Grizzly shooting causes outrage

Here is what is says about Aboriginal hunting rights in BC...

ABORIGINAL HUNTING

The first priority of the Ministry of Environment is to ensure the long-term conservation of wildlife populations and their habitats. The Ministry also recognizes that Indian people have aboriginal rights to harvest wildlife for sustenance (food, social and ceremonial purposes) in their traditional areas.

Such uses of wildlife must be sustainable, and harvesting methods must not
jeopardize safety or the use and enjoyment of property. Any hunting of wildlife species for sale or barter, in whole or in part, is not legal, except as authorized by regulation or where there is a demonstrated aboriginal or treaty right to do so.

There is more but irrelivant to this discussion here is what it says about Metis hunters...

Métis Hunters

A reminder that all Métis individuals intending to hunt in the upcoming season are required, under the Wildlife Act, to hold a valid hunting licence and comply with all appropriate hunting regulations.This includes obtaining appropriate species licences and complying with Limited Entry Hunting Regulations.


Now with this all said even in BC if the grizzly was considered endangered it would be illegal to shoot the grizzly if you are a native unless it was in a defense situation.

:D

Not sure why what you quoted would prohibit killing a grizz Camp. Lots of traditional use of grizz by First Nations people in B.C.....read social/cerimonial.
 
But, I recall a few months back, a gent shot a bear. Arguably in self defense. He got charged just like most on here want to see done to this native fellow. The outcome I don't know, but someone started a collection over on A.O. for this fellow to fight the charges. Several members of that site donated towards his fight.

I personally read that thread.The alibi there was self defense..Any person of any race can legally kill a grizzly in self defense.In this case there is no mention at all of self defense,only treaty rights.And even on that thread,there were people that questioned his alibi and wanted to see him go to trial.

He got charged just like most on here want to see done to this native fellow.

I don't want to see the native charged in this case.I want to see the law changed so the only legal alibi is self defense just like for any other race.
 
So now you are inviting speculation be added to the little facts that the article has? You really are a stubblejumper

Actually you started the speculation that there may be other legal ways with your comment below.

Just because you do not know of it does not mean there is no other legal way.

I merely asked you to end the speculation by telling us about those other legal ways.
 
We had a kid working for us for a bit... he got fired cuz he was a dead-beat lazy prick that couldn't get out of bed on time.
Anyway, he was a Metis :rolleyes: and he claimed that his uncle shot a grizzly last year. I told that useless prick what I think of Metis hunting rights and that is, they have the same f**king rights as I do.

BUY A f**kING TAG AND HUNT IN SEASON just like everybody else.

Goddamn truckload of Indians rolled through the area north of our gas plant today, out hunting moose. They must be running low on whiskey and need some meat to barter.

f**kers. :mad:


Been on this site for a long time - seen the same arguments over and over.
But it's ignorant comments like this that get me.
I am surprised this sight lets comments like this go - and people like this to post such ignorant and racial remarks.
i have met a lot of great people here and have traded with a bunch of them and it takes one bone head with remarks like this to make the sight look bad.
 
Not sure why what you quoted would prohibit killing a grizz Camp. Lots of traditional use of grizz by First Nations people in B.C.....read social/cerimonial.

My comment was if the grizzly were endangered here as well which fortunately they are not and the animal wasn't shot in defense, conservation should come first before sustinance hunting.

The native should be charged.

I do not have an Alberta regulations to check into so cannot comment on
Alberta so I quoted BC regs.

Some one asked earlier why would people donate towards a white guy to fight against a charge of shooting a grizzly and we are against a native.

The way I see it it is because the white guy was actually defending his son when he shot the bear they had tried scaring it off and it circled back and was going to attack the kid.

Major difference...
 
Some one asked earlier why would people donate towards a white guy to fight against a charge of shooting a grizzly and we are against a native.

The way I see it it is because the white guy was actually defending his son when he shot the bear they had tried scaring it off and it circled back and was going to attack the kid.

Major difference...

Not quite the way it went, from the info that I've read. And I am not arguing whether he was in the right or not.(because nobody knows). Was he actually defending his son, or preventing a "possibilty" of an attack. I would probably have shot the bear also. My point is, the difference in attitude toward the shooters.
 
My point is, the difference in attitude toward the shooters.

It goes along with the fact that one person was charged,while the other was not,yet the person that was charged may have been protecting his son,while there is nothing in the article about the more recent occurrence about the bear being aggressive in any way.

If you are trying to infer that the people in this thread are racists,try blaming the government that made Canada a racist country by enacting racist laws that give one race more rights than others.The people speaking out against this legislated racism are simply asking for equal rights for all races,which is just the opposite of racism.On the other hand,anyone that supports racism,including racist laws,is by definition a racist.
 
This is no longer true. The last guy that did that in Alberta was charged and is going to court over it.

It is still true.The purpose of the trial is to determine if it actually was self defense.

With so many trigger happy people that want to shoot any bear in the vicinity,many supposed cases of self defense,are not self defense at all.
 
Last edited:
Wow some real winners in this thread ... I wonder what type of posts would be here if a NON-native person shot this grizz in the middle of the night as it lurks in your area ... jesus ...

Otokiak
Rankin Inlet, NU
CANADA
 
I wonder what type of posts would be here if a NON-native person shot this grizz in the middle of the night as it lurks in your area ... jesus ...

There would be support for the arrest of the person,since shooting a bear that was simply "lurking in your area" does not constitute self defense.
 
Quote:
That the principal conditions of the Treaties may be briefly stated as follows:

* 1st A Money present to each Chief of $25; to each Headman not exceeding four in each Band $15 and to every other Indian, man, woman and Child in the Band $12.
* 2nd An Annual payment in perpetuity, of the same sums to the Chiefs and Headmen (not exceeding four in each Band) and $5 to every other man, woman and Child in the Band.
* 3rd Certain trifling presents of clothing every third year, to the Chiefs and Headmen.
* 4th A supply of Ammunition and twine every year to the value of $750.
* 5th Presents of Agricultural implements, Cattle, grain, Carpenter's tools, etc., proportioned to the number of families in the Band actually engaged in farming.
* 6th Reserves to be selected of the same extent in proportion to the numbers of the Bands, and on the same conditions as in the previous Treaty.
* 7th Schools to be established on each Reserve as soon as the Indians settle thereon.
* 8th Intoxicating liquors to be excluded from the Reserve.

haha whatever happened to #8 intoxicating liquors to be excluded from the reserve
 
It goes along with the fact that one person was charged,while the other was not,yet the person that was charged may have been protecting his son,while there is nothing in the article about the more recent occurrence about the bear being aggressive in any way.

If this person gets charged and was in fact protecting his dog, kids, property or whatever. Do you think anyone will start a collection for him to fight the charges? We don't know the whole story but it seems that he is already being judged. (Which sometimes isn't a bad thing)
 
If this person gets charged and was in fact protecting his dog, kids, property or whatever. Do you think anyone will start a collection for him to fight the charges? We don't know the whole story but it seems that he is already being judged.

He has not been charged,and won't be charged,even if he just killed the grizzly for no other reason than to have the hide as a trophy or to be able to brag to his friends that he killed a grizzly.

There is absolutely no mention of the bear being shot to protect anyone or anything.

He is not being judged in the legal sense,but yes he is being judged in the moral sense just as you are judging the people that have posted on this forum.Nice try though,trying to twist things in order to make him appear to be the victim in this case.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
He has not been charged,and won't be charged,even if he just killed the grizzly for no other reason than to have the hide as a trophy or to be able to brag to his friends that he killed a grizzly.

There is absolutely no mention of the bear being shot to protect anyone or anything.

He is not being judged in the legal sense,but yes he is being judged in the moral sense just as you are judging the people that have posted on this forum.Nice try though,trying to twist things in order to make him appear to be the victim in this case.:rolleyes:

Stub, I'm not trying to twist anything. I'm not on anybody's side. I am not native. I just find it a little funny that there is 2 different thoughts toward these 2 gentlemen. Outcome is the same (dead bear). Ones a hero ones an #######.
 
I just find it a little funny that there is 2 different thoughts toward these 2 gentlemen. Outcome is the same (dead bear). Ones a hero ones an a**hole.

So you want to take everything down to the outcome and ignore all of the other factors.

Let's say that I shoot a bear during the legal season,while holding the proper license and tags and you shoot a bear out of season with no license.The outcome in both cases is a dead bear.Do you think that people would show the same attitude toward both of us?The others factors involved are every bit as important than the final outcome.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom