Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old 10-24-2020, 08:54 AM
bat119's Avatar
bat119 bat119 is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: On the border in Lloydminster
Posts: 6,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendigo View Post
Remember what Alberta looked like 110 years ago.
Almost barren of trees sooo that theory is out the window
The forests in Alberta have been there since the glaciers

Origin of forests in Alberta
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 10-26-2020, 11:35 AM
IronNoggin's Avatar
IronNoggin IronNoggin is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Port Alberni, Vancouver Island, BC
Posts: 1,718
Thumbs up

Here's the real back-story to the Maritimes lobster dispute

The recent protests and violence surrounding the Mi’kmaq lobster fishery in the Maritimes has been widely reported as a problem of government inaction coupled with racism by non-Indigenous fishermen.

The truth is nowhere near that straightforward...

https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...obster-dispute
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 10-26-2020, 11:49 AM
Stinky Buffalo's Avatar
Stinky Buffalo Stinky Buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A bit North o' Center...
Posts: 7,663
Default

Interesting article, Nog. Thanks for the link!
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 10-26-2020, 01:22 PM
sk270 sk270 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 848
Default

So the main sources of the lobster harvesting problem are government inaction and the Supreme Court. It sounds like the government needs to finally get into gear and, perhaps, ask the Court for a clearer statement of treaty rights. The author suggests that's not possible but it would be good if he were wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 10-26-2020, 02:32 PM
Nayr Nayr is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 169
Default

With our liberal appointed Supreme Court I would guess any interpretation of treaties will come down on the side of aboriginal people, based on precedent. If one side of the treaty is invalid does that make the entire agreement invalid? I don’t think Ottawa can afford to invalidate the treaties. No treaties in BC and the FN their have claimed over 100% of the province. Best off to keep them on their little reserves and give them the harvesting, medicine cabinet and schoolin. IMO
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 10-26-2020, 05:48 PM
sk270 sk270 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 848
Default

As with the Wet'suwet'en situation, the Federal Government needs to finish negotiations that were supposed to start last century.

Why do you say that the Supreme Court Justices were "liberal appointed"? How many were appointed by Harper?

I agree that the treaties should remain valid for reasons of law. I do think that some terms could stand to be clarified, as per the cited article above.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 10-26-2020, 07:09 PM
Kurt505 Kurt505 is offline
Suspended User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 13,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk270 View Post
As with the Wet'suwet'en situation, the Federal Government needs to finish negotiations that were supposed to start last century.

Why do you say that the Supreme Court Justices were "liberal appointed"? How many were appointed by Harper?

I agree that the treaties should remain valid for reasons of law. I do think that some terms could stand to be clarified, as per the cited article above.
I’ll go one step further and say all treaties should be updated.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 10-26-2020, 07:18 PM
Nayr Nayr is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sk270 View Post
As with the Wet'suwet'en situation, the Federal Government needs to finish negotiations that were supposed to start last century.

Why do you say that the Supreme Court Justices were "liberal appointed"? How many were appointed by Harper?

I agree that the treaties should remain valid for reasons of law. I do think that some terms could stand to be clarified, as per the cited article above.
Ok, I should of said liberal leaning, and btw Harper was liberal leaning as well.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 10-27-2020, 08:53 AM
NCC NCC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Leslieville
Posts: 1,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarychef View Post
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 ?
I said that moose and geese have benefitted from modern farming practices. Many others (i.e. burrowing owls and sage grouse) are on the brink of extinction because of modern farming practices.

Do you think an antelope grows better on alfalfa or sage brush?
__________________
We talk so much about leaving a better planet to our kids, that we forget to leave better kids to our planet.

Gerry Burnie
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 10-27-2020, 08:59 AM
NCC NCC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Leslieville
Posts: 1,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KegRiver View Post
Exactly!

Some have benefited, some have lost big time.

I was shocked to find there are more Moose per square mile east of Hwy 2 then there is in the whole Peace River district. But the Moose aren't a species that have gained or lost due to farming practices or habitat loss.

Their decline has a lot more to do with Wolf populations and hunting pressure then anything else.

But Ducks and Sharp tailed grouse both lost big time due to modern farming practices and habitat loss.

There is never one thing that leads to a population increase or decline as some seem to think. It's always many factors, but a single factor can be the pivotal factor.
Habitat loss and farming practices are two common pivotal factors.

I find it amazing how little some hunters seem to know.

To think that habitat loss is never a factor is unimaginable to me.

All one has to do is count the birds and animals in one field on any day of the year and then count the birds and animals on the same size area of unchanged bush country to see there is no comparison.

The patch of bush will always have many times the number of species and many times the total number then any field under cultivation.

I think people look at a patch of bush as they walk through it and think, there is nothing here. They don't see the ten rabbits sleeping under dead falls and in fern thickets. They don't see the nest hole in the tree next to them or the Warblers nest high in the tree above them.
They don't see the Coyote Den in the hill or the Vole tunnels under the grass.

They are surrounded by dozens or even hundreds of living creatures and they don't see a thing, because those creatures have learned to stay out of sight when anything big is in the area.

But out in the field where there is no where to hide, they see the one bird, or the Coyote and they think there is more life in that field then in the bush they just walked through.

To see what's really there one has to spend hours and hours sitting, watching and listening not for one day, but again and again over years.

I have done that. I started doing that over 55 years ago and still do it today.

I prefer to see deer and elk over squirrels and marten. Conduct your study in the middle of an old growth forest, and then try it again on agricultural fringe land. If modern farming is leading to the demise all of the critters, why can one ride around the Willmore for 2 weeks and not see a moose or elk?
__________________
We talk so much about leaving a better planet to our kids, that we forget to leave better kids to our planet.

Gerry Burnie
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 10-27-2020, 09:06 AM
NCC NCC is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Leslieville
Posts: 1,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
I recall hearing the area between Edmonton and grande prairie was basically a prairie.
One old timer that lived north of Rocky said that when his family came to this area, they could drive a team and wagon almost anywhere because most of the country east of town was burned off. I've seen old pictures that showed the same thing.

The old timers around Valleyview said the same thing. They were clearing land with a D4 and a side cutter, or in some cases just plowing in the small trees. When I was clearing land in the late 90's after 60 years of fire suppression, I was cutrting trees that would stop a D9.
__________________
We talk so much about leaving a better planet to our kids, that we forget to leave better kids to our planet.

Gerry Burnie
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 10-27-2020, 09:28 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 16,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarychef View Post
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 ?
I could name a few.

Black bear
Grizzly bear
Wolves
Moose
Elk
Ground squirrels
Burrowing owls
Badgers

All in a negative way.

Very likely from pre colonization to post the deer populations would be impacts as they are today by changes in land use. We use to have a herd of deer in our yard every week and since a nearby overpass was built they are all gone. The Oldman Dam built for agriculture destroyed tons on deer habitat.

Animals to benefit from people? Coyotes, raccoons, skunks, eastern gray squirrels...transportation corridors opening up land for animals like deer to move...
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 10-27-2020, 09:37 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 16,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC View Post
I prefer to see deer and elk over squirrels and marten. Conduct your study in the middle of an old growth forest, and then try it again on agricultural fringe land. If modern farming is leading to the demise all of the critters, why can one ride around the Willmore for 2 weeks and not see a moose or elk?
You can spend 2 week at Lower Kananaskis Lake and never see a grizzly. Then one day see 5.

There is far more to wildlife numbers than what your eyes see. Spotting wildlife is a combination of luck and timing and actually trying to see them.

It is not a photo shoot for most animals. They hide from people and other predators.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 10-28-2020, 04:06 PM
IronNoggin's Avatar
IronNoggin IronNoggin is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Port Alberni, Vancouver Island, BC
Posts: 1,718
Arrow

Supreme Court out of date on moderate livelihood fishery: MP

The committee tasked with recommending next steps on implementing a moderate livelihood fishery isn’t revisiting the Supreme Court of Canada decision on which it is based.

“Not that I know of,” said MP Ken MacDonald, chairman of the standing committee on fisheries and oceans, on whether legal analysis would be part of the anticipated testimony.

“Unless someone has proposed a legal mind to give it their best shot. I think it would be relevant but on any decision, if you get two lawyers in a room, they can both argue on the opposite side.”

“The Court did not hold that the Mi’kmaq treaty right cannot be regulated or that the Mi’kmaq are guaranteed an open season in the fisheries,”reads the Supreme Court clarification known as Marshall II.

“… The Court was thus most explicit in confirming the regulatory authority of the federal and provincial governments within their respective legislative fields to regulate the exercise of the treaty right subject to the constitutional requirement that restraints on the exercise of the treaty right have to be justified on the basis of conservation or other compelling and substantial public objectives,”

The court went further to say the federal fisheries minister not only has the authority but the responsibility to regulate fisheries for conservation, substantive public policy objectives or out of fairness to a long-term existing user of the resource that may include non-aboriginals.

Recommendation Number 1 was that access be provided by buying up commercial licences and transferring them to First Nations.

The federal government accepted the recommendations and created the Marshall Response Initiatives.

According to a 2009 audit of the program, $589.6 million was spent buying commercial licences, providing training and equipment. By the time the programs wrapped up in 2008, Maritime First Nations held over 1,200 commercial fishing licences representing 10.5 per cent of all the licences available.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/ne...ery-mp-513580/
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 10-28-2020, 05:19 PM
Talking moose's Avatar
Talking moose Talking moose is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Camrose
Posts: 12,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
You can spend 2 week at Lower Kananaskis Lake and never see a grizzly. Then one day see 5.

There is far more to wildlife numbers than what your eyes see. Spotting wildlife is a combination of luck and timing and actually trying to see them.

It is not a photo shoot for most animals. They hide from people and other predators.
You may not see them but people that spend enough time in the bush will know. And all animals leave sign. The amount of tracks and scat in an area are great indicators.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 10-28-2020, 09:43 PM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 10,811
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talking moose View Post
You may not see them but people that spend enough time in the bush will know. And all animals leave sign. The amount of tracks and scat in an area are great indicators.
That's part of it.
Spending time in the Whole area plays a big part too.

Many animals if not all, utilize different parts of their range at different times.

What sundance says is correct, but it's only part of the story.

What you say is also correct but also only part of the story.

Simply walking through an area or camping in an area for a week or two is not likely to give a person much of an idea what is there.

I find it amusing how convinced the weekend warriors are that they know more then people who have lived in an area, worked, trapped, hunted and studied that area.

Not saying that's you. I think you know more then most. But clearly some here think they know more then they do.

Claiming a burned off area was once prairie is such a stretch i can't even imagine how one comes to that conclusion. It must have been forest at one time for it to be burned off don't you think.

I see no point in pursuing this discussion any further.
The subject was Lobsters, that's all I'll discuss on this thread from here on.
__________________
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.