Status Natives

[Winch101]

I want the hunting rights taken away , reserves turned into towns
Where residents own land and pay taxes. Assimilated into Canadian society .
Quit biting the hand that feeds you .
Like Quebec FN want to be left alone to manage all their own affairs....
Live as they want .....our only part ,Canadian taxpayer .....is to pay the bill .
Not going to happen ,in fact the number of Canadians ,particularly new ones
Who think these people should get nothing ,until they are productive members of the Dominion is growing ...you may have been tricked by the Brits
But hey a better deal than what Argentinian natives got at the hands of Prime
Minister Roca. And really first thing that should be done is prosecute all
The fraud that has occurred at the band level for the betterment of all natives
....you certainly have some rights but no more than ,joe average Canadian.
The reason Natives feel they have been done wrong by our government
Is the same reason we as Canadians feel we have been occasionally done wrong
Corrupt Govt . The answer is to get more natives elected to parliament ,
All other immigrant communities are doing what they can to get better
Representation in Parliament... Quit trying to get the free ride , lead
For a change ...Get Atleo. Elected.....your not going anywhere in fact
Your being reigned in....Read the new education format for reserves
Released today by the Feds.....

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

This is what treaty six says about the Indian's right to hunt and fish:

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government.

I believe in honoring agreements even if as time passes the terms of the agreement turn out not to be in my favor. The Indians were told they and their descendants would have the right to hunt and fish. When they signed the treaty this is one thing they would have clearly understood. Now you want the government to take that away from the descendants because it may be interfering with your desire to hang a large set of antlers on your wall. In my opinion, that dog don't hunt.

No, I don't want that right taken away from you, I'd like to see it used as it was intended, for food, not how you like it as a kill a trophy any time you see one. If you truely believe in honoring your treaty agreements in the way they were intended, why would you have a problem with hunting only for sustenance, leave the trophy hunting for license holders and abide by the Alberta hunting and fishing regulations for that? Other than greed of course.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, I don't want that right taken away from you, I'd like to see it used as it was intended, for food, not how you like it as a kill a trophy any time you see one. If you truely believe in honoring your treaty agreements in the way they were intended, why would you have a problem with hunting only for sustenance, leave the trophy hunting for license holders and abide by the Alberta hunting and fishing regulations for that? Other than greed of course.

A good question wrt your concerns is whether or not FN's people historically regarded large and majestic specimens as being particularly special or as it is, culturally significant.

[Lefty-Canuck]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

A good question wrt your concerns is whether or not FN's people historically regarded large and majestic specimens as being particularly special or as it is, culturally significant.

Made they used the P&H scoring system?

LC

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

A good question wrt your concerns is whether or not FN's people historically regarded large and majestic specimens as being particularly special or as it is, culturally significant.

In all the westerns I watched, not once did I see them sporting a huge rack on their head dress. Probably a good thing tho, especially if they were trophy hunters back then.

I could be wrong tho.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Lefty-Canuck

Made they used the P&H scoring system?

LC

How do you say, "That's not 200inches!" in Chipewyan?

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

In all the westerns I watched, not once did I see them sporting a huge rack on their head dress. Probably a good thing tho, especially if they were trophy hunters back then.

I could be wrong tho.

hahahahaha

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, I don't want that right taken away from you, I'd like to see it used as it was intended, for food, not how you like it as a kill a trophy any time you see one. If you truely believe in honoring your treaty agreements in the way they were intended, why would you have a problem with hunting only for sustenance, leave the trophy hunting for license holders and abide by the Alberta hunting and fishing regulations for that? Other than greed of course.

I no this doesn't apply for every situation, but I don't think it would be right to only let natives harvest non trophy animals. Trophy animals are harder to hunt, and I am sure some natives enjoy the challenge just as much as you and I. Natives have been going after trophy animals long before the treaties were written. Kind of like a boy becoming a man, If you get my meaning. Let me be clear I don't agree with natives being able to harvest a truck load of trophy animals. I do know that natives have a structure, some stay home and take care of kids, some make stuff, some work, some drink all day every day. Then there are some that hunt for the whole village. That might explain some of the truck loads of animals some are seeing.

I know of people who have gone up to Wabasca to harvest there trophy buck with the help of natives. The natives don't want to eat the old tough mature bucks.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

A good question wrt your concerns is whether or not FN's people historically regarded large and majestic specimens as being particularly special or as it is, culturally significant.

