I am a newcomer to this site and i must say that i am quite perplexed at the lack of moderation regarding name calling. How can a discussion ever bring any positive thinking or knowledge under these conditions? It appears to have strayed off topic as well but i will proceed, being that it appears to be accepted.
Having spent time to read most of this thread i find some puzzling statements made. One being that Natives do not have "rights" regarding subsistence hunting. Perhaps i have misunderstood this question for a great many years as my understanding is that those rights appear to exist regarding status Indians. Are "rights" a misnomer?
Although apparently not inalienable, these "rights" are being exercised in this country. Here i quote.......
"No Aboriginal right, even though constitutionally protected, is absolute in Canadian law. Fishing rights, for example, are not exclusive in the sense that only indigenous peoples can exercise them and they are not immune to regulation by other governments. Aboriginal title, on the other hand, may give rise to an exclusive right to use and occupy lands, but that right may be interfered with for other societal purposes such as economic development or power generation. Infringement of aboriginal rights or title must be justified by non-Aboriginal governments on the basis of a legitimate government purpose and recognition of the constitutional protection of the rights being affected. There may also be a requirement for prior consultation with the Aboriginal peoples concerned and compensation in some circumstances.'
From.........
Aboriginal Rights - The Canadian Encyclopedia
I have many times heard, as i am sure many others have, government sources state that as a non Native, i do not have any rights regarding fishing or hunting, only a privilege subject to their discretion. I have not heard the word "privilege" applied to Natives, in fact i would assume a crap storm if that happened.
Numerous times over the years i have personally witnessed the taking of wildlife by status Indians at all times of the year while Fish and Wildlife officers observed. If that is, as stated by some, not a right, then semantics aside, what the hell is it?
I believe the original intent was to ensure that Native folks would not go hungry in remote or wilderness areas. People who did not have the same standard of living or conveniences of their city counterparts. Few, compared to years ago, now actually need that "right", or more properly discretion, but it should not be extinguished, rather be more transparent and i blame government for that lack.
My position and reason for same reflects much of what Cannuck has stated. I have no problem with those who take advantage of the ability to provide themselves and family with fish and game where and when it is necessary as well as it not affect at risk species. IMO there should be no ethnicity involved.
Differing and accepted discretion regarding natural resources for different ethnic groups does not belong in our country.
Regardless of ethnicity, all humans basically retain the tendency to wish to achieve top dog status. Coping with that forever issue is what democratic principles are based on, lest we forget.
I was lying.We know. Admitting it, is the first step in healing.
