First Nations hunting

[44inchStone]

Just a question that someone may be able to assist with. Heard that first nations ARE allowed to hunt at night, anywhere? This cannot be true.
Something about a treaty that was signed years ago? I thought it was only allowed on first nations land, not any where they see an opportunity? A friend of mine has seen the same truck around his land, South Island many times but it is not anywhere near First nations land. Told him to get their plate and not to confront them. If this treaty thing is true then there is not much he can do.

[budismyhorse]

to answer your first question, yes it is true.

The traditional technique in question is the use of torches to hunt game back in the days. Since court decisions have allowed for traditional techniques of the past "evolve" a torch becomes a 2 million candle power flahlight in our time............just like the cedarbark canoe is now the alluminum jetboat they use today.

not sure about the ruling on reserve land or not.....likely they can do whatever they want as long as it is within their traditional territory.

.............

[44inchStone]

Well I should have only guessed. I wanted to put this post onthe Island thread but ended up on the mainland thread.
Either way it sounds like the rules over there are the same for over here. UNBELIEVABLE.

[betteroffishing]

didnt the white settlers of yesteryear trade pox infected blankets and liquor for fish and game and animal pelts ?? what ever happened to my ancestral rights to follow in the footsteps of my fore fathers??? i say that tongue in cheek , but the extremes to which the law is prepared to go to in preserving the abos rights to their modern interpretations of " traditional " methods is no less rediculouse in my honest opinion

[sawmill]

Here comes the lock.:twisted:

[Devilbear]

That particular canard is among the most offensive lies now spread by the racist, extremists, usually of MIXED Euro.-aboriginal ancestry, who call themselves, "first nations". It is derived from a rather crude joke made by Lord Jeffrey Amherst, in what is now the U.S.A., to a subordinate officer, that they "should" give the murderous indians of that region "poxed blankets", however, this was not done.

Much as the "chief" Willard Sparrow, of half English and half aboringal blood, openly stated here in BC, not long before his death, "we should have driven all you whitemen into the sea".....this may have included his own ancestor, one John Sparrow, the "chief" didn't say....

These kind of remarks, while intemperate and even offensive, DO NOT hold validity as factual historical sources. There has NEVER been a verifiable incident of giving indians blankets that were KNOWN to have been used by "poxed" persons and this whole issue is just bogus.

There certainly have been injustices done to indians by indians and by "whites", that is the nature of the human condition, however, FACTS are what are needed to hopefully bring harmony to our society and that is why I posted this. ANYONE, who can PROVE that any Canadian official, from Cabot's time to the present DELIBERATELY gave disease-infected items to ANY indian, well, I would like to see this proof.

I understand, that this was just a bit of a "tongue in cheek" comment, but, since it is so commonly believed, I thought it best to post to the contrary.

The indians here in Canada, were, largely, very well treated by both the French and the British and they have no real grounds to complain or to have "special rights" such as the aforesaid hunting with modern lights.

That decision was made by a longtime NDPer, geez, what a surprise! ;)

[Gateholio]

didnt the white settlers of yesteryear trade pox infected blankets and liquor for fish and game and animal pelts ?? what ever happened to my ancestral rights to follow in the footsteps of my fore fathers??? i say that tongue in cheek , but the extremes to which the law is prepared to go to in preserving the abos rights to their modern interpretations of " traditional " methods is no less rediculouse in my honest opinion

Apparently the "small pox blankets" story is mostly a myth. Supposedly 2 or 3 blankets from the small pox ward were given to a chief, and there was quite some discussion about infecting the Indians that they were at war with with small pox, but it's unclear if it took place since infecting their own troops was a problem, too. The British might or might not have tried to infect white American soldiers in the American Revolution, too.

Lots to read about it here:

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/smallpox.htm

[Devilbear]

One should also realize that, Pasteur's work on baterial infection was still about a century in the future and people in Amherst's era, did NOT KNOW that anyone could definitely be infected by pathogens present in blankets, clothing, the scalps that indians traded for liquor or that fleas carried such organisms.

The whole story is the sort of untruth spread by radicals such as Vine DeLoria, jr., who tried to make a case for the North American aboriginals being the real settlers of northern Europe. He was a Sioux, who was a "perfesser" at Colorado-Boulder and about as radical and racist as any "Skinhead" halfwit one can think of. It was too bad, as the man had a good mind, but, his intense bigotry blinded him and he died as a largely discredited academic.

[Gateholio]

To stay on track...

As I understand it, only one band went to court to win the right to hunt at night with spotlights.

[peashooter]

is this ship going to sink like the others? i name this vessel "ibtl".

[rocksteady]

To stay on track...

As I understand it, only one band went to court to win the right to hunt at night with spotlights.

However, there is a lot of them who do this, on and off reserve lands, and if/when they get caught by the CO's, they play the first nations, traditional hunting grounds, sustenance card and it is usually tossed out of court because no provincial judge(Wildlife Act is a provincial statute) is going to tackle a federal Charter of rights and Freedoms case... Can't say I blame the judge...

This has been ongoing since I was involved in one back in 1990.....

This is not meant to offend anyone, it is just the way it is/has been....

[buckwild76]

You know, I come from a native indian background and could if I chose to persue the golden ticket (treaty number) and do the same things that the people in question are doing. BUT I could'nt disagree with anything more than the "rights" that first nations have and readily excersise. The rules should be across the board no matter what colour your skin is, or what your great grandparents did to each other. Correct me if I am wrong but the regulations are set with conservation and fair play in mind, so why is one race who is supposed to be cultured around mother nature so readily willing to destroy the very thing they worship?? My apologies for the rant but I can't not comment on these topics.

[buckwild76]

Just to clarify, I did not mean to paint all natives with the same brush.

[jamfarm]

Devilbear mentioned "bring harmony to our society"

Wouldn't it be a good start if we all hunted, trapped and fished according to the same harmonious rules & laws no matter what our background?

[JDR]

I completely agree, conservation should be paramount. But, how can we accomplish such a goal when we have no idea what the first nation harvest is and we don't have adequate resources to monitor game populations? This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen for some species in some areas or it could mean that residents will be put on LEH for a species that was once prevalent.

[dedapair]

Must be the NDP's fault..Were they even around centuries ago when the treaties were signed?.. At least be somewhat correct if you're going to create your own conservative version of history.

[Tikka270wsm]

If they are hunting on his land and it IS posted, then they are tresspassing, bottom line. He should be getting a licence plate and reporting it if they are shooting on his land. I too am from south island and have been witness to pitlampers. In fact, some guys I went to school with are now pitlampers and they were the ones that told me that is illegal for them to hunt on posted land without permission. We don't talk hunting together anymore as it discusts me that the government would allow such a dangerous method of hunting to take place anywhere. How does a pitlamper know there isn't a family camping in the woods just beyond his target. Whata friggun joke. There weren't million candle light lamps back in the day of the musket and the bow so I don't understand how it can be a traditional hunting method.

[Devilbear]

Must be the NDP's fault..Were they even around centuries ago when the treaties were signed?.. At least be somewhat correct if you're going to create your own conservative version of history.

The FACT is that the specific judge who ruled in favour of this travesty of social justice WAS a major player in the NDP and he was also a well-known supporter of aboriginal causes during his political career. I know this, as I WAS a supporter of the NDP until people like him drove me and many other BC people out of that party.

His name was David Vickers and you can check this for yourself. He was Deputy AG to Alex MacDonald under Dave Barrett's administration and later contested the NDP leadership and lost to Bob Skelly.

It is NOT ...the treaties..., which are at question here, it was the "land claims" and totally bogus "gift" to aboriginals of "rights" that could never have existed in pre-Euro. settlement times. Well, unless your superior "education" allows you to believe that they used electric lanterns to hunt with....given what the NDP supporting BCTF has done to BC's education system, that would not surprise me.

[peashooter]

how about this then, they hunt and manage first nations land and the rest of us Canadians hunt and manage the "white land". no crossing borders. rape and pillage for sustenance day or night, but when the well runs dry better plant some veggies.

[dutchie]

The FACT is that the specific judge who ruled in favour of this travesty of social justice WAS a major player in the NDP and he was also a well-known supporter of aboriginal causes during his political career. I know this, as I WAS a supporter of the NDP until people like him drove me and many other BC people out of that party.

His name was David Vickers and you can check this for yourself. He was Deputy AG to Alex MacDonald under Dave Barrett's administration and later contested the NDP leadership and lost to Bob Skelly.

It is NOT ...the treaties..., which are at question here, it was the "land claims" and totally bogus "gift" to aboriginals of "rights" that could never have existed in pre-Euro. settlement times. Well, unless your superior "education" allows you to believe that they used electric lanterns to hunt with....given what the NDP supporting BCTF has done to BC's education system, that would not surprise me.

you just got back from a 10 day pee pee slap...

calm down and stay awhile...

Dutchie

[Devilbear]

The treaties concerned here, were those enacted by that great man, Sir James Douglas, in the mid-19thC. and, ironically, his wife, Lady Douglas, the "First Lady" of BC, WAS an aboriginal and his daughters, very lovely young women of impeccable upbringing and manners, were of part Scots, part Negro and part aboriginal blood....they behaved as "equals" and there is a lesson here for all of us........

The final decision on this issue, was made by one of Canada's most notorious jurists, a woman with a long history of extreme leftist activity, Madame Justice Rosalie Abella, wife of another rabblerouser and pinko, Irving Abella. The obvious bias and lack of concern for basic safety and egalitarian concerns was addressed by the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court of Canada, MacLaughlin and STILL this ludicrous situation was allowed to happen.....certainly does not bode well for future social harmony in BC-Canada, IMHO.

[nativehunter]

to answer your first question, yes it is true.

The traditional technique in question is the use of torches to hunt game back in the days. Since court decisions have allowed for traditional techniques of the past "evolve" a torch becomes a 2 million candle power flahlight in our time............just like the cedarbark canoe is now the alluminum jetboat they use today.

not sure about the ruling on reserve land or not.....likely they can do whatever they want as long as it is within their traditional territory.

.............

wrong!:confused:

[Devilbear]

wrong!:confused:

Please explain what the correct policy is and, this is NOT an attempt to instigate a "flame war", I am honestly interested and intend to discuss this issue with courtesy. Thankyou.

[dutchie]

There is 1 or 2 bands on the island that is allowed to hunt at night with lamps... NO ONE ELSE...

Not sure why people think that everyone can do it...

Another thing, Natives still need to stick to the regional bag limit and yearly bag limit to be legal. The only difference is they have the right to do it at any time of the year WITHIN THEIR TERRITORY!!!

Page #7 in the regs...

Dutchie

[saan man]

I know this is a bit long but it helps explain the the Supreme Courts ruling re: night hunting by Douglas Treaty Nations, of which the Saanich Tribe is a signator.
The entire document can be "Googled" under Supreme Courts - R. v. Morris 2006

Also, my understanding is there are no bag limits
Cheers. Saan man

(As copied from the original document) The accused, both members of the Tsartlip Indian Band of the Saanich Nation, were hunting at night when they shot at a decoy deer set up by provincial conservation officers to trap illegal hunters. They were arrested and charged with several offences under British Columbia’s Wildlife Act, including: (1) hunting wildlife with a firearm during prohibited hours (s. 27(1)(d)); (2) hunting by the use or with the aid of a light or illuminating device (s. 27(1)(e)); and (3) hunting without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property of other persons (s. 29). At trial, as a defence to the charges under s. 27(1), the accused raised their right “to hunt over the unoccupied lands . . . as formerly” under the North Saanich Treaty of 1852. They also introduced evidence that the particular night hunt for which they were charged was not dangerous. The trial judge found that “night hunting with illumination was one of the various methods employed by the Tsartlip [people] from time immemorial”. However, despite the evidence that night hunting by Tsartlip hunters had yet to result in an accident, he nonetheless concluded that the accused did not have a treaty right to hunt at night because hunting at night with an illuminating device was “inherently unsafe”. The trial judge entered convictions on count 1, conditionally stayed count 2 because of the rule against multiple convictions arising from the same delict, and entered acquittals on count 3. Both the summary conviction appeal judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions based on the prohibition of night hunting (s. 27(1)(d)).

Held (McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Fish JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. The convictions are set aside and acquittals entered.



Per Binnie, Deschamps, Abella and Charron JJ.: The Tsartlip’s right to hunt at night with the aid of illuminating devices is protected by the North Saanich Treaty. The historical context indicates that the parties intended the treaty to include the full panoply of hunting practices in which the Tsartlip people had engaged before they agreed to relinquish control over their lands. One of those practices was night hunting and, as the trial judge acknowledged, night hunting by the Tsartlip includes, and always has included, night hunting with the aid of illuminating devices. Even on a literal construction, the language of the treaty supports the view that the right to hunt “as formerly” means the right to hunt according to the methods used by the Tsartlip at the time of and before the treaty. The right of the Tsartlip to hunt at night with illuminating devices has of necessity evolved from its pre‑treaty tools to its current implements, and the use of guns, spotlights, and motor vehicles reflects the current state of the evolution of the Tsartlip’s historic hunting practices. However, it is acknowledged that it could not have been within the common intention of the parties that the Tsartlip would be granted a right to hunt dangerously, since no treaty confers on its beneficiaries a right to put human lives in danger. This is confirmed by the language of the treaty itself, which restricts hunting to “unoccupied lands”, away from any town or settlement. Since British Columbia is a very large province, it cannot plausibly be said that a night hunt with illumination is unsafe everywhere and in all circumstances, even within the treaty area at issue in this case. Accordingly, while s. 29 of the Wildlife Act, which prohibits hunting or trapping “without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property of other persons”, is a limit that does not impair the treaty rights of aboriginal hunters and trappers, paras. (d) and (e) of s. 27(1), which apply without exception to the whole province, are overbroad and infringe the treaty right to hunt. Something less than an absolute prohibition on night hunting can address the concern for safety. [14] [25‑35] [40] [59]

[moose2]

Rulings like this are frusterating and mostly due to smooth talking lawers that are protecting thier clients any way they can after they have been caught. Hunting at night is unfair to the animals and a most times I would think dangerous. The laws need to be set under the conditions we live in now. Based on population , advanced technolegy in firearms, scopes, lights and vehicles. We have new laws being enforced all the time because of changes in enviroment, and socity. The saftey should be the major concern no matter what used to be done. I used to ride around in pick up boxes or in vehicles with no seat belts it was perfectly legal and done by everyone , does that mean based on history I am still allowed to do this.
Just my thoughts Mike

[budismyhorse]

wrong!:confused:

......actually, I'm correct on the hunting at night....are you speaking to the discussion around on or off reserved land?

please explain "wrong".

[44inchStone]

Well as I said,
I should have put this on the Island Forum. Yes these troubles are Provincial wide. Certainly not ALL first Nations are the same but few have painted a BAD picture for the rest.
My reasons were I have had the same truck from the Brentwood Bay band scoping out my land and have damn near caught them. I know who they are but just wanted the laws on Tresspassing on others property. Native or not.
Sounds like getting a plate and reporting them won't hold any water. I have horses close buy, dogs, kids and cattle. Some day they will miss and could be a worst outcome.

[Drillbit]

The Douglas Treaty says they can hunt 24 hours a day 365 days a year. Only on the Island though.

[MuleyMadness]

Well as I said,
I should have put this on the Island Forum. Yes these troubles are Provincial wide. Certainly not ALL first Nations are the same but few have painted a BAD picture for the rest.
My reasons were I have had the same truck from the Brentwood Bay band scoping out my land and have damn near caught them. I know who they are but just wanted the laws on Tresspassing on others property. Native or not.
Sounds like getting a plate and reporting them won't hold any water. I have horses close buy, dogs, kids and cattle. Some day they will miss and could be a worst outcome.

Why just on the island forum? If you think that they are only hunting at night, etc on the island you are very wrong. It happens in every part of this province, continually.

Friend of mine who was the ranch manager at the second largest ranch in BC near Merritt told me of the near constant trespassing and pitlamping on the ranch's deeded property until nearly all the moose and deer were completely wiped out. When he tried to get the COs to file charges for hunting at night or have them hit with trespassing (they continually cut fences to drive into the fields to retrieve the animals they pitlamped) he was constantly told that while it was illegal, they weren't charging anyone at the time for it.

I suppose it is just a matter of time before someone does get shot due to this highly dangerous behaviour....I wonder what the excuse will be then, and the consequences.

[Deadshot]

I have horses close buy, dogs, kids and cattle.
Turning into a real farmer there, Mr.W.:wink:
Why don't you sic Guy on em.

[308Lover]

Where have you guys been? Local groups have been hunting 24/7 with lights, shooting anything in sight. Cow moose was shot in front of our camp etc. Trucks and cars day and night. Just north of Germansen Landing. I don't even want to get into the answer I got from CO's in MacKenzie. They wouldn't go near the place--some orders from above no doubt? Whether it's "LEGAL" or not is a joke.There have been dozens of cases like this but no one in authority has the guts to step up.(And NO this is not on reserve land. They just call it their "traditional" area and want all hunters to phone the band office in Ft. St. James before proceeding. Can you believe this? (It's in the regs by the way. Page 72)
You poor bas---rds who have LEH there can forget it.

[Devilbear]

Why just on the island forum? If you think that they are only hunting at night, etc on the island you are very wrong. It happens in every part of this province, continually.

Friend of mine who was the ranch manager at the second largest ranch in BC near Merritt told me of the near constant trespassing and pitlamping on the ranch's deeded property until nearly all the moose and deer were completely wiped out. When he tried to get the COs to file charges for hunting at night or have them hit with trespassing (they continually cut fences to drive into the fields to retrieve the animals they pitlamped) he was constantly told that while it was illegal, they weren't charging anyone at the time for it.

I suppose it is just a matter of time before someone does get shot due to this highly dangerous behaviour....I wonder what the excuse will be then, and the consequences.

In this situation, I would have 3-man teams in 4x4 PU trucks patrolling the fencelines all night and they would be equipped with spot lights and rifles with scopes. I would post a VERY complete WARNING that ANY fence damage or trespass would result in serious action and then, inform the local COs and RCMP and let them "warn" the local aborigines.

The FIRST attempt to cut a fence on my land and/or enter or jacklight game, would be met with carefully aimed riflefire and "let the chips fall where they may".

I strongly favour STRICT gun control for all "status" aborigines and see no valid reason for them to own a "whitey" invention like a rifle. Confiscate their guns and they can hunt with their "traditional" gear....seems fair to me!

[KodiakHntr]

I strongly favour STRICT gun control for all "status" aborigines and see no valid reason for them to own a "whitey" invention like a rifle. Confiscate their guns and they can hunt with their "traditional" gear....seems fair to me!


Hmmm.....Where have we heard this before in the past?

Slippery slope. Might end up with Human Rights Tribunal on how people here treat ethnic groups......

NOT saying I'm in favor of night hunting period, by anyone, but there once again is a lot of mis-information being spread.

Only one area in the province where its been deemed legal for hunting at night, and anywhere else its illegal, period.

[Devilbear]

Hmmm.....Where have we heard this before in the past?

Slippery slope. Might end up with Human Rights Tribunal on how people here treat ethnic groups......

NOT saying I'm in favor of night hunting period, by anyone, but there once again is a lot of mis-information being spread.

Only one area in the province where its been deemed legal for hunting at night, and anywhere else its illegal, period.


Typical of your bullshit, Dave, better think before you act here as the BCHRT is not very likely to accept a complaint of this nature. However, if you want to try, do it, the consequent media coverage and the hearing(s) would be an excellent opportunity to present factual reality to the public at large.

Just let me know, one of my friends is a lawyer, quite versed in this area of BC's laws and it would be great fun to confront you in a tribunal hearing and debate you "vis-a-vis".

There is nothing wrong with aboriginals hunting at night, for food, using the meat and with the implements that they had when Euro. civilization began here in BC. Torches, spears, bows and arrows, traps, all traditional and I have no issue with this. However, I do not accept the decision of Abella and her fellow lefty's on the SOC and see no valid reason for aboriginal gun ownership or use.....if, you think that comment breaches ANY specific "human rights" legislation in BC-Canada, well, rock on, try me and we will see.

[KodiakHntr]

Typical of your bullshit, Dave, better think before you act here as the BCHRT is not very likely to accept a complaint of this nature. However, if you want to try, do it, the consequent media coverage and the hearing(s) would be an excellent opportunity to present factual reality to the public at large.

Just let me know, one of my friends is a lawyer, quite versed in this area of BC's laws and it would be great fun to confront you in a tribunal hearing and debate you "vis-a-vis".

There is nothing wrong with aboriginals hunting at night, for food, using the meat and with the implements that they had when Euro. civilization began here in BC. Torches, spears, bows and arrows, traps, all traditional and I have no issue with this. However, I do not accept the decision of Abella and her fellow lefty's on the SOC and see no valid reason for aboriginal gun ownership or use.....if, you think that comment breaches ANY specific "human rights" legislation in BC-Canada, well, rock on, try me and we will see.

Typical of yours again, Dewey, not actually reading what people write when your blood pressure starts to get elevated. All we need now that we have heard about about your highly educated friends is a statement about your high-end gear, and some sort of comment about how many dozens of pristine pre-64 model 70's in 338wm you have owned and we'll have had the trifecta of Dewey-isms in this thread......None of which is applicable to the original topic of conversation, which was a question of legality around night hunting on private property.


HOWEVER, it bears mentioning that if you think that singling out a specific ethnic group for gun-control and seizure of personal property is acceptable on a world forum then by all means, lobby for it in the media.....I await seeing your face on the evening news Mr R.

[Mr. Dean]

WOW.... GREAT. Another thread derailed. Thanks for that.

How about STICKING WITH the OP's request?
It isn't THAT hard.
Perhaps next time???


IBTL :wink:
Ya, it's CLOSED.