Hunting rights

[savagencounter]

Seeing in happen here in Wmu 250. One particular Metis in the neighbourhood has shot 8 moose since the fall. No wonder the draw times are going up and up. Used to see lots of moose and deer. Haven't seen any in months. His perspective it's there is an unlimited supply of moose. Bet the draw will be 10 years in Wmu soon thanks to one or two people. Also who possible eats 8 moose? The dog is very well fed and yes I know because they don't want to buy dog food quoted. . Not saying all people with hunting rights do this but I'm seeing it first hand how one person can have a huge effect on the population without any conservation in mind. Just me me me. It definatly is time for the government to re asses this before we end up like Manitoba. It literally has become a slaughterhouse in some areas before and after the season ends because we can not because we shouldn't.

[densetsu]

Originally Posted by CMichaud

Can anyone actually show me where this is written in any of the treaties covering Alberta?

As I'm Treaty 8, I'll copy-paste this in:

And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.

The methods which Treaty 8 natives hunt may have changed (modern firearms versus bows), but the terms don't care about *how* the natives do it. It just specifies they have the right (with some exceptions).

[densetsu]

Originally Posted by DJS

I agree 100% with the original post in the sense that there should be the same set of rules for everyone. I too believe the time of certain rights need to be challenged and that for everyone to live in harmony all should abide by the same set of rules.

I'm a left-wing voter and I believe this too. If there was a referendum, I'd vote that everyone should be treated equally by all levels of government.

Until that happens, though, I'm still taking advantage of the treaty rights. I only hunt for food for my family (1-2 big game animals a year), and barely take advantage of NIHB health benefits since I already have good employer benefits. (NIHB pays for the 20% or so that work doesn't pay for.)

Call me hypocritical, but I'll use any benefits the world gives me. That said, I won't *abuse* them like a small percentage of other people do; I'll use them to the spirit of the treaty that gave them to me.

Oh, and the no GST thing is a myth for the most part. It's true only for goods and services sold on reserves, but keep in mind many reserves have their own sales taxes. I don't live on reserve, so I pay income tax and sales tax just like everyone else.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by densetsu

As I'm Treaty 8, I'll copy-paste this in:



The methods which Treaty 8 natives hunt may have changed (modern firearms versus bows), but the terms don't care about *how* the natives do it. It just specifies they have the right (with some exceptions).

Thank you for your cut and paste, but I think what was asked was where is it written the part that says "Their rights for as long as the sun shines, rivers flow and grass grows"?

I have heard that said many times but can not find where it is written.

[densetsu]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Thank you for your cut and paste, but I think what was asked was where is it written the part that says "Their rights for as long as the sun shines, rivers flow and grass grows"?

I have heard that said many times but can not find where it is written.

Fair enough. From two paragraphs above in the same link:

AND ALSO the said Indian rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, or in any other portion of the Dominion of Canada.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever.

[covey ridge]

densetsu

Thanks for your reply. For me for ever is pretty clear.

[st99]

In other words, the only way to challenge the treaty, is get out of the commonwealth, cause it is a treaty with "her majesty the Queen".

[elkhunter11]

As long as people are discussing the treaty text, don't over look the statement below, which appears in many of the treaties.

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians, that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada,

In other words, there was a provision included that allowed the government to regulate native hunting.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

As long as people are discussing the treaty text, don't over look the statement below, which appears in many of the treaties.



In other words, there was a provision included that allowed the government to regulate native hunting.

That would be the Queen's decision not our Government's however.
But then, I am not a lawyer.....
Cat

[wwbirds]

Yes that is an actual quote from many of the treaties, but if you look at the interpretation of Sec 35 of the charter it gives natives priority to the hunting and fishing that is available and changes may not be made randomly and without considering their traditional way of life on the lands.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Yes that is an actual quote from many of the treaties but if you look at the interpretation of Sec 35 of the charter it gives natives priority to the hunting and fishing that is available and changes may not be made randomly and without considering their traditional way of life on the lands.

The Charter did not exist when the treaties were signed, so it can be amended by the government, just as it was written by the government. The entire charter is a disgrace, and should be rewritten.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

That would be the Queen's decision not our Government's however.
But then, I am not a lawyer.....
Cat

It would be regulation by the Government of Canada and not by the provincial governments.

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The Charter did not exist when the treaties were signed, so it can be amended by the government, just as it was written by the government. The entire charter is a disgrace, and should be rewritten.

Yeah. Let's get a man on that ASAP!
Cat

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Yeah. Let's get a man on that ASAP!
Cat

Not until we have a man running our country, I fear the son would mess things up even worse than the father did.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

The Charter did not exist when the treaties were signed, so it can be amended by the government, just as it was written by the government. The entire charter is a disgrace, and should be rewritten.

Yes the charter did not exist when the treaties were signed, but those rights were written into the charter.

[JohninAB]

Aboriginals whose treaties do not come into Alberta have no constitutional or treaty right to hunt here. Case law already in this regard.

But in saying that, access is the real problem.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Yes the charter did not exist when the treaties were signed, but those rights were written into the charter.

There is nothing that prevents the charter from being rewritten.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There is nothing that prevents the charter from being rewritten.

Just this.............

Most amendments can be passed only if identical resolutions are adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate and two thirds or more of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50 percent of the national population; and

Amending the Constitution has been a topic of much debate, and the two most comprehensive attempts to revise the document have both been defeated. There have, however, been eleven minor amendments to the Constitution since it was patriated in 1982. Most of these amendments have been limited in scope, dealing only with matters affecting specific provinces.

[densa44]

Two governments made an agreement in the late 1800s Her Majesty's government in London and the Natives who lived here in what was to become Alberta. The Crown offered some rights in exchange for virtually all of Alberta, and one of those rights was unrestricted hunting forever.

Now one side is unhappy with the deal (the new people) so do you want to go back to the beginning and start again or have the non natives forego all hunting to protect the game animals.

Rights mean just that, you can't just take them from people but you might be able to negotiate some. What do you propose to trade for Native Hunting and Fishing rights?

[Raptor Boy]

Originally Posted by sioux 1876

There have been many threads like this one. Your opinion is valued and you make good points. Discussing indigenous rights on an open forum. Will do nothing other than getting a AO members blood boiling. Voice your opinions with your elected officials/MP/governments. As stated in the forum message board rules "this is not the forum for such discussions"

X2

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by densa44

Two governments made an agreement in the late 1800s Her Majesty's government in London and the Natives who lived here in what was to become Alberta. The Crown offered some rights in exchange for virtually all of Alberta, and one of those rights was unrestricted hunting forever.

Now one side is unhappy with the deal (the new people) so do you want to go back to the beginning and start again or have the non natives forego all hunting to protect the game animals.

Rights mean just that, you can't just take them from people but you might be able to negotiate some. What do you propose to trade for Native Hunting and Fishing rights?

As I posted previously, the crown included a clause that allowed regulations to be imposed. So no, the treaty did not include a guarantee of unrestricted hunting for life.

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians, that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada,

[Raptor Boy]

Originally Posted by savagencounter

Seeing in happen here in Wmu 250. One particular Metis in the neighbourhood has shot 8 moose since the fall. No wonder the draw times are going up and up. Used to see lots of moose and deer. Haven't seen any in months. His perspective it's there is an unlimited supply of moose. Bet the draw will be 10 years in Wmu soon thanks to one or two people. Also who possible eats 8 moose? The dog is very well fed and yes I know because they don't want to buy dog food quoted. . Not saying all people with hunting rights do this but I'm seeing it first hand how one person can have a huge effect on the population without any conservation in mind. Just me me me. It definatly is time for the government to re asses this before we end up like Manitoba. It literally has become a slaughterhouse in some areas before and after the season ends because we can not because we shouldn't.

I seen 10-15 moose minimum in my zone last year and not one this year not even any sign of a moose......must be Indians and Metis...not the predators or the one guy that pulled four cow moose tags on priority 5 last year or the fact that the zone has way too many tags issued.... And don't believe everything you here in the news.....there is still moose in Manitoba...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Raptor Boy

I seen 10-15 moose minimum in my zone last year and not one this year not even any sign of a moose......must be Indians and Metis...not the predators or the one guy that pulled four cow moose tags on priority 5 last year or the fact that the zone has way too many tags issued.... And don't believe everything you here in the news.....there is still moose in Manitoba...

Exactly how does one person get issued four moose tags in one year in Alberta?

[Passthru]

I'm Metis , but have grown up in Alberta always paying for tags ,fishing licenses and following all regulations. I like knowing that my money goes towards preserving and managing the game and fish I like to chase. I want my kids to have the same chance at experiencing and tagging out on the same things I have. Just shooting animals whenever you want in the year and with no limit on the number of animals was great maybe 200 years ago but these are different times with much more people out there wanting to do the same things. We are gonna all have to play far and share what god gave us. My family can easily eat 1 moose a year but 8 moose is just crazy. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There is nothing that prevents the charter from being rewritten.

I think that parts may be rewritten if it is renegotiated with those whose rights are written in the present document.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

As I posted previously, the crown included a clause that allowed regulations to be imposed. So no, the treaty did not include a guarantee of unrestricted hunting for life.

I think that could be done but game regulations are with the provinces and the rights are with the Feds.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Raptor Boy

I seen 10-15 moose minimum in my zone last year and not one this year not even any sign of a moose......must be Indians and Metis...not the predators or the one guy that pulled four cow moose tags on priority 5 last year or the fact that the zone has way too many tags issued.... And don't believe everything you here in the news.....there is still moose in Manitoba...

So it was actually a group of four people that applied for five years without a tag between them, to build enough priority ro draw tags in the sixth year? A native that kills only one moose per year is killing 50% more moose than those four people combined. If killing one moose every six years is too much for that population to withstand, then moose hunting in that location should be regulated for everyone.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Not until we have a man running our country, I fear the son would mess things up even worse than the father did.

Could you imagine if Jr tried to rewrite the constitution? The mind recoils at the thought.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by Passthru

I'm Metis , but have grown up in Alberta always paying for tags ,fishing licenses and following all regulations. I like knowing that my money goes towards preserving and managing the game and fish I like to chase. I want my kids to have the same chance at experiencing and tagging out on the same things I have. Just shooting animals whenever you want in the year and with no limit on the number of animals was great maybe 200 years ago but these are different times with much more people out there wanting to do the same things. We are gonna all have to play far and share what god gave us. My family can easily eat 1 moose a year but 8 moose is just crazy. Just cause you can doesn't mean you should.

It's too bad more people don't have the same common sense and practice the same constraint you do. I commend you for taking the initiative to put wildlife conservation ahead of greed.

In this day and age you would think more people would have evolved by now...

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by densa44

Two governments made an agreement in the late 1800s Her Majesty's government in London and the Natives who lived here in what was to become Alberta. The Crown offered some rights in exchange for virtually all of Alberta, and one of those rights was unrestricted hunting forever.
Now one side is unhappy with the deal (the new people) so do you want to go back to the beginning and start again or have the non natives forego all hunting to protect the game animals.

Rights mean just that, you can't just take them from people but you might be able to negotiate some. What do you propose to trade for Native Hunting and Fishing rights?

If that was what the agreement was, and now they are asked to give up a significant portion of their rights?

I think it is reasonable to negotiate that they should get back a significant portion of what they originally gave up.

I do not think that is ever going to happen, so I do not think the government will be able to weasel out of their deal but may be able to do some closures as per the regulation thing.

Being a non native person I do not think there is anything that protects my right to sport hunt? I accept that I often have to apply and wait my turn and then pay for that privilege in hopes that the government will manage the game so that I can continue to enjoy my sport.

Until such time as a fair agreement can be made I will accept that.