Metis to defy new hunting restrictions

Noel said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you witnessed these like you say, you should have reported them.

1."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."

This is/was illegal, as only metis that resided in Alberta could hunt.

2."
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."

This, again is illegal as they were from out of province.

Don't know what to say about the Panther episode, not enough info.

If you witnessed all this and didn't report it, there is something wrong with somebody.
 
The Powless Supreme Court decision was highly divisive. It served to only fuel what will ultimately become an increasingly confrontational issue.
Click to expand...
I have to agree 100%. One only has to look at this thread to see that the lines are drawn. Hopefully no one gets hurt and cooler heads prevail...
 
guido said:
If you witnessed these like you say, you should have reported them.

1."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."

This is/was illegal, as only metis that resided in Alberta could hunt.

2."
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."

This, again is illegal as they were from out of province.

Don't know what to say about the Panther episode, not enough info.

If you witnessed all this and didn't report it, there is something wrong with somebody.
Click to expand...


guido, how is it illegal for them to do so with their current rights? Keep in mind this was two years ago IIRC.

There was one fellow who got caught shooting up the herd last fall inside the actual ranch perimeter who did get caught. I did not hear what penalty was given if any.

The Panther river incedent happened many years ago. He was reported by the CO couldn't do anything about it. THey actually reclaimed the road and turned it away fromthe river along that section so they could no longer see the river while driving by anymore.

I did not see the Cadonim shenanigans. That is info I got from the Sundre Fish and Game Association meetings.

I have talked with the Sundre CO's about such incedents but it was either the way I described it or for what ever other reason they did not believe they could do anything about it.
 
Savagefan is, of course, correct. I should have stated that flag is the oldest indigenous flag in Canada, by at least 150 years. With respect to whether Metis are aboriginal, and to what degree, all Metis are 100% aboriginal. In regard to genetic blood quantum, Canada used to suggest that there were legitimacy concerns with the identification of Metis. Yet the Indian Act had the effect of granting full treaty status to non-aboriginal women who maried Indian men. Children that resulted from such marriages have also been granted this status. Clearly there is something wrong with all of this.

But back to the topic of this thread:

The Metis in Alberta appear to be taking this action because, in the absence of a negotiated arrangement with the province of Alberta, such action will force the courts to instruct both Alberta and the Metis to resolve the issue one way or the other. Expect that this will go to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Government of Alberta positions itself on the premise that it has no evidence of Metis settlements in central and southern Alberta. This seems to be in keeping with the Powley decision, which requires the Metis to demonstrate their ancestoral use and occupancy of these regions of the province.

The Metis must be basing their claim on the following:

Metis are aboriginal, with the same types of rights as other aboriginal people. Bear in mind that is the same types of rights, not the same rights. That could be an important distinction as these matters progress through the courts and at the negotiation tables.

The right to harvest on traditional lands, free of unreasonable or insurmountable barrier, is an aboriginal right.

They must have some arguement to push recognition of harvesting rights in the central and southern regions of the province.

From my perspective:

Regardless of how this all plays out, times have changed, and use of the land and animals has necessitated change in manner in which people hunt. Therefore reasonable limits should be established within any hunting agreement.

Conservation and public safety are of paramount importance, so some restriction should be placed on seasons and methods of harvest within some zones.

Where aboriginal harvesting rights conflict with other established uses, mitigation of loss must occur.

I tend to agree with those that do not favour the original interim agreement, but my reasons are based on the lack of practical and reasonable control mechanisims within that agreement. Clearly, the Metis leadership in Alberta should push measures of conservation, restrict Metis hunters from coming into conflict with big game trophy operators, and support the enforcement of protection for certain species. Furthermore, the issuance of Metis harvesting cards should be done in a fashion that ensures legitimacy.
 
NWTHunter said:
Métis most certainly were present in the western provinces well before Canada became Canada, and Alberta became Alberta.

There were europeans present in BC, Alta, Man, Ont, etc... before Canada came to be too!

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).

If they did not exist as a people until after first contact between European and First Nations then what gives them more privledges than the europeans that came before them??


They are, in fact, responsible for the creation of the province of Manitoba,

:cool::rolleyes:

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.
Click to expand...

No that would be ALL Metis can trace their ancestory to a european!
 
Where aboriginal harvesting rights conflict with other established uses, mitigation of loss must occur.
Click to expand...

OK, we'll let them use rifles in rifle season, commercial bows in bow season. Pointy sticks on foot all other times.
Bag limits will apply, and harvest must be documented as SUSTANANCE hunting ONLY outside of established hunting seasons. All animals taken or wounded to be reported to the CO.
 
Mirroring current legislation is not a bad way to start, as long as the Government of Alberta can demonstrate that it is necessary (and this must meet certain legal tests) to do so. I'm just not certain that the pointy sticks restriction is Constitutionally feasible.

IMO government has a responsibility to act in the best interests of all people they purport to represent; that is the trust obligation bestowed upon our politicians (everybody join in the collective sneer). Government must conduct itself in a fashion that upholds the honour of the Crown (collective laugh).

Alberta is not able to ignore the claims of the Metis in that province, they are legally obliged to give reasonable consideration to such claims, if deemed legitimate. Obviously the Provincial Government believes that the Metis have a strong legal claim to harvest outside of the public regulations. It is difficult to believe that Alberta would have entered into the original Interim Hunting Agreement unless there was a sound legal basis for doing so.

Now it seems that the Interim Agreement has been revised in a fashion that places greater restrictions on Metis in Alberta. The Metis do not like this and have stated they will not comply with the terms of this new agreement. If charged and brought to court, the Metis must demonstrate that these restrictions are not reasonable, and somehow infringe upon their rights. They will have to raise an arguement that either demonstrates an Alberta divergence with the R. vs Powley decision (based on evidence deemed acceptable to the court), or make sound rationale for modifying the principles laid out in that decision in order to have the court rule in their favour.

Folks certainly do not have to like this process, but it is one way in which laws in this country have been affirmed and, at times, changed or repealed. In fact, the method has been proven sound. Granted, given the issue at hand, it is obviously not popular with many CGN members. However, many CGN members applaud the very same process when the action is related to issues such a firearms ownership, storage, transportation, etc.. I understand why, gun ownership is something all of the members share in common; being a Metis in Alberta is not.

I do not believe any of us can say, with certainty, what the outcome of this initiative will be. Going to court is always a gamble, and either the Metis or the Government of Alberta will face a reality they would rather not have to deal with. In the end, both will have to find a way to manage the issue and the outcome responsibly. That is the point at which emotion and personal opinion become dangerous.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the Government does have a responsibility to act in the best interests of ALL people they purport to represent. It is for exactly this reason that the Alberta Interim Metis Harvest Agreement failed... all Albertans. By the Government’s own admission the “negotiations” that were conducted were done without the knowledge and input of many affected stakeholders including key government representatives. The chief government “negotiators” were, at the very least, optically, in a conflict of interest and resulting “Agreement” went far beyond the scope of Powley.

Interestingly, pre-Powley, Alberta was the only province to recognize Metis Section 35 rights pertaining to hunting and fishing as evidenced by the governance of Metis Settlements in Alberta. Subsequently, and in my humble opinion, the Province had no obligation to negotiate for a subsistence hunting and fishing agreement that already existed. Alberta has never ignored the rights of qualified Metis they only corrected an error in the scope, management, conservation and enforcement of fish and wildlife resources that would have had negative consequences for all Albertans and the resource itself.
 
NWThunter- how can a metis be 100% aboriginal, when a metis is native and european blood lines mixed? That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You should face the fact this is 2007. You should have no more special rights than the rest of us. If you want to hunt, buy a ####ing tag, hunt during hunting season, and join the real world.

There is no country in the western world that is so openly racist as Canada is regarding native issues. How about we make laws that say only white people don't have to pay taxes if we live in a certain area, can hunt whenever we want, kill as many animals we want, get cigarettes for a lower price than non-whites, etc. But I forgot, that would be wrong.
 
To understand how the Metis can be 100% aboriginal:

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 relates to the rights of Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. It states:

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada. (my emphasis)

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1), "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
 
Moon has it. The Constitution implies that the Metis do not draw derivative rights from Indians, but hold them in the same manner as Indians. I did not state that Metis were 100% Indians, which seems to be what Throttle Monkey and Dogleg are suggesting (get to know your Constitution, for better or worse, its what sets out the rules by which our Nation is governed). Legislatively, the Indian Act seems to be where the real differences between Indians and the other two aboriginal groups start to show up.

Throttle Monkey,

For the record, if I wanted to hunt in Alberta, I'd do so following the Alberta Regulations. It seems that, just like you, I am not of the priviledged few. As a matter of fact, I have my W.I.N. card in my wallet. I bought it a couple of years ago, along with an angling license, thank-you very much. Seemed to me to be a small price to pay for a day's fishing. I'd have to lay down more cash if I chose to hunt the wild rose country, and I am required to by law and I don't have a problem with that.

Someone mentioned the European settlers that were in the western provinces prior to establishment of Crown control; that presents the potential for an interesting case. I understand that those who retained their land titles are afforded significantly greater priviledges with repect to resource royalties or access rights (or some such thing) relative to other residents, at least in Alberta that seems to be the case.
 
Noel said:
guido, how is it illegal for them to do so with their current rights? Keep in mind this was two years ago IIRC.

There was one fellow who got caught shooting up the herd last fall inside the actual ranch perimeter who did get caught. I did not hear what penalty was given if any.

The Panther river incedent happened many years ago. He was reported by the CO couldn't do anything about it. THey actually reclaimed the road and turned it away fromthe river along that section so they could no longer see the river while driving by anymore.

I did not see the Cadonim shenanigans. That is info I got from the Sundre Fish and Game Association meetings.

I have talked with the Sundre CO's about such incedents but it was either the way I described it or for what ever other reason they did not believe they could do anything about it.
Click to expand...

Noel, I think you are mistaking Metis with Treaty Natives. The metis agreement came in about 2 years ago. The treaty Indians have had these rites for many years. I am guessing that the people that you were talking about were Natives , thats why they were not charged
 
I have been pretty involved in this subject since the introduction of the IMHA and have tried to study (objectively) the subsequent issues. An unfortunate byproduct of this ill-conceived Agreement is the bias and prejudice it has produced between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. I think it is important that we try and examine this within the context of valid Section 35 rights and the Supreme Court of Canada’s Powley decision. These criteria should generally provide the framework for logical discussion and the challenges we all face today.

Firstly, the Métis people have Section 35 rights. These rights are not absolute and there are boundaries to the extent of some of these rights as evidenced by the Blais decision. The Supreme Court of Canada, in making the Powley decision, also provided a framework or test to determine who was entitled to these specific hunting and fishing rights.

It is in determination of who gets or qualifies for these rights that, I believe, has created so many problems with the Alberta agreement and the situation we face today. In Alberta there are two distinct bodies that represent (or purport to represent) the Métis people of Alberta. We have the Métis Nation of Alberta and the Métis Settlements General Council. While they may share some similar views and membership, they are autonomous.

It is important to note that membership in the Métis Nation of Alberta will not automatically qualify an individual for hunting and fishing rights. The qualifier for these rights is the Powley test and individuals that wish to hunt or fish under subsistence rights must qualify. As you can see, a big legal question then becomes… who exactly is a Métis and what rights is he or she entitled to?

Second, and this has gone to at least one court in the country, what historic Métis settlements or communities existed in Canada? Many Métis argue that all lands West of the Red River settlements are historic Métis communities, but this argument was held invalid. The transient or nomadic movements of Métis hunters, trappers and fishermen do not entitle them to lay claim to land and water passed. The same goes for communities or settlements that were established in areas where the Hudson Bay Company and other European fur traders first established. The reason being that trade was initiated by non-aboriginal merchants and this in turn led to the establishment of settlements and/or communities. If the non-aboriginals had not been there, it was very unlikely that a community or settlement would have existed.

Given the fact that Alberta has several Métis Settlements with large tracts of land and has recognized the Métis Settlements member’s rights to hunt and fish, that they govern accordingly, I was puzzled by the Province’s (Calahasen’s) decision to negotiate a “new” agreement. I think Poitras is simply grandstanding and will very likely suffer the legal consequences of poor leadership and direction. Unfortunately, by her actions and resolve, she does little to mitigate the prejudice and bias she continues to create.

As most Albertans are becoming aware, this has less to do with hunting and fishing rights in the overall scheme of the Métis Nation of Alberta.
 
Moon that is an excellent description of the situation.

Up here some Metis have been able to harvest for subsitance purposes for generations. Only Metis that are deemed indigenous are eligible to receive a general hunting license, those that are not indigenous are not eligible. To be considered indigenous Metis people must prove an ancestoral useage and occupancy prior to January 1, 1922 , this was entrenched in the Sahtu Dene and Metis Comprehensive Agreement and is commonly referred to as the 1921 clause (because all who were here up until the end of 1921 are indigenous). That date was chosen because it represents the year in which the last treaty was signed in the Northwest Territories (Treaty 11). The Government originally pushed for 1899, and the Dene/ Metis pushed for 1956, so it was a compromise on both parts. The Sahtu Agreement was negotiated by Brian Mulroney's Conservative Government.

Because there is no provincial authority up here, the NWT is the only jurisdiction in Canada where the Federal Government has a clear fiduciary obligation to the Metis (There are apparently no indigenous Metis in the Yukon, and none in Nunavut). It makes for some interesting dynamics.

The regionalization of comprehensive claims has resulted in numerous Metis representative bodies, which further confuses the situation. Each has its own set of membership criteria, some even include Indians and non-aboriginals that have been "community accepted", a concept introduced in the Sahtu Agreement.

Interestingly, the Sahtu Metis are the only Metis in Canada that have an agreement with Canada regarding lands and resources. They did not negotiate away wildlife regulations for their people. Metis in the Mackenzie Delta appear to have subsumed into the First Nations through their comprehensive claim and did not negotiate away the regulations either. Metis in the Deh Cho appear to be set to subsume as well, but the Dene leadership is likely opposed to government imposed harvesting regulations. There is one other group of Metis currently negotiating with Canada and they represent the only Metis to enter into such negotiations without a First Nations partner. It is difficult to say what may be achieved at that table, but I suspect the Sahtu Agreement forms the mandate for the Federal negotiators, since the Sahtu Metis are the only Metis to achieve an agreement with Canada.

The Alberta Metis Settlements are established through Provincial legislation. That legislation is a completely different creature from the precedence set in the Sahtu Agreement.
 
Last edited:
Moon said:
To understand how the Metis can be 100% aboriginal:

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 relates to the rights of Aboriginal Peoples of Canada. It states:

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada. (my emphasis)

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1), "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
Click to expand...


OK, so because it is written that makes it "right" :jerkit:
Seems we have lots of laws & acts that aren't "right"
Welcome to Kanada :mad:
f everyone followed those guidelines I'd guess there's be no blockades & such as most have already been decided in courts ;) or do you just choose to accept the laws that suit you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom