Elk slaughter in Manitoba

stubblejumper said:
If that meant that I could hunt when and where I chose with no seasons, or restrictions, just like my ancestors did when the treaties were written, I could live with using the type of firearms that were available when the treaties were signed. Of course that would mean that the natives could only use the bows and arrows that were available when the treaties were signed.



Lets look at the wording of the treaty that I quoted from.



That wording makes no mention of having to justify any regulations,before they can be put into place.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter if it was worded that way in a treaty. The Supreme Court stated in the Sparrow case of 1990 that the crown must prove infringing measures provide "valid legislative objective". The legal precedent for such dates back as far as 1763. This is why treaty challenges over the past couple decades have been commonplace. Later principles for interpreting treaties (since treaties often contained ambiguous wording) were re-iterated in Regina V. Badger (1996) and Regina V. Sundown (1999) which also upheld the idea that prima facie infringements on rights must be justified.
 
This whole thread and the indian's terrorist activists of late can be descibed in one sentence. A lawless society holding a lawful society hostage.
When is the racist hatred by the Indians going to be addressed? I feel no " white guilt " for what happened to a people eons ago when they lost a violent and political fight. I think they could join our society and enjoy what we have built if their leaders weren't so corrupt. Can't they see how badly they Are being misled and misinformed by their spokesmen and chiefs?
 
Doesn't matter if it was worded that way in a treaty. The Supreme Court stated in the Sparrow case of 1990 that the crown must prove infringing measures provide "valid legislative objective". The legal precedent for such dates back as far as 1763. This is why treaty challenges over the past couple decades have been commonplace. Later principles for interpreting treaties (since treaties often contained ambiguous wording) were re-iterated in Regina V. Badger (1996) and Regina V. Sundown (1999) which also upheld the idea that prima facie infringements on rights must be justified.
Click to expand...

We don't have a justice system in Canada, we have a legal system, which contains legislation that is racist by the very definition. The politicians and even our judges are supporting this nonsense in order to buy votes, and keep their positions. The entire system needs an overhaul, starting with a real constitution that makes every man,woman, and child in Canada equal under the law.

This whole thread and the indian's terrorist activists of late can be descibed in one sentence. A lawless society holding a lawful society hostage.
Click to expand...

Exactly, when someone blocks a road, or commits illegal acts during a demonstration, they need to be promptly arrested, using whatever force is necessary, regardless of the races involved.

"valid legislative objective"
Click to expand...

Is game management not a "valid legislative objective"? If not, then the current hunting regulations that contain bag limits and such should be stricken down for everyone.
 
We don't have a justice system in Canada, we have a legal system, which contains legislation that is racist by the very definition. The politicians and even our judges are supporting this nonsense in order to buy votes, and keep their positions. The entire system needs an overhaul, starting with a real constitution that makes every man,woman, and child in Canada equal under the law.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just your rhetoric. You can rightfully criticize the Supreme Court's decisions over the years if you don't agree with them, but given their position I expect they have a firm understanding of Canada's legal history which influences their decisions based on precedent. Most ordinary Canadians, though, have little knowledge of our history and how it relates to these issues. The fact is that the Canadian Federal Government has created legislation (beginning with the Indian Act) which implicated an entirely colonial and racially based relationship between Natives and the rest of the Canada. We are still feeling the effects of this historical legacy to this day, and court decisions which affirmed rights Natives were already supposed to have (but had been infringed) were geared towards balancing power which a minority group had been stripped of.

Is game management not a "valid legislative objective"? If not, then the current hunting regulations that contain bag limits and such should be stricken down for everyone.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. However, you would have to determine if the game management being employed is based on evidenced based "best practices" and not a reaction based on racial prejudices. Early conservation laws specifically targeted First Nations without any basis on scientific evidence. It was purely based on speculation and prejudicial ideas about how Natives hunted. These attitudes co-opted an entirely European conception of conservation. (See Brenda Ireland's "Working a Great Hardship On Us": First Nations people, the state and fur conservation in British Columbia before 1935 for a good overview on this phenomenon). It is clear that historically the "misuse" of wildlife is not something that has been exclusive to First Nations so any laws made would have to be done without the emotional component.
 
The fact is that the Canadian Federal Government has created legislation (beginning with the Indian Act) which implicated an entirely colonial and racially based relationship between Natives and the rest of the Canada. We are still feeling the effects of this historical legacy to this day, and court decisions which affirmed rights Natives were already supposed to have (but had been infringed) were geared towards balancing power which a minority group had been stripped of.
Click to expand...

Actually the laws have not led to any balancing of power. Instead of giving equal power to all Canadians, these laws have done just the opposite. Instead of uniting Canadians of all races, these laws have not only prevented that, but they have actually caused the different races to segregate and grow even further apart.It seems that every race and religion is out to take what it can, regardless of how it effects the other Canadians. And the more that each group gets, the more that they ask for.
Our governments have enacted legislation that has pretty much destroyed any chance of Canadians of different races and religions ever uniting together. The governments are using their power to manipulate the different groups, and to buy the votes that they need to get re-elected. Myself, and many other Canadians don't want to be treated with special benefits, we just want to be treated equally under the law with all other Canadians. However, our government is too cowardly to ever try to accomplish that, because they are afraid that every special interest group will vote against them, and defeat them if they try.

Luckily for me, I do most of my hunting on private land, where the landowners control who hunts on their land. Most landowners in the areas that I hunt allow hunters access, but most only allow hunters if the hunter has a hunting license, and is willing to follow the regulations.As one landowner told me, nobody is going to have more rights on his land than he has.
 
stubblejumper said:
Actually the laws have not led to any balancing of power. Instead of giving equal power to all Canadians, these laws have done just the opposite. Instead of uniting Canadians of all races, these laws have not only prevented that, but they have actually caused the different races to segregate and grow even further apart.It seems that every race and religion is out to take what it can, regardless of how it effects the other Canadians. And the more that each group gets, the more that they ask for.
Our governments have enacted legislation that has pretty much destroyed any chance of Canadians of different races and religions ever uniting together. The governments are using their power to manipulate the different groups, and to buy the votes that they need to get re-elected. Myself, and many other Canadians don't want to be treated with special benefits, we just want to be treated equally under the law with all other Canadians. However, our government is too cowardly to ever try to accomplish that, because they are afraid that every special interest group will vote against them, and defeat them if they try.

Luckily for me, I do most of my hunting on private land, where the landowners control who hunts on their land. Most landowners in the areas that I hunt allow hunters access, but most only allow hunters if the hunter has a hunting license, and is willing to follow the regulations.As one landowner told me, nobody is going to have more rights on his land than he has.
Click to expand...

I can understand where you're coming from with this and I agree that the government has, historically speaking, manipulated different groups of people to achieve (or in this case first nations people) to achieve one goal or the other. It hasn't led to much but mistrust and attitudes that don't accomplish much. The pendulum tends to swing in extremes and I don't think the government has provided any good answers to any of these issues (especially the ones they have created) because even when they attempt to be conciliatory it more or less amounts to more of what they've been doing for the past 100 years or so.
 
bearkilr said:
For the hunting forum, yes. This isn't CGN News Digest or Legalese where you normally spew your NDP rhetoric interlaced with law school jargon. :)
Click to expand...

Well, none of that "rhetoric" has anything to do with the NDP. It has everything to do with what has occurred in Canadian history and actual cases brought before the Supreme Court though.

Oh, and in case anyone was curious the debate over Section 35 rights (In the Constitution Act) is far from over. There is always questions about striking a balance between ensuring Native peoples get a just settlement and making sure wildlife and the interests of other Canadians are properly protected. The fact that this particular case is being investigated seems to suggest as such. I am in favor of examining each case (like the Supreme Court does) on a contextual basis that leaves the racially charged crap out. The latter doesn't get anyone here anywhere.
 
Last edited:
captonion said:
How about you show evidence of your claim...

You said ''In Ontario, natives can only hunt without a license on their treaty lands/waters''...That is obviously not the case, as the Algonquins have NO Treaty land...NONE!

If You take away the treaty lands in Ont there is very little left...What is left is taken up as Traditional harvest areas, like that of the Algonquins...
6ksdxnu6.jpg
Click to expand...

Did you look up any of those treaties?? The upper canada ones don't even deal with hunting rights. In fact, the upper canada treaties dealt with the british taking all the land along the great lakes extending 20 km north...also known as the "gun shot treaty". Nothing about traditional harvest areas. Just because there is a treaty signed for a specific area does not give native groups "the right" hunt/fish wherever they want. The eastern ontario one for instance, has several different native tribes that call it home...the Mohawks, Algonquins, Iroquois, Cayuga, Ottawa...All of whom have different area's that they consider "traditional harvest areas".

I'm not saying that the traditional harvest areas do not eat up crown land...My whole point was that Natives within ON can hunt without license on their treaty lands. Somehow this turned into an argument about where these lands are and snowballed from there.

From the regs...page 14

The second exception is members of Aboriginal communities
with Aboriginal or treaty hunting rights in Ontario. These
hunters are not required to be in possession of an Outdoors
Card provided they are hunting for food, social or ceremonial
purposes within their traditional or treaty area or they are
visiting the traditional area of another First Nation and have
received proper written permission to hunt from that
First Nation.
All other Ontario residents, including Aboriginal persons,
either hunting outside of areas where they have Aboriginal
or treaty hunting rights OR hunting in areas for which they
have not received proper written permission to hunt, must
have a hunting version Ontario Outdoors Card and all
applicable licences.
 
mvarley84 said:
I'm not saying that the traditional harvest areas do not eat up crown land...My whole point was that Natives within ON can hunt without license on their treaty lands. Somehow this turned into an argument about where these lands are and snowballed from there.
Click to expand...

NO! This is what you said?

mvarley84 said:
Depends on the province...In Ontario, natives can only hunt without a license on their treaty lands/waters. Anything outside that they need a license and tags just like everybody else.[/QUOTE]

Then you answer this yourself...HMMMMMMMMM

From the regs...page 14

All other Ontario residents, including Aboriginal persons,
either hunting outside of areas where they have Aboriginal
or treaty hunting rights OR hunting in areas for which they
have not received proper written permission to hunt, must
have a hunting version Ontario Outdoors Card and all
applicable licences. [/B],

mvarley84 said:
There is plenty of land in Ontario that is not "traditional harvest area"..
Click to expand...

Soooooooo where is this land?


bearkilr said:
^^^ This thread doesn't have anything to do with native hunting rights in Ontario, why do you keep bringing it up? :confused:
Click to expand...

This discussion pertains to the whole of Canada is I'm not mistaken...
Click to expand...
 
bearkilr said:
^^^ This thread doesn't have anything to do with native hunting rights in Ontario, why do you keep bringing it up? :confused:
Click to expand...

Neither are your off topic comments in posts 231, 227, 215, 110, and 96 (where you, yourself, was talking about Ontario Native hunting). You want an "all MB" thread? Go to a MB hunting forum. We're all talking about the same topic here, its Native hunting rights...some people have piped up about regs in other provinces.

No wonder you have almost 3000 posts, you accumulate 90% of them from snarky one liners that contribute nothing to the topic.
 
captonion said:
NO! This is what you said?

mvarley84 said:
Depends on the province...In Ontario, natives can only hunt without a license on their treaty lands/waters. Anything outside that they need a license and tags just like everybody else.[/QUOTE]

Then you answer this yourself...HMMMMMMMMM

From the regs...page 14

All other Ontario residents, including Aboriginal persons,
either hunting outside of areas where they have Aboriginal
or treaty hunting rights OR hunting in areas for which they
have not received proper written permission to hunt, must
have a hunting version Ontario Outdoors Card and all
applicable licences. [/B],



Soooooooo where is this land?




This discussion pertains to the whole of Canada is I'm not mistaken...
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken, my statement that you quoted is a coles notes version of what the regs said...minus the permission to hunt another bands portion...

I'm not going to read through every ON treaty to find what land is or isn't traditional harvest areas for which bands...not worth my time. If that makes you feel like you won, congrats.
Click to expand...
 
mvarley84 said:
Neither are your off topic comments in posts 231, 227, 215, 110, and 96 (where you, yourself, was talking about Ontario Native hunting). You want an "all MB" thread? Go to a MB hunting forum. We're all talking about the same topic here, its Native hunting rights...some people have piped up about regs in other provinces.

No wonder you have almost 3000 posts, you accumulate 90% of them from snarky one liners that contribute nothing to the topic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, I do get too worked up when these threads surface as I live in an area directly and frequently affected by these antics. This is a common occurrence locally and unfortunately not usually newsworthy. Maybe I'll just remain quiet and hope it goes away, along with the wildlife.

Regardless, enough has been said in this thread. I have no faith in our justice system or politicians, so the only answer is to take matters into one's own hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom