https://leaderpost.com/news/sa...t-in-provincial-park



Judge finds First Nations hunters had right to hunt in provincial park

Two First Nations hunters accused of illegal hunting within the boundaries of Moose Mountain Provincial Park have been found not guilty.

HEATHER POLISCHUK, REGINA LEADER-POST Updated: August 1, 2019


Two First Nations hunters from Ontario accused of illegal hunting within the boundaries of Saskatchewan’s Moose Mountain Provincial Park have been acquitted, a judge having found they had the constitutional right to hunt for food within Saskatchewan Crown lands.

The two men — Blair S. Hill and Albert Edward Green — were charged under The Wildlife Act in relation to allegations from October 2018. Both were charged with unlawful hunting on Oct. 28. Hill faced an additional charge of unlawfully carrying a loaded firearm on the same date while Green faced an additional unlawful hunting charge from Oct. 29.

After considering the matter, provincial court Judge Doug Kovatch agreed with submissions from defence counsel Dusty Ernewein: that the men, as treaty members of Six Nations First Nation in Ontario who were hunting for food, were not bound by The Wildlife Act and so were not guilty of the offences.

“The accused are clearly Indian persons,” the judge wrote in his decision issued at Regina Provincial Court this week. “The Crown has conceded they were hunting for food and that Indian persons had a right of access to these lands to hunt for food. As a result, these accused persons were exercising a constitutional right granted to them pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement. The provisions of The Wildlife Act were not applicable to them and they must be found not guilty of the charges.”

Kovatch had been asked to decide whether the men were lawfully exercising a right to hunt for food under the NRTA. He referred to case law that found the NRTA is a constitutional document and that provincial legislation — such as Saskatchewan’s Wildlife Act — does not unilaterally remove constitutionally protected hunting rights.

Kovatch embarked on a historical examination of Canadian treaties and the formation of the province’s Crown lands. He noted unoccupied Crown lands in the three Prairie provinces, along with natural resources and resulting revenues, initially fell under federal control, but were later transferred to the provinces through the NRTA.

He noted various cases in which unlawful hunting charges were tossed out when the accused showed he or she fell under paragraph 12 of the NRTA.

The Crown argued that if the two men accused in this case didn’t have a prior existing treaty right to hunt in Saskatchewan, they couldn’t claim a right to hunt under the province’s NRTA.

But Kovatch found there was nothing in the language of the paragraph in question to lead him to a similar conclusion as the Crown. He found the Crown “has gone too far” in interpreting the relevant paragraph as meaning only First Nations people residing within treaty lands situated entirely or in part within Saskatchewan can exercise their constitutional hunting rights within the province.

Green, along with three other men, continues to face additional charges under The Wildlife Act pertaining to allegations of unlawful hunting from between Oct. 29 and 31, 2017 west of Rocanville. The four are also accused of possession of wildlife taken in contravention of the Act and hunting on signed land without the consent of the owner. Those charges are next set to be spoken to in court on Aug. 28.

hpolischuk@postmedia.com

twitter.com/LPHeatherP

Maybe the judges will rule it is okay for them to take scalps as well.

BH63

they'll regret that decision here shortly.

Those Ontario Natives are in a league of their own, the Native version of the Mafia.

Grizz

By rule according to the law. Natural Resources Act, (Statutes of Canada, 1930 - BC, AB, SK & MB) Section 12 -

"In order to secure to the Indians of the Province the continuance of the supply of game and fish for their support and subsistence, Canada agrees that the laws respecting game in force in the Province from time to time shall apply to the Indians within the boundaries thereof, provided however, that the said Indians shall have the right, which the Province hereby assures to them, of hunting, trapping and fishing game and fish for food at all seasons of the year on all unoccupied Crown lands and on any other lands to which the said Indians may have a right of access."

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.c...A-10.6/FullText.html

And I'm sure they rode their horses from Ontario with bow and arrow in tow. Come on judge, get with the times.

Similar decision in Wyoming
Where do these people/judges come from?
Planet X?

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
Similar decision in Wyoming
Where do these people/judges come from?
Planet X?

They come from the cities most likely never have hunted or fished.

They rule so they feel good.

I always believed it’s about what is good for game
We have always been fed that classic bullshit about “ native subsistence hunting “
In today’s day and age, it’s all about “ I want it all and I want it now “
So what happened to that “ Indian crap about being one with nature?”

OP ruling based on legal argument and constitutional law. Historical background -

state of war > peace negotiations > agreement on peace terms & conditions (1 is hunting right) > peace treaty signed > peace

Treaty is affirmed in the constitution.

I seriously doubt that at the time of treaty that they were hunting with 300 Win Mags from the front seat of pickups and snow machines. How about just a small measure of common sense?

In reference to the OP ruling, no such wording or clauses in their treaty limiting the use of any of that. Courts won't/can't unilaterally change treaty wording or add/delete clauses. Doing that is unconstitutional. Courts can only interpret treaty wording as it was when signed. And decide how interpretations apply in prosecutions.

this sounds just like the second amendment argument we have down here.
only somehow it manages to get infringed and cut down and modified.

I guess it just depends on which side of the fence your on as to whether something is common sense or an infringement.

In many cases firearms were confiscated at the time of surrender or treaty. So would it not follow that their "right" should be restricted to that technology? Sickening to see a "traditional" whale hunt in the Arctic using 90 HP Yamahas, harpoon guns and hard side skiffs.

Treaties in this context mean conditional peace not surrender. Treaty terms and conditions vary by tribe and jurisdiction. Some tribes don't even have treaties to this day. Some treaties specifically include an ammunition allowance for hunting.

Require them to hunt only with handmade type wooden bows of their past and only with handmade wooden arrows with flint rock points. Same goes for spears and tomahawks.

So much for “ Natives harmony with nature “
My ass, they take until nothing is left and then they demand more
Besides, who is native?
50% and up? Of what? Or born here?
I’d like to see that in court judgment ...

It is all just travesty...either we all are in it together and good conservation continues or greed wins