Metis Updates?

[Kanonfodder]

Thats a really broad brush your painting there with Avid. First off the don\t all get tax free trucks, guns etc..yes they get some tax exemptions but not everything is given to them. I dont really disagree with the rights given by Powely I just differ in how they should be implimented. I like the idea of having to get tags and register kills being run by SRD not by bands or MNA. I would like to know what is getting harvested and in what area. very little chance for abuse in this fashion as you can figure it out real fast if someones abusing the system.

[416]

Well Avid Hunter it has been said a thousand times and I agree. The Metis would not exist in Canada had it not been for imigrants coming to create this croos-breed / hybrid????. How ever the are designated their subsistance living should come after the rest of ours. By ours I mean the families that have been here since the 1800's and can prove this. But realisticly in this day and age I believe that everyone who lives in Canada should be stuck to hunting during season, during daylight and with a tag. I don't mind the actual native people doing some ceremonial hunting and such but Lets face it it is time to move forward a few hundred years.

I think that the solution is to give every Albertan equal hunting rights.Let the natives and Metis decide one set of rules that all Albertans would have to follow.If there are to be seasons and limits,then every Albertan including natives and Metis has to observe them.If it's no seasons or limits,then there would be no seasons or limits for any Albertan.

[Tuc]

I think that the solution is to give every Albertan equal hunting rights.Let the natives and Metis decide one set of rules that all Albertans would have to follow.If there are to be seasons and limits,then every Albertan including natives and Metis has to observe them.If it's no seasons or limits,then there would be no seasons or limits for any Albertan.

[brownbomber]

i told myself i wouldn't do anything on this thread...but once again...
okay stubble cut and dried very simple native/treaty rights nothing to do with the province of alberta that would be goverment of canada and nothing the provincal gov't can do about it end of story. however much we might want things to be so doesn't make it so.
and avid haven't heard from you in a bit. once again i have to point out that F150 is not tax free maybe GST free but that's usually the dealership not the person buying it, 300wsm and hornady shells are especially not tax free, and back to the spotlight whatever are you trying to imply?? i know you're going to point out the ruling in bc about traditionally being able to hunt with torches being changed into spotlighting, which we all know is bs but to imply that all native/metis spotlight is one of the most ridiculous statements i have ever read, but how do you know so much about spotlights anyway??? apply for more welfare checks?? come on i expect better than that from you, try something original not just the same old used up stereotype that so many others lean on when they need to say something nasty.
everyone on here knows how i feel and i agree with most of you on metis hunting rights even being metis myself. what makes me cringe though is people making broad sweeping charges and implications, would it be stood for if i said everyone in calgary is a jerk and everyone in edmonton knows how much a spotlight costs at canadian tire if you know what i'm saying?????

[SakoAlberta]

Originally Posted by brownbomber

okay stubble cut and dried very simple native/treaty rights nothing to do with the province of alberta that would be goverment of canada and nothing the provincal gov't can do about it end of story. however much we might want things to be so doesn't make it so.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Yes, the constitution states that all Metis are entilted to whatever rights they had before 1981, however, if AB has rules that don't infringe on those 'rights', I'm not sure how the Government of Canada would have any further say?
Interesting that, if Metis did not have rights before 1981, the constitution does nothing to 'give' them rights.

[brownbomber]

yeah not sure about metis that's why i said native. and to change anything of that magnitude who require a overwhelming majority of people in the country to support it no matter how many mp's you got, gotta have the grassroots support to make it click. and i just think not enough everyday people care about the subject for it to become a reality. sometimes we think everyone does care, being albertan many of our friends are outdoorsmen it may seem everyone thinks the same way as us but it's a tough sell out of box isn't it??

[SakoAlberta]

Right, BB, sorry, I thought 'Metis' but , reading you post again, its doesn't say Metis.

Happy easter All !!!

[Jims71duster]

Originally Posted by Tuc

Just, the oringinal IMHA wasn't negotiated in good faith at all. It was negotiated behind closed doors. It was a free for all given to the Metis people by Pearl Calhassen who was the minister at the time under Ralph Klein, also a very close friend of Colleen Klein's, ironic eh??

I think an interpretation of good faith would have been an invitation to all stakeholder groups to attend those meetings. Groups who have contributed enormous time and money for the well being of Alberta's fish and wildlife. Now all of a sudden we have new found Metis popping up all over the province ready to go subsistence hunting. (poaching) Defeats the purpose of the cause, when we talk about conservation as the Metis so often do.

I can't see where you think 'good faith' enters the equation when doors were closed shut and 3 out of 5 politicians who signed the agreement were of metis or native decent.

I'd call that a conspiracy against wildlife and all Albertans.

IT was negotiated in good faith. The government that you all elected did the negotiations with the metis. Do you honestly expect them to involve every stakeholder in every decision that is made???It would take them years to make decisions. Maybe more care could be taken on election day!!!!!Anyways,,,here we go again,,why don't we just all go back and read the previous 2 million posts about this same crap and save the forum space,,IMHO

[Jims71duster]

Originally Posted by Avidhunter

Well I think the Gov't need to get themselves a backbone and dictate to the Metis and natives that if you want to hunt traditionally, then do so with traditional weapons. F150 (bought tax free), 300 WM (tax free), Hornady shells (tax free) and a spotlight (tax free) does not constitue traditional weapons to me.

All others need to apply for increased welfare checks if they are unable to provide food for their families.

Its a crock of POO stating they need to supliment their diet by hunting moose. We all know it takes hundreds of bucks of gas just to go to the hunting areas, let alone the quad, gas, the cost of shells, firearms prices, and I guess spotlights are cheap in Crappy Tire.

If it were up to me I would come down hard on spongers of the state and the lieing toerags claiming treaty rights when they are blue eyed professionals like the rest of us.

Without the whiteman coming here to Alberta first, the Metis would not have existed. Therefore, how can they claim native rights when we were here first?

SPOTLIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and we all wonder why these get out of control. A litttle moderater editing here please

[SakoAlberta]

Originally Posted by Jims71duster

SPOTLIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and we all wonder why these get out of control. A litttle moderater editing here please

B.C. First Nation can hunt at night: Supreme Court
Last Updated: Thursday, December 21, 2006 | 5:09 PM ET
CBC News
Two aboriginal men from British Columbia have the right to hunt deer at night with lights, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday.

In a 4-3 decision, the court sided with Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen, members of the Tsartlip First Nation of Vancouver Island.

The men had been convicted in a provincial court of hunting at night by flashlight, a practice that is illegal under B.C.'s Wildlife Act.

But the Supreme Court said the men's treaty rights, in this case, prevail over provincial law. The court overturned the convictions.

The four judges who ruled in favour of the men said that the North Saanich Treaty, signed in 1852, allows modern Tsartlip people to hunt using traditional methods.

And Tsartlip people traditionally hunted at night using lights, the judges said.

Originally, the Tsartlip people would have used torchlight, bows and arrows, but their equipment must be allowed to evolve, the judges said.

"And the use of guns, spotlights and motor vehicles reflects the current state of the evolution of the Tsartlip's historic hunting practices," the judges wrote in a summary of their decision.

In the narrow decision, the three dissenting judges argued that night hunting is dangerous and the right to hunt unsafely is not protected by the treaty.

Olsen and Morris were charged in 1996 after they fired five shots at a decoy deer set up by conservation officers to catch people hunting illegally. Olsen and Morris found the deer by flashlight.

After the men lost their case in a provincial court and in the B.C. Court of Appeal, they took it to the Supreme Court. The high court heard their appeal last year.

Decision renews night hunting debate
Lawyers for the Tsartlip say Thursday's ruling by the high court means other aboriginal people should be allowed to hunt at night in B.C. as well, without fear of prosecution.

Louise Mandell noted that other First Nations may not have treaty rights like the Tsartlip, but hunt at night and have the right to do so as aboriginal people.

"I think that the decision definitely shines a bright light on the province to make sure that those night-hunting practices are recognized," she said.

However, the B.C. Wildlife Federation's Paul Adams is critical of the decision, calling it dangerous.

He told CBC News that there is a question of public safety, especially in the densely-populated Saanich Peninsula, north of Victoria, where the Tsartlip live and hunt.

"The discharge of a rifle at night time when you don't know what is beyond your target is a very dangerous thing for the general public."

Meanwhile, a B.C. law professor said Thursday's judgment is significant at a broader level.

"It shows that treaties can be paramount to provincial law," said John Borrows of the University of Victoria.

"Treaties can have overriding influence over provincial laws. We've seen that before, but we've not seen it before in British Columbia with treaties."

Sako,
I thought this topic was about Alberta Metis hunting rights, not B.C. Native hunting rights.

[Jamie]

Sorry sniper.. I think its a very relavent comment.
Jimsduster replyed like spotlights were out of the question. Apparently they are not.

jamie

[lilsundance]

The spotlight is only relevant with those natives that prove they used to hunt at night. If I remember correctly it was mentioned in the treaty. I am open to correction here as its been a long time since I read the ruling on that one. Its been over 10 years since that has been allowed here (for Natives). I was working for a HIghways maint. Contractor when F&W sent a notice to us to keep watch for anyone night hunting when we did our early morning road patrols. It specifically mentioned that natives were not allowed to hunt at night and that their rights followed daylight hours same as everyone elses (where Hunting was concerned).

[.264 Win Mag]

Originally Posted by LuckySeven

I'm all for Aboriginal rights and tradition....but if they are going to hunt and fish all year round...then do it traditionally !! Build their own Bows/Arrows...fashion their own hooks/nets from traditional materials....No guns, or gun powder, no gasoline driven motors, no aluminum fishing boats...etc !!!
After all, it's about being Aboriginal and Tradition.....is it not ????

WELL SAID I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS LAW PUT IN PLACE

[SakoAlberta]

Originally Posted by lilsundance

The spotlight is only relevant with those natives that prove they used to hunt at night. If I remember correctly it was mentioned in the treaty. I am open to correction here as its been a long time since I read the ruling on that one. Its been over 10 years since that has been allowed here (for Natives). I was working for a HIghways maint. Contractor when F&W sent a notice to us to keep watch for anyone night hunting when we did our early morning road patrols. It specifically mentioned that natives were not allowed to hunt at night and that their rights followed daylight hours same as everyone elses (where Hunting was concerned).

That's good to know. We've been hunting moose north of Slave Lake for over ten years now. We used to camp as far in as we could get on the lease roads. Now we have moved our camp as we didn't feel safe because we were getting 'spotlighted' several nights during our ten-day stays.

'Spotlighting' shouldn't be a race issue, however, every time it happenned to us(dozens), it was Indians or people that appeared to be Indians. From now on, I will call Report a Poacher if it is deemed illegal by AB for all racial groups.

[SakoAlberta]

Originally Posted by SNIPER

Sako,
I thought this topic was about Alberta Metis hunting rights, not B.C. Native hunting rights.

Yes, have to agree, however, I think my point was relevant as Jim thought that even to mention of 'spotlighting' was so ridiculous that the mods should step in. I think that article/SCC case shows that it could well become an issue here.

[Jeromeo]

Originally Posted by Avidhunter

Well I think the Gov't need to get themselves a backbone and dictate to the Metis and natives that if you want to hunt traditionally, then do so with traditional weapons. F150 (bought tax free), 300 WM (tax free), Hornady shells (tax free) and a spotlight (tax free) does not constitue traditional weapons to me.

Hate to bring up an old post but this guy is a little misguided with his information. As a 24 yr. old Metis man I respect and abide by the law. I now buy tags for the animals I shoot, but when the IMHA was in place I exercised my right to hunt without.

What ticks me off about this comment is where he says all these items are bought tax free. Do your research. The Metis people don't receive anything tax free. There aren't many "perks" of being Metis. We don't get much. It's the treaty card full blood "first nation" as you would call them, who get all the tax free stuff. If you also did some research you'd see that aboriginals adapted with time. When firearms became available, they used them. Hunting is hunting, regardless of what tools are used.

I'm kind of on the fence with this issue. I don't think we should be completely able to hunt however much we want. I think there should be a limit and perhaps tags should be issued free of charge to the "aboriginal peoples" if need be. I don't really mind paying my 60-100 dollars in licences to hunt.
Sorry for resurecting this post.

[buckmaster]

.

I'm kind of on the fence with this issue. I don't think we should be completely able to hunt however much we want. I think there should be a limit and perhaps tags should be issued free of charge to the "aboriginal peoples" if need be. I don't really mind paying my 60-100 dollars in licences to hunt.
Sorry for resurecting this post.[/QUOTE]

100% agreed!!

[snowshoes]

Originally Posted by LuckySeven

I'm all for Aboriginal rights and tradition....but if they are going to hunt and fish all year round...then do it traditionally !! Build their own Bows/Arrows...fashion their own hooks/nets from traditional materials....No guns, or gun powder, no gasoline driven motors, no aluminum fishing boats...etc !!!
After all, it's about being Aboriginal and Tradition.....is it not ????

To follow this theory we should probably lead by example.... after all my next trip to Camp Wainwright for the primitive weapon season should probably not include an; in-line muzzleloader shooting Pyrodex powder, topped with a quality 3X9 variable scope and the Leica range finder in the possibles bag

[Matt L.]

The main problem I have is that IMHA and almost any other agreement are very easy to abuse. I believe there was one who as soon as he could he went out to Grande Cache after trophy rams. Abuse in my eyes. I used to live in Nordegg and every once or twice a year a bunch of indians and/or metis would drive out from central AB with a big freezer truck and fill it, and then drive back home. To me that is pretty much legal poaching.

[raised by wolves]

Too many smaller abuses as well. I was amazed to find out how many people are eligible to claim status as First nations or Metis, many of whom have no need for subsistence living, that are interested in hunting solely for the trophy.

I was chatting with a couple of hunters last season out in the field, both white guys, who went on about how exciting the hunting will be once they receive their new Metis status cards. Neither of these guys required subsistence hunting freedoms. I was appalled at how they went on about being able to pick off some trophy animals before the seasons open for everyone else.

A former colleague was recently contacted and informed of his potential for status for both himself and his offspring. His first words to me was along the lines of going out on a hunt for several bull moose and the ability to take me hunting on Native lands. This guy is a city boy with a 9 to 5 that has never hunted in his life with the exception of joining me for a walk in the woods one year while I was out for grouse. Scary how quickly he thought about an abuse of the right to subsistence hunting.

I too am eligible and entitled for full status, but the FN blood is so far removed from my family that most members of my line have no idea that the connection is there. I would have loved to have taken advantage of the educational benefits provided (that's another topic) and for a brief time, I thought about the benefits for me to go hunting. I thought about how cool it would be to hunt prior to or after scheduled seasons or the ability to drop an extra bull elk or moose. I immediately questioned my own integrity as to where to draw the line. How many others are out there that fail to question their own integrity and responsibility as a citizen and as well towards the land and resources?

The government has failed to draw the line. The government has failed to regulate these rights.

[Jeromeo]

Originally Posted by Matt L.

I used to live in Nordegg and every once or twice a year a bunch of indians and/or metis would drive out from central AB with a big freezer truck and fill it, and then drive back home. To me that is pretty much legal poaching.

Did you actually see these people doing it or did you just hear about it?? There's a difference.

I am also amazed that you said indian and/or metis.... Almost as though we all look alike and act alike. Problem is we are not accepted by "white" people as they look upon us as "indians" but also we are not fully accepted by "indians" because we are part "white man"

Originally Posted by Jeromeo

Did you actually see these people doing it or did you just hear about it?? There's a difference.

I am also amazed that you said indian and/or metis.... Almost as though we all look alike and act alike. Problem is we are not accepted by "white" people as they look upon us as "indians" but also we are not fully accepted by "indians" because we are part "white man"

I look at you like an equal human being. Judging anyone on anything but your personal experience with the person is very...well....ignorant?? Only word I could think of.

[Jeromeo]

Originally Posted by 2430M

I look at you like an equal human being. Judging anyone on anything but your personal experience with the person is very...well....ignorant?? Only word I could think of.

Thanks. And yes it is ignorant. So is generalising.

Originally Posted by Jeromeo

Thanks. And yes it is ignorant. So is generalising.

Agreed

[bruceba]

Ted Morton was in Lethbridge a little while ago trying to justify his pipe dream pilot projects. At that meeting Mr Morton replyed to several questions about the Metis right to hunt. He said and these were his word. "The Metis have the constitutional right to harvest and that will never go away. What we want to do is tell them who, what, when and how they're going to do it." What you guys don't realize is that this same Government challenge of the constitution has been played out in several other provinces over the last couple years. Metis have won those challenges and it comes at a hefty price tag on both sides. Ted Morton is going to spend well over a million dollars of your and my tax payers dollars in what is only a stall tactic. Has anyone questioned where he's going to come up with the funding for this futile court battle and what programing is being compromised to do this. Much like his pet pilot projects I'm sure he'll go to cockus and try and justify why he needs funding to further his wims. As many heard when Morton was speaking in Lethbridge he has the lawyers to take on all challengers. He just doesn't care if he's right or wrong or who's money he's spending.
Read my tag line.

[Muskeg]

Originally Posted by Jeromeo

Did you actually see these people doing it or did you just hear about it?? There's a difference.

I am also amazed that you said indian and/or metis.... Almost as though we all look alike and act alike. Problem is we are not accepted by "white" people as they look upon us as "indians" but also we are not fully accepted by "indians" because we are part "white man"

So sad for you.. What about the 10's of thousand half breeds that look native and those that look white that are unable to be a privileged "Status" or Metis..
I know for a fact the Metis won't accept them.
In 1998 I was looking through family history and discovered that my Great Great Grandma was a full blood Kiowa.. I thought hey cool that means I'm Metis! I went to the Head office in Edmonton on Kingsway Ave and they went through the genealogy that I'd compiled.. after the review they said that I was Metis and some time later I received my card and papers. At that time the prerequisite was to be of mixed blood, native-white. but since the Powley case and the media it has garnered they have tweaked the membership rules so that you have to be a direct descendant of the historic Metis.. blah blah blah! Now I still have membership but no one in my family can gain status.. make sense?.. well get this.. my nephew's late Grand parents are true descendants with a lot of history from Fort Vermillion (Lambert) and he cannot gain Metis status but his sister, Aunt, Dad, Uncle have theirs.
To me it was something to have pride in at one time, but now I don't believe I ever was a Metis nor do I want to be.. I still have Kiowa blood in my viens and thats unique in itself.. as unique as Irish or Russian.
As for the right to hunt without tags... Did anyone need a tag back then? Wouldn't any newcomer to this "New World" be hunting for sustenance and form his own traditional right regardless of his bedmate!
My 2 cents anyhow!

[Alberta Bigbore]

Originally Posted by snowshoes

To follow this theory we should probably lead by example.... after all my next trip to Camp Wainwright for the primitive weapon season should probably not include an; in-line muzzleloader shooting Pyrodex powder, topped with a quality 3X9 variable scope and the Leica range finder in the possibles bag

This post brought tears of joy to my eyes. In fact, i like it so much i may use your quote as my signature!! A+++ post !!!!

Now back to your regular scheduled programming. Im off to buy a tax free Snowblower



This message was brought to you by the letters W, T, F


.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Rob Miskosky

The charges were dropped because it wasn't possible to defeat in this circumstance. If it had been pursued and the case was lost the MNA would have been able to use it to their benefit. The guy actually lived off the land, exactly what is acceptable in my eyes and the eyes of many, including the Powley test. It's the newfound Metis and the anywhere, anytime aspect that has to be tackled, not the guy that is actually trying to feed his family. Totally acceptable.

Hunting and killing out of a designated season without bag limits or rules when someone else, because of their race and ancestry must follow rules, is NOT acceptable in any way shape or form IMO. How can any logically minded individual think otherwise?