[Deleted]
#31
006, maybe hoping but in his post I saw some truth, his views are based on what we saw and did happen last time this decision was passed. So I say if you experienced this fiasco last time around and are a sportsman " You would be feeling the same way" . If no then you should be ashamed of yourself!
Who cares where we' re all from, maybe if you got out of the city you would feel and see what is really happening!
Who cares where we' re all from, maybe if you got out of the city you would feel and see what is really happening!
#32
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,667
Likes: 0
From: fort mcmurray alberta canada
Corey-Of course the natives are pissed but only because they want to be the only ones that can slaughter game uncontrolled
DL2-the only way to make this fair is to give everyone in canada the same rights.And of course anyone that disagrees with everyone being equal is a bigot.
DL2-the only way to make this fair is to give everyone in canada the same rights.And of course anyone that disagrees with everyone being equal is a bigot.
#33
Fork Horn
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
From: Victoria British Columbia Canada
For info purposes, here' s a summary of what the court said:
• The Supreme Court of Canada held that Métis rights are fact and site specific and the Powley decision dealt with the current Métis community in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and found a communal Métis right to hunt for food in the area around Sault Ste. Marie.
• The Court emphasized that the mere fact that a person is of mixed Aboriginal and European ancestry does not mean that the person has Métis rights.
• The Court emphasized that Métis rights are communal rights that are tied to a historic and present community with a distinct Métis culture.
• The Court described a Métis community as a group of Métis people with a “distinctive collective identity”, living together in the same geographical area and sharing a common way of life, customs and traditions.
• The Court emphasized that Métis rights are “site-specific”. They can be exercised only in the geographic area where they have been established.
RC
The court did not give Metis the right to randomly tour provinces and shoot what they want, when they want.
~bold emphasis added~
• The Supreme Court of Canada held that Métis rights are fact and site specific and the Powley decision dealt with the current Métis community in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and found a communal Métis right to hunt for food in the area around Sault Ste. Marie.
• The Court emphasized that the mere fact that a person is of mixed Aboriginal and European ancestry does not mean that the person has Métis rights.
• The Court emphasized that Métis rights are communal rights that are tied to a historic and present community with a distinct Métis culture.
• The Court described a Métis community as a group of Métis people with a “distinctive collective identity”, living together in the same geographical area and sharing a common way of life, customs and traditions.
• The Court emphasized that Métis rights are “site-specific”. They can be exercised only in the geographic area where they have been established.
RC
The court did not give Metis the right to randomly tour provinces and shoot what they want, when they want.
~bold emphasis added~
#34
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
From: PA Sask CAN
DL2,
Sorry if I sound like a bigot but I am from out West.
I call ' em like I see ' em. I call a spade a spade and I don' t put up with any LIBERAL f_____ n CRAP. Especially when it comes to special rights because under the " charter of rights and freedom" we are all equal under the law just as stubblejumper pointed out.
As far as I am concerned(AND I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE) they can draw a line at the Manitoba/Ontario border and we in the West would be far better off.
Tuffcity,
I HOPE u r right because I heard the exact same thing you are talking about. If this is the case then I don' t have a problem with it. A long as it is regulated(so to speak).
Sorry if I sound like a bigot but I am from out West.
I call ' em like I see ' em. I call a spade a spade and I don' t put up with any LIBERAL f_____ n CRAP. Especially when it comes to special rights because under the " charter of rights and freedom" we are all equal under the law just as stubblejumper pointed out.
As far as I am concerned(AND I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE) they can draw a line at the Manitoba/Ontario border and we in the West would be far better off.
Tuffcity,
I HOPE u r right because I heard the exact same thing you are talking about. If this is the case then I don' t have a problem with it. A long as it is regulated(so to speak).
#35
I' m with you we should saw that liberal portion of this country off before they drag this great country down.And for you guys saying we should be ashamed of ourselves move to ottawa because you obviously don' t care about preserving the wildlife for hunters and fishers of the future.We see so much wastefull hunting and fishing practises here in Manitoba it makes me sick to my stomach.We have a problem right now with one native who doesn' t even live on a reserve,he lives on the along the bank of the red river.For the past three years he has had up to 20 nets staggered across the river and he literally has stopped the flow of walleye and catches everything.When questioned on what he was doing with all that fish he said he has a extended family of 152 poeple to feed.Even thought the law states he can' t transport fish beyond his property he continues to do so without the nro' s even bothering him.He also has gone as far as saying that the fish are his not ours and he' ll burn down the ice shacks of poeple who don' t like it.I know that my shack was reduced to ashes.I could go on forever with stories like this but sometimes I think whats the point,the only ones with the power to change the laws don' t care about or wildlife or the sportsman who enjoy it!
#36
Typical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
From: Ontario Canada
We have a problem right now with one native who doesn' t even live on a reserve,he lives on the along the bank of the red river.For the past three years he has had up to 20 nets staggered across the river and he literally has stopped the flow of walleye and catches everything.When questioned on what he was doing with all that fish he said he has a extended family of 152 poeple to feed.Even thought the law states he can' t transport fish beyond his property he continues to do so without the nro' s even bothering him.He also has gone as far as saying that the fish are his not ours and he' ll burn down the ice shacks of poeple who don' t like it
If we do not complain to the correct people, if we just sit idle and do nothing, then we are just as much at fault as the person doing the bad deeds. There are many ways to fight against these people.
#37
HI Grump,his name and what he is doing on the Red River have been a focus of the media ,and the Manitoba minister of natural resources has gone on record saying he can' t or won' t do anything about it.They don' t want trouble so they just look the other way.This is what we have had to deal with for the last 4 years.Sadly I think there is going to be trouble for this guy if he continues to ruin the fishing for everone else.I hate to say this but I wouldn' t feel sorry for him.
#38
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
From:
That' s the key point, they don' t want to do anything about these things. Down east they claim they will call in warriors and so forth, so every little infraction might become the next Burnt Church, and the authorities don' t want the headache.




