supreme-court-affirms-american-indigenous-mans-right-to-hunt-in-canada

Big-boss-man said:
I wonder if Mexicans or Mongolians will be next to be granted treaty rights in Canada after all their ancestry can be traced showing migration here too.
Click to expand...

This American could prove his tribe did use BC hunting grounds pre confederation.
Mexicans and Mongolians? I kind of doubt it myself.
Much of this is well covered in the John Jay treaty of 1794ish.
 
HuskyDude said:
Supreme Court affirms American Indigenous man's right to hunt in Canada

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada says an American Indigenous man has a constitutionally protected right to hunt in British Columbia given his people's historic ties to the region.
a castle with a clock tower in front of a building © Provided by The Canadian Press

The decision today comes in the case of Richard Lee Desautel, a U.S. citizen who was charged with hunting without a licence after shooting an elk near Castlegar, B.C.

Desautel defended his actions on the basis he had an Aboriginal right to hunt protected by section 35(1) of Canada's Constitution Act.

Desautel is a member of the Lakes Tribe of the Colville Confederated Tribes of Washington state, a successor of the Sinixt people, whose ancestral territory extended into B.C.

The trial judge found the sections of B.C.'s Wildlife Act under which Desautel was charged had infringed his constitutional right to hunt in the province.

The decision was upheld by the B.C. Supreme Court and the province's Court of Appeal, prompting the Crown to take its case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 23, 2021.

The Canadian Press
Click to expand...


Whelp, guess I'm heading over to the UK to hunt my native lands; anybody want anything while I'm there?
 
People like to ignore history when it doesn't suits them, and refer to it when it does. In Canada, no one had "their asses handed to them". There was no conquerer and conquered. In 1760, the British government acknowledged First Nations ownership of everything in Canada outside of the few areas in Quebec. In 1867 when Canada was formed, this carried over into Canadian law as well. Then the Numbered Treaty making system began. The Canadian government realized that they had to "extinguish" First Nations ownership of Canadian land, so that they could encourage immigration and expand the country.

The Numbered Treaties were agreements in law between Nations, whereby certain things were surrendered and certain rights were guaranteed, between the Nation of Canada and the First Nations. I have studied Treaty Number Nine in depth. It was inacted in 1905-1906. There was a fair amount of chicanery involved in the entire process, and if government intentions had been clearly spelled out, I am sure many First Nations would not have signed.

The end result of the Treaty process is still unfolding. BC had mostly missed the entire process, and modern Treaties are still being made. The Nisaga'a are a prime example, and their final settlement has generated much controversy in both Indigenous and non-indigenous communities. It is a modern example of a negotiated settlement that took over a hundred years to arrive at.

You can deny history and dismiss it because it doesn't fit into your theory of the world, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
 
I am not the best at articulating my thoughts on this topic. I hope some of you can see where I'm going with this anyway.
I think we, as a people, need to look at the treaties with a different perspective. The way I see it is a 'government body' recognized ownership of the land as belonging to the people who were here first. Simplistic yes however it's how I understand it and I'll get back to this.
At the time the general consensus was humans were a community of different species, categorized by religion, place of origin/race, class etc, etc. The lefties are still doing that today but I digress. The local 'Native' people were considered different from those people the 'government' represented. Two different human species so to speak.
Modern science has updated us with a reality check that does not sit well with some traditionalist.
None of the originators of the treaties are alive today and I'm not sure if it even matters as the treaties were signed between a 'government body' and the people of the land. As I mentioned, the government recognized the land belonged to the people. This could be very good news for everyone.
DNA evidence shows that we're all the same species of modern humans with slight deviations naturally occurring over the centuries and will continue to evolve into the future. What this shows is my ancestors were the first humans to step foot in North America. Your ancestors were the first humans to step foot in North America. I want to be able to use the land in the same or similar manner my ancestors did yet, I am not allowed because the government continues to categorize me and humans who look similar to me in a separate category as other humans. I see that as the epicentre of racism itself showing 'racism' was created and enforced today by governments across the globe.
The government admitted in treaties with the people the land belongs to the people. I propose we now know 'the people' are us and the government in any form cannot take it away from 'us'.

Anyway, trying to keep my thoughts short but I think some of you more open minded folks get what I'm saying. We're all the same species with the same ancestry and the categorizing of humans into groups will hopefully sooner rather than later be put behind us.
 
45ACPKING said:
when people start saying indigenous people should hunt with sticks and rocks and without horse and insert your favorite cliche here "......." it bugs me and I think "Okay.... I'l hunt with sticks and rocks like my ancestors did but all you non indigenous have to give up your borders, your highways and your motor vehicles and you should be hunting with nothing but flint locks..... seems about right too me eh?
Treaty 6 gave lands to my family that were later taken and given to immigrant farmers and then that farmers son when he became a man bulldozed the historical grave sites and any traces of the decendants of chief little hunter from the land. Thankfully my uncles and my dad got the site recognized and the federal heritage minister got involved and some things were set right. At least I can go visit my great grandmother's grave though. That land..... 100's and 100's of acres should be my families.... I should be able to hunt and fish and farm there and leave it to my kids. Instead that land has made immigrant family's wealthy and there is no access for me to hunt and hike on the land that was once my great grandfathers.

The border means nothing to a whole lot of Indigenous people and treaties included the freedom to move to and fro across the border unfettered. I don't see why that should not include hunting territories.

All of the issues that fire people up and cause them to start typing garbage about indigenous rights, territories, treaties and resource harvesting are all venting thier frustrations and offensive comments at the wrong people. The canadian government and the Crown made and broke all these deals and allowed the millions of people we have today in this country to benefit off the resources of the land and it is only in the past few decades that canada's indigenous peoples are standing up for themselves.

The Indian Act needs to be completely abolished and this country and ALL it's people need a re-write and a new deal brokered that is good for all. However, the current system is what it is and if you don't like it..... vent to your politician and add these topics to your list of Voting requirements when you go to the poles.
Corruption in indian bands is a funny comment considering the corruption that is perpetuated by government and big business. The same big business that has profitted off the first peoples lands. I wonder how much money that crook Jimmy Patterson has made off the fish, the trees, the "everythiing harvestable in the province"....... Any of you go after Jimmy patterson for the decline in halibut and salmon? Nah..... just blame the natives..... it's a common mistake.... you should be blaming government for "both" Jimmy and the situation with treaties and territories.

I also don't have an issue with an Indigenous person breaking the law when it comes to a law like harvesting an animal. I may find myself in that same situation this fall or next as I am getting impatient with this government and I want hunting rights in my treaty territory just like the treaty says. Heck they are even supposed to be supplying me with a yearly allotment of ammunition for my rifles..... it's right there in the treaty. LOL

that's it for me.... carry on
Click to expand...

My point exactly...Treaty 6 signed in 1878 under the authority of the Queen (British Crown) and ME as in I and the rest of the Canadian Tax paying citizens are not afforded the same rights.

Maybe we all should be allowed to hunt wildlife by the same rules and laws that applied in 1878...wouldn't that be something?

....one country, one law, equality to all, Now wouldn't that be something!
 
Brutus said:
This American could prove his tribe did use BC hunting grounds pre confederation.
Mexicans and Mongolians? I kind of doubt it myself.
Much of this is well covered in the John Jay treaty of 1794ish.
Click to expand...

how far back into pre-confederation do we go? his "nation" used the area for a snapshot in time, was nomadic and moved on, there were other "nations" there before then that could have been Mongolian or Mexican, a more powerful and "advanced" nation claims it now
the dude's family wasn't starving he frikkin' drove there for crying out loud, the pessimist in me is saying he's using that defense to get out of a poaching charge
 
Janeau said:
All this have lasted long enough and should be fixed and resolved.

Whatever, it have to be seen as of 2021 , not what happened in 1700. Native and new comers fought and died over land and for other reasons. Nothing can be done about that.
Treaty were made and broken by both side. No way to know. Claimed land are not written anywhere but are what is claimed today by native. No way to know if it was taken or given. Native claims are not supported on paperwork but by oral history that can be or not accurate at all.

So at one point - it have to end. Native are Canadian in todays world, and should be treated as equal. All those native laws - Indian Affairs laws and ministries have to go. Many 1700 laws still exist in the book and nobody can claim they apply today. All nation have history, and trying to use was was then in todays world do not work.

Billions of bucks were given in compensation and huge sums of money is still given today.
Do Canadian have to pay until end of time ? I know of no land that have a 400 years mortgage. At one time, it must end.
Click to expand...

do you know how much we pay as a tribute to the queen and the family every year?

have a read on that:
h t t p s ://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/queen-costs-us-more-than-the-brits-pay
 
Last edited:
And all of the animals were equal... some were more equal than others.
If you removed the term FN from the scenerio... snowflakes would lose their minds.
 
Donny Fenn1 said:
how far back into pre-confederation do we go? his "nation" used the area for a snapshot in time, was nomadic and moved on, there were other "nations" there before then that could have been Mongolian or Mexican, a more powerful and "advanced" nation claims it now
the dude's family wasn't starving he frikkin' drove there for crying out loud, the pessimist in me is saying he's using that defense to get out of a poaching charge
Click to expand...

This was kind of my point. For sure people from Asia, south America and Europe were here pre confederation, so where are their rights? I am descendant from "Norse" I am pretty sure the Norse were here before "The Europeans" so where are my treaty rights?

The Norse colonization of North America began in the late 10th century CE
Click to expand...
 
The original Indigenous residents of L'anse aux Meadows drove the Norsemen out dude. Gave them a royal arse kicking over a period of three years, until the vikings pulled up stakes and left. So no, you don't have any Treaty rights, just retreat rights, which really are not much to brag about.
 
I thought they left willingly?
" The L’Anse aux Meadows site was abandoned after a similar period. This can be seen from the sparseness of the cultural deposits in the buildings, the small garbage heaps, and the lack of cemeteries. Its occupants left willingly. They took all their tools, weapons, and belongings with them. The only things left were broken and discarded items. " https://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/othermysteries/whydidtheyleave/indexen.html
 
memaquay said:
It's pretty well documented by the vikings themselves. https://militaryhistorynow.com/2013...between-native-north-americans-and-europeans/
Click to expand...

The article says that the natives were scared of an escaped bull and attacked the Vikings. Also, it says that the settlement was eventually abandoned, not that the Vikings were chased off by the braves.

I say give every native a million bucks as compensation for the renunciation of the claim of ownership to any land, medicine chests or any other special conditions and privileges. Amalgamate them with the rest of the tax paying populace and move forward already.
 
medvedqc said:
do you know how much we pay as a tribute to the queen and the family every year?

have a read on that:
h t t p s ://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/queen-costs-us-more-than-the-brits-pay
Click to expand...

You make it sound like we're sending Lizzy a cheque. It's really just our own stupidity that leads to unlimited budgets for useless figureheads. We haven't had a GG for a while yet the country has yet to collapse...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom