Grizzly shooting causes outrage

sheephunter

sheephunter

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Grizzly's killing on reserve provokes outrage

Provincial official upholds resident's treaty rights



Gwendolyn Richards

Calgary Herald



Friday, August 01, 2008



An adult male grizzly has been shot and killed on the Morley reserve, prompting outcry from conservationists trying to preserve the dwindling bear population.

The six-year-old grizzly, known as bear No. 102, was a wary animal who travelled widely around Banff and Canmore but kept away from humans.

"If he saw people, he would run," said Alberta Parks heritage protection specialist Melanie Percy. "As far as we knew, he never got into any trouble at all."

Early Saturday, around 4 a.m., the bear was shot and killed on the Morley reserve after the animal's movements apparently caused a dog to bark.

Under native treaty rights, the man who shot the bear had every legal right to do so, Percy said.

However, Jim Pissot of Defenders of Wildlife Canada said because the grizzly was inedible -- after being tranquillized only months earlier -- the shooting was technically a violation of those treaty rights.

The bear was tranquillized in May when wildlife officials outfitted him with a collar to track his movements.

Tranquillized bears get an ear tag warning people not to eat them within one year.

Part of Pissot's work includes the Wild Smart program, which has been working to find ways for humans to coexist with wildlife.

"What's unfortunate is this bear had learned to coexist and somebody at the other end of the gun made a less-than-ideal judgment," Pissot said.

After bear No. 102 was shot Saturday, he travelled another kilometre. He was still alive Sunday afternoon when the man who shot the animal, along with friends, tracked the bear on foot and destroyed him. When a fish and wildlife officer arrived at the home of the man who shot the bear, the officer found the animal's hide, said Percy.

With only 300 to 350 grizzlies left in the province, Defenders of Wildlife are working to preserve the population. Pissot said they have not yet approached First Nations leaders and hunters to discuss bear conservation.

Chiniki First Nation Chief Bruce Labelle could not be reached for comment.
 
With only 300 to 350 grizzlies left in the province, Defenders of Wildlife are working to preserve the population. Pissot said they have not yet approached First Nations leaders and hunters to discuss bear conservation.
Click to expand...

300 - 350 are they pulling numbers out of their asses because the population of Grizz in BC is a lot more than that. I see this article is Calgary is this the Grizz population in Alberta?? I think everyone regardless of race should hunt under one law. However since it's native rights i don't think the granola munchers can say or do anything.
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is about Alberta.......not BC. Guessing those numbers are lowered for effect but I think most agree that the grizz population does not exceeed 1,000 in Alberta.
 
hakx said:
Bannock trumps Granola

Hunting rights are guaranteed to aboriginals. They did NOTHING wrong.
Click to expand...


Just because something doesn't violate the most technical letter of the law doesn't make it right. As the bear was not eaten nor was it taken for cerimonial purposes, it at the very least violates the spirit of the meaning of subsistence hunting.
 
Last edited:
Copied and pasted directly from Treaty six.

Her Majesty further agrees with Her said Indians that they, the said Indians, shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as hereinbefore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada,
Click to expand...

Notice the "subject to regulations as may from time to time be made by Her Government of Her Dominion of Canada "

As such,the government could force the natives governed by this treaty to obey any regulations they choose to impose without violating the treaty,

Copied and pasted from treaty eight

And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty
Click to expand...

Again the provision for regulating hunting and fishing exists.

Copied and pasted from treaty four

And further, Her Majesty agrees that Her said Indians shall have right to pursue their avocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country,
Click to expand...

Yet again the provision exists for regulating hunting and fishing without violating the terms of the treaty.

I am not going to copy and paste from every treaty,but reading several more treaties,they all include the provision to regulate hunting and fishing by the natives.

For all of the people that insist that the Canadian government must honor the treaties,I agree 100%.We should follow the terms of the treaties to the letter.Below is an example taken directly from treaty four.

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.
Click to expand...

Let's give them what we promised and no more.No universty education,no homes with electricity and running water,no vehicles etc,nothing that isn't specifically mentioned in their treaty.

Have a read and it will soon be apparent that the natives have received far more than what was promised in the treaties.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/trts/hti/site/trindex_e.html

If the natives only received what was promised to them in the treaties,it would be them that would be asking to renegotiate.
 
Last edited:
sheephunter said:
Just because something doesn't violate the most technical letter of the law doesn't make it right. As the bear was not eaten nor was it taken for cerimonial purposes, it at the very least violates the spirit of the meaning of subsistence hunting.
Click to expand...


Your preaching to the choir my friend. I never said I liked it.:(
 
Last edited:
Ok it reads that a dog barked ... my question is ... did it waltz into a populated area? I'm sorry but if I see a bear(regardless of type) across the street or whatever in my home town ... it's BANG BANG baby ... ;)

Otokiak
Rankin Inlet, NU
CANADA

p.s. and I don't care about whether the man was aboriginal or not ... it's a bear in your area ... :)
 
So far all I see is that a lot of people have a problem with the fact that a native shot the animal.

4 am, dark, a grizz is lerking, bang bang bang.

Priceless how if it is a native who kills it, they have violated some great trust.

yet every second thread on this forum is "How to Kill a Griizzly 101"
Why not go look at what you all advised the guy to do in camp with the kids,
"take care of it now" "shoot shovel shut up" "Go shoot it now" and so on and so on.

Do i agree with what the treaty rights allow, no not all of it because it can be abused, but when there is no eveidence of abuse, (from this bit of information we do have) all you guys are doing is helping the wingnut granola eaters. I guarantee you, if the law changes that a Native cannot kill a Grizzly bear lerking in his vicinity in the night, then you guys will never get another tag either, or in alberta's case, ever have the need for a defense rifle or shotgun.

In addition... with the rights they are granted, how many Grizzly bears are taken by natives??
 
gitrdun said:
Sign me up for a "native" tag. :dancingbanana:
Click to expand...

I hope you mean a Native's Tag not a "native tag" as would suggest a tag to hunt a native, like a deer tag or moose tag, native tag

An absolutely disgusting comment if it is meant in the latter, but the benefit of the doubt has me thinking that you meant, a native's tag (like a status card) not a deer tag..
 
sealhunter said:
So far all I see is that a lot of people have a problem with the fact that a native shot the animal.

4 am, dark, a grizz is lerking, bang bang bang.

Priceless how if it is a native who kills it, they have violated some great trust.

yet every second thread on this forum is "How to Kill a Griizzly 101"
Why not go look at what you all advised the guy to do in camp with the kids,
"take care of it now" "shoot shovel shut up" "Go shoot it now" and so on and so on.

Do i agree with what the treaty rights allow, no not all of it because it can be abused, but when there is no eveidence of abuse, (from this bit of information we do have) all you guys are doing is helping the wingnut granola eaters. I guarantee you, if the law changes that a Native cannot kill a Grizzly bear lerking in his vicinity in the night, then you guys will never get another tag either, or in alberta's case, ever have the need for a defense rifle or shotgun.

In addition... with the rights they are granted, how many Grizzly bears are taken by natives??
Click to expand...

I think the issue here is Aboriginal rights and should they extend to species at risk or as the grizzly is likely to become in Alberta very shortly, an endangered species. The other question is, does this not violate the true intent of subsistence hunting? Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of the First Nation people's rights to subsistence hunting but where do we draw the line??????

There was no imminent danger from this bear, it posed no threat, there was no intetion of eating it and it was not intended for cerimonal purposes, so tell me again why he had the right to kill it.....if not legally then ethically?

If I shot every grizzly the dog barked at, I'd have a pretty big pile!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom