but whatever makes you happy.

More info please...

[Arn?Narn.]

Type faster SH, I gotta be to work for 3 pm...and drop the truck off too... hurry!

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

It is interesting that the First Nation people have generally not supported the Metis rights afforded in Powley.

Interesting, accurate, and relatively obvious.

The legal relationships of the Metis to the land is linked to their standing as
Aboriginal peoples, and at the same time, NOT being Aboriginal...?

Unfortuneately for both the Metis and Aboriginal Nations (and everyone else), land and available resources are finite. For the Metis to gain additional rights to natural resources, their personal gain would have to come from the exclusion of others rights or privilege to these resources.

Those who support extending Metis harvest rights do so at the expense of others.

Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.

More info please...

LOL...my "buddy" and I legally and humanely took six does in an area where biologists determined that doe populations were excessively high and issued the appropriate number of tags. Having spent a fair bit of time down there, I'd tend to agree with their assessment. All of the meat was either utilized by us or, at our expense, we processed, wrapped and had some made into sausage and jerky and it was shared with some folks in a retirement community where financial means or health prevented them from harvesting their own game.

We hunted a free ranging indigenous population of game in Africa and once again all of the meat, including internal organs was distributed to local people much in need of protein, including 75 kids in a school where there only source of meat was hunter provided but Flint's story definitely is better...LMAO


Good to see old Flint sticking to that motto of never letting the truth get in the way of a good story....LMAO


Not sure what all this has to do with the Metis though........but the lead fillings that Flint has in his teeth may explain some of his issues. But then again, he also considers me the devill.......

Now back to what is for the most part a very civil discussion about the Metis.

[Sporty]

Just an FYI about the current court cases of which people are arguing here. In simple layman terms, the Metis that live in central and southern Alberta are excluded in the current agreement because they cannot hunt in those areas and they cannot travel to the northern communities to hunt. This is what they are fighting for. It isn't so that Metis can travel from High Level to Lethbridge or where ever to hunt trophy animals. Again, trophy hunting is excluded in the agreement, this is not what they are fighting for in court.

http://www.albertametis.com/getdoc/3...tingFINAL.aspx

[Arn?Narn.]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

LOL...we legally and humanely took six does in an area where biologists determined that doe populations were excessively high and issued the appropriate number of tags. Having spent a fair bit of time down there, I'd tend to agree with their assessment. All of the meat was either utilized by us or, at our expense, we processed, wrapped and had some made into sausage and jerky and it was shared with some folks in a retirement community where financial means or health prevented them from harvesting their own game.

We hunted a free ranging indigenous population of game in Africa and once again all of the meat, including internal organs was distributed to local people much in need of protein, including 75 kids in a school where there only source of meat was hunter provided but Flint's story definitely is better...LMAO


Good to see old Flint sticking to that motto of never letting the truth get in the way of a good story....LMAO


Not sure what all this has to do with the Metis though........

Figured as much... I shoot multiple does each year,..so I didn't reaaly get the issue,..but there ya have it.

Not sure how you became Flints Target,..but I guess he has his reasons...I thought you guys usually repsonded in other threads on better terms than this one,..what's happened guys?

Do we a Dr Phil moment or can we move back to the topic...

Unless Flint you want to bring up that TJ is publicity tramp with his Video Camera and cool guns...

seriously, come on... let's step above this.

Now that it's out of everyones system and thoughts,..back to METIS hunting rights,.Maties...(get it, like a pirate. arrrrggghhh Maties! damn I kill myself )

[flint]

Originally Posted by Rafter

Flint,

Your post brought a thought to mind.

During the early 1800's the Metis used to travel from Red River in what is now Manitoba all the way to the Rocky Mountains in what is now Alberta by horse and Red River cart to do their subsistance harvesting.

I wonder why people are so incredulous that a Metis would actually drive a few hundred miles to hunt in these times in the comfort of an air conditioned cart pulled by 350 horses.

I guess these people are not aware that the Metis used to take months to go hunting and gathering. So long that they had to winter over and could not even make it back to where they started from in one season.

Back to the T Shirt, "It Is An "Aboriginal Thing You Wouldn't Understand"

Thanks,
Rafter

Your absalutely right, It is an Aboriginal Thing You Wouldn't Understand. I'm very sympathetic towards the Aboriginals and Metis and strongly feel for them of what happened in the past and present. On St. Regis Island I played lacrosse and baseball with and against the Mohawk's, and went to school with them. I make some great friends but when I played lacrosse against them I sure got the **** knocked out of me, but after the game we were friends again. These guys were fantastic athaletes, and although I never hunted with them, they are fantastic anglers.....with a three prong spear that is.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I will always avocate the First Nations and Metis. Some people, one in particular are stuck on this Powley thing because he does not what his sheep to be impacted. Thanks for the little history lesson on the hunter gathers.

Originally Posted by Sporty

Just an FYI about the current court cases of which people are arguing here. In simple layman terms, the Metis that live in central and southern Alberta are excluded in the current agreement because they cannot hunt in those areas and they cannot travel to the northern communities to hunt. This is what they are fighting for. It isn't so that Metis can travel from High Level to Lethbridge or where ever to hunt trophy animals. Again, trophy hunting is excluded in the agreement, this is not what they are fighting for in court.

http://www.albertametis.com/getdoc/3...tingFINAL.aspx

Sporty, I'd be curious to know how trophy hunting is excluded in this agreement. We already had one Metis on here saying that ram and buck taste better than their female counterparts and asking "what a trophy really was". Tell me how trophy hunting can be excluded if the meat is consumed.

[Rafter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Rafter, I must say that I was really trying to gain an understanding from your posts of what it was you were actually fighting for but I think this post about sums it up........ It's not about subsistence for you is it?

Sheephunter,

Empathy and law is the thrust of my posts.

Subsistence a Good question and I am glad to clarify this for you.

I am a little different that most people you come accross. I actually live off the land for up to 10 months a year at times. My nearest neighbor is precisely 100 miles away and that is the same for the nearest road. Of course one has to subsistence hunt and gather with a lifestyle like that. Constitutional rights do not even enter into survival. There are many people non Aboriginal and Aboriginal that subsist in that lifestyle. So I guess the short answer is subsistence is important to me personally. I would hazard a guess that subsistence would be paramount to any one in that lifestyle.

Thanks,
Rafter