Saskatchewan- court ruling on out of province native hunters

ianthomson said:
I was moose hunting in NB, CFB Gagetown to be exact, years ago. Went for a scouting drive a week before the season. There was a convoy of First Nations truck rolling out of the training area with more moose than I have ever seen. Stopped at the Range Control shack where the DNR CO's were set up an asked, WTF. They told me it was the Native Harvast, sanctioned by the gov't. He admitted that the moose you see on the back or trucks were only 20% of the moose killed. If the animal died off the road, or in a ####ty spot, it got left to rot. Again I asked WTF. His response was, once the moose are gone, we no longer have a Native Hunting problem. Ironically enough, there were moose meat for sale signs all along the reserve the next few weeks. That was the last time I bought a moose license. It is the same for logging, salmon or lobster.
Click to expand...

I'm not sticking up for them...not even a little bit, but I kind of have to look at it as a "what goes around comes around" situation...150 yrs. ago they had 60 million animals of their food stock running around to harvest and a govt. of the time thought it prudent to supply free ammunition and every means possible to annihilate their food stock to starve them to death. Of course that was the U.S. govt. but it still killed buffalo that used to come north to our country every year.

Now it seems they are doing the same to us...
 
Subsistence is defined as just surviving...yes driving 1000 miles in a brand new pickup is a bit more basic subsistence I would think... The whole native subsistence thing has been corrupted beyond all common sense. Politicians both federal and provincial are sh!t scared of the natives and whole hunting rights thing wont be over until all the large ungulates are reduced to non hunt-able numbers. Then I'll bet the native groups and the rest of the world will blame the white man for "killing all the animals"...
 
Last edited:
fingers284 said:
I'm not sticking up for them...not even a little bit, but I kind of have to look at it as a "what goes around comes around" situation...150 yrs. ago they had 60 million animals of their food stock running around to harvest and a govt. of the time thought it prudent to supply free ammunition and every means possible to annihilate their food stock to starve them to death. Of course that was the U.S. govt. but it still killed buffalo that used to come north to our country every year.
Click to expand...

You know that's not actually what happened to the buffalo, right?
 
fingers284 said:
Yes I do...cattle borne diseases from the trail and settler herds decimated the buf herds far more and quicker than the "at the time govt./army policy" but it is still factual that the policy did exist.
Click to expand...

You're confusing market hunting with a statement that when researched by historians was found never to have happened.
 
rkm456 said:
You're confusing market hunting with a statement that when researched by historians was found never to have happened.
Click to expand...

Lots of time "historians" opinions clash with an actual scientific analysis. There was a college class in the US that did a study on the buffalo slaughter by market hunters in the 1870's-80's. Using the estimated herd size in the entire US & Canada and the caliber of guns used by said hunters as their catalyst values, their combined analysis results concluded that it was impossible by sheer logistics for the buf hunters could have killed that many animals in that short of time. They concluded that mathematically to supply the amount of lead and BP powder to do the amount of killing required with those large caliber guns would have taken three train systems (considering the capacity of train cars of the time) from St. Louis to Kansas in a continuous unbroken train running 24-7 for the entire duration of the "hunt" from 60 mill. animals to almost extinction...wasn't going to happen as there was only 2 train systems in the entire area at the time and they were very much busy hauling 1/2 million beef cattle at the same time as well as the hides to Chicago.
 
fingers284 said:
Lots of time "historians" opinions clash with an actual scientific analysis. There was a college class in the US that did a study on the buffalo slaughter by market hunters in the 1870's-80's. Using the estimated herd size in the entire US & Canada and the caliber of guns used by said hunters as their catalyst values, their combined analysis results concluded that it was impossible by sheer logistics for the buf hunters could have killed that many animals in that short of time. They concluded that mathematically to supply the amount of lead and BP powder to do the amount of killing required with those large caliber guns would have taken three train systems (considering the capacity of train cars of the time) from St. Louis to Kansas in a continuous unbroken train running 24-7 for the entire duration of the "hunt" from 60 mill. animals to almost extinction...wasn't going to happen as there was only 2 train systems in the entire area at the time and they were very much busy hauling 1/2 million beef cattle at the same time as well as the hides to Chicago.
Click to expand...

There'sa hilarious problem with the conclusion you're making from that information.
 
MiG25 said:
I don't know about that, I remember reading one of the early fur trade accounts of two boys (not even grown men) killing a swimming moose by putting a stick in its fundus.
Click to expand...

Don't remember where I read it, only saw it once, and never chased it. May have been BS, but keep in mind a pointy stick against a pi$$ed off or rutted up moose is not a good idea.
 
rkm456 said:
The British had slaves.

Serious question for some of the people in this thread. If you really think the Indians have this incredible level of influence, don't you think they'd start by getting their reservations clean water?
Click to expand...

In Canada? Don't think so, at least not to my knowledge. Please elaborate.

Far as the clean water, try researching what band, "leaders" pay themselves. Not much info to glean; the gov't seems to be trying hard to hide it, but while some live in squalor, the privileged few make out Very well. That, IMPO is the reason indian band, "leaders" are so vehemently against open books, and the liberals back that premise wholeheartedly, which should tell us something about that relationship. Just mpo.
 
Suka said:
In Canada? Don't think so, at least not to my knowledge. Please elaborate.

Far as the clean water, try researching what band, "leaders" pay themselves. Not much info to glean; the gov't seems to be trying hard to hide it, but while some live in squalor, the privileged few make out Very well. That, IMPO is the reason indian band, "leaders" are so vehemently against open books, and the liberals back that premise wholeheartedly, which should tell us something about that relationship. Just mpo.
Click to expand...

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada
2) You make a valid point, but it runs counter to the idea of the Indians wielding massive influence with policy makers. Unless you're suggesting that tribal leaders have so much influence that they're both telling the government to let them skim money while they poison their members.
 
I would like to hunt to sustain my family, however i'm forced to go to the grocery store, and spend a pile of money on permission slips with limits to my freezer stock. just because the color of my skin......
 
rkm456 said:
1) What he's saying he wants is a full scale eradication of every animal that walks on Canadian soil.
2) Colour of one's skin isn't what determines First Nations status.
Click to expand...

1)That is precisely what is happening when people can hunt 24/7 year round.

2) Absolutely correct. I've seen my share of red-headed, freckled status card carriers.

What he is saying is he feels he's being discriminated against.
 
joe-nwt said:
1)That is precisely what is happening when people can hunt 24/7 year round.

2) Absolutely correct. I've seen my share of red-headed, freckled status card carriers.

What he is saying is he feels he's being discriminated against.
Click to expand...

1) Demonstrably incorrect. Most big game species are at their highest population points since we enacted the current model of conservation. What he's proposing is returning to the free for all for everybody model that almost cost us all manor of game in the late 18/early 1900s. There are basic historical events that anyone who buys a hunting license should be aware of that I constantly see ignored because blaming Indians and predators is a nice, tidy solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom