NS "Lobster War"

[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.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I knew a deflect was the only response I would get from you because the truth would only back up what I’ve been saying.

To answer your question truthfully without deflect, no I do not support laws the give special rights to people based on their race.

See how easy that was for me?

Sure it was easy. But you can't name any laws that give special rights based on race in Canada. It's a meaningless question when there are no such things. It's like asking if you prefer white or black unicorns.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Well how about your right to own property for starters.

Your deflections are interesting, but not well thought out.

I would have a hard time believing this would ever happen in Canada, it is doubtful all enforcement agents live in apartments. Everyone would fight this, maybe the first time in Canadian history the entire country would unite.

[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....

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Well how about your right to own property for starters.

Your deflections are interesting, but not well thought out.

You mean my right to purchase property? You mean if Canada was a communist country? I’m not trying to deflect, I’m trying to clarify what you are asking.

You realize the issue is about abusing rights right? You realize the fishermen on the east coast are up in arms because of the fishery being abused right? You realize that there is a huge difference between 130,000 and 1,674,000 right? At what point will common sense be part of the equation?

Regardless of who wrote the treaties, who agreed to the treaties, or who signed the treaties, their time has ran out. Population and technology has grown exponentially, it’s time for Canada to do the same.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

You realize the issue is about abusing rights right? You realize the fishermen on the east coast are up in arms because of the fishery being abused right? You realize that there is a huge difference between 130,000 and 1,674,000 right? At what point will common sense be part of the equation?

I fished lobster every summer in college, so I feel very comfortable saying...... lobster fishermen are a remarkably entitled group. The Bloc look like hard asses in comparison.


It hasn't been established at all that rights are being abused. Not even close.

[sk270]

I have been accused of deflecting pointed questions. Well, I have one of my own. Give an example of a Canadian law that provides rights based solely on race to the exclusion of all other races.

[riden]

I thought this was funny

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sk270

Sure it was easy. But you can't name any laws that give special rights based on race in Canada. It's a meaningless question when there are no such things. It's like asking if you prefer white or black unicorns.

Ok, it’s against the law for me to shoot a cow moose in March because I am not indigenous.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Ok, it’s against the law for me to shoot a cow moose in March because I am not indigenous.

That is not a law. It is part of a treaty agreement combined with a law. The law says that you may not shoot a moose out of season. It does not mention treaty.

Try again.

[Tkiper]

The nation of Canada gained the treaty right to settle and share indigenous lands as outlined within each signed treaty. I notice though that folks are only interested in the abuse of treaty rights when it is First Nations utilizing their rights to hunt, fish and trap. God forbid we consider it an abuse of treaty rights when we slam a mining or oil development right into the heart of important caribou grounds or sacred areas.

Sure, maybe this lobster fishery will have a negative impact on conservation efforts of the lobster fishery. But i'd hazard a guess and say the continued industrial settling of the country from coast to coast carried out by us white folks has had a tad bigger of an impact and certainly shows no signs of slowing down in the name of "conservation".

But wait, I forgot, we know best and we do no wrong. Let me just climb back up on my high horse..

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sk270

That is not a law. It is part of a treaty agreement combined with a law. The law says that you may not shoot a moose out of season. It does not mention treaty.

Try again.

If I was indigenous I could legally shoot a moose in March correct?

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

If I was indigenous I could legally shoot a moose in March correct?

Yes. As you know, that's a treaty right.

The law says that you have to hunt in season. Name a law that gives special rights to certain races to the exclusion of others. If you can.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sk270

Yes. As you know, that's a treaty right.

The law says that you have to hunt in season. Name a law that gives special rights to certain races to the exclusion of others. If you can.

Is it against the law for an indigenous person to shoot a moose during March in Alberta?

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Is it against the law for an indigenous person to shoot a moose during March in Alberta?

No, as you already know. Treaty rights supersede the hunting regulations.

So what's your point? You started this discussion, if I can dignify your back-and-forth with that title.

Why don't you just answer my question and give me a law that provides special rights based solely on race?

Probably because you cannot.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sk270

No, as you already know. So what's your point? You started this discussion, if I can dignify your back-and-forth with that title.

Why don't you just answer my question and give me a law that provides special rights based solely on race?

Probably because you cannot.

I just asked you if I was non indigenous could I legally shoot a moose in March, you said no. Then I asked if I could legally shoot a moose in March if I was indigenous, you answered yes. The only thing that changed in my question on whether or not it was legal was the race of the person doing the shooting. So the law is it is illegal to shoot a moose in March unless you are indigenous.

[JD848]

Originally Posted by sk270

That is not a law. It is part of a treaty agreement combined with a law. The law says that you may not shoot a moose out of season. It does not mention treaty.

Try again.

So when does it become a crime in the eyes of your creator or does the treaty over ride him also, if they there going to use these treaties as crimes against nature to the well being and balance of there food source then they have broken the laws they pray to. If they forget this part then there a lost group of people. You can't have it both ways,if you do then those who pray to there creator are full bore hypocrites hiding behind some ink destroying themselves within .

Killing a pregnant cow in march is a bad omen in my eyes and in my creators eyes, no courts should stand up for these agreements .No one should have to explain this to any court or any treaty hunter why this is very wrong.

If you want hardship ,just destroy what you need for no reason.So far it's not going to well,so a different approach needs to be taken after 400 years .

JD

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

I just asked you if I was non indigenous could I legally shoot a moose in March, you said no. Then I asked if I could legally shoot a moose in March if I was indigenous, you answered yes. The only thing that changed in my question on whether or not it was legal was the race of the person doing the shooting. So the law is it is illegal to shoot a moose in March unless you are indigenous.

The law sets hunting seasons. The treaty says that Indigenous persons do not have to follow that law. The law itself does not address the treaty question because it is overwritten when the case gets to court.

Is your only issue whether or not you can shoot a moose in March?

Any laws that set rights on the basis of race?

[sk270]

Originally Posted by JD848

So when does it become a crime in the eyes of your creator.

Killing a pregnant cow in march is a bad omen in my eyes and in my creators eyes, no courts should stand up for these agreements .No one should have to explain this to any court or any treaty hunter why this is very wrong.

If you want hardship ,just destroy what you need for no reason.So far it's not going to well,so a different approach needs to be taken after 400 years .

JD

I'm not sure about "creator". I don't think that Canadian courts reference their creator very often except, perhaps, in the oath. We are talking about the Canadian legal system.

What kind of a different approach do you suggest?

What happened in 1620? I thought everyone was upset about the 18th and 19th century treaties.

[JD848]

Originally Posted by sk270

I'm not sure about "creator". I don't think that Canadian courts reference their creator very often except, perhaps, in the oath. We are talking about the Canadian legal system.

What kind of a different approach do you suggest?

What happened in 1620? I thought everyone was upset about the 18th and 19th century treaties.

As time changes whether 40 years or 400 or 150 years as the population grows things will have to change with these treaties.

Or just let it all get destroyed and then there will be no need for courts or treaties,lotsa things were not well thought out .

The same Canadian laws that blocked our railways and threaten to shut down our economy or as one member came out with an act of war.Since covid that crap sure stopped,we all need each other no matter what, so both sides have to reset what's upsetting so many and live with what's happening today,not the past.

If I had the perfect answer I would tell you,but one thing is for sure we all need each other,like it or not.

JD

[Positrac]

I’m all for one big payout and the free ride is over. Give every Indian a million bucks and then you’re done.

It would all go back into the economy pretty quick anyways.

[roper1]

[QUOTE=sk270;4252698] The treaty says that Indigenous persons do not have to follow that law.


Seems like you explained it here very well.

[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.

[Kurt505]

[QUOTE=roper1;4252755]

Originally Posted by sk270

The treaty says that Indigenous persons do not have to follow that law.


Seems like you explained it here very well.

It’s all semantics, the same tactic used in fighting to keep the treaties in place as they were written rather than how they pertain to life in 2020.

Positrac is on to something. If we gave each and every Métis and indigenous person $1,000,000 it would be equivalent to $625 per acre, or $100,000 Per quarter section of land in Canada. A fair price I would say considering that would cover the Canadian Shield, muskeg holes, bush and baron lands. A one time payment and a clean slate. We can forget about the trillions that have already been paid. After that we live as one under one set of rules for all Canadians. We suffer loss and bask in profit together after that.

[Smoky buck]

The same old round and round

It won’t end and it will continue to cause problems in Canada with both our resources and economy. I don’t care what end of the argument you’re on but it’s pretty clear out present system does not work

[Big Thumper]

The solution has really been handed to us by the left. As all FN/Metis/Inuit would never give up any rights, and it is always hard for politicians to take rights away, the easiest solution is to just give these rights to everyone. The left says anyone can 'identify' as they so chose. So, why shouldn't those who want to identify as FN/Metis/Inuit be allowed to do so legally? Once everyone has chosen to do this, and we all have the same 'rights', some things would have to be modified in the name of conservation, revenue, etc.

[blackburbot]

Im part of the new immigrant group...so my ideas are biased...

Both sides of the arguement are cherry picking examples. Everyone is wanting the ulimate best of what is out there and complaining when something isnt going their way. Turdheads father tried eliminating or reducing the treaties when he was doing his term as supreme leader, but the other group didn't want it because they would be losing to much, yet complained that they weren't being treated like equals. Sounds like chery picking....

I hardly think in these times that any hard firm answers will come from this.
1. Our society for the most part gets offended by anything these days so someome will cry because adult real life actions were taken and they will have to rewrite something because the document had black ink and black is an offensive color to them.
2. Our society has the attention span of a kid in a candy store. 2 months from now and we wont remember this, there will be another "major" event and this might make 7seconds at the 29th minute of the 11pm news. But someone will be getting a back room deal of 8million dollars that will be used to fund further shady deals
3. Our government wants to drive wedges in society so society is kept fighting amungst itself so government can continue lining its pockets instead of having to answer for itself.
4. Our society has too many individual wants instead of a collective goal

[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 Big Thumper

The solution has really been handed to us by the left. As all FN/Metis/Inuit would never give up any rights, and it is always hard for politicians to take rights away, the easiest solution is to just give these rights to everyone. The left says anyone can 'identify' as they so chose. So, why shouldn't those who want to identify as FN/Metis/Inuit be allowed to do so legally? Once everyone has chosen to do this, and we all have the same 'rights', some things would have to be modified in the name of conservation, revenue, etc.

That makes more sense then it seems.

No doubt it would result in most if not all resources being wiped out but that will happen soon enough anyway.

The way the world population is growing it's only a matter of time till we outstrip the globes capacity to support everyone. Our resources will be the first casualty.

But, will it solve anything? That I doubt. People will find reasons to hate, no matter who has what rights.

Just have a look around your neighborhood. Hunters hate outfitters, who are also hunters.
Liberals hate Conservatives, Conservatives hate Liberals and everyone hates the NDP.

There is no limit to the capacity of the human race to hate.

Giving or taking rights will not change that.

[Serengeti Charters]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Well how about your right to own property for starters.

Your deflections are interesting, but not well thought out.

In fairness Harper wanted to allow FN to own their own land on reserves and then would lose some privileges because of it and was strictly rejected by FN leadership. So they apparently don’t want to own land if it means having to do somethings like the average Canadian.