In all honesty tho, maybe they were and still could be even if they were to follow the Alberta hunting regulations. I am both a hunter for sustenance and for trophy and follow the regs. Some years my freezer does not overflowith and there's of few open spots on my trophy wall, but Safeway is only a few blocks away, and I can look on the forum or watch wild tv to get my trophy fix until I get my chance to chase them again next year.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, I don't want that right taken away from you, I'd like to see it used as it was intended, for food, not how you like it as a kill a trophy any time you see one. If you truely believe in honoring your treaty agreements in the way they were intended, why would you have a problem with hunting only for sustenance, leave the trophy hunting for license holders and abide by the Alberta hunting and fishing regulations for that? Other than greed of course.

But the thing is we don't know what value the Indians at the time of treaty put on large antlers. For all we know the real reason they hunted was to get a large set of antlers to hang in the rec room in their teepees. Maybe what they were really after was their friends to coming over, having a beer and acknowledging what great hunters they were. Maybe the sustenance thing was secondary and in fact most of the meat eventually got thrown out because it was freezer burned.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

I no this doesn't apply for every situation, but I don't think it would be right to only let natives harvest non trophy animals. Trophy animals are harder to hunt, and I am sure some natives enjoy the challenge just as much as you and I. Natives have been going after trophy animals long before the treaties were written. Kind of like a boy becoming a man, If you get my meaning. Let me be clear I don't agree with natives being able to harvest a truck load of trophy animals. I do know that natives have a structure, some stay home and take care of kids, some make stuff, some work, some drink all day every day. Then there are some that hunt for the whole village. That might explain some of the truck loads of animals some are seeing.

I know of people who have gone up to Wabasca to harvest there trophy buck with the help of natives. The natives don't want to eat the old tough mature bucks.

I'm not doubting they like to hunt for trophies as I do, but they can hunt under the Alberta regulations and still trophy hunt. I do.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

But the thing is we don't know what value the Indians at the time of treaty put on large antlers. For all we know the real reason they hunted was to get a large set of antlers to hang in the rec room in their teepees. Maybe what they were really after was their friends to coming over, having a beer and acknowledging what great hunters they were. Maybe the sustenance thing was secondary and in fact most of the meat eventually got thrown out because it was freezer burned.

And maybe, to show that they were a true trophy hunters they only killed one a year instead of a pile and only picking the bestest one to show off to their friends while drinking beers and feeding their dogs freezer burnt meat?

For all we know, maybe they didn't even like drinking beer with their buddies back then.


I don't want to pick fights with anyone, I'm sure you get the point I made, and nobody has yet come up with a good reason why it should not be that way. If I had free rein to hunt as I please when I please I wouldn't want it taken away from me either. Doesn't mean it's right tho.

[dmcbride]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

And maybe, to show that they were a true trophy hunters they only killed one a year instead of a pile and only picking the bestest one to show off to their friends while drinking beers and feeding their dogs freezer burnt meat?

For all we know, maybe they didn't even like drinking beer with their buddies back then.


I don't want to pick fights with anyone, I'm sure you get the point I made, and nobody has yet come up with a good reason why it should not be that way. If I had free rein to hunt as I please when I please I wouldn't want it taken away from me either. Doesn't mean it's right tho.

I would agree with 1 or 2 trophy tags per native per year.

[Dacotensis]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

But the thing is we don't know what value the Indians at the time of treaty put on large antlers. For all we know the real reason they hunted was to get a large set of antlers to hang in the rec room in their teepees. Maybe what they were really after was their friends to coming over, having a beer and acknowledging what great hunters they were. Maybe the sustenance thing was secondary and in fact most of the meat eventually got thrown out because it was freezer burned.

When paragraphs like this enter into the discussion, we need to take a step back and think what one is trying to convey in the topic at hand.
Rediculousness abounds by what you wrote. Really bud?
Is this how you want to be represented?
The current treaties do nothing to help Canadian Indians.
In fact they more than likely keep them under thumb.
If you all are ok with that, then carry on.
Why are so few able to recognize the detriment of the agreements?

Kurt, you have done a heck of a job articulating what many feel, but can't be bothered to say.

Apathy will get us nowhere.

It will take a tremendous amount of effort to change the current agreement.
And change is allowable within the provisions of the treaty made with the Indians.

I think there would be more of a chance with eliminating landowner tags and outfitter allocations first.
It would also make a big impact on hunting quality and opportunity for the common Alberta hunter.

[JRsMav]

Im not entirely familiar with the treaty rights themselves. Are status natives only allowed free reign on reserve land? Or are they able to harvest on crown as well? I could care less if they pillage game on their own land. Have at it. Problem for me is if status natives are able to hunt crown as the only reason they would hunt crown is their reserve lands are destroyed due to over hunting. For a group of people to claim they are one with the land, they sure take a hell of a lot when it comes to game.


I have no doubts the actual treaty agreement will in fact change in this lifetime and know for a fact a push will be coming from a certain group and I cant wait to see the media coverage of the status natives going up in arms. It will happen gents.....just be patient.

[Dacotensis]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

I would agree with 1 or 2 trophy tags per native per year.

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.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by Dacotensis

When paragraphs like this enter into the discussion, we need to take a step back and think what one is trying to convey in the topic at hand.
Rediculousness abounds by what you wrote. Really bud?
Is this how you want to be represented?
The current treaties do nothing to help Canadian Indians.
In fact they more than likely keep them under thumb.
If you all are ok with that, then carry on.
Why are so few able to recognize the detriment of the agreements?

Kurt, you have done a heck of a job articulating what many feel, but can't be bothered to say.

Apathy will get us nowhere.

It will take a tremendous amount of effort to change the current agreement.
And change is allowable within the provisions of the treaty made with the Indians.

I think there would be more of a chance with eliminating landowner tags and outfitter allocations first.
It would also make a big impact on hunting quality and opportunity for the common Alberta hunter.

Perhaps you have a point. What I was trying to highlight was the implication in Kurt's post 395 that we should determine Indian hunting activities at the time of treaty on the basis of westerns he has watched. We all have access to computers. The history of Indians in Canada, their plight at the time of signing treaties, the treaty negotiations, terms of treaty and how the treaties have been interpreted is easily accessed by anyone of us. What I am getting is that Kurt doesn't know anything about these things and has no intention of studying them. He however feels he can make demands to change the constitution of Canada because he believes Indian hunting rights may effect his ability to shoot a trophy.

[SmokinJoe]

As far as trophie animals go here's the deal. If First Nations people hunted trophies, it would stop us from killing females of the representative species, as you may know killing a cow moose is like killing 5,

Dear Winch, as simple as you sound it would seem that you have the whole world figured out.... Not. As far as taxes go I bet I paid more in taxes than you made last year, live in a house 2 times the size, and most likely have 3 times the education. Treaties are here to stay, when I woke up this morning the sun rose, I looked at the river it was still flowing, even had a green patch or two on my yard.


As for the rest of it, I do trophy hunt, but also have a handful of tags in the truck, I still put in for special sheep draws and suffield elk, I buy waterfowl stamps and obide by limits, why? Because I respect that people put in for draws their whole life for a chance to hunt these areas. As an outfitter I support the ideas of trophy zones, even tho I don't own tags in the areas. As Indians were strong believers in conservation and there is effort in place to give the education to our hunters to make sure generations to come will have the same hunting opportunity as us now.

We didn't write the treaties, we just live their consequences, have since they were signed and will until the end of time. There needs to be more light shined on the topic so that both sides understand each other.

As far as government handouts and misappropriation of funds at the band level? The system is desgned to fail, by the time money gets to the Indian, it's filtered down thru levels of government supposed to legislate how it's spent. Then once it reaches the band level there's not enough to get by, so most councils take the money and waste it on their family. Sad but true. Education is another part that is designed to fail. Most of our post secondary is used for academic driven careers, so there's a pile of Indian out there with band administration degrees but only one band administrator in each band.... Imagine if there was trade schools where we could turn out welders, carpenters, ect that were Indian operated for Indians, then these Indians that you think are draining the tax accounts would be paying taxes working off reserve. As far as the tax dollars being used for Indians.... Well I hate to burst your bubble but it does not come from tax dollars, in fact it comes from oil revenue from federal land, which we agreed to share, but still we are shorted, government says that's our share of roads and infrastructure, but we still seem to hear complaints from hillbillies about how we're on a free ride.

I've said it once before and I will say it again. These treaties are laws that help form this great nation of ours, if you don't like them. Leave, I'm sure we can replace you with a nice phillipeno family.

The word Indian sucks, Columbus was lost looking for India, then we saved his sorry ass and he called us Indians. Thank god he was not looking for Nigeria

[waterhawk]

SmokinJoe: Even worse, what if Columbus had been looking for Turkey.

[BeeGuy]

Smokinjoe

Great post.

Btw, if Columbus was looking for Nigeria, fn's would be called African americans? Right?

[SmokinJoe]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Smokinjoe

Great post.

Btw, if Columbus was looking for Nigeria, fn's would be called African americans? Right?

Lol of course

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Perhaps you have a point. What I was trying to highlight was the implication in Kurt's post 395 that we should determine Indian hunting activities at the time of treaty on the basis of westerns he has watched. We all have access to computers. The history of Indians in Canada, their plight at the time of signing treaties, the treaty negotiations, terms of treaty and how the treaties have been interpreted is easily accessed by anyone of us. What I am getting is that Kurt doesn't know anything about these things and has no intention of studying them. He however feels he can make demands to change the constitution of Canada because he believes Indian hunting rights may effect his ability to shoot a trophy.

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.

[waterhawk]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No, I don't want that right taken away from you, I'd like to see it used as it was intended, for food, not how you like it as a kill a trophy any time you see one. If you truely believe in honoring your treaty agreements in the way they were intended, why would you have a problem with hunting only for sustenance, leave the trophy hunting for license holders and abide by the Alberta hunting and fishing regulations for that? Other than greed of course.

Kurt: I believe we have pretty well taken this issue around the track. You have done a good job in presenting your side of this debate. The above quote would seem to indicate you think I am an Indian. In fact I am a white red neck like you. I can't stand a bully. Sometime after I became a AO member, I noticed that whenever a thread like this came up and an Indian or Metis tried to present their side of things, they were immediately attacked in the most bully like fashion. When I saw that, I decided that in the future I would take the side of the bullied.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Perhaps you have a point. What I was trying to highlight was the implication in Kurt's post 395 that we should determine Indian hunting activities at the time of treaty on the basis of westerns he has watched. We all have access to computers. The history of Indians in Canada, their plight at the time of signing treaties, the treaty negotiations, terms of treaty and how the treaties have been interpreted is easily accessed by anyone of us. What I am getting is that Kurt doesn't know anything about these things and has no intention of studying them. He however feels he can make demands to change the constitution of Canada because he believes Indian hunting rights may effect his ability to shoot a trophy.

Originally Posted by waterhawk

Kurt: I believe we have pretty well taken this issue around the track. You have done a good job in presenting your side of this debate. The above quote would seem to indicate you think I am an Indian. In fact I am a white red neck like you. I can't stand a bully. Sometime after I became a AO member, I noticed that whenever a thread like this came up and an Indian or Metis tried to present their side of things, they were immediately attacked in the most bully like fashion. When I saw that, I decided that in the future I would take the side of the bullied.

Wow, never saw that coming!

I never did any bulling tho, at least not that I know of or intended to. I think pretty much all the bases have been covered over the last 14 or so pages, and I tried to keep it civil the whole time. The outdoors happens to be something I'm very passionate about, and if I get a chance to speak my mind on it, I usually do.


You could have made things a lot less complicated for me by stating you were the same kind of Canadian native I am tho. Would saved a few pages of my rambling.

[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. To us these treaties are sacred, and it's an insult to have you say they are outdated, so is the bible but people still follow it. As far as written documents go these treaties are our bible. It has nothing to do with kill at will, we will do anything to ensure the future generations understand where they come from, being treaty, so they have a means to know where they are going

[Kurt505]

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. To us these treaties are sacred, and it's an insult to have you say they are outdated, so is the bible but people still follow it. As far as written documents go these treaties are our bible. It has nothing to do with kill at will, we will do anything to ensure the future generations understand where they come from, being treaty, so they have a means to know where they are going

I'm Canadian, and a hunter, and this is a Canadian outdoorsmen forum, and I have a right to my opinion on the topic. That's all it is, my opinion and nothing more. If the shoe was on the other foot I'm sure you would share my opinion because in spite of race or religion we both obviously enjoy hunting.

[SmokinJoe]

No I have learnt to keep my mouth shut when it comes to something I know nothing about

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by smokinjoe

no i have learnt to keep my mouth shut when it comes to something i know nothing about

lol, now I know your full of it.

[SmokinJoe]

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

[Red Bullets]

Hey Kurt,

If the native hunters are taking all the 'trophy' animals....How come when you look in all the record books and big buck magazines most of the glorified 'trophy hunters' are white?