Jasper National Park traditional hunt

Would have been fair to have opportunities like these available to all by way of LEH draw. ..
Doing it this way just pisses off most other hunters and divides our rankes. ...maybe thats the plan.
 
hawk-i said:
Would have been fair to have opportunities like these available to all by way of LEH draw. ..
Doing it this way just pisses off most other hunters and divides our rankes. ...maybe thats the plan.
Click to expand...

What nobody realizes is, when you have two classes of people, one with a whole wack of privileges others don't, resentment and the racial card are inevitable.
 
Papaclaude said:
OK. SO let's say I, for one, accept that as a traditional hunt. Now, let's go to Quebec. I can prove that my direct ancestors, in an unbroken line from father to son, were using firearms in Canada at least 40 years before any Native. Now, there are several writings that would strongly suggest many of the present native groups living in the Quebec City area - Abenaki's- actually arrived in the area after Europeans, moving in as a result of the Iroquois-Huron wars. Does that then mean I have more rights in that particular area than the Natives?
Click to expand...

That depends on what agreements they have in place. What did they negotiate? "Strongly suggest many" is also a long way from "conclusively proves all". And I'm not sure how your family use of firearms would equate to having rights in an area. And seriously, I'm not saying this just to start a pissing match with you, or anyone else here, really.

I'll tell you one thing for sure, it sure is a lucky thing for Europe they didn't get into this "traditional occupancy" and "treaty rights" stuff. Imagine trying to trace France back to its "first nations"? French, Germans, French, then Germans, then all the little kingdoms that now make up France, areas under Moor rule, (skip a few), Romans, Goths, Gauls, Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, It would never end.
Click to expand...

And that is a continent away. Lucky for them. Also, different historical evolution of how Europe came to be, as compared to Canada.

Maybe it's time to put all that crap to rest, and start managing all resources based on what the ecosystems can support and provide, and all follow the same laws, including sustenance hunting, as wherever there are Native groups that rely on sustenance hunting, there are White groups that would benefit from the same rights.
Click to expand...

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, that if everyone could just play nice, life would be good. (not quite in those words). I agree. However, that is not the nature of human beings. We did experiments in social studies in high school, which showed how even the smallest society, can quickly become divided, amongst its members.

Anyone would benefit, from any given rights. Definitely a integral part of what rights are. However, the key word, is rights. Much different than privileges. Some rights were negotiated, under treaty, well before I was born. Others rights have evolved over time, through other means, as well. Rights not being so easy to dissolve, as are privileges.

So those that have rights, want to hold onto them. They voice this, and engage politicians at every turn, to try and stem the erosion of those rights. Rights that their ancestors negotiated, and some even died for.

Dealing specifically with "rights" as an umbrella type of term; even individuals, within any given groups which have rights, will differ in opinion, as to what those rights really mean. Hence piles of legal challenges and constitutional challenges bogging the judicial system, since long ago. Like society, definitions will evolve, along with the rate of societal evolution. To go specific, and in the intent of this thread, the treaties identify hunting. However, nothing in the treaties identify that it must be done by bow and arrow crafted onsite of local natural materials.

I don't think there is any modern society/nation, in which all members holistically share equal rights. It would be utopian to think that there is. So we are where we are. Every person has their own set of values which will affect their interpretation of what rights are most important to them. Disagreement occurs. Society keeps evolving. There are rights that everyone of us have, that it is guaranteed that someone else figures that to be at their detriment, and therefore want it changed. How loud it is voiced, varies.

I can think of at least one group that does not want any of their rights (but are they rights or privileges?) eroded - law abiding firearms owners. Probably can list a whole pile more.

As a whole, I understand the "everyone in the same playing field" train of thought. As a matter of fact, a group I have been working with for the bulk majority of my adult lifetime, is devoted to exactly that. That we all can be the same, irregardless of race, color, religion, ###ual preference, etc., and treat each other simply as brothers and sisters, of the same. The ultimate uphill battle. But I also, like many others, will not give up any of my rights freely.

Simple linear example (hypothetical) of how equal rights aren't equal. Let's say as a Canadian birthright, you are entitled to 100 units of energy to heat your home, each year. Every Canadian gets this, therefore, that is equal. But Joe in Southern Alberta is certainly likely to use less per cu/ft in his home that Bob in the High North. So are they equal any more? Not to mention Joe has a family of 6, where Bob and his wife just have one daughter. So is it really equal? Joe and his family will be selling some of their energy to Bob and his family, since Joe's family has so much surplus. So many factors can skew what is really "equal", that it is hard to define.

One thing I know. I don't have the answer. You don't have the answer. Not likely anyone in this thread has the answer. If all of us are honest, about the idea of "if we just all had equal rights", we really know that deep inside, not one of our visions of what equal rights looks like, will be the same. And not one of us wants to give up any rights that we have, in the name of being equal.

More good would come on focusing on what rights we have individually, and just being damn thankful for those, than bemoaning how others have some right which we don't. We live in a damn good country. And as much as we complain, there is not much better out there. There sure are a lot worse where it is a simple case of "damn you and your rights". Everyone has some rights which give them an edge over others, by default or by design. Where you choose to focus, is up to you.
 
Sunchild2071 said:
One thing I know. I don't have the answer. You don't have the answer. Not likely anyone in this thread has the answer. If all of us are honest, about the idea of "if we just all had equal rights", we really know that deep inside, not one of our visions of what equal rights looks like, will be the same. And not one of us wants to give up any rights that we have, in the name of being equal.

More good would come on focusing on what rights we have individually, and just being damn thankful for those, than bemoaning how others have some right which we don't. We live in a damn good country. And as much as we complain, there is not much better out there. There sure are a lot worse where it is a simple case of "damn you and your rights". Everyone has some rights which give them an edge over others, by default or by design. Where you choose to focus, is up to you.
Click to expand...

That is one of the better written and reasoned statements I’ve read on CGN, even independent of the present topic. Bravo.
 
Sunchild2071 said:
That depends on what agreements they have in place. What did they negotiate? "Strongly suggest many" is also a long way from "conclusively proves all". And I'm not sure how your family use of firearms would equate to having rights in an area. And seriously, I'm not saying this just to start a pissing match with you, or anyone else here, really.



And that is a continent away. Lucky for them. Also, different historical evolution of how Europe came to be, as compared to Canada.



It was mentioned earlier in this thread, that if everyone could just play nice, life would be good. (not quite in those words). I agree. However, that is not the nature of human beings. We did experiments in social studies in high school, which showed how even the smallest society, can quickly become divided, amongst its members.

Anyone would benefit, from any given rights. Definitely a integral part of what rights are. However, the key word, is rights. Much different than privileges. Some rights were negotiated, under treaty, well before I was born. Others rights have evolved over time, through other means, as well. Rights not being so easy to dissolve, as are privileges.

So those that have rights, want to hold onto them. They voice this, and engage politicians at every turn, to try and stem the erosion of those rights. Rights that their ancestors negotiated, and some even died for.

Dealing specifically with "rights" as an umbrella type of term; even individuals, within any given groups which have rights, will differ in opinion, as to what those rights really mean. Hence piles of legal challenges and constitutional challenges bogging the judicial system, since long ago. Like society, definitions will evolve, along with the rate of societal evolution. To go specific, and in the intent of this thread, the treaties identify hunting. However, nothing in the treaties identify that it must be done by bow and arrow crafted onsite of local natural materials.

I don't think there is any modern society/nation, in which all members holistically share equal rights. It would be utopian to think that there is. So we are where we are. Every person has their own set of values which will affect their interpretation of what rights are most important to them. Disagreement occurs. Society keeps evolving. There are rights that everyone of us have, that it is guaranteed that someone else figures that to be at their detriment, and therefore want it changed. How loud it is voiced, varies.

I can think of at least one group that does not want any of their rights (but are they rights or privileges?) eroded - law abiding firearms owners. Probably can list a whole pile more.

As a whole, I understand the "everyone in the same playing field" train of thought. As a matter of fact, a group I have been working with for the bulk majority of my adult lifetime, is devoted to exactly that. That we all can be the same, irregardless of race, color, religion, ###ual preference, etc., and treat each other simply as brothers and sisters, of the same. The ultimate uphill battle. But I also, like many others, will not give up any of my rights freely.

Simple linear example (hypothetical) of how equal rights aren't equal. Let's say as a Canadian birthright, you are entitled to 100 units of energy to heat your home, each year. Every Canadian gets this, therefore, that is equal. But Joe in Southern Alberta is certainly likely to use less per cu/ft in his home that Bob in the High North. So are they equal any more? Not to mention Joe has a family of 6, where Bob and his wife just have one daughter. So is it really equal? Joe and his family will be selling some of their energy to Bob and his family, since Joe's family has so much surplus. So many factors can skew what is really "equal", that it is hard to define.

One thing I know. I don't have the answer. You don't have the answer. Not likely anyone in this thread has the answer. If all of us are honest, about the idea of "if we just all had equal rights", we really know that deep inside, not one of our visions of what equal rights looks like, will be the same. And not one of us wants to give up any rights that we have, in the name of being equal.

More good would come on focusing on what rights we have individually, and just being damn thankful for those, than bemoaning how others have some right which we don't. We live in a damn good country. And as much as we complain, there is not much better out there. There sure are a lot worse where it is a simple case of "damn you and your rights". Everyone has some rights which give them an edge over others, by default or by design. Where you choose to focus, is up to you.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you that "equal" and "equitable" are 2 completely different creatures. When it comes to treaties - pretty much every treaty ever written ends up being finite. NAFTA is a prime example, as was the Treaty of Versailles, to name just 2. The environment in which they were drafted? Absolutely. When my grandfather was ceded his 160 acres of land. There was no road access, nor Hydro - just river access. When they came along, that land grant went out the window. The conditions were no longer the same. I'm sure he complained a lot, but he also did end up benefiting. Just like when land treaties were signed, Canada did not have socialized medicine, the education system we have today, all sorts of social programs, and 36 million people. So, those conditions have changed. And yes, there would be some loss with abrogating those treaties, but there are also benefits, as all Canadians benefit from those programs. Granted, natives in remote areas don't get the same benefits as urbanites, but then neither do Whites in those areas.

Why did I bring up my family's gun rights - simple: If Natives can be exempted from hunting and fishing laws, as well as firearms laws, based on their traditions, why can I not get the same benefits?

All I know for sure is this - nations that live in the past will never move ahead. Natives think they were treated unfairly? I think any Irish immigrant in Canada in the early 1800's would have traded places with any Native. Poles, Ukrainians. and other Eastern Europeans were treated like crap when they came here. Hundreds committed suicide. The Chinese and Japanese? Not a picnic for them. French Canadians were kept in quasi-slavery in company towns. In the early 1900's, francophones were deprived of their right to French education. The thing is, all of them did fight to get their plights recognized and to change things, but they also left the past in the past, and moved on, while trying to make sure those things never happened again. Unemployment is a problem? Hundreds of thousands of White people left their traditional homes to move where the work was. Just look at all the Newfoundlanders in Alberta. Yes, I totally agree that many Natives live in deplorable conditions, but they are the only ones that can change things. They can't wait for others, including the government, to do it for them. It's what every other group that moved ahead had to do.

Anyhow, this whole rant of mine is not gun-related, and for that I apologize.
 
Papaclaude said:
I totally agree with you that "equal" and "equitable" are 2 completely different creatures. When it comes to treaties - pretty much every treaty ever written ends up being finite. NAFTA is a prime example, as was the Treaty of Versailles, to name just 2. The environment in which they were drafted? Absolutely. When my grandfather was ceded his 160 acres of land. There was no road access, nor Hydro - just river access. When they came along, that land grant went out the window. The conditions were no longer the same. I'm sure he complained a lot, but he also did end up benefiting. Just like when land treaties were signed, Canada did not have socialized medicine, the education system we have today, all sorts of social programs, and 36 million people. So, those conditions have changed. And yes, there would be some loss with abrogating those treaties, but there are also benefits, as all Canadians benefit from those programs. Granted, natives in remote areas don't get the same benefits as urbanites, but then neither do Whites in those areas.

Why did I bring up my family's gun rights - simple: If Natives can be exempted from hunting and fishing laws, as well as firearms laws, based on their traditions, why can I not get the same benefits?

All I know for sure is this - nations that live in the past will never move ahead. Natives think they were treated unfairly? I think any Irish immigrant in Canada in the early 1800's would have traded places with any Native. Poles, Ukrainians. and other Eastern Europeans were treated like crap when they came here. Hundreds committed suicide. The Chinese and Japanese? Not a picnic for them. French Canadians were kept in quasi-slavery in company towns. In the early 1900's, francophones were deprived of their right to French education. The thing is, all of them did fight to get their plights recognized and to change things, but they also left the past in the past, and moved on, while trying to make sure those things never happened again. Unemployment is a problem? Hundreds of thousands of White people left their traditional homes to move where the work was. Just look at all the Newfoundlanders in Alberta. Yes, I totally agree that many Natives live in deplorable conditions, but they are the only ones that can change things. They can't wait for others, including the government, to do it for them. It's what every other group that moved ahead had to do.

Anyhow, this whole rant of mine is not gun-related, and for that I apologize.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
Why are we discussing this? It's happening, there's nothing anyone can do about it, and discussing it with all this bull#### outrage makes us look like ignorant, bigoted boors. Just stop already.
 
BigUglyMan said:
Why are we discussing this? It's happening, there's nothing anyone can do about it, and discussing it with all this bull#### outrage makes us look like ignorant, bigoted boors. Just stop already.
Click to expand...

because Regulations
Hunting - firearms
Firearms and Hunting are not permitted in National Parks. If you are carrying a firearm through to another destination it must be unloaded and securely encased. Firearms include slingshots, bows, bb guns, cross bows and paintball guns. Hunting carries serious offences in a National Park. Fireworks are also not permitted.
Click to expand...
 
Papaclaude said:
I totally agree with you that "equal" and "equitable" are 2 completely different creatures. When it comes to treaties - pretty much every treaty ever written ends up being finite. NAFTA is a prime example, as was the Treaty of Versailles, to name just 2. The environment in which they were drafted? Absolutely. When my grandfather was ceded his 160 acres of land. There was no road access, nor Hydro - just river access. When they came along, that land grant went out the window. The conditions were no longer the same. I'm sure he complained a lot, but he also did end up benefiting. Just like when land treaties were signed, Canada did not have socialized medicine, the education system we have today, all sorts of social programs, and 36 million people. So, those conditions have changed. And yes, there would be some loss with abrogating those treaties, but there are also benefits, as all Canadians benefit from those programs. Granted, natives in remote areas don't get the same benefits as urbanites, but then neither do Whites in those areas.

Why did I bring up my family's gun rights - simple: If Natives can be exempted from hunting and fishing laws, as well as firearms laws, based on their traditions, why can I not get the same benefits?

All I know for sure is this - nations that live in the past will never move ahead. Natives think they were treated unfairly? I think any Irish immigrant in Canada in the early 1800's would have traded places with any Native. Poles, Ukrainians. and other Eastern Europeans were treated like crap when they came here. Hundreds committed suicide. The Chinese and Japanese? Not a picnic for them. French Canadians were kept in quasi-slavery in company towns. In the early 1900's, francophones were deprived of their right to French education. The thing is, all of them did fight to get their plights recognized and to change things, but they also left the past in the past, and moved on, while trying to make sure those things never happened again. Unemployment is a problem? Hundreds of thousands of White people left their traditional homes to move where the work was. Just look at all the Newfoundlanders in Alberta. Yes, I totally agree that many Natives live in deplorable conditions, but they are the only ones that can change things. They can't wait for others, including the government, to do it for them. It's what every other group that moved ahead had to do.

Anyhow, this whole rant of mine is not gun-related, and for that I apologize.
Click to expand...

Very well said. *tips hat*
 
Papaclaude said:
I totally agree with you that "equal" and "equitable" are 2 completely different creatures. When it comes to treaties - pretty much every treaty ever written ends up being finite. NAFTA is a prime example, as was the Treaty of Versailles, to name just 2. The environment in which they were drafted? Absolutely. When my grandfather was ceded his 160 acres of land. There was no road access, nor Hydro - just river access. When they came along, that land grant went out the window. The conditions were no longer the same. I'm sure he complained a lot, but he also did end up benefiting. Just like when land treaties were signed, Canada did not have socialized medicine, the education system we have today, all sorts of social programs, and 36 million people. So, those conditions have changed. And yes, there would be some loss with abrogating those treaties, but there are also benefits, as all Canadians benefit from those programs. Granted, natives in remote areas don't get the same benefits as urbanites, but then neither do Whites in those areas.

Why did I bring up my family's gun rights - simple: If Natives can be exempted from hunting and fishing laws, as well as firearms laws, based on their traditions, why can I not get the same benefits?

All I know for sure is this - nations that live in the past will never move ahead. Natives think they were treated unfairly? I think any Irish immigrant in Canada in the early 1800's would have traded places with any Native. Poles, Ukrainians. and other Eastern Europeans were treated like crap when they came here. Hundreds committed suicide. The Chinese and Japanese? Not a picnic for them. French Canadians were kept in quasi-slavery in company towns. In the early 1900's, francophones were deprived of their right to French education. The thing is, all of them did fight to get their plights recognized and to change things, but they also left the past in the past, and moved on, while trying to make sure those things never happened again. Unemployment is a problem? Hundreds of thousands of White people left their traditional homes to move where the work was. Just look at all the Newfoundlanders in Alberta. Yes, I totally agree that many Natives live in deplorable conditions, but they are the only ones that can change things. They can't wait for others, including the government, to do it for them. It's what every other group that moved ahead had to do.

Anyhow, this whole rant of mine is not gun-related, and for that I apologize.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Papaclaude said:
All I know for sure is this - nations that live in the past will never move ahead. Natives think they were treated unfairly? I think any Irish immigrant in Canada in the early 1800's would have traded places with any Native. Poles, Ukrainians. and other Eastern Europeans were treated like crap when they came here. Hundreds committed suicide. The Chinese and Japanese? Not a picnic for them. French Canadians were kept in quasi-slavery in company towns. In the early 1900's, francophones were deprived of their right to French education. The thing is, all of them did fight to get their plights recognized and to change things, but they also left the past in the past, and moved on, while trying to make sure those things never happened again. Unemployment is a problem? Hundreds of thousands of White people left their traditional homes to move where the work was. Just look at all the Newfoundlanders in Alberta. Yes, I totally agree that many Natives live in deplorable conditions, but they are the only ones that can change things. They can't wait for others, including the government, to do it for them. It's what every other group that moved ahead had to do.
Click to expand...

You nailed it with the point that individuals/groups are the only ones that can effect change; and that it has to start and grow within. Past transgressions must stay in the past, to move forward. 100% with you on those points.

The part maybe not so much, is using examples of French Canadians as an counter-point against special rights for specific groups. Breaking a little further, comparing rights and struggles of immigrants, to the rights and struggles of born on soil individuals, might be a little like comparing apples to carragana bushes (but I see the reasoning for raising the point, definitely - reference to past and moving forward).

Regardless, like I said before, I'm not here to try and start a fight or argument. So with that, I am tapping out. Not to dismiss your viewpoint, but rather to let others discuss the thread topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom