Subsistence hunting- OFFICIAL thread

[SmokinJoe]

Originally Posted by Squeaker

We know what trophies are and I am standing my ground for the younger generations to get the chance the same way we all want the fairness...that was you earlier comment was the word fair .. so I keep asking why is it ok for you to go do this and I cant ? or my son who has just as much right as your son ..you said fair so I am going with whats fair for you should be fair for me ..and you keep dancing all around that comment leading away with different comments. what I wanna know is why its ok for you and not for me ?

Because I have a right to hunt. You have a privedge to hunt. It's the law, it's laid out for all of us to co exist. We abide by the same law with different guideline based on our ancestry, but it's the same law. Therefore it's fair.

[SmokinJoe]

On the lighter side

Has anyone else noticed subsistence is spelt wrong in the title?

[Squeaker]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Because I have a right to hunt. You have a privedge to hunt. It's the law, it's laid out for all of us to co exist. We abide by the same law with different guideline based on our ancestry, but it's the same law. Therefore it's fair.

this is 2015 maybe its time we look back at the past as history and heritage the way it should be ..you have no more of a right to hunt this land then I do be it 1876 or 2015 ..and this day and age its time to get off the high horse ..

We cant change the past we can change the future and for the better..Fair is fair for me for you and for every person out there.

[SmokinJoe]

Glad your finally stepping off your high horse. Welcome to ground level. Now that your here let me tell you that I know way more about your peoples history than you do about mine. When you know my peoples history and who we are today and who we want to be in the future, we will discuss this again, I guarantee you will change your opinion. Until then I'm going to bed,

[780sjc]

So I have a question.... What is it we are actually talking about here lol. I've seen it spelled substinence, subsistence, substitence, sustenance, substance(lol) to name a few. Anyone know what the correct word is??

[IR_mike]

Originally Posted by 780sjc

So I have a question.... What is it we are actually talking about here lol. I've seen it spelled substinence, subsistence, substitence, sustenance, substance(lol) to name a few. Anyone know what the correct word is??

Im thinkin

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by pottymouth

Difference I can openly and legally admit i'm not hunting for the meat, with the tag I purchased, in a regulated season!

so fair is fair your right! either all left or all right..but All together!

You desire a negotiation to restrict treaty hunting for the purpose of increasing trophy potential for licenced hunters that admittedly are not hunting for the meat. ?

Do you think the prospect of change has much traction with this position?

Originally Posted by TreeGuy

Thanks for the reply, Joe.

Ain't nothin' wrong with full freezers for everyone....especially those in need. Most seem to not see the fact that there could be a dozen or more homes with empty freezers for every shooter present in theses incidences and I'm mostly ok with it.

However, it would certainly be nice to negotiate a way to do this without driving the cultural wedge that much deeper, thus causing so much animosity.

There has to be a better way.

There is a better way to initiate a discussion for change. For starters the group seeking change should make concise, honest and honorable gestures to their counterparts in an attempt to bring the parties to a place where consultation can begin.

Why would Treaty Indians want to open this door today? I can't see a reason that has been put forward. All the suggestions I have heard so far would only keep the parties further divided.

Know your counterpart and start at the beginning, with an introduction an offering and an invitation.

Originally Posted by Squeaker

I am all for a hungry family in need of food being looked after and would never as much turn a blind eye to that and would be the first to help out if the family next to me was in need of food with little kids id have no issue walking out the door driving down the road and shooting the first animal I seen to help them I think lots of people would ..even be it out of season call me a poacher if you must then but that family in need would be helped ..that is subsistence hunting ..That is not what is going on in this case .

IMO, the Op (the mods) and others have made a grave mistake in focusing on the idea of subsistence hunting. The issue at hand is Treaty hunting rights and this is much different legal beast.

For those desiring to make any positive motions on the potential to re-negotiate must first become less confrontational and more educated on the facts. In this matter a well lubed squeeky wheel will simply be tossed into the garbage pile for being old and irreparable.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by 780sjc

So I have a question.... What is it we are actually talking about here lol. I've seen it spelled substinence, subsistence, substitence, sustenance, substance(lol) to name a few. Anyone know what the correct word is??

None of the above.

We are actually talking about Treaty 6, 7, and 8 hunting rights.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Because I have a right to hunt. You have a privedge to hunt. It's the law, it's laid out for all of us to co exist. We abide by the same law with different guideline based on our ancestry, but it's the same law. Therefore it's fair.

You complain about discrimination against you, but are all for discrimination against white hunters.

So much for fairness.

[elkhunter11]

Because I have a right to hunt. You have a privedge to hunt. It's the law, it's laid out for all of us to co exist. We abide by the same law with different guideline based on our ancestry, but it's the same law. Therefore it's fair.

A person has only to look at the joke of a constitution we have to see that all Canadians are not equal under the law. Many Canadians have fought and died for freedom and equality, and yet we are no more equal now than we were in the past. In fact with the joke of a constitution that we have, and with race based laws that have been enacted, we are actually less equal. But that seems to be okay with you, as long as you are the one enjoying the extra freedoms.

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by bobalong

First off to my knowledge hunting rights were not "given" to the Natives, it was a negotiation and they were traded for land. For those of you who do not agree with this, maybe all treaties should be cancelled and all land that was "given" by the Natives to the crown, should be returned to them. I will agree this is not a very rational or reasonable suggestion, but neither is cherry picking the treaties and suggesting elimination of a few things that now, a hundred years later you don't like.

How can a comment stating that Natives are killing to much big game, be taken seriously when no one seems to know how much they are "taking" or how many people they are feeding?? I have read the comments about allowing 2 deer and one elk or moose per native family.....once again how big of a native family?.

I have also read about non-native members on here getting moose tags, elk tags and deer and possibly even antelope tags for their whole family in the same year. Husband gets one, wife gets one, a couple sons and a daughter get one, and they all shoot game......but that is ok???????

I have also read comments about Natives not hunting for subsistence, because they have expensive trucks, quads etc. Those same members then boast of making 150-200K, owing quads, 70K trucks, and boats, and hunting and shooing as many animals per year as legally possible. Some are single, or maybe have a wife, but no kids........so they are hunting only because they enjoy it. Needing the meat is so far down the least of priorities of why they hunt, it is not even worth mentioning. I don't really have a problem with that, but do not protest and demean Natives, that for many, shooting and eating wild game is necessary, not for all, but for some.

I also wonder about the comments that Natives should not be able to shoot big bulls. First off bulls are typically 40% larger than cows, so if you are hunting for meat, is this not a logical choice? Also wondering why on other posts, that members suggest that you should not shoot does/cows because they are more important to maintaining a population. This seems to only be a valid comment if your a native............or a landowner. Their justification for stating natives should not be allowed to shoot bulls...........because they want to, so they can put the racks on the wall. Greed and hypocrisy on this one.

Although I may not agree with everything in the treaties, and is there some abuse.... yes, but the deal was made, so honour your word. I have also read on here where a Native group applies to have some land returned to them that was in a treaty, and what are some of the first comments from members on here "They made the deal now live with it"......that saying goes both ways.

The whole native hunting bashing issue on this forum is so typical of many of the hunters on here. If even one little thing has the potential for removing a hunting opportunity for them, be it archers, muzzle loaders, natives, any and all are considered greedy and are criticized constantly. Some of you guys REALLY need to look in a mirror, if you truly want to see what greed looks like.

Best post on the thread. Well written.

[FreeLantz]

I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe this was answered. To many novels to read lol.
How did someone take a picture on the Block? That is expressly forbidden and they seem to not take it lightly. That being said....I definitely recognize the bay the truck is parked in. Pretty sure thats where I pulled the eye teeth out of my elk.

[Flatlandliver]

Originally Posted by 780sjc

So I have a question.... What is it we are actually talking about here lol. I've seen it spelled substinence, subsistence, substitence, sustenance, substance(lol) to name a few. Anyone know what the correct word is??

From the Wildlife Act
Subsistence hunting licence - eligibility
39(1) A person is eligible to obtain or hold a subsistence hunting licence if and only if
(a) he is a resident
(b) the Minister is satisfied that he is in dire need of sustenance for any of his family members, including his adult interdependent partner.

Subsistence hunting licence ‑ entitlements
40(1) A subsistence hunting licence authorizes its holder, if any of his family members, including an adult interdependent partner, is in dire need of sustenance, to hunt the kind or kinds of animal, from among moose, elk and deer, and in the number, during the period and in the area, specified in the licence.

You will notice the act makes no reference to race, its about need.
Sorry if this was posted earlier, I just ate and didn't want to upset my stomach reading the whole thread.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by Squeaker

The problem is there is people that have been waiting and applying faithfully for 10+ years of there life waiting for that tag ..Why should the be ripped off and cheated out of there chances for a decent once in a life time hunt ? Guess the government should give those 21,000 people that apply there ,their money back for there draw applications hey ? Hahaha

Thank you!

[bigbfidaddy]

X2 bobalong well written and factual. spoken from the heart.

[Don K]

Originally Posted by hal53

look at the map and see how close Prince Albert is to Brazeau River.. both moot points....

Or Ya Ha Tinda... There used to be trucks with Sask plates at Deer Flats every year until the hunting started to drop off in 318, 418 and 420.

[expmler]

Originally Posted by bobalong

First off to my knowledge hunting rights were not "given" to the Natives, it was a negotiation and they were traded for land. For those of you who do not agree with this, maybe all treaties should be cancelled and all land that was "given" by the Natives to the crown, should be returned to them. I will agree this is not a very rational or reasonable suggestion, but neither is cherry picking the treaties and suggesting elimination of a few things that now, a hundred years later you don't like.

How can a comment stating that Natives are killing to much big game, be taken seriously when no one seems to know how much they are "taking" or how many people they are feeding?? I have read the comments about allowing 2 deer and one elk or moose per native family.....once again how big of a native family?.
That is fine, but why the opposition to having the size of family and number of animals taken documented and controlled?

I have also read about non-native members on here getting moose tags, elk tags and deer and possibly even antelope tags for their whole family in the same year. Husband gets one, wife gets one, a couple sons and a daughter get one, and they all shoot game......but that is ok???????
Do they do it every year like natives do?

I have also read comments about Natives not hunting for subsistence, because they have expensive trucks, quads etc. Those same members then boast of making 150-200K, owing quads, 70K trucks, and boats, and hunting and shooing as many animals per year as legally possible. Some are single, or maybe have a wife, but no kids........so they are hunting only because they enjoy it. Needing the meat is so far down the least of priorities of why they hunt, it is not even worth mentioning. I don't really have a problem with that, but do not protest and demean Natives, that for many, shooting and eating wild game is necessary, not for all, but for some.
No one is protesting those natives that are actually subsistence hunting.

I also wonder about the comments that Natives should not be able to shoot big bulls. First off bulls are typically 40% larger than cows, so if you are hunting for meat, is this not a logical choice? Also wondering why on other posts, that members suggest that you should not shoot does/cows because they are more important to maintaining a population. This seems to only be a valid comment if your a native............or a landowner. Their justification for stating natives should not be allowed to shoot bulls...........because they want to, so they can put the racks on the wall. Greed and hypocrisy on this one.
Are you suggesting non natives don't use the meat? If not then why are non natives banned from shooting bulls and not able to utilize more meat from a larger animal? I thought the idea of the suffield hunt was to reduce population, hence why cows should be shot not bulls.

Although I may not agree with everything in the treaties, and is there some abuse.... yes, but the deal was made, so honour your word. I have also read on here where a Native group applies to have some land returned to them that was in a treaty, and what are some of the first comments from members on here "They made the deal now live with it"......that saying goes both ways.

The whole native hunting bashing issue on this forum is so typical of many of the hunters on here. If even one little thing has the potential for removing a hunting opportunity for them, be it archers, muzzle loaders, natives, any and all are considered greedy and are criticized constantly. Some of you guys REALLY need to look in a mirror, if you truly want to see what greed looks like.

All anybody wants is for everyone to be treated the same and not have different rules based on skin color.

[crownb]

Originally Posted by expmler

All anybody wants is for everyone to be treated the same and not have different rules based on skin color.

There it is in a nutshell, we didnt need 8 pages, FAIRNESS for all.

[H380]

[QUOTE=SmokinJoe;2702668]

Originally Posted by H380

Why don't you wear out some boots like the rest of us did to find that out.

Oh so you walked to Suffield ?Cause you still haven't answered the original question , simply because you can't.

[crownb]

[QUOTE=H380;2702835]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Oh so you walked to Suffield ? Cause you still haven't answered the original question , simply because you can't .

It's funny how the hard questions get left behind.

[elkdump]

I do believe that Subsistence Hunting,Fishing under Treaty Eights includes

uses as such " Food, Social,Ceremonial purposes" so animal,sex,species,age,

size, is not of consequence,,,

[crownb]

Originally Posted by elkdump

I do believe that Subsistence Hunting,Fishing under Treaty Eights includes

uses as such " Food, Social,Ceremonial purposes" so animal,sex,species,age,

size, is not of consequence,,,

Wow, so taking only bulls out of the herd from suffield was just luck, they came a cross only bulls, I wonder how many cows they drove by to get those bulls, if they were really in desperation for some food they should have taken the first animals they saw and odds tell me that that would not be bulls every time. If my family and I needed food to Survive, I would not be looking for antlers for ceremonial purposes.

[roy9525]

Originally Posted by Squeaker

If they needed that much meat supplied to there families then they would be shooting what ever comes in front of them ...I find it very hard to believe that 400hundered mature trophy class bulls were lined up walking single file for them to shoot ..I also find it hard that on that long drive from Saskatchewan to suffield that they didn't pass any other deer moose elk antelope that they could have shot ..they had to come all the way to suffield to shoot elk ...100% proof right there this isn't subsistence hunting ..How much more clear do you need it ?

If you need subsistence hunting to feed your families the first animal you see your gonna shoot ..Not driving hundreds of KM to go shoot a trophy class bull elk.. Does this not make sense ?

x2

[Alberta Bigbore]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Best post on the thread. Well written.

X10 on bobalongs post

[elkdump]

Originally Posted by crownb

Wow, so taking only bulls out of the herd from suffield was just luck, they came a cross only bulls, I wonder how many cows they drove by to get those bulls, if they were really in desperation for some food they should have taken the first animals they saw and odds tell me that that would not be bulls every time. If my family and I needed food to Survive, I would not be looking for antlers for ceremonial purposes.

This late in the season I have come across very large bachelor herds of elk, a couple years ago I counted about 120+ bulls milling around in close quarters, no obvious cows, the herd of cows and calves were in a field about 3 Kms away.

I could clearly make out there was about 30 to 40 six point or better bulls among the herd,,,,

But I didn't have a tag or a Treaty Card ,,, matter of fact I had already killed a 6x7 Bull earlier that year,,

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You desire a negotiation to restrict treaty hunting for the purpose of increasing trophy potential for licenced hunters that admittedly are not hunting for the meat. ?

Do you think the prospect of change has much traction with this position?





There is a better way to initiate a discussion for change. For starters the group seeking change should make concise, honest and honorable gestures to their counterparts in an attempt to bring the parties to a place where consultation can begin.

The groups have brought this to the table. It has been brought up to our poloticians as they are the ones that have to be at the table but they choose not to. How do we manage game in this day and age when there is no control over season and harvest limits. We have a growing population, decreasing land base for wildlife and hunting and harvesting methods that have changed over the years. Take a look at Manitoba now, the Metis have now been granted the same rights. Their population is growing as well.That province is now having to close some of what used to be the best hunting areas in the province because of unregulated over harvesting.

Why would Treaty Indians want to open this door today? I can't see a reason that has been put forward. All the suggestions I have heard so far would only keep the parties further divided.

Why, so there can be a sustainable harvest for all in the future.


Know your counterpart and start at the beginning, with an introduction an offering and an invitation.


IMO, the Op (the mods) and others have made a grave mistake in focusing on the idea of subsistence hunting. The issue at hand is Treaty hunting rights and this is much different legal beast.

Not realy. Treaty hunting rights makes it possable to to subsistance hunt.
For those desiring to make any positive motions on the potential to re-negotiate must first become less confrontational and more educated on the facts. In this matter a well lubed squeeky wheel will simply be tossed into the garbage pile for being old and irreparable.

I do not think anyone has a problem with people who need to hunt for food if they truly need to. The problem I see is those that hunt for sport and use their treaty rights to do so.

[Winch101]

Can natives sell this obvious over abundance of wild game . If not to the
General public than to other band members .

So once again John Q taxpayer is screwed by the Feds , they want Elk killed
And don't give a damn how it's done and by whom . No pictures because
One of you might be a Jihadist , or sell the pics to terrorist . They open the gates to them but no pics . Feds can't do anything right .

I don't think passing a slaughter off as treaty rights is in keeping with
Honourable interaction .
What I don't get ,is why if Alberta hunters are not happy about this ,
Why not take a page from Canadian Terrorist 101 . Road block reserve
Access roads it works for them . I think the CN main line runs adjacent
To the base , shut it down .

How come those Petas and Antis aren't out at the gate in full garb .
Oh ya fair weather demo only

[elkdump]

What ever happened to about 50 Million(50,000,000)Bison ?

[elkoholik]

Originally Posted by elkdump

What ever happened to about 50 Million(50,000,000)Bison ?

So 2 wrongs make a right???

Lets put the past behind us and learn format, the way it is going now we will have nothing to hunt and all will be screwed ALL. We need to all need to realize we live in the 21st century and laws/treaties need to be amended. Most would have no issue with Aboriginals hunting on reserve land but not on public land other than by the same rules the rest of us have to live by. Unfortunately changes such as this will not come easily but hopefully one day there will be a change and hopefully before the past becomes the present.

[SmokinJoe]

[QUOTE=H380;2702835]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

Oh so you walked to Suffield ?Cause you still haven't answered the original question , simply because you can't.

No avoiding the question because nobody wants their spot advertised on here. Not myself not the other members on here.