Status Natives

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Would I like them revisited? You bet!

Would I like to see their hunting rights taken away? Not under new treaty agreement. Only if abuse is found. I would like to see mandatory destruction of any trophy attributes, and mandatory harvest registration of all animals taken under all sustenance harvest rights. Also I would like to see an application for sustenance right where by it is shown the need to hunt for sustenance before a license is granted.

There is (unless laws have changed) a sustenance hunting licence available for ALL Albertans and Canadians living so far away from society or north of a certain parallel, and that those people can prove their hardship.

Not too many double income families need to be hunting for sustenance so that would sure eliminate alot of un-needed hunting. Heck, alot of non treaty hunters donate their meat to the food banks and distribute the meat amongst non hunting families and friends, proving they don't need the sustenance or to hunt.

[Red Bullets]

oops.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

The only reason you have RIGHTS to hunting that other Canadians don't have is from an outdated treaty over a century old.

My kids' great grandmother on their moms side is 106 years old. She happened to be full blood Cree. There are elders still alive... that makes their treaties very much valid and not outdated.

[elkhunter11]

There is (unless laws have changed) a sustenance hunting licence available for all Albertans and Canadians living so far away from society or north of a certain parallel. Should be no need to destroy antlers ro skullplates.

Given that certain people go trophy hunting, under the guise of sustenance hunting, then there is a legitimate reason to ask that the skullplates are broken. If the animal really was killed for sustenance, regardless of who it was killed by, they shouldn't care if it can't be officially scored as a trophy. Only a trophy hunter should care if his trophy can't be officially scored.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

There is (unless laws have changed) a sustenance hunting licence available for ALL Albertans and Canadians living so far away from society or north of a certain parallel, and that those people can prove their hardship.

Not too many double income families need to be hunting for sustenance so that would sure eliminate alot of un-needed hunting. Heck, alot of non treaty hunters donate their meat to the food banks and distribute the meat amongst non hunting families and friends, proving they don't need the sustenance or to hunt.

Exactly, ANYONE who wants to hunt but does not need to, should have to buy a license and follow the laws outlined in the Alberta hunting regulations. ANYONE who needs to hunt for sustenance should be allowed to under condition they register the harvest and destroy all score alb trophy attributes. Where is the flaw or foul in this?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

My kids' great grandmother on their moms side is 106 years old. She happened to be full blood Cree. There are elders still alive... that makes their treaties very much valid and not outdated.

Fine, if they were alive when the treaty was first drafted, I see no problem with THEM keeping their treaty agreement as is. All others need not apply.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Exactly, ANYONE who wants to hunt but does not need to, should have to buy a license and follow the laws outlined in the Alberta hunting regulations. ANYONE who needs to hunt for sustenance should be allowed to under condition they register the harvest and destroy all score alb trophy attributes. Where is the flaw or foul in this?

Anyone who wants to fill the freezer should be able to?

Maybe at safeway...

There aren't enough animals to support this.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

As for those who think that the hunting camps are a myth, YOUR WRONG. I have seen it first hand, west of Flatbush in the Athabasca river valley before the days of cell phones with cameras. I'm not sure if the nay sayers are naive of in denial but either way I don't care because I know for FACT they are wrong.

I use the term 'white' to define all non status non treaty people. Not racist. I am white.

You do realize that different bands of indigenous people have traditional hunting grounds and that before good roads were also traditional wintering grounds. This was tradition long before the treaties. I am sure there are native community hunters that hunt also to supply their community elders and handicapped people with meat.


You are worried about a large camp of sustenance hunters?... how about the tens of thousands of 'white' non-sustenance hunters turned loose with guns and equipment every Sept to Dec.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Anyone who wants to fill the freezer should be able to?

Maybe at safeway...

There aren't enough animals to support this.

Just how many people do you suppose would
A) be granted the license if it were ever become reality
B) have the means and skills to make it worth their while?

I would hope they have more common sense when re-writing the law, wouldn't you?

[elkhunter11]

You are worried about a large camp of sustenance hunters?... how about the tens of thousands of 'white' non-sustenance hunters turned loose with guns and equipment every Sept to Dec.

Unlike the unregulated sustenance hunters, those non-sustenance hunters have to abide by hunting seasons and bag limits,so their harvest is monitored, and it shouldn't negatively effect the game populations.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Exactly, ANYONE who wants to hunt but does not need to, should have to buy a license and follow the laws outlined in the Alberta hunting regulations. ANYONE who needs to hunt for sustenance should be allowed to under condition they register the harvest and destroy all score alb trophy attributes. Where is the flaw or foul in this?

I'm not implying flaw or foul , but if a person is licenced for sustenance hunting and manages to harvest a trophy class animal... that is the luck of the hunt. It is in the best interest of a sustenance hunter to take the biggest animals to supply the most meat. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the 'trophy aspect' of their kill just like the regularly licenced hunters? It makes no sense to have to destroy anything anything taken legally.

[elkhunter11]

Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the 'trophy aspect' of their kill just like the regularly licenced hunters?

Because they are supposed to be sustenance hunters, not trophy hunters. If you prevented them from keeping trophies, my prediction, is that less trophy rams, and less trophy moose deer and elk, would be killed by these so called "sustenance" hunters.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

I use the term 'white' to define all non status non treaty people. Not racist. I am white.

You do realize that different bands of indigenous people have traditional hunting grounds and that before good roads were also traditional wintering grounds. This was tradition long before the treaties. I am sure there are native community hunters that hunt also to supply their community elders and handicapped people with meat.


You are worried about a large camp of sustenance hunters?... how about the tens of thousands of 'white' non-sustenance hunters turned loose with guns and equipment every Sept to Dec.

Never said I was worried about sustenance hunters, hunting camps or whitey in the bush. I said I don't agree with the treaties written over a century ago, and that all Canadians should have equal opertunities both to hunt and pay taxes.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

I'm not implying flaw or foul , but if a person is licenced for sustenance hunting and manages to harvest a trophy class animal... that is the luck of the hunt. It is in the best interest of a sustenance hunter to take the biggest animals to supply the most meat. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the 'trophy aspect' of their kill just like the regularly licenced hunters? It makes no sense to have to destroy anything anything taken legally.

What Elk said.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Never said I was worried about sustenance hunters, hunting camps or whitey in the bush. I said I don't agree with the treaties written over a century ago, and that all Canadians should have equal opertunities both to hunt and pay taxes.

I apologize. Sorry to imply you were worried or put words in your mouth. I understand your concerns are with treaties.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Because they are supposed to be sustenance hunters, not trophy hunters. If you prevented them from keeping trophies, my prediction, is that less trophy rams, and less trophy moose deer and elk, would be killed by these so called "sustenance" hunters.

The term 'trophy' has nothing to do with it when a person is out hunting with a sustenance hunting licence or right. A sustenance hunter is hunting to supply meat. The biggest animals have the most meat.

If i am hunting for meat I am not going to shoot a 100 lb. yearling doe if there is a 300 lb. buck too.





__________________________________________________ ______________
100 million plants were killed by vegetarians today. Stop the slaughter.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Just how many people do you suppose would
A) be granted the license if it were ever become reality
B) have the means and skills to make it worth their while?

I would hope they have more common sense when re-writing the law, wouldn't you?

Maybe I'm missing something?

What barriers are there now to stop people from putting meat in the freezer?

I think most hunters are doing just this, and if they are lucky enough to get an animal with a respectable head piece, bonus.

[elkhunter11]

The term 'trophy' has nothing to do with it when a person is out hunting with a sustenance hunting licence or right. A sustenance hunter is hunting to supply meat. The biggest animals have the most meat.

If i am hunting for meat I am not going to shoot a 100 lb. yearling doe if there is a 300 lb. buck too.

If you are only out to gather meat for sustenance, it makes no sense to drive hundreds of kilometers, and spend days to shoot a trophy ram, or a trophy elk, or a trophy deer, when you can kill an animal that has just as much, or more meat, but whose antlers or horns don't score as high, closer to home, in much less time.

I think most hunters are doing just this, and if they are lucky enough to get an animal with a respectable head piece, bonus.

In some cases, certain "sustenance" hunters pass up animals that offer just as much meat, in order to target animals that have higher scoring horns or antlers.

[pickrel pat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

If you are only out to gather meat for sustenance, it makes no sense to drive hundreds of kilometers, and spend days to shoot a trophy ram, or a trophy elk, or a trophy deer, when you can kill an animal that has just as much, or more meat, but whose antlers or horns don't score as high, closer to home, in much less time.



In some cases, certain "sustenance" hunters pass up animals that offer just as much meat, in order to target animals that have higher scoring horns or antlers.

So?
And as a general rule, big head gear ussually means big meat.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Maybe I'm missing something?

What barriers are there now to stop people from putting meat in the freezer?

I think most hunters are doing just this, and if they are lucky enough to get an animal with a respectable head piece, bonus.

No offence intended but do you hunt Bee? It's not like shopping, some people have a hard time finding an animal to harvest, some have a hard time pulling the trigger on a legal animal for whatever reason. I have passed on several animals this year because they were not big enough to feed my family for the winter and I have been hunting since September first, I'm restricted to using only a bow and arrow until it opens for rifle. When you only get one tag you have to make it count. If I don't find one by November 30 my chances are done for the year.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Given that certain people go trophy hunting, under the guise of sustenance hunting, then there is a legitimate reason to ask that the skullplates are broken. If the animal really was killed for sustenance, regardless of who it was killed by, they shouldn't care if it can't be officially scored as a trophy. Only a trophy hunter should care if his trophy can't be officially scored.

I understand your concern that sustenance hunters should not be able to score their kill. Only trophy hunters should have that concern.

It is a hard topic to broach because trophy hunting and sustenance hunting are two different beasts.


To me trophy hunting is all about glory. The only glory that should come from hunting is from the telling of hunting stories around the campfire.

Sustenance hunting is feeding yourself and family.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by pickrel pat

So?
And as a general rule, big head gear ussually means big meat.

Big head gear also means tough meat. Any true sustenance hunter knows this. I always look for a 1-1/2yr old bull moose when hunting for sustenance, if I cannot connect with one during archery season, and I don't have a draw for rifle, I look for a 3pt or larger bull elk because that's all I'm legally allowed to hunt in my area other than whitetail deer. I will only shoot a whitetail deer with a trophy rack and then use most of the meat for sausage.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

No offence intended but do you hunt Bee? It's not like shopping, some people have a hard time finding an animal to harvest, some have a hard time pulling the trigger on a legal animal for whatever reason. I have passed on several animals this year because they were not big enough to feed my family for the winter and I have been hunting since September first, I'm restricted to using only a bow and arrow until it opens for rifle. When you only get one tag you have to make it count. If I don't find one by November 30 my chances are done for the year.

And then next year you will hunt harder. If you don't fill your tag... luckily there are lots of no-need hunters donating wild meat to the food bank. You can get your meat there. Thank heavens.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

In some cases, certain "sustenance" hunters pass up animals that offer just as much meat, in order to target animals that have higher scoring horns or antlers.

And those hunters are misguided and abusing their hunting right. No matter what system is used, there will be abusers.

There are lots of sustenance hunters that do not hunt in this way. Just happy to get a shot at and harvest an animal.

[Red Bullets]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Big head gear also means tough meat.

Tough meat is good for sustenance ... takes longer to digest so you don't have to eat as often. haha

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

And then next year you will hunt harder. If you don't fill your tag... luckily there are lots of no-need hunters donating wild meat to the food bank. You can get your meat there. Thank heavens.

I'm not in need of making any trips to the food bank, but my family and myself prefer elk or moose to beef, and when there is a massive ecoli recall, most times we have no worries. Pretty much the only time we eat beef is when we have company or the odd time I feel like eating a fatty steak. Without having treaty status, most of the red meat and almost all of the fish we eat is harvested from the wild. We hardly have the need to buy fish or meat, why the need for anyone to have special privledges?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

Tough meat is good for sustenance ... takes longer to digest so you don't have to eat as often. haha

Touché!

[rielbowhunter]

Originally Posted by Red Bullets

I'm not implying flaw or foul , but if a person is licenced for sustenance hunting and manages to harvest a trophy class animal... that is the luck of the hunt. It is in the best interest of a sustenance hunter to take the biggest animals to supply the most meat. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy the 'trophy aspect' of their kill just like the regularly licenced hunters? It makes no sense to have to destroy anything anything taken legally.

I agree with this. I think men have always took pride in killing the biggest and the most, It sure is in a lot of us, and I am sure it was in the Indians that signed the treaty's. That why hunting and fishing is in the treaty's. They loved to hunt and fish ,as much as YOU AND ME!

One more thing , the treaty's I have read. don't read substance hunting only. They just read simple English ," the right to hunt and fish."

[elkhunter11]

One more thing , the treaty's I have read. don't read substance hunting only. They just read simple English ," the right to hunt and fish."

They also include the provision for the government of Canada to impose regulations on that hunting and fishing.

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,

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by rielbowhunter

I agree with this. I think men have always took pride in killing the biggest and the most, It sure is in a lot of us, and I am sure it was in the Indians that signed the treaty's. That why hunting and fishing is in the treaty's. They loved to hunt and fish ,as much as YOU AND ME!

One more thing , the treaty's I have read. don't read substance hunting only. They just read simple English ," the right to hunt and fish."

Of course you agree with that, it's a license to kill as many trophies, at any time, with any weapon you want. What's wrong with buying a license and using a tag to legally take a trophy? You'd get one chance a year, just like every non-treaty Canadian gets to do. There is no good reason not to agree with sustenance only hunting where the trophy aspects are destroyed other than greed.