NS "Lobster War"

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sk270

You said that I was a "proponent of racism". That is name calling. You called me a three-word name, no different from "racist" because you added to it. I am not "trying to do" anything except point out what you wrote. How can you deny it? You called me a racist.

I am not hiding behind anything.The courts of Canada have decided that the treaties have legal standing. We can re-negotiate but until that happens we have to recognize the treaties, even if we don't like their provisions.

The biologists, DFO and many lobster fishers do not think that the lobster seasons are based on conservation. Did you read the link I provided?

Yes I said you are a proponent of racism because that’s exactly what you are doing, how do I sugar coat it for you to make you feel better about it? Let me know and that’s how I will refer to you I promise.

Yes you are hiding behind it, you just admitted it. A court ruling says you can harvest so you harvest regardless if it’s right or wrong. Fishing spawning grounds, with no regard to size limits is wrong. You know it, I know it but you hide behind the excuse that it’s written in the treaty and I’m just exercising my rights. If your “rights” were not being abused there would be no need to re-negotiate, think about that for a minute. If conservation was at the top of your priorities rather than greed we would not be having this conversation.

Biologists, DFO and many fishermen don’t think the seasons are based on conservation then why not make it a free for all? Would that be a good idea? I’m interested in what you think about opening it up for everyone to take advantage of.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Yes I said you are a proponent of racism because that’s exactly what you are doing, how do I sugar coat it for you to make you feel better about it?

A court ruling says you can harvest so you harvest regardless if it’s right or wrong. If conservation was at the top of your priorities rather than greed we would not be having this conversation.

Biologists, DFO and many fishermen don’t think the seasons are based on conservation then why not make it a free for all? Would that be a good idea? I’m interested in what you think about opening it up for everyone to take advantage of.

I objected to being called a racist and you said that you didn't do it. Glad you admit it now. Too bad you have to resort to name calling. To make me feel better, just quit name calling in future posts.

How do you know that conservation has much to do with lobster seasons? DFO doesn't seem to think so. We need to know what the basis is. Perhaps DFO wants to spread the catch around so that fishers in all areas benefit. Perhaps there are other economic reasons.

I never advocated a free-for-all anywhere. I'm just trying to say that there is little, or no, conservation involved in all of this. I'm also trying to say that we are stuck with the treaties whether they are archaic, unfair, objectionable or whatever. We have to find a way to solve the problems that result today.

Debating ethics, that is right vs wrong, will get us nowhere. I know people who think television sets are wrong and will not have them in their homes. No point in discussing it with them and that's their right. Solving Indigenous rights by arguing about the treaties is in the same vein, getting us nowhere unless we can get a court decision. There are ethical debates and there are legal debates. This is the latter.

Example: jacklighting is illegal in Saskatchewan for everyone. This was achieved through negotiation with Indigenous representatives. Is it legal in Manitoba and Alberta? I don't know but I do know that it is a controversial subject in Manitoba from my relatives there.

BTW in relation to another post, I do know that Indigenous fishers have been successfully prosecuted in Saskatchewan for selling fish. Hunting and fishing for food is okay as far as I am concerned, but not for sale or barter to non-Indigenous people. The Nova Scotia treaties are different, but unfortunately vague.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sk270

I objected to being called a racist and you said that you didn't do it. Glad you admit it now. Too bad you have to resort to name calling. To make me feel better, just quit name calling in future posts.

How do you know that conservation has much to do with lobster seasons? DFO doesn't seem to think so. We need to know what the basis is. Perhaps DFO wants to spread the catch around so that fishers in all areas benefit. Perhaps there are other economic reasons.

I never advocated a free-for-all anywhere. I'm just trying to say that there is little, or no, conservation involved in all of this. I'm also trying to say that we are stuck with the treaties whether they are archaic, unfair, objectionable or whatever. We have to find a way to solve the problems that result today.

Debating ethics, that is right vs wrong, will get us nowhere. I know people who think television sets are wrong and will not have them in their homes. No point in discussing it with them and that's their right. Solving Indigenous rights by arguing about the treaties is in the same vein, getting us nowhere unless we can get a court decision. There are ethical debates and there are legal debates. This is the latter.

Example: jacklighting is illegal in Saskatchewan for everyone. This was achieved through negotiation with Indigenous representatives. Is it legal in Manitoba and Alberta? I don't know but I do know that it is a controversial subject in Manitoba from my relatives there.

BTW in relation to another post, I do know that Indigenous fishers have been successfully prosecuted in Saskatchewan for selling fish. Hunting and fishing for food is okay as far as I am concerned, but not for sale or barter to non-Indigenous people. The Nova Scotia treaties are different, but unfortunately vague.

If you choose to get upset at me for something you do and I point out, that’s on you. Read my post however you feel fits your narrative best.

I never claimed to know anything about lobster conservation, your’re the one who is telling us that the dfo and biologists don’t think it’s about conservation, I’m asking you if you think it’s ok that everyone gets to take advantage of this? I never said you’re advocating a free for all, that would suggest that you believe in equal rights for everyone.

We are not stuck with treaties, we choose to follow them blindly with total disregard to common sense. It’s simple, if you want to live like you lived when the treaties were signed, than do it. If you want to use modern technology then follow modern laws.

I agree there is no debating ethics, if you can’t see right from wrong then you need to be told what’s right and what’s wrong. Some people refuse to use common sense and have a problem with understanding right from wrong, it’s a handicap some are born with or in some cases it’s worse, it’s a choice they make.


Your example of jacklighting in Saskatchewan is a prime example of how absurd the situation is. We have to go to court to have the courts tell them how stupid it is to shoot at night, rather than have the common sense to realize this for themselves. Why does it take a court ruling? Why do we have to wait for things to go wrong before we agree to do them right?

I understand nobody wants to give up their rights, but there has to be a time when rather than waiting to be told what to do we must take on responsibility and just do what’s right rather than hide behind the lettering.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

If you choose to get upset at me for something you do and I point out, that’s on you.

We are not stuck with treaties, we choose to follow them blindly with total disregard to common sense. It’s simple, if you want to live like you lived when the treaties were signed, than do it. If you want to use modern technology then follow modern laws.

I agree there is no debating ethics, if you can’t see right from wrong then you need to be told what’s right and what’s wrong. Some people refuse to use common sense and have a problem with understanding right from wrong, it’s a handicap some are born with or in some cases it’s worse, it’s a choice they make.


Your example of jacklighting in Saskatchewan is a prime example of how absurd the situation is. We have to go to court to have the courts tell them how stupid it is to shoot at night, rather than have the common sense to realize this for themselves. Why does it take a court ruling? Why do we have to wait for things to go wrong before we agree to do them right?

I understand nobody wants to give up their rights, but there has to be a time when rather than waiting to be told what to do we must take on responsibility and just do what’s right rather than hide behind the lettering.

Like most people, I don't like being called a racist. That's not on me, it's on you for doing it.

If we are "not stuck with treaties", why do we keep following their provisions?

You missed my point. You cannot get anywhere by telling someone that what they hold to be right and true is actually wrong. You have no more right to dictate to me what is right than I have to dictate to you. It is possible to enter into a debate or discussion about it, but neither of us is the final arbiter.

We don't live in a world where things are decided by what is right or wrong. However, we can argue about the legality of something and, if necessary, resort to the courts to settle the argument.

The Saskatchewan solution was reached through discussion and negotiation, not court action. That's what I think should be happening in Nova Scotia and BC.

For better or worse, we are stuck with treaties. We are stuck with different views of right vs wrong, of what is ethical and what is not, with different ideas about common sense.

Another example: some Indigenous groups are objecting to the Saskatchewan laws about trespass interfering with their hunting rights. I sincerely hope that no court in the land gives any credence to this. Private property rights are important. So are treaty rights to hunt for food. In the northern one-third, or more, of the province that is not an issue. It wasn't an issue when the treaties were signed but it is now. However the matter is settled, it won't be by someone telling the farmers and ranchers they are wrong nor telling the Indigenous groups they are wrong.

I may or may not agree with the interpretations being made by any Indigenous group. But that doesn't matter. What does matter is how we solve the issues under the existing legal system. Unless we change the system.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sk270

Like most people, I don't like being called a racist. That's not on me, it's on you for doing it.

If we are "not stuck with treaties", why do we keep following their provisions?

You missed my point. You cannot get anywhere by telling someone that what they hold to be right and true is actually wrong. You have no more right to dictate to me what is right than I have to dictate to you. It is possible to enter into a debate or discussion about it, but neither of us is the final arbiter.

We don't live in a world where things are decided by what is right or wrong. However, we can argue about the legality of something and, if necessary, resort to the courts to settle the argument.

The Saskatchewan solution was reached through discussion and negotiation, not court action. That's what I think should be happening in Nova Scotia and BC.

For better or worse, we are stuck with treaties. We are stuck with different views of right vs wrong, of what is ethical and what is not, with different ideas about common sense.

Another example: some Indigenous groups are objecting to the Saskatchewan laws about trespass interfering with their hunting rights. I sincerely hope that no court in the land gives any credence to this. Private property rights are important. So are treaty rights to hunt for food. In the northern one-third, or more, of the province that is not an issue. It wasn't an issue when the treaties were signed but it is now. However the matter is settled, it won't be by someone telling the farmers and ranchers they are wrong nor telling the Indigenous groups they are wrong.

I may or may not agree with the interpretations being made by any Indigenous group. But that doesn't matter. What does matter is how we solve the issues under the existing legal system. Unless we change the system.

Do you or do you not support laws allowing someone special rights because of their race?

There are only two answers I’ll accept to this question, yes I do or no I do not. I don’t want to hear about you supporting law in general, I’m asking about a specific question about law and whether you agree with it. There are millions of laws, some I agree with, some I don’t.

[wwbirds]

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. 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.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. 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.

Best post of the year.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. 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.

Please tell me why it’s ok for a fn person to feed his hungry family but not ok for a white person to do the same thing? Since it’s 2020 I’m talking about 2020.

[hunterngather]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. 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.

Well said

[fishpro]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. 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.

Very well said. Treaties granted rights to both non Indigenous and Indigenous populations at the time, so for any non Idigenous person who wants the Indigenous populations to give up what they got out of the treaties, perhaps they should give up what they got out of them too. The thing is, the non Indigenous population definitely got the better end of the deal.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. 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.

and what we are saying broken or misused etc treaties back then does not justify what is taking place now...on both sides....we, you, us all got to manage things be it conservation of habitat, animals etc much better and this means we are all on the same page for everything.....ya don't kill momma moose in feb and you don't take fish by net leaving fish on the ice to rot etc because it was not your preferred targeted species....don't fish during closed season etc this goes for all Canadians...period.

Dam we all can dig up ancestral pasts of misfortune but jeepers what was 100 plus years ago should not apply now....things need to be adjusted....example the cod fisheries....

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by fishpro

Very well said. Treaties granted rights to both non Indigenous and Indigenous populations at the time, so for any non Idigenous person who wants the Indigenous populations to give up what they got out of the treaties, perhaps they should give up what they got out of them too. The thing is, the non Indigenous population definitely got the better end of the deal.

guess that depends on who you talk too as I know if we sat with settlers back then they ran into some real time troubles too.....but why cant we learn from this and get together as Canadian citizens and be treated equally? People are finely having enough of the slackers/scum bags on both sides of this fence...this fence need not be....but like I mentioned the governing bodies for both side promote hate and racism which is really sad....

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Please tell me why it’s ok for a fn person to feed his hungry family but not ok for a white person to do the same thing? Since it’s 2020 I’m talking about 2020.

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.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by fishpro

Very well said. Treaties granted rights to both non Indigenous and Indigenous populations at the time, so for any non Idigenous person who wants the Indigenous populations to give up what they got out of the treaties, perhaps they should give up what they got out of them too. The thing is, the non Indigenous population definitely got the better end of the deal.

Good points.

This country was not conquered, it was negotiated and those treaties were the vehicle that allowed us to own what had belonged to FNs

I wonder how many would give up their city lot or acreage because the treaty that made it possible for them to own that was no longer deemed applicable.

[wwbirds]

Kurt, Ken or myself can feed the family with a license to hunt or fish. Yes you must buy a license and it is only available for a specified time. I probably could have bought a herd of black angus cattle for what I spend on hunting and the license is the smallest part of that experience. Natives were granted a right to hunt under the treaties and a very common rule of law is that rights once granted can never be extinquished. Your right to fish or hunt like mine ends when the license expires and some believe that if resources continue to decline no matter what the reason it will be the number of licenses curtailed not native rights.
You and I do not have that right and yes our ancestors (or mostly yours negotiated that in the treaties)
There were many errors made with treaties on both sides back in the 1860's some favored native rights but most favored settlers churches and the government.
One of the biggest fiascos in Canadian history concerns treaties with Ottawa Objibway natives in northern Ontario. Objibway tribes were prevalent from Ottawa to Thunder Bay in those days. My family comes from the Nip****ing group which stretches from Ottawa to about French River in the south and north and west to about Sturgeon falls on the north shore or perhaps Sudbury. Keep in mind there was no highway 11 north or highway 17 west. The big treatie was signed near North bay intending to have the ni****ing Objibway settled. NO signage pointed north or west to where other objibways settlements existed. Often when another clan was encountered wanting the same deal the Nippising tribe got the response from the settlers was that was a one time offer which expired on the specific date of the signing but we could give you this (sustantially less). some clans along the way signed off on the adendum objibway treatie and some refused. Many claimed it was never offered as the settlers did not come to their area as is the case of the Objibway claiming rights to the land from Kirkland Lake to Temagami being a contentious land claim resolved in Supreme court in about 2001. A band near Lake Temagami claimed they were never signatories to the Ni****ing treaty although they were Objibway. Province of Ontario without a treaty started selling and promising homesteaders land in this district in 1880 + or -.
After 25 years in court they told Province that right to the land was still vested with tribe and they should take remedial action. this is big cottage country and to my knowledge no remedial action has been taken so I wouldnt be buying lakeshore property any where in that region
Just because DFO or nova scotia has issued commercial licenses to lobster fisherman doesnt mean the native right to lobster has been extinquished.
Wouldnt be the first time a government has sold something it didnt own.

[sk270]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Do you or do you not support laws allowing someone special rights because of their race?

There are only two answers I’ll accept to this question, yes I do or no I do not. I don’t want to hear about you supporting law in general, I’m asking about a specific question about law and whether you agree with it. There are millions of laws, some I agree with, some I don’t.

Can't answer your question because I don't think there are any laws in Canada based solely on race. With no concrete example, I can't give a yes or no answer. How about you?

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Good points.

This country was not conquered, it was negotiated and those treaties were the vehicle that allowed us to own what had belonged to FNs

I wonder how many would give up their city lot or acreage because the treaty that made it possible for them to own that was no longer deemed applicable.

What a ridiculous analogy, lol. If there was no treaty signed how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an invasion and a subsequent war? How do you think that would have gone down? Natives of the day were fighting amongst themselves, they wouldn’t have united to go battle the Europeans. Like 58thecat said, none of that is relevant in solving the issues of today. Natives flaunting rights because it was written in the treaties is what the problem is. Abusing these rights is what the problem is. What your ancestors or my ancestors did has no affect on what we are up against today, other than not putting an expiry date on the treaties.

What has people up in arms is abuse of rights. What the people want is what’s best for Canadians and our wildlife, not just a select group of Canadians. Now Métis (most just came out as Métis for the benefits, 5 years ago they were white) have the same harvest rights as indigenous people. The guy in the brand new black dodge who’s camped out in the brand new Cabelas outfitter tent for the past two weeks who shot two cow moose so far that I know of, doesn’t need sustenance rights to survive, but because it’s his right it doesn’t matter that it takes 6 years to draw a moose tag because the biologists say the population is low, he’s filling his freezer, along with others I’m sure.

When is it time for the rest of Canadians to question the validity and stupidity of some of these treaties? Apparently the time is now on the east coast. Do we wait for a catastrophic failure here before we ask the same question? I don’t know.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by sk270

Can't answer your question because I don't think there are any laws in Canada based solely on race. With no concrete example, I can't give a yes or no answer. How about you?

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?

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What a ridiculous analogy, lol. If there was no treaty signed how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an invasion and a subsequent war? How do you think that would have gone down? Natives of the day were fighting amongst themselves, they wouldn’t have united to go battle the Europeans. Like 58thecat said, none of that is relevant in solving the issues of today. Natives flaunting rights because it was written in the treaties is what the problem is. Abusing these rights is what the problem is. What your ancestors or my ancestors did has no affect on what we are up against today, other than not putting an expiry date on the treaties.

\.

But there was treaties signed, and we signed them because the last thing we wanted to do was go to war with Natives in western Canada. We wanted to settle western Canada, we wanted our settlers to be safe and we lacked the military ability to do it. If you think we could have won a war easily with them, you need to bone up on your Canadian history. You're dead wrong.

The North West Rebellion was a rag tag group of Metis who were good shots, lead by a lunatic and it was all we could do to defeat them. How many battles did the Metis win even though they were out numbered and outgunned?

But people have been arguing with you about this for years, you don't listen to one thing people say to you, so I don't know why today will be any different?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

What a ridiculous analogy, lol. If there was no treaty signed how long do you think it would have taken for there to be an invasion and a subsequent war? How do you think that would have gone down? Natives of the day were fighting amongst themselves, they wouldn’t have united to go battle the Europeans. Like 58thecat said, none of that is relevant in solving the issues of today. Natives flaunting rights because it was written in the treaties is what the problem is. Abusing these rights is what the problem is. What your ancestors or my ancestors did has no affect on what we are up against today, other than not putting an expiry date on the treaties.

What has people up in arms is abuse of rights. What the people want is what’s best for Canadians and our wildlife, not just a select group of Canadians. Now Métis (most just came out as Métis for the benefits, 5 years ago they were white) have the same harvest rights as indigenous people. The guy in the brand new black dodge who’s camped out in the brand new Cabelas outfitter tent for the past two weeks who shot two cow moose so far that I know of, doesn’t need sustenance rights to survive, but because it’s his right it doesn’t matter that it takes 6 years to draw a moose tag because the biologists say the population is low, he’s filling his freezer, along with others I’m sure.

When is it time for the rest of Canadians to question the validity and stupidity of some of these treaties? Apparently the time is now on the east coast. Do we wait for a catastrophic failure here before we ask the same question? I don’t know.

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?

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Treaties are law whether you like them or not if modified they must be by the court or by negotiation as both parties agreed to them and signed them.
Most if not all were not honored by the settlers and have since been arbitrated by the courts who determined the rights exist into perpetuity.
Kind of like buying a house and finding out the financing is not available and going back to renegotiate the deal after you have lost your down payment.
Settlers made a farming deal with the already farm orientated Iroquois in southern ontario (corn and tobacco). In addition to being able to support very large villages they bartered for furs fish meat and many other items with their surplus. Cree and objibway were not farmers but rather hunters and gatherers yet settlers made deals across northern ontario and the prairies to teach and supply equipment to hunters and gatherers to learn to farm. Many of those treaties were broken as the agents wanted to starve the tribes into surrender. We keep hearing about people complaining about handouts yet any time natives try to engage in any commerce there are complaints. Natives have been trading corn, lobsters fish and furs for thousands of years among themselves. Canada was born on the fur trade but apparently some people think natives cannot engage in commerce even though many commercial companies are licensed to do so? Seasons are set by government and if you think the east doesn't care about the west then you should be assured that western natives never got a fair shake from Upper Canada. My grandfather hunted calf moose in July for meat, set square hooks for fish in the fall when they were running and used it to feed his dogs all winter or trade for something he needed. 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.

Good post. Bolded part sums it up.

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by riden

The North West Rebellion was a rag tag group of Metis who were good shots, lead by a lunatic and it was all we could do to defeat them. How many battles did the Metis win even though they were out numbered and outgunned?

Actually they were never defeated, a settlement was negotiated for Riel to surrender in exchange for an end to the hostilities.

The government then reneged on their promise and hanged Riel on claims he had lead a rebellion.

There was no rebellion. Riel's crime was asking for authority to form a province in what was then called the North West Territories which included all of the prairies and everything north of the 60th parallel. Hence the name, North West - territories.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by riden

But there was treaties signed, and we signed them because the last thing we wanted to do was go to war with Natives in western Canada. We wanted to settle western Canada, we wanted our settlers to be safe and we lacked the military ability to do it. If you think we could have won a war easily with them, you need to bone up on your Canadian history. You're dead wrong.

The North West Rebellion was a rag tag group of Metis who were good shots, lead by a lunatic and it was all we could do to defeat them. How many battles did the Metis win even though they were out numbered and outgunned?

But people have been arguing with you about this for years, you don't listen to one thing people say to you, so I don't know why today will be any different?

Did you read what I wrote? If they hadn’t signed the treaty how long do you think it would have been before an invasion by an organized invader? Had they not agreed to a peaceful agreement it would have only been a matter of time before a larger more organized army would have come in to take it forcefully. It would be like if Canada was to go to war with the us today. We might all be speaking French or Russian today.

[riden]

Originally Posted by KegRiver

Actually they were never defeated, a settlement was negotiated for Riel to surrender in exchange for an end to the hostilities.

The government then reneged on their promise and hanged Riel on claims he had lead a rebellion.

There was no rebellion. Riel's crime was asking for authority to form a province in what was then called the North West Territories which included all of the prairies and everything north of the 60th parallel. Hence the name, North West - territories.

Not arguing.

My point was more that if you look at the pictures of the metis, they were just a bunch of poorly armed guys....... who won several battles. IMO it speaks to how poorly trained and weak our army was at that time.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Good post. Bolded part sums it up.

The bolded part is why we have a problem with them today. If they could be taken away when caught abusing them like filling someone’s freezer for doing electrical work, then it wouldn’t be an issue.

[riden]

Originally Posted by Kurt505

Did you read what I wrote? If they hadn’t signed the treaty how long do you think it would have been before an invasion by an organized invader? Had they not agreed to a peaceful agreement it would have only been a matter of time before a larger more organized army would have come in to take it forcefully. It would be like if Canada was to go to war with the us today. We might all be speaking French or Russian today.

I did read it, yes. The point I am making is...... who cares?

That is not what happened.

Which begs the question: Did you read what I wrote? I think I know the answer.

[huntsfurfish]

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?

Now that right there is gold! Well said KegRiver!

[wwbirds]

was based on the fact that they were the original inhabitants of canada and the settlers negotiated and agreed to make them wards of the queen with special rights including harvest rights. It was probably a bad deal as at the time probably only 130000 natives inhabiting Canada and now there are hundreds of thousands. Dont blame John A MacDonald or any of the other settlers for it was the the opinion of the time as settlers believed natives were merely savages. if you are looking for someone to blame about these bad deals blame the Churches. English, French and even Spanish governments would do nothing without the blessing of the church who encouraged explorers to explore new lands to claim for their countries and if the savages resisted to wipe them from the face of the earth but if they converted to Christianity it was OK to enslave them instead. Magna Carta I think was 1592 and authorizes conquering new lands for the crown.
So placing them on a reserve was very effective method of enslaving them. They didnt even get the right to vote as "citizens of Canada" until 1952.

Most settlers in the 18th century needed natives to show them how to survive the climate and rough lands which British military training did not address. A few thousand settlers decided to negotiate rather than start a native war like the USA against odds of 1500 natives to 1 settler. The iroquois nation alone at over 50,000 in southern Ontario could have wiped out every settler arriving with little to no effort for the first 30 years.

[Kurt505]

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?

What rights? My right to work, pay taxes and pay for my possessions? What rights do I have that can be taken away?

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by riden

Not arguing.

My point was more that if you look at the pictures of the metis, they were just a bunch of poorly armed guys....... who won several battles. IMO it speaks to how poorly trained and weak our army was at that time.

Understood. Just thought I'd set the record straight.

Your point is spot on. Even the two Gatling guns were worthless against them.
They were bushmen, they know better then to fight in the open where the Gatling guns would have cut them down.