The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Inuit HuntingGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Inuit Hunting | Login/Join |
| one of us |
I was visiting my daughter and future son-in-law (FSIL) in Fort St John last week. It happened that FSIL�s uncle was also visiting from Tuktoyaktuk with his family. They were showing their kids that there is another world out there. I got to B.S.ing with the Uncle for a few minutes and it turns out he makes his living by trapping, hunting and guiding. They hunt polar bear, caribou, moose (at the tree line), and grizzly. Both he and his wife got a polar bear last year. I asked him about the rifles they used and he surprised by saying he uses a .270 Win for all his hunting and his wife uses an iron-sighted .22-250(�she doesn�t like scopes�)!!! He commented something to the effect that it�s not what you shoot, it�s where you hit them that counts. So, friends, what do you think?? | ||
|
| one of us |
I don't believe using the .270 for that type of hunting is really that big of feat. However, using a .22-250 on those animals is stretching things and you usually have to leave out the parts about repeated follow up shots when telling the story. Although with polar bears,the scratch and bite marks on your ass,are a dead give away that the .22-250 isn't a real good bear gun. I watched a guy kill a raghorn bull elk with a .17rem.,I wasn't real impressed and the elk was the least impressed,but the elk died none the less. What I don't get with the so called "natives",is their infatuation with smacking large animals with small calibers. Yet when it comes to fishing the fuckers want to use a half mile of net and kill every fish in a 100 mile radius. Instead of using a snoopy zebco rod with 4lb test line. Go figure. | |||
|
| one of us |
What most people don't know is that when inuit hunt polar bear the dogs contain the bear and it is shot from close range with the dogs running interference.If the bear is wounded the dogs occupy the bear until another shot can be made. | |||
|
| one of us |
Something lots of people don't know, stubblejumper, is that Natives who spend a great deal of time around bears know bears well enough to seek and shoot a bear (when distracted by the dog) right on the thinner bone between the eye and the ear, or right behind the ear. | |||
|
| one of us |
Did he tell you about pouring mixed 2 stroke gas on the old LeeEnfield 303's to get the action open,many times as they watch the bear approach, after they've been on a snowmachine for hours? Did he tell you about sitting over a seal hole with the muzzle dangerously close to the water waiting for the seal to appear?I had a bro in law that lived in Iqualuit for three years,him and his wife(my ex's sister)were both teachers.He had a lot of great stories to tell.The Inuit are one tough people and they can survive "on the land" while most of us would wimper and run for our 4x4's.They do have a penchant for using small calibers on large animals though.My bro in law had a Ruger 77 in 243 and a Ruger 10-22.He came down one Christmas and we went shopping and bought two FR-8 Spanish Mausers(308).One for me.He told me a few months later that if he had 20 of them he could have sold them all the first week.They like the 308,243 and the 222 and 22-250.There are still tons of Lee Enfield 303's up there.Most from the old Hudson Bay days. [ 07-08-2002, 10:05: Message edited by: rembo ] | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Hmm, must be one of them magnetized nets... ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif){kind=icon} | |||
|
| one of us |
and the mile long net is worse than our people leaving 10 million buffalo rotting in the sun? all so people in new york and london could make a fashion statement. | |||
|
| one of us |
The bison were left to rot 100 years ago and we have learned about conservation since then.The nets are still used today to poach fish which are often sold illegally for profit. [ 07-09-2002, 06:10: Message edited by: stubblejumper ] | |||
|
| <bearguide> |
stubblejumper- Correction; the fish are ALWAYS sold illegally for profit. terry8mm- You've seen "Dances with Wolves" a few too many times. ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} | ||
|
| one of us |
Jhook: Are you saying that you believe the Indians were responsible for the eradication of the bison herds? Or were you just making a statement about the common perception that all native tribes were "noble". Rick. | |||
|
one of us |
I thought this post was about hunting Inuits. I have nothing against them, the title just piqued my interest. | |||
|
| <JHook> |
Fox what Im saying is I wasnt responsable! Nor was anyone in my generation ; Nor is anyone who aint dead! Just like with slavery ; Just like the war with Our Indians which occasionaly twisted and turned into ugly genocide. Nor are the Indians that are alive today responsable for all the genocide their forefathers practiced against each other, and the whites. Even tho , on balance, I'd have to say the Native Americans got screwed. The "screwers" are all stone dead, as are the "screwed". Now every group in the country is doing a "pow-wow" to flim-flam some cash out of the "bottomless pit" that is the pockets of the American taxpayer. Its tragic how easily History is re-written to suit an individual groups need for guilt, redemption, money, entertainment , or , as in nowdays, Anti-Americanism. History is History. Hollywood bludgeons it, manipulates it, whores it, and downright lies about it, for their own PC but also mostly for money. We will never learn from history, both of the mistakes and the solutions, unless we simply see it as it actually WAS! The fact that we dont do that is the main reason we are in this extremely dangerous situation we are in today. And unfortunately many , many innocent people are going to die becuase of it................J | ||
|
| <BC hunter> |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JHook: . The "screwers" are all stone dead, as are the "screwed". Now every group in the country is doing a "pow-wow" to flim-flam some cash out of the "bottomless pit" that is the pockets of the American taxpayer. Its tragic how easily History is re-written to suit an individual groups need for guilt, redemption, money, entertainment , or , as in nowdays, Anti-Americanism. I have to say J hook, that this is a very profound statement, you have made! Why dont people who want compensation for acts that occured in the distant past, get a life! We could all go back in history to a time when our ancestors were screwed out of something. Be it a King of England, taking our ancestors land for lack of tax payments, or being conquered by another country, and having ones business taken. Heck if you want to go back far enough, we could blame the caveman next door to our ancestors cave, for killing the last dinasour. It's all in the past, time to get on with it! | ||
|
| one of us |
By the way, those nets mentioned above are minuscule when compared to the nets used by foreign and US trawlers in Alaska. | |||
|
| one of us |
The only reason the nets are smaller,is because they're used mostly on rivers. The catches are still massive. | |||
|
| one of us |
Salmon are some of the most heavily watched and regulated fish in the world. I personally know a Fish & Game official who flew into an Alaskan village and closed the river for the rest of the season. Needless to say, he was very unpopular. | |||
|
| <CritrChik> |
I need to point something out here, the Inuit of Canada and Greenland have been "screwed" by the U.S. in very recent times. Consider that the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 prohibits them from accessing any market for the one commercial product they produce, seal pelts. There was not and is not a conservation problem with harp, hooded or ringed seals in the Arctic. Quite the opposite, all species are abundant and can be harvested sustainably in large numbers. Yet, the U.S. maintains the importation ban due to pressure from the animal rights groups. Essentially a vocal minority has been allowed to dictate policy based on the morality of harvesting a wild species. Which is in essence an official condemnation of the Inuit culture. There are many, many examples just like this of oppressive or wrong minded U.S. policies. Start looking and you'll see it. The animal rights groups have been using the political and economic power of the U.S. and the European Community to impose this garbage for decades against developing nations and indigenous peoples. | ||
|
| one of us |
Originally posted by RMK: I don't believe using the .270 for that type of hunting is really that big of feat. However, using a .22-250 on those animals is stretching things and you usually have to leave out the parts about repeated follow up shots when telling the story. They're not trying to produce a one-shot kill, like sport hunters hope to. If a bear takes a few more, so what? Its dead. I'm sure non-Natives skip out the extra shots, too. No one is imune from telling tall tales based on their race. What I don't get with the so called "natives",is their infatuation with smacking large animals with small calibers.White hunters do the same thing, killing DG in Africa with sub-calibur rifles. Its done on a regular basis. To the Natives, its hunting. The Whites call it culling. Yet when it comes to fishing the fuckers want to use a half mile of net and kill every fish in a 100 mile radius. Instead of using a snoopy zebco rod with 4lb test line. Go figure. I can only speak for Alaskan Natives, we use fish nets for commercial fishing, and for subsistance fishing for storing fish for the winter. I assume the Inuit are doing the same. ~~Suluuq | |||
|
| one of us |
never owned a slave never shot a native American don't want to pay anyone reparations rented dances with wolves fell asleep about 10 minutes into it if their treaties allow them to fish then let them fish if the US or Canadian government made treaties, then honor them, or renegotiate in good faith | |||
|
| one of us |
An Inuit that hunts 365 days a year doesn't get "buck fever". As for the whole Indian vs. Whites thing,let me throw this one at you- If a group of people came on to YOUR land,and said "This is now our land,simply because we came halfway around the world to get here and we like it-so get out",wouldn't you kill their ass too? | |||
|
| One of Us |
First, the notion that a few hundred thousand Indians living in the northern hemisphere OWNED this land is about as absurd as us claiming we OWN the moon because a handful of Americans have stepped foot on it first. Most of the Indians themselves preached NOBODY owns the land. So I don't buy this liberal BS about how we robbed the poor Indian blind. If you ask me, the only TERRIBLE thing we did to the Indians was the reservation system. We created a race of people in this country that don't belong to the Past OR the Future. 95% of the American Indians could no more go back to living the "old way" than they could walk on water. Secondly, criticizing the Inuit's choice of rifles overlooks one very important fact of life. Namely, they hunt with what they HAVE. They can't walk into a major gun store and lay down a string of plactic credit cards. So sure they hunt with some pretty strange rifles at times. All in all they do a good job with them. Also, they aren't hunting for trophys or sport. All this makes it kind of silly for us to try to sit in judgement of their hunting style. | |||
|
| one of us |
Cultural genocide is the word which most closely describes what has taken place when it comes to indigenous people not only in North America but in other colonized nations. Take a look at the indigenous peoples in Australia as just one example. So go ahead and whine about how these people use firearms for harvesting animals and forget about how and why things got to this stage. It makes life a little easier and doesn't force us to use the stuff between our ears. | |||
|
| <bearguide> |
There is one thing evident here: Those posting in favor of the current native hunting rights are either; a)Not directly affected by these practices, or b)native Same old story. | ||
|
| one of us |
quote:The Native Americans live in tribes,where they pleased.Each tribe has it's own land that it lived on. Then,the English and the Spanish show up and say "Well,we want to put in a colony (or a potato crop or whatever),so scram". THEN they come up with the reservation system-moving tribes from their homes because they wanted to live there.It's kind of like if I came up to your house,knocked on the door and said "I like your house-get out".And they always sent them to a place they thought was worthless,and don't you know it,that worthless place always ended up having gold or a good place to make homes,so they'd move them again. Now,let's flip things around-what if the Native Americans sailed over to England or Spain and said the same thing?They'd get shot or hung REAL quick. And what was the FIRST thing the Spaniards did when they reached Mexico,or when Columbus hit the Caribians?They put the Native Americans into slavery.And a lot of those dumb SOB Spaniards got their heads chopped off by Native Americans that decided enough was enough. So let's go over this again- #1)Whites and Spaniards came to the Americas,and ran Native Americans off their land #2)If you didn't move off the land they wanted,they killed you #3)They told you where you would live,and if you didn't like that,they killed you #4)They forced you into living their way of life-if you didn't like that,you could go live in the booneys somewhere,since white folks lived where your tribe used to live.If you objected to this,they killed you. #5)If you did want to live their way of life,you had to have a job that paid in either room and board or money.The problem was,you were considered vermin and couldn't get a job if you wanted to.Don't like that?Then they killed you,since after all,you're just an Indian. Please tell me how this was not somehow wrong. | |||
|
Moderator |
Chico I'm interested to know what you mean about the indigenous people in Australia? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif){kind=icon} Bakes | |||
|
| one of us |
Brian M-You left out a few small details.Lets start with the fact that the tribes killed each other for various reasons.If the natives could have driven out the white man or killed him they would have.They tried but couldn't get it done.Things are totally reversed today in society as the natives are considered above whites in many cases.Where I live in northern canada they are given first choice at jobs with the r.c.m.p.,government or private firms.They are given free university education at the taxpayers expense.They do not pay the gst on automobiles and such.They poach whenever they feel like it and even when they trespass on private property they are seldom charged.When they commit crimes they are often given lighter sentences because of their "disadvantaged status".Their unregulated poaching has in many areas had such an impact on game populations that sport hunting has been virtually eliminated and the game population is still diminishing to dangerously low levels. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Sounds like a plan to me. Ain't beng on top of the food chain great? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Sorry, Brian, but I don't by this "noble savage" bullshit. Those "Dumb SOB Spanish" as you call them were actually pretty tame compared to what the Indians they encountered did to one another! As for the scatterings of Indians around the rest of this hemisphere, they spent a lot of time and energy trying to kill one another...and still would if we would let them! "THEIR LAND" (for those of them who even had any concept of ownership) usually consisted of the land they felt they could kill or beat the other tribes off of. The notion that Indians lived in this perfect harmony with nature and one another is so much hogwash. They routinely did environmental things that would make the EPA's eyes pop out. Fortunately there were never enough of them to do irreversable harm. It may not be a terribly popular notion among human beings who love to think of themselves as this high and mighty creation...but the "Law of the Jungle," the "Survival of the Fittest" applies to humans just about as well as it does to animals. We see nothing wrong in this practice in every form of life on the planet and in fact call it "necessary" and "part of nature's plan." But suddenly when homo sapiens applies this principle it is wrong. Make no mistake, if the Aztecs or any other single tribe of Indians had been left alone and unchecked by anything, they would have gleefully killed off or enslaved all the other tribes of this hemisphere...and rather brutally, I might add. And they wouldn't be sitting around today like fools in this country thinking, "You know...maybe we should pay the Utes and Navajos and Apaches some reparrations!" ![[Eek!]](images/icons/shocked.gif){kind=icon} The evil white man arrived with some pretty bizarre notions like, "Who own's this land?" Many of the Indians gave them a big collective "DUH?". We continued often to buy and otherwise deal for territory from the Indians even though for the most part they were simply passing thru and had little more claim to ownership than we did. But it always has and always will boil down to the "law of the jungle." If you don't like this, shake your fist at God. He seems to be the one who set it in motion. Not me. Not the evil white man. But I suggest Brian that you are sitting around crying about something that never existed and never will on this planet. Get over it. | |||
|
| one of us |
God don't do evil things, people do. God gave everyone a free will. People choose what to do, God don't force it upon them. Man is sinful. God isn't. ~~~Suluuq | |||
|
| one of us |
Rust Gunn,you hit that spot on. Pecos45-oh,I get it,we saved the Native Americans from themselves,right? ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon} I belive we said the same thing when we kidnapped the blacks from Africa and shipped them over here.After all,they're only savages.I seem to remember that the white man has done a pretty good job of trying to kill each other out too.It was just a little squabble between the northern and southeren parts of the country. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Hold on just a second, Brian, while I put on some sad violin music and get out my crying towel to go with you convoluted interpretation of history. OK, got it....... Now what's your latest silliness?quote:No, not really, Brian. The Indians were very scattered as I've said and most wandered around a good bit. But when they did encounter one another, they usually didn't have a square dance and sing "Where the Buffalo Roam." In fact, our "noble Indians" were REAL KEEN ON SLAVERY long before the evil white men got here. But what I was trying to get thru your little pointy head is IF they had been left to their own devices, they most assuredly would have tried their best to exterminate one another to the best of their ability. (Or better yet ENSLAVE each other.) And there's plenty of historical evidence to support this position Trust me, when the Europeans landed in this hemisphere, the Indians were NOT just weeks away from forming the "United League of Indians" under a big teepee someplace. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon} quote:Nope. Once again you're totally wrong. We didn't say anything of the such or make any such idiot claim. We went looking for slaves. We bought them as slaves. Period. No high and mighty bullshit excuse about it. And by the way, we didn't "kidnap" the blacks. That was already done for us...usually by other blacks. Historical facts are that the tribes of Africa were even MORE bloodthirsty than the Indians of the Western Hemisphere....if possible. Tribal Africa was (and unfortunately still IS) busy butchering one another to this day. Can you remember a year when there wasn't some massive inter-tribal war going on somewhere in Africa resulting is wholesale slaughter and famine and all the other neat things? It's so common, it's hardly even news anymore. And wouldn't you know it, but it was the blacks themselves who captured and sold most of the other blacks into slavery! Their slave trade of selling one another was going on LONG before any American ever got the crazy notion of going to buy any. Hate to burst your bubble, but America did not invent slavery! It was OLD business before we ever got involved. And compared to MOST nations around the globe, America was never much of a player in the slave game. quote:That squabble you are searching your liberal mind to recall the name for was the Civil War, Brian. And yes we did a damn good job of killing each other off...although unlike the conflicts between the Indians and Africans our Civil War was NEVER about annihilating one another or taking each other into slavery as tribal Africa and the Indians loved to do. It was just a dumbass political dispute. In fact, it wasn't even about slavery! Although the "politically correct" crowd are busy trying to rewrite the history books and tell the story otherwise.In conclusion, Brian, if you wish to argue history, I suggest you actually study a little of it so you have some clue what the hell you are talking about. [ 07-21-2002, 05:50: Message edited by: Pecos45 ] | |||
|
| one of us |
Pecos45, Man,you take the bait even better than your little buddy Todd. I also enjoy how you inject little insults through your message when you can't or don't have a good explanation for something. The popular term during the early 1800s-"We're saving Africa from the Africans". Yes,I know all about the slave trade (which has been happening since long before the birth of Christ)and the Civil War.Just how thick do you think I am for crying out loud? Walking away into the sunset......... [ 07-21-2002, 06:59: Message edited by: Brian M ] | |||
|
| One of Us |
quote:My explanations must have been pretty good, Brian. They've got you agreeing with me. Duh? quote: Really, when did you make this up? quote:One quick question, Brian. If you suddenly know all these things, why did you come on this thread and post all your stupid crap? Walking off to eat breakfast......... | |||
|
| one of us |
RMK: It appears that you have been able to take a decent thread and turn it into a racist rant with your first reply posting. It's unfortunate that most of the rest of us now have to waste our time reading this type of crap. ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif){kind=icon} stubblejumper: It is also unfortunate that you seem to be of the belief that "THEY" who commit poaching are "all" natives, like they are all the same individual, and are all inclined to be poachers and unsportsmanlike in their hunting practices. Should you and I be referred to as "THEY" when anti-hunters talk about poachers, for the simple reason that poachers and hunters both carry guns and kill animals? Of course not. There are bad apples in all cultural groups; white Canadians / Americans included. bearguide: You have posted "There is one thing evident here: Those posting in favor of the current native hunting rights are either; a)Not directly affected by these practices, or b)native Same old story." It can also be argued that those posting NOT in favour of current native hunting rights are either: a) Not having to hunt for sustenance (as SOME natives do, as do some white folks) b) NOT native Same old story. However to say something like this, would be to pressume that I am an expert in each person's life, and know exactly who, and what, they are and need. I am not in this position, nor is anyone else in this world .These types of threads are quite unfortunate, and make us all look bad. We are hunters, and are already tagged as blood thirsty, ignorant, club carrying neanderthals by the anti-hunting community. Threads like this, where some members are calling Natives "fuckers", etc, only serve to add ammunition to their argument. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are all above this. If some of us are not, that is your right, and you're allowed to have your opinion. However, this is not the place for it. YES, I am part native. My grandfather is Algonquin, from Ontario's Golden Lake Band, but first and foremost I am a Candian who hunts, and do what I can to promote this "way of life", in a positive manner. This helps to ensure this "way of life" can exist for all generations to come. For those of you who are after the same goal, I don't see this as a productive way of doing it. CDW [ 07-22-2002, 07:34: Message edited by: Woodrow ] | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well said, Woodrow. I think this topic has been beaten to death and I'm outa here. | |||
|
| one of us |
NOW, as to the real question behind this original posting........ My opinion is that while the .270 will do the job on caribou and moose, I'd prefer a .30 cal bullet for Grizzly or Polar Bear. I think the .22-250 is not a proper calibre for any of those listed species, which is also the reason why some provinces prohibit the use of centerfire rifles firing projectiles smaller than .243 calibre for big game hunting. If that's the only rifle the shooter owns, and they can shoot the bugger in the brain with that .22-250 each time to ensure an quick clean kill, then who am I to say that it's wrong though. CDW | |||
|
| one of us |
I won't go into the politics of this, but when I lived and worked in Northern Manitoba and the NWT, the most common calbers I saw were 22 Rimfire, 222 Remington and 303 British. Most of the natives I went out in the field with weren't concerned with how many shots it took to kill what they were after, and usually they got pretty close to it before they fired. So it was relatively easy for them to put the bullet in a good spot. Really hard on equipment though, the only rifles I ever saw cleaned up there were the ones I did. It's just another tool, I guess. Amazing how they would drop a polar bear with one of those guns though, most them (the guns, I mean)wouldn't hit a fruit box at a hundred paces. Very differant hunting techniques. FWIW - Dan | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |