NS "Lobster War"

[wwbirds]

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. The seasons were not required for conservation then or now due to over harvesting. They are required now due to habitat and game loss. You cant have millions of people settle on huge tracts of land called cities displacing game and expect natives to return to the old ways. the only thing they have is the security of the treaties which guarantee harvest rights.
As has already been pointed out I dare say highliner(or fill in the commercially licensed company) ships probably take more lobster and fish in a day than natives would harvest in a year. That right is guaranteed until the law changes. Commercial licenses should be adjusted down if any catch needs to be reduced.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. The seasons were not required for conservation then or now due to over harvesting. They are required now due to habitat and game loss. You cant have millions of people settle on huge tracts of land called cities displacing game and expect natives to return to the old ways. the only thing they have is the security of the treaties which guarantee harvest rights.
As has already been pointed out I dare say highliner(or fill in the commercially licensed company) ships probably take more lobster and fish in a day than natives would harvest in a year. That right is guaranteed until the law changes. Commercial licenses should be adjusted down if any catch needs to be reduced.

Best post of the year.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. The seasons were not required for conservation then or now due to over harvesting. They are required now due to habitat and game loss. You cant have millions of people settle on huge tracts of land called cities displacing game and expect natives to return to the old ways. the only thing they have is the security of the treaties which guarantee harvest rights.
As has already been pointed out I dare say highliner(or fill in the commercially licensed company) ships probably take more lobster and fish in a day than natives would harvest in a year. That right is guaranteed until the law changes. Commercial licenses should be adjusted down if any catch needs to be reduced.

Please tell me why it’s ok for a fn person to feed his hungry family but not ok for a white person to do the same thing? Since it’s 2020 I’m talking about 2020.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Please tell me why it’s ok for a fn person to feed his hungry family but not ok for a white person to do the same thing? Since it’s 2020 I’m talking about 2020.

It is ok.

Western whites are told to go to work and pay taxes, then to safeway, sobeys, no frills, co-op or any other grocer and pay more taxes, in our highly taxed vehicles on higher taxed roads paying for extremely taxed fossil fuel.

Once a year we are invited to pay for the priveledge of taking a queen's animal, we can fish for small limited amounts of fish if we pay, and we can shoot a few geese and ducks and chickens if we pay.

Nothing says we can not feed our hungry families, but we have to pay to do it. Heavily.

If you want walleye or pike 24/7/365 go see the guy on the corner of hwy61 and 17 Lloydminster, he will sell you netted fish any day, without receipt or proof of any kind, 0 tax and 100% chance he is not keeping any books at all, because he does not pay tax on anything. I am not sure what the consequences would be of having 20 walleye in your freezer with no valid license or bill of sale, but I am betting seizure, forfeiture of hunting and fishing rights for 3 years, and a lengthy court case. Fair how?

Your heritage has defined this for you, theirs for the FN.

[wwbirds]

Kurt, Ken or myself can feed the family with a license to hunt or fish. Yes you must buy a license and it is only available for a specified time. I probably could have bought a herd of black angus cattle for what I spend on hunting and the license is the smallest part of that experience. Natives were granted a right to hunt under the treaties and a very common rule of law is that rights once granted can never be extinquished. Your right to fish or hunt like mine ends when the license expires and some believe that if resources continue to decline no matter what the reason it will be the number of licenses curtailed not native rights.
You and I do not have that right and yes our ancestors (or mostly yours negotiated that in the treaties)
There were many errors made with treaties on both sides back in the 1860's some favored native rights but most favored settlers churches and the government.
One of the biggest fiascos in Canadian history concerns treaties with Ottawa Objibway natives in northern Ontario. Objibway tribes were prevalent from Ottawa to Thunder Bay in those days. My family comes from the Nip****ing group which stretches from Ottawa to about French River in the south and north and west to about Sturgeon falls on the north shore or perhaps Sudbury. Keep in mind there was no highway 11 north or highway 17 west. The big treatie was signed near North bay intending to have the ni****ing Objibway settled. NO signage pointed north or west to where other objibways settlements existed. Often when another clan was encountered wanting the same deal the Nippising tribe got the response from the settlers was that was a one time offer which expired on the specific date of the signing but we could give you this (sustantially less). some clans along the way signed off on the adendum objibway treatie and some refused. Many claimed it was never offered as the settlers did not come to their area as is the case of the Objibway claiming rights to the land from Kirkland Lake to Temagami being a contentious land claim resolved in Supreme court in about 2001. A band near Lake Temagami claimed they were never signatories to the Ni****ing treaty although they were Objibway. Province of Ontario without a treaty started selling and promising homesteaders land in this district in 1880 + or -.
After 25 years in court they told Province that right to the land was still vested with tribe and they should take remedial action. this is big cottage country and to my knowledge no remedial action has been taken so I wouldnt be buying lakeshore property any where in that region
Just because DFO or nova scotia has issued commercial licenses to lobster fisherman doesnt mean the native right to lobster has been extinquished.
Wouldnt be the first time a government has sold something it didnt own.

[RandyBoBandy]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

It is ok.

Western whites are told to go to work and pay taxes, then to safeway, sobeys, no frills, co-op or any other grocer and pay more taxes, in our highly taxed vehicles on higher taxed roads paying for extremely taxed fossil fuel.

Once a year we are invited to pay for the priveledge of taking a queen's animal, we can fish for small limited amounts of fish if we pay, and we can shoot a few geese and ducks and chickens if we pay.

Nothing says we can not feed our hungry families, but we have to pay to do it. Heavily.

If you want walleye or pike 24/7/365 go see the guy on the corner of hwy61 and 17 Lloydminster, he will sell you netted fish any day, without receipt or proof of any kind, 0 tax and 100% chance he is not keeping any books at all, because he does not pay tax on anything. I am not sure what the consequences would be of having 20 walleye in your freezer with no valid license or bill of sale, but I am betting seizure, forfeiture of hunting and fishing rights for 3 years, and a lengthy court case. Fair how?

Your heritage has defined this for you, theirs for the FN.

[hunterngather]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. The seasons were not required for conservation then or now due to over harvesting. They are required now due to habitat and game loss. You cant have millions of people settle on huge tracts of land called cities displacing game and expect natives to return to the old ways. the only thing they have is the security of the treaties which guarantee harvest rights.
As has already been pointed out I dare say highliner(or fill in the commercially licensed company) ships probably take more lobster and fish in a day than natives would harvest in a year. That right is guaranteed until the law changes. Commercial licenses should be adjusted down if any catch needs to be reduced.

Well said

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. The seasons were not required for conservation then or now due to over harvesting. They are required now due to habitat and game loss. You cant have millions of people settle on huge tracts of land called cities displacing game and expect natives to return to the old ways. the only thing they have is the security of the treaties which guarantee harvest rights.
As has already been pointed out I dare say highliner(or fill in the commercially licensed company) ships probably take more lobster and fish in a day than natives would harvest in a year. That right is guaranteed until the law changes. Commercial licenses should be adjusted down if any catch needs to be reduced.

Very well said. Treaties granted rights to both non Indigenous and Indigenous populations at the time, so for any non Idigenous person who wants the Indigenous populations to give up what they got out of the treaties, perhaps they should give up what they got out of them too. The thing is, the non Indigenous population definitely got the better end of the deal.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by fishpro

Very well said. Treaties granted rights to both non Indigenous and Indigenous populations at the time, so for any non Idigenous person who wants the Indigenous populations to give up what they got out of the treaties, perhaps they should give up what they got out of them too. The thing is, the non Indigenous population definitely got the better end of the deal.

guess that depends on who you talk too as I know if we sat with settlers back then they ran into some real time troubles too.....but why cant we learn from this and get together as Canadian citizens and be treated equally? People are finely having enough of the slackers/scum bags on both sides of this fence...this fence need not be....but like I mentioned the governing bodies for both side promote hate and racism which is really sad....

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by fishpro

Very well said. Treaties granted rights to both non Indigenous and Indigenous populations at the time, so for any non Idigenous person who wants the Indigenous populations to give up what they got out of the treaties, perhaps they should give up what they got out of them too. The thing is, the non Indigenous population definitely got the better end of the deal.

Good points.

This country was not conquered, it was negotiated and those treaties were the vehicle that allowed us to own what had belonged to FNs

I wonder how many would give up their city lot or acreage because the treaty that made it possible for them to own that was no longer deemed applicable.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Good points.

This country was not conquered, it was negotiated and those treaties were the vehicle that allowed us to own what had belonged to FNs

I wonder how many would give up their city lot or acreage because the treaty that made it possible for them to own that was no longer deemed applicable.

What a ridiculous analogy, lol. If there was no treaty signed how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an invasion and a subsequent war? How do you think that would have gone down? Natives of the day were fighting amongst themselves, they wouldn’t have united to go battle the Europeans. Like 58thecat said, none of that is relevant in solving the issues of today. Natives flaunting rights because it was written in the treaties is what the problem is. Abusing these rights is what the problem is. What your ancestors or my ancestors did has no affect on what we are up against today, other than not putting an expiry date on the treaties.

What has people up in arms is abuse of rights. What the people want is what’s best for Canadians and our wildlife, not just a select group of Canadians. Now Métis (most just came out as Métis for the benefits, 5 years ago they were white) have the same harvest rights as indigenous people. The guy in the brand new black dodge who’s camped out in the brand new Cabelas outfitter tent for the past two weeks who shot two cow moose so far that I know of, doesn’t need sustenance rights to survive, but because it’s his right it doesn’t matter that it takes 6 years to draw a moose tag because the biologists say the population is low, he’s filling his freezer, along with others I’m sure.

When is it time for the rest of Canadians to question the validity and stupidity of some of these treaties? Apparently the time is now on the east coast. Do we wait for a catastrophic failure here before we ask the same question? I don’t know.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What a ridiculous analogy, lol. If there was no treaty signed how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an invasion and a subsequent war? How do you think that would have gone down? Natives of the day were fighting amongst themselves, they wouldn’t have united to go battle the Europeans. Like 58thecat said, none of that is relevant in solving the issues of today. Natives flaunting rights because it was written in the treaties is what the problem is. Abusing these rights is what the problem is. What your ancestors or my ancestors did has no affect on what we are up against today, other than not putting an expiry date on the treaties.

\.

But there was treaties signed, and we signed them because the last thing we wanted to do was go to war with Natives in western Canada. We wanted to settle western Canada, we wanted our settlers to be safe and we lacked the military ability to do it. If you think we could have won a war easily with them, you need to bone up on your Canadian history. You're dead wrong.

The North West Rebellion was a rag tag group of Metis who were good shots, lead by a lunatic and it was all we could do to defeat them. How many battles did the Metis win even though they were out numbered and outgunned?

But people have been arguing with you about this for years, you don't listen to one thing people say to you, so I don't know why today will be any different?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by riden

The North West Rebellion was a rag tag group of Metis who were good shots, lead by a lunatic and it was all we could do to defeat them. How many battles did the Metis win even though they were out numbered and outgunned?

Actually they were never defeated, a settlement was negotiated for Riel to surrender in exchange for an end to the hostilities.

The government then reneged on their promise and hanged Riel on claims he had lead a rebellion.

There was no rebellion. Riel's crime was asking for authority to form a province in what was then called the North West Territories which included all of the prairies and everything north of the 60th parallel. Hence the name, North West - territories.

[riden]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Actually they were never defeated, a settlement was negotiated for Riel to surrender in exchange for an end to the hostilities.

The government then reneged on their promise and hanged Riel on claims he had lead a rebellion.

There was no rebellion. Riel's crime was asking for authority to form a province in what was then called the North West Territories which included all of the prairies and everything north of the 60th parallel. Hence the name, North West - territories.

Not arguing.

My point was more that if you look at the pictures of the metis, they were just a bunch of poorly armed guys....... who won several battles. IMO it speaks to how poorly trained and weak our army was at that time.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by riden

But there was treaties signed, and we signed them because the last thing we wanted to do was go to war with Natives in western Canada. We wanted to settle western Canada, we wanted our settlers to be safe and we lacked the military ability to do it. If you think we could have won a war easily with them, you need to bone up on your Canadian history. You're dead wrong.

The North West Rebellion was a rag tag group of Metis who were good shots, lead by a lunatic and it was all we could do to defeat them. How many battles did the Metis win even though they were out numbered and outgunned?

But people have been arguing with you about this for years, you don't listen to one thing people say to you, so I don't know why today will be any different?

Did you read what I wrote? If they hadn’t signed the treaty how long do you think it would have been before an invasion by an organized invader? Had they not agreed to a peaceful agreement it would have only been a matter of time before a larger more organized army would have come in to take it forcefully. It would be like if Canada was to go to war with the us today. We might all be speaking French or Russian today.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Did you read what I wrote? If they hadn’t signed the treaty how long do you think it would have been before an invasion by an organized invader? Had they not agreed to a peaceful agreement it would have only been a matter of time before a larger more organized army would have come in to take it forcefully. It would be like if Canada was to go to war with the us today. We might all be speaking French or Russian today.

I did read it, yes. The point I am making is...... who cares?

That is not what happened.

Which begs the question: Did you read what I wrote? I think I know the answer.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What a ridiculous analogy, lol. If there was no treaty signed how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an invasion and a subsequent war? How do you think that would have gone down? Natives of the day were fighting amongst themselves, they wouldn’t have united to go battle the Europeans. Like 58thecat said, none of that is relevant in solving the issues of today. Natives flaunting rights because it was written in the treaties is what the problem is. Abusing these rights is what the problem is. What your ancestors or my ancestors did has no affect on what we are up against today, other than not putting an expiry date on the treaties.

What has people up in arms is abuse of rights. What the people want is what’s best for Canadians and our wildlife, not just a select group of Canadians. Now Métis (most just came out as Métis for the benefits, 5 years ago they were white) have the same harvest rights as indigenous people. The guy in the brand new black dodge who’s camped out in the brand new Cabelas outfitter tent for the past two weeks who shot two cow moose so far that I know of, doesn’t need sustenance rights to survive, but because it’s his right it doesn’t matter that it takes 6 years to draw a moose tag because the biologists say the population is low, he’s filling his freezer, along with others I’m sure.

When is it time for the rest of Canadians to question the validity and stupidity of some of these treaties? Apparently the time is now on the east coast. Do we wait for a catastrophic failure here before we ask the same question? I don’t know.

What a ridiculous response. What if is not what happened.

I think any reasonable person would agree we all want to be treated equal.

But remember, if treaty rights can be abolished so can your rights.
That would be equal treatment, would you like that?

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

What a ridiculous response. What if is not what happened.

I think any reasonable person would agree we all want to be treated equal.

But remember, if treaty rights can be abolished so can your rights.
That would be equal treatment, would you like that?

Now that right there is gold! Well said KegRiver!

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

What a ridiculous response. What if is not what happened.

I think any reasonable person would agree we all want to be treated equal.

But remember, if treaty rights can be abolished so can your rights.
That would be equal treatment, would you like that?

What rights? My right to work, pay taxes and pay for my possessions? What rights do I have that can be taken away?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What rights? My right to work, pay taxes and pay for my possessions? What rights do I have that can be taken away?

Well how about your right to own property for starters.

Your deflections are interesting, but not well thought out.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

What a ridiculous response. What if is not what happened.

I think any reasonable person would agree we all want to be treated equal.

But remember, if treaty rights can be abolished so can your rights.
That would be equal treatment, would you like that?

Keg this happens all the time its called evolving with the present times..what was is not right now be it treaty rights or other so called rights....hmmm I personally call them privilege's…...example fella has a home/shop etc wants to make a modification be it a deck, addition etc still has to get a permit even though this farm has been in his family for generations..ohhh he will dig in his heels and make a stink complaining about his/her rights but at the end of the day it is done the right way...we have evolved for the better in some areas but lack in others....

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. The seasons were not required for conservation then or now due to over harvesting. They are required now due to habitat and game loss. You cant have millions of people settle on huge tracts of land called cities displacing game and expect natives to return to the old ways. the only thing they have is the security of the treaties which guarantee harvest rights.
As has already been pointed out I dare say highliner(or fill in the commercially licensed company) ships probably take more lobster and fish in a day than natives would harvest in a year. That right is guaranteed until the law changes. Commercial licenses should be adjusted down if any catch needs to be reduced.

and what we are saying broken or misused etc treaties back then does not justify what is taking place now...on both sides....we, you, us all got to manage things be it conservation of habitat, animals etc much better and this means we are all on the same page for everything.....ya don't kill momma moose in feb and you don't take fish by net leaving fish on the ice to rot etc because it was not your preferred targeted species....don't fish during closed season etc this goes for all Canadians...period.

Dam we all can dig up ancestral pasts of misfortune but jeepers what was 100 plus years ago should not apply now....things need to be adjusted....example the cod fisheries....

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. The seasons were not required for conservation then or now due to over harvesting. They are required now due to habitat and game loss. You cant have millions of people settle on huge tracts of land called cities displacing game and expect natives to return to the old ways. the only thing they have is the security of the treaties which guarantee harvest rights.
As has already been pointed out I dare say highliner(or fill in the commercially licensed company) ships probably take more lobster and fish in a day than natives would harvest in a year. That right is guaranteed until the law changes. Commercial licenses should be adjusted down if any catch needs to be reduced.

Good post. Bolded part sums it up.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Good post. Bolded part sums it up.

The bolded part is why we have a problem with them today. If they could be taken away when caught abusing them like filling someone’s freezer for doing electrical work, then it wouldn’t be an issue.

[NCC]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

The seasons were not required for conservation then or now due to over harvesting. They are required now due to habitat and game loss. You cant have millions of people settle on huge tracts of land called cities displacing game and expect natives to return to the old ways. the only thing they have is the security of the treaties which guarantee harvest rights.
As has already been pointed out I dare say highliner(or fill in the commercially licensed company) ships probably take more lobster and fish in a day than natives would harvest in a year. That right is guaranteed until the law changes. Commercial licenses should be adjusted down if any catch needs to be reduced.

Have you done any research on the amount of game now vs when your grandfather was shooting moose in July? My research suggests that there is more game around now than then, unless your grandfather was here before the buffalo were killed off. It is absurd to suggest that habitat loss is the reason that unregulated hunting is now unsustainable.

There were 130 000 natives in all of Canada and now there are over 4 million people in Alberta alone. Hunting moose with a 30 WCF and a team of horses is much different than hunting with a 30-06, lights, 4x4's, and lease roads accessing most of Alberta. It's been proven in MB that the moose can't withstand that kind of hunting pressure.

What's currently happening with the lobster fishery in NS in the thin edge of the wedge. As the native harvest spools up to the point where the resource can't take the strain, the other fisherman will be cut back. It's happening in BC with the salmon and they're trying with the big game.

It's been a while since I've read the the original treaty, but I thought there was a clause reserving the right to limit the subsistence harvest for conservation purposes as seen fit by the government.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by NCC

Have you done any research on the amount of game now vs when your grandfather was shooting moose in July? My research suggests that there is more game around now than then, unless your grandfather was here before the buffalo were killed off. It is absurd to suggest that habitat loss is the reason that unregulated hunting is now unsustainable.

I was born in 1954, long after the buffalo were gone.

I have seen a profound drop in the numbers of many species. Moose, Fish, even Ducks.

Certain wildlife populations may have increased but many have been devastated by modern farming practices and habitat loss.

I don't get that from research, I get that from hands on, boots on the ground observation.

There is plenty of research out there that was done in the library, not in the field.

But you are right about unregulated hunting, at least with modern equipment. That is not sustainable and in fact is why we have conservation laws.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Certain wildlife populations may have increased but many have been devastated by modern farming practices and habitat loss.
.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

x2

[NCC]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

I was born in 1954, long after the buffalo were gone.

I have seen a profound drop in the numbers of many species. Moose, Fish, even Ducks.

Certain wildlife populations may have increased but many have been devastated by modern farming practices and habitat loss.

I don't get that from research, I get that from hands on, boots on the ground observation.

There is plenty of research out there that was done in the library, not in the field.

But you are right about unregulated hunting, at least with modern equipment. That is not sustainable and in fact is why we have conservation laws.

1954 was after two mass predator poisoning campaigns. I’m willing to bet there were more moose in the North Peace in 1954 than there was in 1900. If the moose population has decreased since then, I doubt that habitat loss is the problem as they are thriving on the farmland in eastern Alberta. There are no moose in many areas of Alberta that haven’t seen a tire track for 40 years.

Didn’t the government increase the limit on Snow geese to 50/day because the tundra can’t take the strain anymore? That suggests to me that the goose population (and likely duck) has benefitted from how humans have altered their habitat by increasing the food supply.


Please provide some examples of species that are in decline due to modern farming practices.

I’ve been going on mountain pack trips since I was 13 and ranched in the Peace Country for 15 years, so I also have some boots on the ground experience to go along with my research.

[calgarychef]

Originally Posted by NCC

1954 was after two mass predator poisoning campaigns. I’m willing to bet there were more moose in the North Peace in 1954 than there was in 1900. If the moose population has decreased since then, I doubt that habitat loss is the problem as they are thriving on the farmland in eastern Alberta. There are no moose in many areas of Alberta that haven’t seen a tire track for 40 years.

Didn’t the government increase the limit on Snow geese to 50/day because the tundra can’t take the strain anymore? That suggests to me that the goose population (and likely duck) has benefitted from how humans have altered their habitat by increasing the food supply.


Please provide some examples of species that are in decline due to modern farming practices.

I’ve been going on mountain pack trips since I was 13 and ranched in the Peace Country for 15 years, so I also have some boots on the ground experience to go along with my research.

Species in decline due to modern farming practices?
You’re joking right? You don’t think any species have been affected by modern farming?

Have you been around Taber? There’s barely a blade of native grass left.
How could entire species not be affected ?