Subsistence hunting- OFFICIAL thread

[Deo101]

We're in a completely new day and age. Whenever we get into these debates we all go back to the past. The ways of the past don't work forever. Laws, treaties, etc have to adapt and change. Just because our fore fathers once wrote and signed something doesn't make it binding forever. If that was the case Blacks would still be slaves and woman wouldn't be allowed to vote. Imo we all need to think forwards. Holding onto these racist treaties does not jive with the equality, political correctness etc that people are striving for now days. Also(my opinion) the treaties have not helped the FNs at all and has done the opposite (whole other ball of wax)

Equal rights for everyone. That was and still should be the goal!

Yes FN are acting within the law. But are they acting within their own traditional way of hunting, conservation etc. Sure some are...but vast majority not so much.

A solid start would be to at a min...track the amount of game/fish harvested by subsistanencetanace/FN's (thought I'd throw another spelling out there) If this is already done to any degree can someone enlighten us all. Once we know how much is harvested we can look at how many are fed, is it necessary etc...Sorry but a free for all (or some) is not how to manage wildlife. Maybe 200 years ago when fish and game were so abundant vs people population this worked but not anymore. It's hard to even begin without knowing this stuff. Whether this a license or a survey somehow this information is needed. How can you possibly manage wildlife blind. Unfortunately I can forsee all non-FN hunters being shutdown before getting our government and FN on board with a management plan that works for Humans and Animals.

Anyone have any links for subsistence licenses given out? Estimates even? When, where are they required? FN right to hunt likely doesn't require them...??? please edumacate me.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by Deo101

We're in a completely new day and age. Whenever we get into these debates we all go back to the past. The ways of the past don't work forever. Laws, treaties, etc have to adapt and change. Just because our fore fathers once wrote and signed something doesn't make it binding forever. If that was the case Blacks would still be slaves and woman wouldn't be allowed to vote. Imo we all need to think forwards. Holding onto these racist treaties does not jive with the equality, political correctness etc that people are striving for now days. Also(my opinion) the treaties have not helped the FNs at all and has done the opposite (whole other ball of wax)

Equal rights for everyone. That was and still should be the goal!

Yes FN are acting within the law. But are they acting within their own traditional way of hunting, conservation etc. Sure some are...but vast majority not so much.

I.

A solid start would be to at a min...track the amount of game/fish harvested by subsistanencetanace/FN's (thought I'd throw another spelling out there) If this is already done to any degree can someone enlighten us all. Once we know how much is harvested we can look at how many are fed, is it necessary etc...Sorry but a free for all (or some) is not how to manage wildlife. Maybe 200 years ago when fish and game were so abundant vs people population this worked but not anymore. It's hard to even begin without knowing this stuff. Whether this a license or a survey somehow this information is needed. How can you possibly manage wildlife blind. Unfortunately I can forsee all non-FN hunters being shutdown before getting our government and FN on board with a management plan that works for Humans and Animals.

Anyone have any links for subsistence licenses given out? Estimates even? When, where are they required? FN right to hunt likely doesn't require them...??? please edumacate me.

Hope folks on here aren't confusing subsistence as a Treaty Right. The word "subsistence" does not appear in any Treaty that I am aware but as usual I stand to be corrected.......The word and concept appears in the NRTA because the crown didn't want the Indians to continue what they've always done which is barter/trade the natural resources of their country. In other words they wanted to do away with the Indians ability to benefit from the resources.....

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by Sealclubber View Post
I'd gladly give up my hunting rights if the govt gave us back the oil and ALL the money made off of it WITH INTEREST, we ceded land rights, not mineral rights. Want to renegotiate? There's a great starting point

Originally Posted by Don K

The oil would still be in the ground... Unless we directionally drilled.

Actually they did give up these rights.

The Plain and Wood Cree Tribes of Indians, and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges, whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:
Commencing at the mouth of the river emptying into the north-west angle of Cumberland Lake; thence westerly up the said river to its source; thence on a straight line in a westerly direction to the head of Green Lake; thence northerly to the elbow in the Beaver River; thence down the said river northerly to a point twenty miles from the said elbow; thence in a westerly direction, keeping on a line generally parallel with the said Beaver River (above the elbow), and about twenty miles distant therefrom, to the source of the said river; thence northerly to the north-easterly point of the south shore of Red Deer Lake, continuing westerly along the said shore to the western limit thereof; and thence due west to the Athabasca River; thence up the said river, against the stream, to the Jaspar House, in the Rocky Mountains; thence on a course south-easterly, following the easterly range of the mountains, to the source of the main branch of the Red Deer River; thence down the said river, with the stream, to the junction therewith of the outlet of the river, being the outlet of the Buffalo Lake; thence due east twenty miles; thence on a straight line south-eastwardly to the mouth of the said Red Deer River on the south branch of the Saskatchewan River; thence eastwardly and northwardly, following on the boundaries of the tracts conceded by the several treaties numbered four and five to the place of beginning.

And also, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the North-west Territories, or in any other Province or portion of Her Majesty's Dominions, situated and being within the Dominion of Canada.

[bessiedog]

I must be on a schwack of ignore lists!!... i thought I wuz pretty clear on rule of Law.


MB-Mbr... here's your education
Dude....
Your rationale for 'Times have changed' are ridiculous. A contract is a contract. .. and .....sigh... IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF PROPERTY LAW...... you wanna throw that societal idea away??

OK then...

If we can willy-nilly change property rights and contracts... then:


I can fire you..... and not pay you what your contract says ... why?? "because times have changed... that was then".

I can come into your house and take it... and kick you out... you don;t own it... the deed is worthless... why? cause times have changed..... thats why?


Hey! If you want no laws.... then I suggest we re-start the prepper thread cause 'stuffs gonna get real' round here..


You don;t like it..... then formulate revolution and shape the land the way you want. Or create your own country.

re: subsistence hunting... read the draft text of treat 6, 7 or 8. It's all there pretty clear.



we could re-negotiate stuff........ I don;t wanna.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

I must be on a schwack of ignore lists!!... i thought I wuz pretty clear on rule of Law.


MB-Mbr... here's your education
Dude....
Your rationale for 'Times have changed' are ridiculous. A contract is a contract.

If we can willy-nilly change property rights and contracts... then:


I can fire you..... and not pay you what your contract says ... why?? "because times have changed... that was then".

I can come into your house and take it... and kick you out... you don;t own it... the deed is worthless... why? cause times have changed..... thats why?


Hey! If you want no laws.... then I suggest we re-start the prepper thread cause 'stuffs gonna get real' round here..


You don;t like it..... then formulate revolution and shape the land the way you want. Or create your own country.

re: subsistance hunting... read the draft text of treat 6, 7 or 8. Itss all there pretty clear.

Can you string some sentences together to make a paragraph or two so you can make some sense???

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

Actually they did give up these rights.

Can you imagine a people, any people being so naïve or stupid enough to agree to these terms???? It was a swindle of the greatest magnitude...plain and simple. And some here want to go back and renegotiate.......I would gladly lobby to assist with any lobby to open the Treaty discussions but I really don't think the folks that want to do this understand what they're asking for....

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

You brought up the position of trophy hunting. I just imparted a question as to the value of the stance. Which was ignored....

I continued to offer advice on how to procede with opening a dialogue with the parties. Which was also nearly completely ignored ( by all but one).


As a person of passionate blood connectors to Greek societal structure and its positive worldwide adoption, surely you understand the call to abandon Canada's frameworks and to start over is going to take a more potent catalyst than some elk bone. Socrates to Potty. ... wth are you thinkin..... lol...


The IS potential to start a meaningful dialogue with Treaty Nations, but it sure isn't going to get started by crying for equality.


I do have a strong concern for the future of wildlife and the accessibility of this resource to all Canadians. The current system is destined for failure. We are already seeing the effects of multi factional user issues in Manitoba. We will inevitably have the same situation arise in Alberta.

Unfortunately the is no viable pressure points for the governments to open the door. I suggest that it will have to start at the dirt level, the common citizen and our organizations.

Currently I hold no hope that this is possible mostly due to individual emotional poisoning of any process that might start a dialogue.

A couple years ago I advised an Alberta conservation group during an executive meeting of a process to garner local Treaty nations input and support to help limit specific hunting activities on their traditional lands. I even had the Nations representatives ready on speeddial. Nope... not a chance. Non native bias was too strong to even try.

I value your input as I think you see the long term issues that uncontrolled hunting will bring. Natives sitting down with wildlife groups will not solve the issue. We can sit and discuss the issues and problems but nothing will be resolved. It is the natives themselves that need to approach the government and ask to have changes to our hunting regulations. It does not need to be a change in treaties. If they do not do this we may as well do away with our game managers, seasons and limits for all. Without limits and seasons there will be abuse by Natives and Metis hunters. If same rules were applied to Whites, Blacks and Orientals the same abuses would be found. Abuse does not recognise race or color. Things have to change or our wildlife will only exist in special preserves.

[wwbirds]

Section 35 of Charter outlining aboriginal rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section...tion_Act,_1982

[bessiedog]

Mb-Mbr

My post is pretty clear.

Our society is based on some pretty serious foundation ideas that we all abide by. ONE IS THAT WE ALL RESPECT EACH OTHERS PROPERTY AND WE CAN'T BE ARBITRARY ABOUT POSESSION RIGHTS. These 'rights' extend to things given and traded via CONTRACTS. Treaties 1-11 are, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES... contracts.

Simply put... we traded stuff and the Treaties are the itemized Bills.

You posit that 'that was then and this is now... times have changed' is a silly yet dangerous idea. If you tear up contracts... you undermine two of the most important ideas that we all agree upon in this society.

You wanna be arbitrary about who owns what? ok... I'll be right over to claim your house car and wife......'cause its a new age and times have changed'.

.. .. that paragraphed up enuff fer ya bub?

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Mb-Mbr

My post is pretty clear.

Our society is based on some pretty serious foundation ideas that we all abide by. ONE IS THAT WE ALL RESPECT EACH OTHERS PROPERTY AND WE CAN'T BE ARBITRARY ABOUT POSESSION RIGHTS. These 'rights' extend to things given and traded via CONTRACTS. Treaties 1-11 are, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES... contracts.

Simply put... we traded stuff and the Treaties are the itemized Bills.

You posit that 'that was then and this is now... times have changed' is a silly yet dangerous idea. If you tear up contracts... you undermine two of the most important ideas that we all agree upon in this society.


You wanna be arbitrary about who owns what? ok... I'll be right over to claim your house car and wife......'cause its a new age and times have changed'.

.. .. that paragraphed up enuff fer ya bub?

I think you have me confused with someone else.....I would never state "that was then and this is now...........times have changed". Unless the meds I'm taking for this damn cold have taken over my common sense. I'm still waiting for the crown to live up to he Treaties!!!!

Can you check where you found me stating this????? If I did I will retract immediately...

[bessiedog]

whoops!!

My bad!

You were quoting some other dude!!..... lololol

sorry!!

anyhooo...

I made some dam good points!! Someone fire me a compliment..

Oh and I hear ya on the cold meds... sorry.

[freddy27]

Well I have been drawn for the Feb hunt on base and am pretty excited about it. However I am a bit nervous about shooting a mature cow this time of year simply because of the size the unborn calf may be. So if I had a choice yes I would shoot the bull big or not really I dont care, I'm a meat hunter so antlers don't mean much. Honestly I'm hoping the FN guys are shooting the bulls for the same reason but who knows. I have no facts nor do I know the native laws so all I really want is for things to be fair. I don't think allowing any one person to have more rights then the other is fair. My biggest hunting pet peeve is seeing one native fellow in camp along with 5 non natives and 7 moose down (saw it with my own eyes) not a tag on any of them. This is just one way things get abused. Keep it simple equality for all and put our efforts to ensure our kids have the same or better opportunities in the future.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

I must be on a schwack of ignore lists!!... i thought I wuz pretty clear on rule of Law.


MB-Mbr... here's your education
Dude....
Your rationale for 'Times have changed' are ridiculous. A contract is a contract. .. and .....sigh... IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF PROPERTY LAW...... you wanna throw that societal idea away??

OK then...

If we can willy-nilly change property rights and contracts... then:


I can fire you..... and not pay you what your contract says ... why?? "because times have changed... that was then".

I can come into your house and take it... and kick you out... you don;t own it... the deed is worthless... why? cause times have changed..... thats why?


Hey! If you want no laws.... then I suggest we re-start the prepper thread cause 'stuffs gonna get real' round here..


You don;t like it..... then formulate revolution and shape the land the way you want. Or create your own country.

re: subsistence hunting... read the draft text of treat 6, 7 or 8. It's all there pretty clear.



we could re-negotiate stuff........ I don;t wanna.

Did you also notice the statement in the treaty texts that gives the government the right to regulate native hunting as they see fit?

[wwbirds]

Yes EH it can be regulated so long as natives always receive priority so I think what WB is warning about if you restrict natives there must further restrictions on everyone else to allow them their priority rights.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Did you also notice the statement in the treaty texts that gives the government the right to regulate native hunting as they see fit?

Yes they can but they have to keep in mind the hierarchy referenced in the Sparrow SCD..............they will have to reduce or eliminate most if not all of the non resident hunting, severely regulate resident hunting and undertake an extensive consultation process.

[Xbolt300]

I can't wait to hear all the complaining in the next two weeks when ochiese and sunchild hit suffield and hunt along side us lol

[Squeaker]

Originally Posted by bluetick

Sorry to say but after reading the entire thread I FEEL JOE IS ON HIS HIGH HORSE <
I would attend to agree with Squeaker on this matter .fair is fair and when Joe comments I have a privilege and he has a right to hunt I get extremely offended .
You were born in the same generation as me if not later than me .My family has been in Canada since the early 1700,s on the east coast .

I do not want you to lose your rights ,Just pull you down to earth and give you a privilege like the rest of us poor folk.
When the government can grow some testies to deal with the treaties in a fair manner ,we will all get along much better .
I think sustenance should be relevant to the area or province of destination and the region in which you reside .
Government projects like Suffield should not be a relevant hunting grounds for Native hunts .
If you want some meat put in for the draw or go out the forestry or reserve and shoot your game .
Take the horns from all trophy animals unless taken under a licensed hunt would help as well..

Thanks for understanding and seeing my points Bluetick appreciated .

[Squeaker]

Originally Posted by 300magman

x1,000.....that about sums it up. Well said

Originally Posted by 45-70sapper View Post
Lol at all the comments about honouring our word on the treaties and how white people shouldn't be question these things because "remember the Buffalo". I guess the mods promise of instant banning for racist comments only applied to racism directed towards natives.

Because I don't have any promise to honour. I have never, nor has anyone that I eleceted to represent me, made a promise to any native group about this subsistence hunting.

Nor do I "remember the Buffalo". Not that old. But its good to know that some members here assume that because white people played a big part in the massive decline in bison populations long before any of our families were born, the white people of today also played a part in that because of the colour of our skin.

We've been so trained to think that only white people can be racist, that when these blatantly racist comments come up no one bats an eye. Too bad, I really hoped that the mods would have been fair.

My question is, if we had separate, better maintained and faster roads that were only for non natives, but the roads for natives were still drivable, would there be public outcry? Of course, that would be descrimination. And it has no place in our society.

Here's something that may surprise some of you. Everyone in this country is equal. Being native does not make you better. Nor does being white or black or purple. We do not receive the experiences, knowledge and skills of our ancestors, you get born onto this earth and everything has to be learned.

And then you have the people saying that this is all about greed. I said it before, this is less about the actual killing of elk and more about the fact that special privileges are given to a group based solely on their ethnicity. If it is wrong to oppose that in modern canadian society, then I'm living in a totally different place than I thought.

x1,000.....that about sums it up. Well said
Best wrote post yet Good words spoke 45-70sapper

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Did you also notice the statement in the treaty texts that gives the government the right to regulate native hunting as they see fit?

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Yes EH it can be regulated so long as natives always receive priority so I think what WB is warning about if you restrict natives there must further restrictions on everyone else to allow them their priority rights.

Precisely.

For some reason Elkhunter11 refuses to acknowledge this fact despite having been informed many times over many years.

Wildlife management priority by law and policy dictates that Aboriginal use will only be curtailed for conservation concerns and only after all other consumptive use has been eliminated.

We have seen this in recent years. Eg. Manitoba moose closures for All licenced hunting before any aboriginal restrictions were placed through an agreement negotiated by the government and local Nations.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Yes they can but they have to keep in mind the hierarchy referenced in the Sparrow SCD..............they will have to reduce or eliminate most if not all of the non resident hunting, severely regulate resident hunting and undertake an extensive consultation process.

Strangely enough, I don't see any such details listed in the treaty text , so we are not in fact honoring the treaty as written. Instead some people are adding in details long after the treaties were written, in order to appease people that weren't even born, when the treaties were signed.

[Mb-MBR]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Strangely enough, I don't see any such details listed in the treaty text , so we are not in fact honoring the treaty as written. Instead some people are adding in details long after the treaties were written, in order to appease people that weren't even born, when the treaties were signed.

Its the 200 Supreme Court of Canada decisions that I referenced.....the SCC has said to the crown, yes you can BUT there are procedures you have to follow.....and what I referenced in my previous post are the procedures. No getting around that......its the law.

[crownb]

Originally Posted by bluetick

Sorry to say but after reading the entire thread I FEEL JOE IS ON HIS HIGH HORSE <
I would attend to agree with Squeaker on this matter .fair is fair and when Joe comments I have a privilege and he has a right to hunt I get extremely offended .
You were born in the same generation as me if not later than me .My family has been in Canada since the early 1700,s on the east coast .

I do not want you to lose your rights ,Just pull you down to earth and give you a privilege like the rest of us poor folk.
When the government can grow some testies to deal with the treaties in a fair manner ,we will all get along much better .
I think sustenance should be relevant to the area or province of destination and the region in which you reside .
Government projects like Suffield should not be a relevant hunting grounds for Native hunts .
If you want some meat put in for the draw or go out the forestry or reserve and shoot your game .
Take the horns from all trophy animals unless taken under a licensed hunt would help as well..

Excellent post.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

I value your input as I think you see the long term issues that uncontrolled hunting will bring. Natives sitting down with wildlife groups will not solve the issue. We can sit and discuss the issues and problems but nothing will be resolved. It is the natives themselves that need to approach the government and ask to have changes to our hunting regulations. It does not need to be a change in treaties. If they do not do this we may as well do away with our game managers, seasons and limits for all. Without limits and seasons there will be abuse by Natives and Metis hunters. If same rules were applied to Whites, Blacks and Orientals the same abuses would be found. Abuse does not recognise race or color. Things have to change or our wildlife will only exist in special preserves.

Off the top I want you to know I did attempt to reply to your early post but it was difficult (to me on my phone) to respond to your comments within the quote.

Natives sitting down with wildlife groups and the government is the only way we can effect positive change. I certainly agree the the treaties are not the place to make changes.

If push ( by the government and/or licenced hunters) came to shove ( by Treaty Nations), the first party would end up on their butt damn quick.


Absolutely there are real challenges ahead for wildlife management that we have not yet seen before. In Alberta, We have been very fortunate so far to not really have had anything but minor situations of wildlife concerns involving overharvest by licenced or treaty hunters. This will change as the demand increases. It has happened in Manitoba, Saskatchewan is getting closer to the tipping point in areas (eastern border). It will eventually happen here.

Then again I really doubt that Suffield will be the concern that puts us over the edge. The local social acceptance of this herd is such that a couple years of high harvest is just what the locals and government want. Once the population is down to socially accepted levels it simply will not have the same draw for either treaty hunters or "trophy" hunters. I suspect this problem will Peter out....

[SmokinJoe]

11 pages of the same info over and over again. If you read one you have read them all.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Strangely enough, I don't see any such details listed in the treaty text , so we are not in fact honoring the treaty as written. Instead some people are adding in details long after the treaties were written, in order to appease people that weren't even born, when the treaties were signed.

Your perspective is mirrored. You are incorrectly viewing this as a position that the government can unilaterally limit/ stop treaty hunting.

Why can Treaty hunters still kill limitless numbers of Grizzly bears or Caribou in Alberta? 'Cause the government has not been able to get legal precedence that gives them the authority to do so without aboriginal consultation and agreement.

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by SmokinJoe

11 pages of the same info over and over again. If you read one you have read them all.

You filled 3 of the 11 pages!

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Mb-MBR

Its the 200 Supreme Court of Canada decisions that I referenced.....the SCC has said to the crown, yes you can BUT there are procedures you have to follow.....and what I referenced in my previous post are the procedures. No getting around that......its the law.

The obvious question is, did this law even exist when the treaties were signed?

[keeks35]

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.

A couple things to consider here; 1) the people boasting of their income EARN IT, you know, with a full time job, and are productive members of society, not a drain on tax dollars 2) whether the primary purpose of hunting is meat or sport the meat does not get wasted, so does priority matter if the game is harvested legally? 3) every Canadian citizen deserves the right to feed their family, so everyone should have the same right to hunt for food for their family, the anomosity is due to the double standard allowing one race priviledge over another

[riden]

I don't get the resentment toward natives for the treaties.

Natives didn't write the treaties, the crown did. The treaties are very generous for the natives and it wasn't an accident. The crown knew full well they were generous and didn't care. Because they had a plan.


The US had just fought a long and bitter war against their native population, and we didn't want to repeat it, nor could we have won it as easily (without US or British help, we wouldn't have period). Some of the US tactics were shameful and I wouldn't want that part of our history, and more importantly, neither did our forefathers.

The treaties were designed to satisfy natives and avoid violence. The crown didn't care that they were generous because they had planned from the beginning to assimilate the natives and thought the treaties were only temporary. They believed residential schools and other policies would ensure treaties would only last 100 years or so, and every year there would be fewer beneficiaries.

They were dead wrong.

If anyone is at fault here, it is us, not the natives. They just agreed to the sweet deal we offered.

[ATE]

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.

Nothing based on ancestory is fair. That's why kingdoms are getting scarce in the world.
"It's the law...." ? It used to be the law that women couldn't vote, people fought for equality and the law changed. These unequal laws can also change.

Measure the subsistence hunting and then we can manage it, but there is an equality issue.