Another set of Saksatchewan Poachers Guilty

[IronNoggin]

Far to small a fine IMHO:

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/p...81522226006867

At least it wasn't a walk I guess...

Nog

[elkhunter11]

Way too small of a fine, and they will be right back hunting with no suspension of hunting rights

[3blade]

A conviction is a win in this case. The fines should have been higher but if they were, they probably go to trial and we pay for their lawyers.

[Imagehunter]

Read on facebook the other day that a guy got fined three grand for having six walleye in his possession where it wasn't allowed. So three poached walleye equal one bison. Makes sense...

[Ken07AOVette]

I saw on Facebook an Alberta poacher had 3 walleye in the boat and 19 in his trailer. $1000 fine.
Where and how do the fines make sense?

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

I saw on Facebook an Alberta poacher had 3 walleye in the boat and 19 in his trailer. $1000 fine.
Where and how do the fines make sense?

Loss of boat would send a message to the scum out there.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Way too small of a fine, and they will be right back hunting with no suspension of hunting rights

Yup even if handed down loss of rights they will be right at it again, pathetic.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Yup even if handed down loss of rights they will be right at it again, pathetic.

And it's quite likely that even those fines will never be paid.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Way too small of a fine, and they will be right back hunting with no suspension of hunting rights

Hunting rights?

What a joke.

[ryeguy21]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Hunting rights?

What a joke.

Do you have an issue with their right to hunt?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

Do you have an issue with their right to hunt?

I do. Why should one group have more rights than another?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

Do you have an issue with their right to hunt?

I have an issue when people that are convicted of poaching are allowed to continue to hunt because of their hunting rights, whereas a person that doesn't have those rights would be suspended from hunting, as a result of a similar convection. If you are convicted of poaching, your race should not be a factor in whether you are allowed to continue to hunt.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

Do you have an issue with their right to hunt?

Ya, I do. Especially when it's abused the way it is! No Canadian citizen deserves those "rights".

[grouse_hunter]

Wow. The native shooters killed 5 bison, with all of the meat going to the elders and the needy on their rez! Their tribe must have the fattest elders in the West!

Ryeguy21, you don't have any issues with the race based, apartheid law system that we currently live under?!

[bobalong]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I do. Why should one group have more rights than another?

The reason is natives have hunting rights, others in the province have hunting privileges. They were not just given these rights, they were negotiated for access to and eventual ownership of thousands of acres of land by people immigrating to the west.

Through hard work and determination immigrants generated billions of dollars in farming and other industries. These same immigrants built homes, schools, communities etc. Who do you think got the better deal?

Pretty sure you and a lot others know this, you may not like their "rights" but what I don't understand is why many of you keep asking "why" they have those rights.

With regard to abuse of hunting rights, there seems to plenty of abuse of hunting privileges as well, both are wrong.....no question there.

This "deal" was done between the natives and the government and I am pretty sure they are the only people who could possibly change anything about the Treaties. I wouldn't hold your breath though as you are not likely to see any politician wanting to be the one labeled as "speaking" with forked tongue.

[Ranets]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I do. Why should one group have more rights than another?

Exactly correct

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by bobalong

The reason is natives have hunting rights, others in the province have hunting privileges. They were not just given these rights, they were negotiated for access to and eventual ownership of thousands of acres of land by people immigrating to the west.

Through hard work and determination immigrants generated billions of dollars in farming and other industries. These same immigrants built homes, schools, communities etc. Who do you think got the better deal?

Pretty sure you and a lot others know this, you may not like their "rights" but what I don't understand is why many of you keep asking "why" they have those rights.

With regard to abuse of hunting rights, there seems to plenty of abuse of hunting privileges as well, both are wrong.....no question there.

This "deal" was done between the natives and the government and I am pretty sure they are the only people who could possibly change anything about the Treaties. I wouldn't hold your breath though as you are not likely to see any politician wanting to be the one labeled as "speaking" with forked tongue.

I know "why" they have those rights. But now they want both sides of the treaty deal. Which is fair, provided "immigrants" get the same.

Natives chirp for equality while demanding to be treated different. The unpopular truth.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I have an issue when people that are convicted of poaching are allowed to continue to hunt because of their hunting rights, whereas a person that doesn't have those rights would be suspended from hunting, as a result of a similar convection. If you are convicted of poaching, your race should not be a factor in whether you are allowed to continue to hunt.

You are a criminal, a poacher, a scum who takes and has no issues with the choices they make. We have things a little backwards when it comes to rights but we are just blowing off steam that lands on ears that don't listen and have little to no backbone to make changes that reflect equality for all.
Sad but true.

[Ken07AOVette]

I would bet if I was caught with more fish than allowed, or with an animal out of season, there would be another zero on the fine amount. It goes back to the whole haves/have-nots deal.
Being prejudiced because of color affects everyone. It terrifies me. I know there would never be a free ride for me, which is one of the reasons I have always stayed on the straight and true, I do not fare well in tight spaces.

[Don_Parsons]

Its a fine line between treaty rights, Eastern migration of settlers, the lands we occupy, and the land its self.

Each generation forgets the treaty "binding for ever contract" that allows us these lands for the Dominion of Canada that first Nations give up so long as they have full access hunting rights. "Forever" is the way it's wrote up if I recall.

No biggy as we non first Nations folks have too carry on. The whole thing is too large and complicated as it will consume your entire life trying too sort threw the whole treaty/ contact.

Canada is now 150 years old and these contacts sections "acts" are still in part going threw the courts even today.

Billions apon billions of dollars ever year we pay for in legal litigation as the courts and Canadian government will never define what is what from these contracts.

Both sides are un pleasant, and will alway be that way.
Purhaps we only see this from our side my friends.
Funny that one might not like the way it is, but us settlers have done well with the hosts that allowed us too occupy their lands.

This harvest treaty is a given, there will never be a change too it, the only option we have is too give the lands back and leave the North American continent.

I for one am thrilled too have my brothers and sisters in arms as they helped us become the Canada we are today.

Had they not been their for us in the war of 1812, then we would now be part of the United States of America, it was these First Nations people that allowed us too be part of this land "we call Canada our home and native land.


PS:::
The above is a grain of sand on a mountain of rocks that spans the globe,,, I share the smallest of small fractions of this in hopes that those that choose to learn more fine what they are searching for.

I am un-wize to this as my eyes are weak and I'm old.
It will rest on the shoulders of the next generation as they learn that no change will "ever" come.

A fruitless quest on a path that never ends until time its self ends.

Lucky we are,,, dam lucky fore sure.

Don

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Don_Parsons

Its a fine line between treaty rights, Eastern migration of settlers, the lands we occupy, and the land its self.

Each generation forgets the treaty "binding for ever contract" that allows us these lands for the Dominion of Canada that first Nations give up so long as they have full access hunting rights. "Forever" is the way it's wrote up if I recall.

No biggy as we non first Nations folks have too carry on. The whole thing is too large and complicated as it will consume your entire life trying too sort threw the whole treaty/ contact.

Canada is now 150 years old and these contacts sections "acts" are still in part going threw the courts even today.

Billions apon billions of dollars ever year we pay for in legal litigation as the courts and Canadian government will never define what is what from these contracts.

Both sides are un pleasant, and will alway be that way.
Purhaps we only see this from our side my friends.
Funny that one might not like the way it is, but us settlers have done well with the hosts that allowed us too occupy their lands.

This harvest treaty is a given, there will never be a change too it, the only option we have is too give the lands back and leave the North American continent.

I for one am thrilled too have my brothers and sisters in arms as they helped us become the Canada we are today.

Had they not been their for us in the war of 1812, then we would now be part of the United States of America, it was these First Nations people that allowed us too be part of this land "we call Canada our home and native land.


PS:::
The above is a grain of sand on a mountain of rocks that spans the globe,,, I share the smallest of small fractions of this in hopes that those that choose to learn more fine what they are searching for.

I am un-wize to this as my eyes are weak and I'm old.
It will rest on the shoulders of the next generation as they learn that no change will "ever" come.

A fruitless quest on a path that never ends until time its self ends.

Lucky we are,,, dam lucky fore sure.

Don

Still does not change that WE are all Canadians and that a poacher is a poacher that should be nailed to the wall as there are no excuses for this at all and then there is always the BUT....we need to evolve as a country and get to a better spot on these type of situations, rights, treaties...I call them privileges to live in a country...Canada.

[dgl1948]

If you read the rights given with the treaties the First Nations people get far more than was ever agreed to. To say the treaties have never been changed is not true. The treaties forbid the use of alcohol. I doubt there is any First Nations person that would go back and live with the terms of a treaty today.

[ryeguy21]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Still does not change that WE are all Canadians and that a poacher is a poacher that should be nailed to the wall as there are no excuses for this at all and then there is always the BUT....we need to evolve as a country and get to a better spot on these type of situations, rights, treaties...I call them privileges to live in a country...Canada.

I find this amusing. The same 6 posters repeat themselves constantly in regards to treaty rights on every thread. These posters always try this equal rights non sense but thats not what its about. These posters just want to cherry pick what laws/treaties are convenient for them.

What we can agree on is that any poacher need to be dealt with harshly.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

I find this amusing. The same 6 posters repeat themselves constantly in regards to treaty rights on every thread. These posters always try this equal rights non sense but thats not what its about. These posters just want to cherry pick what laws/treaties are convenient for them.

What we can agree on is that any poacher need to be dealt with harshly.

Is this about treaties or is it about poaching?

Funny whenever there is a case of treaty Indians poaching, and the light sentences given simply because of their race, you're always the guy that shows up to defend them?

There has to be advocates for both sides because there's always two sides to a story.

Let me ask you your opinion on the crime and punishment on this, instead of you just putting the guys that are posting on trial.

Do you agree with the sentence for the crime? Would you agree if it was a non treaty Canadian that did the same crime and received the same sentence?

Edit: To be honest, the only problem I have with hunting "rights" is the abuse. The only change I'd propose is the registration of all wildlife taken to both help reduce the abuse and help our conservation efforts with accurate harvest numbers. I don't agree with the way it is right now, and like other parts of the treaties, it's time to update this part of the treaties with the times.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by ryeguy21

I find this amusing. The same 6 posters repeat themselves constantly in regards to treaty rights on every thread. These posters always try this equal rights non sense but thats not what its about. These posters just want to cherry pick what laws/treaties are convenient for them.

What we can agree on is that any poacher need to be dealt with harshly.

See the bold. Should every word of every treaty still apply the same today as it did when it was signed? Including levels of social and financial assistance?

[elkhunter11]

Treaties, hunting rights, and all else aside, anyone convicted of illegally harvesting animals should be suspended from hunting, anywhere in the province for at least one calender year. And that suspension should not end, until all fines are paid in full.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Treaties, hunting rights, and all else aside, anyone convicted of illegally harvesting animals should be suspended from hunting, anywhere in the province for at least one calender year. And that suspension should not end, until all fines are paid in full.

Yes

[CMichaud]

Treaty 6

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, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110.../1100100028783

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by CMichaud

Treaty 6

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, and saving and excepting such tracts as may from time to time be required or taken up for settlement, mining, lumbering or other purposes by Her said Government of the Dominion of Canada, or by any of the subjects thereof duly authorized therefor by the said Government.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110.../1100100028783

Seems clear to me.

[Don_Parsons]

I agree that poaching is poaching and the courts did the best they could choosing the fine. Yes it would of been a higher price if it was someone other than first Nations people.

There most likely will always be a trump card delt in the hand no matter what happens when FN folks are out side of these treaty acts.

It would be nice if everyone in Canada was treated fairly, but special privileges too a select few groups "could" change things too their side.

As I mentioned in my above post,,, the whole thing involves alot of different angles that is time consuming too get a grasp of.

There has been many cases like this, and many many more too follow.

I'm mostly wrong about alot of things, guess its part of trying to learn small peaces along the way.

Don