Jasper National Park traditional hunt

Ardent said:
You ought to be a US defence department staffer in these current times. Stunning powers of deduction.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you changed your first response without it showing as edited. Not that i care particularly, you were happy with the guide outfitter situation 12 months ago. Whatever. I'm still going out as are many of my friends.
 
VanIsleCam said:
I am pretty sure you changed your first response without it showing as edited. Not that i care particularly, you were happy with the guide outfitter situation 12 months ago. Whatever. I'm still going out as are many of my friends.
Click to expand...

Still happy, like anybody that does what they love, though it’s a painful hit having Grizzlies closed. Help me understand what we’re talking about now with outfitting and the native traditional hunt just done in Jasper. And afraid no fresh material for conspiracy on ghost editing.

hoytcanon said:
Weapons of "mass destruction..." they are out there...
Click to expand...

Pointing fingers in current times is a comfortable distraction for sure. In the case of the natives who harvested eight animals from 11,000 square kms in a scenario that hurts nobody here... not sure how much it accomplishes.
 
Ardent said:
Still happy, like anybody that does what they love, though it’s a painful hit having Grizzlies closed. Help me understand what we’re talking about now with outfitting and the native traditional hunt just done in Jasper. And afraid no fresh material for conspiracy on ghost editing.



Pointing fingers in current times is a comfortable distraction for sure. In the case of the natives who harvested eight animals from 11,000 square kms in a scenario that hurts nobody here... not sure how much it accomplishes.
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't have a problem with someone else poaching an animal in Jasper? We would only be talking one animal. Of course the next person would want one animal as well, and then the next person would want one more animal, etc, etc.
 
I don't think it's at all about anybody being hurt by the hunt, it's about how people's perceptions and attitudes are affected. Any time rights, privileges, or special treatment are passed on solely based on race it will cause a divide. And as long as things like this keep coming up it's only getting deeper.
 
stubblejumper said:
So you wouldn't have a problem with someone else poaching an animal in Jasper? We would only be talking one animal. Of course the next person would want one animal as well, and then the next person would want one more animal, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Simple answer, they weren’t poaching. Poaching is illegal, these guys were fully working with parks. Next answer is we live in Canada with managed harvests and these guys’ harvest was managed too. I have a lot more issues with urban voters, Trudeau, and guys who tear the backcountry up with ATVs for no reason but to sling mud, than I do with hunters who are native and succeeded in being granted a hunt where their great grandparents hunted. This is small potatoes and we’ll fight over this harder than we will against many things that actually matter.
 
I'm with Angus on this one, if it is within their treaty rights and they are doing it in a legal and more traditional hunt in small numbers who cares. It's nice to see that oppose to the night hunting with spot lights in trucks that is the real problem.
 
I think it is a good thing. As far as I can tell, there is nothing, nor has there ever been anything in the National Parks Act forbidding hunting outright. One can hunt in many if not most Provincial Parks in BC.

Fishing is allowed in NPs, think about that, when you're condemning hunting.

Maybe they're going to make bows out of the ram horns, although in my limited knowledge I don't believe they traditionally did this, but those to the south certainly did.

These guys are ahead of the curve, just wait a few years and the Indians that signed treaties with the US Gov't prior to 1872 will be hunting buffalo in Yellowstone.
 
Everyone is intiled to their own opinions, I would like to see a pole done then we can s e were the majority divideds
I still call it a Trophy Hunt that shouldn’t be allowed now bing is sacret any more
What about my fore fathers who were able to see into the future and designate the prime spot to turn into a park so there was a future for every living thing in that are
And has any of the outfitters been componsated for the lose of their income?
I just curious what 1 or 2 would be okay with grizzly season closing, sound suspicious to say the least
But maybe some of them are lawyers in real life
It stinks ��
And for your information that mule deer was shot with a sting and arrow at 35 yards ,after crawling for 2hrs cheers
 
Ardent said:
Simple answer, they weren’t poaching. Poaching is illegal, these guys were fully working with parks. Next answer is we live in Canada with managed harvests and these guys’ harvest was managed too. I have a lot more issues with urban voters, Trudeau, and guys who tear the backcountry up with ATVs for no reason but to sling mud, than I do with hunters who are native and succeeded in being granted a hunt where their great grandparents hunted. This is small potatoes and we’ll fight over this harder than we will against many things that actually matter.
Click to expand...

This is small potatoes? In case you hadn’t noticed this has gone viral and out of control across the country. Maybe you need to look beyond your piece of the pie and see the whole landscape and the whole issue of special rights for votes!!
 
Maybe once Ardent loses his hunting grounds to native confiscation I mean treaty rights he will speak against their serial poaching.
 
Sunchild2071 said:
VanIsleCam

I see the argument, but don't think it takes away from the traditional part, wholly.

Each region/tribe, will have their own similarities and differences in what is "traditional".

For us (not speaking for others), a traditional hunt will happen firstly, in accordance with natural law. Certain ceremonies will be performed prior to the hunt, before if it is even decided if we should be allowed to hunt.

Offerings are made (we don't take without giving, first).

During the hunt, we live off the land. TeePees, or Tipis (whichever is preferred) are our shelter, or natural lean-tos. Not a TeePee you can buy at the store. Made by an elder who has been passed down the traditional skills and position to make such things, and given in traditional ways.

Animals are not just taken and killed. When we down an animal, there are rights, reserved for the hunters alone, where we consume some of the vitals, immediately, at the kill. To respect, and bond with the life that we take.

The entire animal is harvested.

When we get back, there is further ceremony to perform, and in the end, the animal which has been harvested is not kept by the hunters, but given to the community. Elders, the poor. Those who need it. Ladies who tan will take the hide. Bone and hoof will become regalia for traditional outfits.

That is just the nutshell overview. It is way more in depth than that little blurb. These are the ways it was done many generations before us, by those that left before us, and have left us the knowledge of these ways.

Not everyone does that. We take it quite seriously, and do it right, or not at all. Our kids and grandkids snare and trap, those wild foods are an important part of our diet, and way of life. The key being "wild".

That animal taken in the back bush quarter of the farm is a pet. Should not be taken.

Yes, we use rifles. We get to where we hunt with a truck.

Where did the modern things come from? How did the traditional people get them? What was bartered/negotiated for these modern things? Other than tribes in the deepest of jungles who have never had modern contact (good for them), no human on this earth should be relegated to live in the stone age. Progress happens. I still hear stories of when the whole tribe came to get their yearly allotment of bullets (as provided under the treaty) for hunting.

Our ancestors were smart when they negotiated the treaties. They were not thinking of themselves. They were thinking of the generations they would never get to see with their own eyes.

Those with the view that a traditional hunt has to fit the 60's Hollywood images of "traditional people", have probably watched a little too much television.

And there are those who just flat out abuse the rights as laid out in the treaties. I fully understand when there is outcry about that. We are trying to eliminate that within our communities, as well. We have a hard time with seeing that around us, and we work with youth, to try and get this whole mess turned around, before anything left of what is "traditional", is gone. The true traditional way demands respect for all living things around us. Not alot of us doing this. It is a struggle, but if we give up, then we have failed.

Many don't like us. The way we do things is hard work, and daily devotion to a certain way of being. They want the easy way.

The article states the hunters are using traditional territory. I don't know how it is that they intend to conduct the hunt. But I do know some people that live out that way, that are working to keep the old ways alive.

I can only speak for what a few of us do.
Click to expand...

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?

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.

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.
 
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?

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.

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...

Couldn't agree with you more and certainly couldn't have said it better myself.
 
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?

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.

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...

Straight up 100%!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom