I am positive this topic is about ALBERTA METIS.
You seem to want to talk about treaty/status indians. Do you know what a metis is? Ignorance is bliss.
Metis to defy new hunting restrictions
- Thread starter Lionhill
- Start date
I am positive this topic is about ALBERTA METIS.
You seem to want to talk about treaty/status indians. Do you know what a metis is? Ignorance is bliss.
- Location
- Lakes District BC
metis is NOT just in alberta 
and yes I am quite aware of there genetic makeup and quite aware they expect the same treatment as every other native band in Canada even though there not full blooded natives, and remmeber when you speek of ignorance this was about the right to hunt as a satus native not a argument about what province to live in
and yes I am quite aware of there genetic makeup and quite aware they expect the same treatment as every other native band in Canada even though there not full blooded natives, and remmeber when you speek of ignorance this was about the right to hunt as a satus native not a argument about what province to live in
If this whole thread is about nothing other than hunting as a status indian, why are there comments like the one quoted above. Seems like your comment about that this thread is only about hunting as a status indian is a cop out for you now! If this thread was as you stated, you wouldn't have made any comments like that. And by the way I am a member of a local conservation club, a hunters and fishing organization and a number of other groups that do "give back" quite a bit so please refrain from the stereotyping again!
metis is NOT just in alberta
and yes I am quite aware of there genetic makeup and quite aware they expect the same treatment as every other native band in Canada even though there not full blooded natives, and remmeber when you speek of ignorance this was about the right to hunt as a satus native not a argument about what province to live in
Please read the first post. That is the topic. METIS HUNTING RITES IN ALBERTA!!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems to me that this issue stems from the only two Supreme Court of Canada rulings pertaining to Métis Rights; R vs. Powley and R vs. Blais.
Basically R vs. Powley establishes that Métis are distinct aboriginal peoples of Canada (as defined in Section 35 of the Constitution), with a distinct heritage and culture. R vs. Blais further establishes that Métis are not Indians for the purposes of the Manitoba natural resources transfer agreement.
The Court further suggests that Métis Rights do exist, however such rights have not been identified, although they suggest that these rights must track those of First Nations. The Court instructs Canada that it cannot ignore Métis Rights, simply because it has not negotiated with the Métis.
With respect to hunting, R vs. Powley, does establish some guidance. Effectively Métis can exercise their harvesting rights within their traditional territory. In order to establish a practical method of implementing this ruling, the Métis were required to establish a clear definition of who the Métis are and what constitutes the Historic Métis Nation. This work involved significant historical research, including archeological and genetic studies and has been accepted by the courts.
R vs. Powley really becomes a test to establish Métis claims, in the same fashion as several historic First Nations rulings form the basis for First Nation claims.
The Government of Alberta was quick to react to the R vs. Powley ruling. The negotiation of an interim harvesting agreement was, IMO, a preemptive decision meant to avoid a potential date in court. Initially, I was surprised that this agreement captured the entire province. However, despite the Government of Alberta’s claim of ignorance, there is documented history that clearly identifies a Métis presence in Southern Alberta. Furthermore, Alberta did open the entire province to First Nations harvesters, when it offered this concession in exchange for consent to the Alberta natural resources transfer agreement (back in the 1930’s). Given that the Supreme Court of Canada indicates that Métis rights track those of First Nations, this could become a very interesting ruling.
Personally, I think the principal issue is ensuring the sustainability of hunting in Alberta, regardless of who is doing the hunting. Non-aboriginal hunters will be upset to learn that should conservation become an issue they will be the first to feel the effects of measures to correct the situation. Government cannot restrict aboriginal rights without demonstrating an effort to mitigate the purpose prior implementing the restriction. Therefore, it is in the interest of non-aboriginal hunters to encourage aboriginal hunters to establish harvesting limits. If Alberta negotiates a harvesting agreement with the Métis, harvesting locations may not be as critical as harvesting numbers. If they succeed in establishing some monitoring and controls in the agreement, whether enforced by provincial authorities or the Métis, the Métis will have a more sustainable arrangement than First Nations in Alberta.
With respect to breaking the law, I believe that this is the objective. Steve Powley stepped outside of the law and it resulted in a Supreme Court Ruling that advanced his cause. I suspect the Albert Métis want to get into trouble because they believe the courts will advance their cause too.
Basically R vs. Powley establishes that Métis are distinct aboriginal peoples of Canada (as defined in Section 35 of the Constitution), with a distinct heritage and culture. R vs. Blais further establishes that Métis are not Indians for the purposes of the Manitoba natural resources transfer agreement.
The Court further suggests that Métis Rights do exist, however such rights have not been identified, although they suggest that these rights must track those of First Nations. The Court instructs Canada that it cannot ignore Métis Rights, simply because it has not negotiated with the Métis.
With respect to hunting, R vs. Powley, does establish some guidance. Effectively Métis can exercise their harvesting rights within their traditional territory. In order to establish a practical method of implementing this ruling, the Métis were required to establish a clear definition of who the Métis are and what constitutes the Historic Métis Nation. This work involved significant historical research, including archeological and genetic studies and has been accepted by the courts.
R vs. Powley really becomes a test to establish Métis claims, in the same fashion as several historic First Nations rulings form the basis for First Nation claims.
The Government of Alberta was quick to react to the R vs. Powley ruling. The negotiation of an interim harvesting agreement was, IMO, a preemptive decision meant to avoid a potential date in court. Initially, I was surprised that this agreement captured the entire province. However, despite the Government of Alberta’s claim of ignorance, there is documented history that clearly identifies a Métis presence in Southern Alberta. Furthermore, Alberta did open the entire province to First Nations harvesters, when it offered this concession in exchange for consent to the Alberta natural resources transfer agreement (back in the 1930’s). Given that the Supreme Court of Canada indicates that Métis rights track those of First Nations, this could become a very interesting ruling.
Personally, I think the principal issue is ensuring the sustainability of hunting in Alberta, regardless of who is doing the hunting. Non-aboriginal hunters will be upset to learn that should conservation become an issue they will be the first to feel the effects of measures to correct the situation. Government cannot restrict aboriginal rights without demonstrating an effort to mitigate the purpose prior implementing the restriction. Therefore, it is in the interest of non-aboriginal hunters to encourage aboriginal hunters to establish harvesting limits. If Alberta negotiates a harvesting agreement with the Métis, harvesting locations may not be as critical as harvesting numbers. If they succeed in establishing some monitoring and controls in the agreement, whether enforced by provincial authorities or the Métis, the Métis will have a more sustainable arrangement than First Nations in Alberta.
With respect to breaking the law, I believe that this is the objective. Steve Powley stepped outside of the law and it resulted in a Supreme Court Ruling that advanced his cause. I suspect the Albert Métis want to get into trouble because they believe the courts will advance their cause too.
Last edited:
No, it is because they were hunting the area, according to their own practices, well before Canada was a country and Alberta was a province.
Of course, they did exercise their own system of regulatory authority through captains of the hunt. These individuals were able to determine who could hunt, where, and when. They could also establish which animals could be taken and how many.
As far as skill, historically it would be very difficult to argue that Metis were not excellent hunters. Their marksmanship and skill with horses made them a formidable challenge to the Hudson's Bay Company monopoly in Rupert's Land. The Sioux prefered to negotiate peace treaties with the Metis, rather than fight with them, despite having far larger numbers of warriors. European settlers that chose to provoke violence usually wound up either dead, or back in Ontrio.
Historians have re-examined the accounts of the second Metis uprising and find that it could have been much more painfull for Canada, had Riel not wanted a bloodless campaign. Had Gabriel Dumont been the Metis leader there would have certainly been a lot more guerilla action,which would have been to the advantage of the Metis (who had a fraction of the force, and were far superior in an outright fight). There is an account of the Metis defence of Batoche and a ninety-year-old Metis manning a foxhole. After holding off several advances he ran short of ammunition and was finally killed by six soldiers who were able to charge his position and bayonette him to death in front of his wife. My great-great gandfather died at Cutknife as a result of the skills of some Metis marksman.
I can't argue against the suggestion that there may be some poorly skilled Metis hunters out there, just as I couldn't argue against the notion that there are poorly skilled hunters of every ethnic persuasion, including First Nations. However, four of the five best and most responsible hunters I know are Metis.
Of course, they did exercise their own system of regulatory authority through captains of the hunt. These individuals were able to determine who could hunt, where, and when. They could also establish which animals could be taken and how many.
As far as skill, historically it would be very difficult to argue that Metis were not excellent hunters. Their marksmanship and skill with horses made them a formidable challenge to the Hudson's Bay Company monopoly in Rupert's Land. The Sioux prefered to negotiate peace treaties with the Metis, rather than fight with them, despite having far larger numbers of warriors. European settlers that chose to provoke violence usually wound up either dead, or back in Ontrio.
Historians have re-examined the accounts of the second Metis uprising and find that it could have been much more painfull for Canada, had Riel not wanted a bloodless campaign. Had Gabriel Dumont been the Metis leader there would have certainly been a lot more guerilla action,which would have been to the advantage of the Metis (who had a fraction of the force, and were far superior in an outright fight). There is an account of the Metis defence of Batoche and a ninety-year-old Metis manning a foxhole. After holding off several advances he ran short of ammunition and was finally killed by six soldiers who were able to charge his position and bayonette him to death in front of his wife. My great-great gandfather died at Cutknife as a result of the skills of some Metis marksman.
I can't argue against the suggestion that there may be some poorly skilled Metis hunters out there, just as I couldn't argue against the notion that there are poorly skilled hunters of every ethnic persuasion, including First Nations. However, four of the five best and most responsible hunters I know are Metis.
So why do they need all the extra opportunities? Before Metis were hunting without limits their French and Scottish ancestors were doing the same, will these folks be granted the same rights? Due to sound management practices there is a lot of game throughout North America for all to enjoy, if governments continue catering to special interest groups what's left? When the I.M.H.A. agreement came in, the Rams at Cadomin were almost blasted to hell, one guy hunting as Metis tried to register a book ram, but because it wasn't taken with a tag it was ineligible even though he tried to buy a tag later. Now I don't know much about sheep horns perhaps they are delicious and nutritious but once word got out, the annual Minister's license raffle that would raise over half a million dollars annually for F&W became worthless. Equality for all is the best bet.
Metis didn't exist before the advance of Europeans into Canada. I fail to see how they should be accorded any special status different from any other native Canadian.
The Powless Supreme Court decision was highly divisive. It served to only fuel what will ultimately become an increasingly confrontational issue.
Does this forum have a moderator?
At least a couple posts here have broken the rules and should be removed. And the posters warned.
If anyone sees any "hunting" activity they think could be illegal (even Metis harvesting) they should report it to F&W by the report a poacher number (1-800-642-3800)get as much info as you can, descriptions and plate numbers are really important. And insist it be checked on.
Often when I see a truck parked I will write down the plate # and make and color. Then if I see something later in the area I already have the important info down.
Robin in Rocky
At least a couple posts here have broken the rules and should be removed. And the posters warned.
If anyone sees any "hunting" activity they think could be illegal (even Metis harvesting) they should report it to F&W by the report a poacher number (1-800-642-3800)get as much info as you can, descriptions and plate numbers are really important. And insist it be checked on.
Often when I see a truck parked I will write down the plate # and make and color. Then if I see something later in the area I already have the important info down.
Robin in Rocky
.......................so every vehicle you see in the bush is guilty till your proven otherwise?? Holy paranoia batman
................While walking back to my jeep and seeing some dude recording my plate and other info i would definitley take offense to said Dudely Do Right.
Last edited:
- Location
- St. Joe's Island, Ont
Yep I'm around.
Ya, a couple little faux pas.
1): Gargoyle: don't call anyone "Idiots", personal attack.
2) Bones: watch the swearing.
3) watch the "whitey" remarks.
So far I'm seeing alot of point of views, thats all, I'll keep this open till it turns bad.
- Location
- Lakes District BC
well its quite simple then, everytime a native dosnt get handed what they want they go break the law! hunting and fishing especialy, I see another thread on natives poaching a moose in a park in Ontario now and shooting at the officers, this is what they call there rights
way to sniffel there duff :stfun00
way to sniffel there duff :stfun00
The first Metis didn't appear until at least 9 months after the whites showed up. Therefore the whites should have special rights too. I don't remember anyone negotiating away the traditional hunting rights of those of European ancestory either.
I don't agree with native hunting laws, but they may have an argument. Metis don't have a leg to stand on.
I don't remember anyone negotiating away the traditional hunting rights of those of European ancestory either.I don't agree with native hunting laws, but they may have an argument. Metis don't have a leg to stand on.
Métis most certainly were present in the western provinces well before Canada became Canada, and Alberta became Alberta. They did not exist as a people until after first contact between European and First Nations, but by the time Canada came to be, Métis were well established with their own language, governance model, and commercial structures (including free trade). Most importantly, from a legal perspective, they were a self-determining people, occupying an area that did not belong to Canada, who had successfully negotiated treaties and trade arrangements with other nations. They are, in fact, responsible for the creation of the province of Manitoba, and were the first people to express concern regarding western alienation, skewed representation in Parliament, and the dysfunctional Senate. A little known fact is that the oldest flag, indigenous to North America, is the Métis flag (flown for the first time at the Battle of Seven Oaks). Métis ethnicity can be a difficult concept to grasp. They may be the only ethnicity with an identifiable genesis point.
With regard to why Métis should be treated differently than non-aboriginal people, it is because they are aboriginal. Sure most Métis can trace some European ancestry, but that does not serve to eliminate, or somehow weaken, their aboriginal claim. Inuit, Indians, and Métis are all 100% aboriginal. In fact, there are likely many Métis that are genetically more aboriginal than a great number of Indians. Métis are not an interest group; they are identified in the Constitution.
Back to issue of Alberta Métis defying the provincial government’s unilateral decision regarding their hunting rights.
I think Alberta has the resources to demonstrate to the Métis that there has to be some limitation within this agreement. Alberta was able to place some restrictions on First Nations hunters; why not negotiate some limitations into the Métis harvesting agreement, rather than litigate in an environment that has not been kind to government. Surely, the Métis leadership can understand the consequences of a limitless hunting arrangement and can see some advantage to negotiating reasonable terms with the province.
In the Northwest Territories, indigenous Métis are eligible to receive a general hunting license when they turn 16 years of age. This ensures they are able to hunt, but also ensures they do so within the NWT hunting regulations. There are restrictions with respect to hunting certain species, and hunting in certain areas. In fact, it is not a free-for-all for Métis hunters. Wood Buffalo National Park also permits Métis hunters, but is able to enforce bag limits, exclude certain species, and establish seasons for various species. If a Métis wishes to fish recreationally (angling), they must purchase a NWT angling license. The cost is minimal and is deemed not to be an unreasonable barrier.
With regard to why Métis should be treated differently than non-aboriginal people, it is because they are aboriginal. Sure most Métis can trace some European ancestry, but that does not serve to eliminate, or somehow weaken, their aboriginal claim. Inuit, Indians, and Métis are all 100% aboriginal. In fact, there are likely many Métis that are genetically more aboriginal than a great number of Indians. Métis are not an interest group; they are identified in the Constitution.
Back to issue of Alberta Métis defying the provincial government’s unilateral decision regarding their hunting rights.
I think Alberta has the resources to demonstrate to the Métis that there has to be some limitation within this agreement. Alberta was able to place some restrictions on First Nations hunters; why not negotiate some limitations into the Métis harvesting agreement, rather than litigate in an environment that has not been kind to government. Surely, the Métis leadership can understand the consequences of a limitless hunting arrangement and can see some advantage to negotiating reasonable terms with the province.
In the Northwest Territories, indigenous Métis are eligible to receive a general hunting license when they turn 16 years of age. This ensures they are able to hunt, but also ensures they do so within the NWT hunting regulations. There are restrictions with respect to hunting certain species, and hunting in certain areas. In fact, it is not a free-for-all for Métis hunters. Wood Buffalo National Park also permits Métis hunters, but is able to enforce bag limits, exclude certain species, and establish seasons for various species. If a Métis wishes to fish recreationally (angling), they must purchase a NWT angling license. The cost is minimal and is deemed not to be an unreasonable barrier.
Last edited:
saskhunter
CGN Regular
- Location
- Sask to B.C.
I sure hope your not a history teacher, Maybe I am wrong but I though that Metis were a mixture of European and First nations. "SILLY ME"
I have really enjoyed the fact since Alberta gave these folks these new "rights" they only use it to sustain themselves. Oh yes, now they come from out of province, trapse right up to the Cadomin mines and hammer the Bighorn Rams as they see fit. It's only because they taste so good! And they can do it as much as they want and ain't nothing we can do about it.
I have also witnessed first hand a truck load of them come all the way from Saskabush, pull out their rifles and head straight for the herd of Elk in the Ya Ha Tinda. What a disgrace, it was like the wild west with guns blazing and wounded elk running around in confusion. You boys should be proud.
Then there's the moose I get to find, shot from the trunk road, all intact except for it nose.
And then there's the 17 Sheep that were shot with a .22 on the Panther river in hopes they would float across to the fella on the opposite side so he wouldn't have to wade across.......
This is one big stinky pile of wild horse crap. If they want those rights, fine and dandy. Give them a pointy stick or their bow and arrows to use. There is no reason why they should get priveledged year round slaying rights when it gets abused like this and the resource has no way of recovering from it.
We all came from somewhere in ancestry. We should all get to play by the same rules.
I have also witnessed first hand a truck load of them come all the way from Saskabush, pull out their rifles and head straight for the herd of Elk in the Ya Ha Tinda. What a disgrace, it was like the wild west with guns blazing and wounded elk running around in confusion. You boys should be proud.
Then there's the moose I get to find, shot from the trunk road, all intact except for it nose.
And then there's the 17 Sheep that were shot with a .22 on the Panther river in hopes they would float across to the fella on the opposite side so he wouldn't have to wade across.......
This is one big stinky pile of wild horse crap. If they want those rights, fine and dandy. Give them a pointy stick or their bow and arrows to use. There is no reason why they should get priveledged year round slaying rights when it gets abused like this and the resource has no way of recovering from it.
We all came from somewhere in ancestry. We should all get to play by the same rules.
I think your wording is wrong. It should read;
Inuit, Indians, and Métis all have 100% aboriginal ancestry. In fact, there are likely many Métis that are genetically more aboriginal than a great number of Treaty Indians.
