Tradition versus technology: Northerners debate use of drones in caribou hunting

Traditional hunting..center fire rifles..snowmobiles..ATV's..4x4 vehicles..all with declining herd numbers ..I forgot powered boats
Now drones..yup.. stewards of the land
 
I had my mind made up after the first sentence about the dwindling numbers of caribou regardless of who is using the drone. Why would something be used to increase the rate at which those numbers are dropping?
 
The article I read on the CTV website stated that the exemption would only apply to indigenous persons if it was adopted. I used to be pretty tolerant, in the last decade I am really getting disgusted with the double standard imposed by supposed treaty rights. I fail to understand how banning drones (which I agree with) would infringe on native treaty rights. I wonder if some of the politicians realize just how frustrated many non natives are getting with the double standards being imposed, which have nothing to do with traditional hunting rights. There are times when the frustration I feel starts to feel like outright hatred on my part, which is not the person I am. I feel the rum calling.
 
The Indiginous are the ones responsible for caribou losses by over hunting !
 
220 said:
The Indiginous are the ones responsible for caribou losses by over hunting !
Click to expand...

From what I was told by friends in NWT and relatives in Quebec (James Bay), pretty much. It's commercial-scale hunting, wiping out entire "herds" (not sure if it's the proper term for the groups I was told about - several hundred animals at a time) - almost on a level with the buffalo hunts in the U.S. late 19th Century.
 
Titan 08 said:
The article I read on the CTV website stated that the exemption would only apply to indigenous persons if it was adopted. I used to be pretty tolerant, in the last decade I am really getting disgusted with the double standard imposed by supposed treaty rights. I fail to understand how banning drones (which I agree with) would infringe on native treaty rights. I wonder if some of the politicians realize just how frustrated many non natives are getting with the double standards being imposed, which have nothing to do with traditional hunting rights. There are times when the frustration I feel starts to feel like outright hatred on my part, which is not the person I am. I feel the rum calling.
Click to expand...

If you swap out "hunting" and replace it with "land" you're making the same argument that Indians do. I abhor the use of drones for hunting by anyone, but it's rich to hear people complain about not getting a fair shake because of treaties being upheld.
 
If a treaty says they can use drones then yes, that has to be upheld. If it doesn't say drones then it is a quite open question as to whether drones are traditional.
 
rkm456 said:
If you swap out "hunting" and replace it with "land" you're making the same argument that Indians do. I abhor the use of drones for hunting by anyone, but it's rich to hear people complain about not getting a fair shake because of treaties being upheld.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with treaties being upheld, in fact I think they should be honoured in regards to both hunting and land claims which were included in the original treaties. However, can you explain to me how drones would be part of hunting rights as included in the treaties which were negotiated. Don’t misconstrue what I stated. It’s not a matter of getting a fair shake, it’s a matter of integrity on the part of one side trying to take advantage of something which was never even conceived of when the treaties were signed.
 
Thanks for the Article.
always nice to hear of whats goin on around the world, in fact i shared this as it opens up a can of worms in regards to Drones, Technology and "hunting"- which is all up in the air here at the moment.
 
joe-nwt said:
A few thousand indiginous hunters decimated a herd of 500,000 caribou?
Click to expand...

If they take more than the herd can sustain, yeah, a few decades would be plenty to completely wipe them out. There were only a few hundred buffalo hunters, and they pretty wiped them out in a generation. Mountain men are coureurs des bois were not very numerous, yet they (with the help of the indigenous peoples) pretty much wiped out the beaver in a few generations. Commercial waterfowl hunters - same thing. That's why we put in limits, seasons, tag systems, etc. (and btw, banned most of the stuff they are claiming are treaty rights). I am glad to see some tribes/clans are starting to realize this and adopting those very measures themselves.
 
Titan 08 said:
I have no problem with treaties being upheld, in fact I think they should be honoured in regards to both hunting and land claims which were included in the original treaties. However, can you explain to me how drones would be part of hunting rights as included in the treaties which were negotiated. Don’t misconstrue what I stated. It’s not a matter of getting a fair shake, it’s a matter of integrity on the part of one side trying to take advantage of something which was never even conceived of when the treaties were signed.
Click to expand...

Drones weren't. What was negotiated was that they'd be given the right to hunt how they want to. If you read the article the tribes they spoke to all seem to oppose the use of drones, but they think it should be them that gets to make the call, not the government.

You're also still making the Indian land use argument regarding using it for things never conceived of when the treaties were signed. The reality of hunting rights is when they started being given away by governments it was because at that time no one thought there would be any wildlife left to hunt within a generation.
 
Papaclaude said:
If they take more than the herd can sustain, yeah, a few decades would be plenty to completely wipe them out. There were only a few hundred buffalo hunters, and they pretty wiped them out in a generation. Mountain men are coureurs des bois were not very numerous, yet they (with the help of the indigenous peoples) pretty much wiped out the beaver in a few generations. Commercial waterfowl hunters - same thing. That's why we put in limits, seasons, tag systems, etc. (and btw, banned most of the stuff they are claiming are treaty rights). I am glad to see some tribes/clans are starting to realize this and adopting those very measures themselves.
Click to expand...

I must have forgotten what I learned in biology but I always thought a herd of 500,000 animals should start the year off with about 250,000 offspring. This is out in the remote tundra. The herd migrates every winter closer to where SOME of the native hunters have access to them. Other predators aside, that would mean those few hunters, even if they are taking more than what you or I could harvest, would have to take at least a number equivalent to the years offspring before the herd declined. Does that seem like a harvesting problem to you?

For many decades prior to the decline, the herd was so self-sustaining that in addition to natives taking what they wanted, non-indiginous could get 5 tags per year as well. And the herd maintained. There has been no significant increase in human population all the while. While I don't agree with the rights or hunting methods of natives, to proclaim they (or any hunting for that matter) are the cause of the decline is ridiculous. As to whether they and their hunting "rights" will prevent the herd from recovering is another topic altogether.
 
Last edited:
joe-nwt said:
I must have forgotten what I learned in biology but I always thought a herd of 500,000 animals should start the year off with about 250,000 offspring. This is out in the remote tundra. The herd migrates every winter closer to where SOME of the native hunters have access to them. Other predators aside, that would mean those few hunters, even if they are taking more than what you or I could harvest, would have to take at least a number equivalent to the years offspring before the herd declined. Does that seem like a harvesting problem to you?

For many decades prior to the decline, the herd was so self-sustaining that in addition to natives taking what they wanted, non-indiginous could get 5 tags per year as well. And the herd maintained. There has been no significant increase in human population all the while. While I don't agree with the rights or hunting methods of natives, to proclaim they (or any hunting for that matter) are the cause of the decline is ridiculous. As to whether they and their hunting "rights" will prevent the herd from recovering is another topic altogether.
Click to expand...

I am not "blaming" anyone. However, as far as nativity rates go, isn't survival somewhere around 10% for most species (I don't know about caribou)? SO, if that's the case, you would have 25,000 survive. Let's move that rate up to 20%, that would leave a maximum sustainable harvest of about 25,000 to allow for natural death of older animals and a few extra to increase the herd. And, as you say, non-natives used to get 5 tags. Now, they can't, in an effort to protect the herd. Here in my area, 10-12 years ago, I could buy 5 doe tags, but when the herd declined, it dropped to where only about 50% of hunters got a doe tag. Now, the population is going back up, and tags are on the rise again.

Now, indigenous people could control the number of animals they take voluntarily. Using drones and some of the methods they are using will do nothing to restore the herds, regardless of what any government does, or the cause of the decline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom