Posts
A man has won a five-year legal battle against the Manitoba government with a landmark court ruling on Métis hunting rights.
Status Indians and Inuit in Canada have treaty rights that allow them to hunt without a license, and out of season. Métis, the other recognized Aboriginal group in Canada, don't have these rights.
Will Goodon said that all he needed to hunt was Métis Federation harvester card, and the judge in this case has agreed with him.
What I want to point out here is this;
Giving a person a right that others don't have because of their race, is a racist policy.
While I understand that these hunting rights have come about because of treaties between the government of Canada and Aboriginal nations, that does not make them just. The fact is that a Treaty Indian can hunt without a license, while a Canadian of other ancestry cannot. That is simply racist.
13 comments:
Are there any rules? How many moose , bear ,etc. can they take? When can they hunt? Do they just keep hunting until the game gets scarce or has someone estabished the criteria? I'm not trying to be smart, I really don't know.
Nishka 1
Of course, I think it goes without saying that Rights that are granted by the State, actually are not Rights at all, but privileges. Rights exist outside of the State. Therefore, in this instance, the State is claiming to own the property on which the potential hunters wish to hunt; but the hunters can only do so with the government's permission.
Some (rhetorical) questions: How did the gov't come to be the supposed owner of the hunting land? Shouldn't the land be owned by all of the taxpayers/citizens? Or shouldn't the land actually be un-owned (at least until someone other than the gov't actually legitimately acquires part/some/all of it)?
Grabrich
Seems like the government acquired it through the currency of War.Which was a legitimate way of acquiring propoerty. The natives practiced the same methods.
As the victors they rule. For now the land is owned by the taxpayers and always will be.Through property taxes, the government always maintains its right to take that land away from you should you fail to keep make your payment. Further, you may "own' the land, but you may not own the mineral rights or whats beneath your abode.
The Queen as ruler of the lands and agreed by both parties entered into treaty agreements. These agreements gave the conquered some rights and personally i believe she did a pretty good job of it considering she didn't have to give them anything.
Not sure how the natives acquired the land in the first place, but we can say they either got it from migration or the pangea theory. Both valid methods of acquiring lands but as stated, War trumps it.
Its a fascinating subject
"Are there any rules?"
I honestly don't know much about the rules adnd how it varies between groups. Looking at the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada website brought up this quote;
"You should know, however, that if you live in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, your right to hunt, trap and fish, except for commercial purposes, is guaranteed by the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements, 1930."
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/pubs/ywtk/ywtk-eng.asp
"actually are not Rights at all, but privileges. Rights exist outside of the State."
Exactly.
"Further, you may "own' the land, but you may not own the mineral rights or whats beneath your abode."
Some of my research has had me conclude that the government actually claims ownership of every stich of land in Canada, and that we are permitted to use is for a time, unless they want to take it back.
Here's a post about it...
http://freedommanitoba.blogspot.com/2007/10/you-do-not-own-your-land.html
"Not sure how the natives acquired the land in the first place,"
Homesteading
My comment on the CBC article, where I say ...
"Giving a person a right that others don't have becasue of their race, is a racists policy."
...is the third most reccomended at 207 :)
As much as I don't like you, I obviously agree with you on this.
Where we will disagree is that I understand that need for a hunting season and limits in order to prevent depopulation of wild life. I doubt you would agree with that.
"As much as I don't like you"
That's too bad, considering I saved your ass even when you were a jerk to me on the forums :)
"I obviously agree with you on this."
Holy shit!
"Where we will disagree is that I understand that need for a hunting season "
I would agree, I just don't agree with a government mandated one. People that hunt don't want to deplete the stock, so they would regulate themselves to ensure that didn't happen. That doesn't mean every hunter would go by that, but the majority of them would, so you'd be okay.
"That doesn't mean every hunter would go by that, but the majority of them would, so you'd be okay."
Tell that to the buffalo population, or other animals hunted to or near to extinction.
Decentralization doesn't work.
"Tell that to the buffalo population, or other animals hunted to or near to extinction."
People were living at different times then, when hunting and gathering was the main source of food.
Of course some animals may still go extinct now, but less likely because humans are dependant on them as a food source.
< Tell that to the buffalo population, or other animals hunted to or near to extinction. >
I think a more significant reason was the "tragedy of the commons": http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html
Grabrich
To be totally honest, I am a fan of privately run lake fronts for fishing, and I guess hunting could in fact be done the same way.
"People were living at different times then, when hunting and gathering was the main source of food."
And out advanced in communication and technology makes it easier to make sure over hunting doesn't occur.
"I am a fan of privately run lake fronts for fishing"
Yes, it is partly a private proerty issue. There are hunting farms out there, and even though I personally don't like the idea of hunting for sport, if it still used a food source then I don't see the problem.
To be honest, I think that hunting for sport only needs to be kept under control through the government. I've had friends that have seen deer corpses rotting out in the open, without a head. A complete and total waste, that I don't think should be legal.
Unfortunately, I have no idea how to implement it without government becoming a slippery slope on the issue.
Post a Comment