Those are native communities...Treaty lands and reservations are two completely different things.
Elk slaughter in Manitoba
- Thread starter 7mm-08
- Start date
Those are native communities...Treaty lands and reservations are two completely different things.
Wow,maybe you live on Fantasy Island...........Here in Nanaimo you can buy an Elk for 1000$, pay an extra 100 for "arrangement" to shoot it yourself. Oh and by the way,Roosevelt Elk are not native to Vancouver Island.White guys, many members of local fish n game clubs brought them over.Ask a commercial fisherman what he thinks of aboriginal fishing rights.
This B.S. has got to stop or there will be no fish or game left for ANY of our kids or grandkids.How the hell do you try to manage resources under these conditions?
You are correct...Treaty lands and reservations are indeed two completely different things, as are a treaty lands and traditional harvest areas, to which Natives lay claim...You would be hard pressed to find an area in Ontario that is not a traditional harvest area for some Aboriginal group...e.g.The Algonquins have never signed a treaty or taken treaty benefits for their territory, but do hunt/fish their traditional harvest area....
As I said, any/all crown land in Ont is a traditional harvest area for some Aboriginal group...Written permission can be granted by a Chief, or Counsel by request (It is customary to give gift of tobacco with request)...With written permission in hand, no license is required, though there can be restrictions imposed by those who have granted permission.....
Sooo......pretty much like bribing the MNR to "look the other way".
There is plenty of land in Ontario that is not "traditional harvest area". I'm sure you have evidence to show your claim...and not just a map of all the reserves in ON.
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
Well, seing this thread is about Manitoba, there is not "plenty" of land which isn't considered traditional harvest use area by Metis. First Nations have the right province wide, and Metis are looking to expand theirs now that they recently received the same rights as First nations in regard to hunting and fishing.
Heres the map:
http://www.mmf.mb.ca/images/pdf/Recognized_Areas_for_Harvesting_Map.pdf
Notice how it's the basically all land with good road access. The eastern and northern portions are largely inaccessible other than by water or air.
No - a result of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Regina v. Shipman et. al. You can search it and read it before you post a response.....
Thats the same kind of logic gun grabbers use in the US. If someone wants to keep and bear arms it should be a single shot muzzle loader since thats the kind of gun that was around when the Bill of Rights was signed.
It's not about the tools that are used. It's about using those tools in a responsible manner. Gun grabbers argue the same way and blame the inanimate objects involved.
This is what I was pointing at in my last post if you read the previous post: (It is customary to give gift of tobacco with request)No - a result of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Regina v. Shipman et. al. You can search it and read it before you post a response.....
Oh well, all I have to say is Canada really needs to change the rights and freedoms act. I just ask for the day to come where (not on a reserve): The native in front of me at the check out line has to pay the same taxes as I do when purchasing the same items. If they want the freedom of not paying taxes like the rest of us.....stay on your reserves and don`t come off....no gov`t handouts.
No, it is not. The "native" americans didn't even have the wheel. There is a huge difference between hunting with rifles and trucks/ATV/s, and ritual hunting rights. If they wanna hunt year round, regardless of the concequences to the environment, use the tools of the day.
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...
Last edited:
A civilian in the American Revolution didn't have gas operated, semi-automatic rifles, so civilians wanna shoot, they should use the tools of the day.
See how your logic can be twisted against gun owners?
Last edited:
bearkilr
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nowhere, ......just past the middle
This isn't the US and we're not talking about the second amendment or Declaration of Independence. Would you like to see First Nations in the US have the same rights as they do in Canada? Start petitioning Obama if that's the case.
The second amendment does not list any specific arms..
And the treaties do contain clauses that give the government the right to impose regulations on native hunting if and when,they choose to do so. The natives agreed to the treaties, so they agreed to all of the terms of the treaties.
From Treaty 5
http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110.../1100100028700
No, we're not talking about the US. We're talking about flawed logic, suggesting time-machine legislation. Let's put the time-machine logic in the context of the British North America Act. Natives can only use bows and arrows to hunt and Canadian shooters can only use guns that were available before 1867?
Better?
- Location
- PRINCE GEORGE, BC
The funny thing is I don't think people understand how the connection you're making is entirely correct. Native hunting rights in Canada have legal precedent dating back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. This was later included and re-iterated in the BNA Act of 1867. Numbered treaties that were later made conferred specific hunting and subsistence rights as well. When laws are created they are not designed to account for changes in technology or the inevitability of acculturation (which is the case with Native peoples) and are not intended to infringed upon as such. Saying otherwise does use the logic of anti-gun people in the United States who claim the 2nd amendment only applied to guns available at the time when it actually did no such thing. To attempt to infringe upon it using such an argument is fallacious; just as are arguments that suggest natives need to hunt with "traditional" tools just because these laws were made before the advent of modern technology. On the same token you might as well argue that white people shouldn't be getting all upset about hunting in Canada when their ancestors in Europe didn't hunt, and the first Europeans that came to Canada actually acquired hunting knowledge from their close relationships with native societies (acculturation worked both ways).
Also, as it has been pointed out elsewhere the Crown has always retained the right to limit native subsistence activities so long as they have a justification to do so. What most Canadians don't know is that the crown frequently invoked this right in the early part of the 20th century. Many of the first conservation laws in Canada specifically targeted First Nations, not whites. Many First Nations groups actually had to go to court to have such restrictions removed once it was deemed that these laws were not actually justifiable, and based upon racial prejudices and perceptions about First Nations wildlife use at the time.
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.
Last edited:
