I have already explained that, they are NOT foreigners, as you are.

The legislation WILL be re-vamped, but, what you need to understand is that the POLICY is set by certain civil servants who are lobbied by the GOs, using $$$$$ provided by foreign hunters and THAT must be our first target.

There is a fund now being setup to provide we res. hunters with monies to use in lobbying and I intend to donate to it, after Christmas. This will help, but, the media "events" as in our battle to preserve certain forest-wilderness areas some years ago, will probably be the decisive factor.

The whole thing is growing far more rapidly than I ever envisioned.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
I have already explained that, they are NOT foreigners, as you are.

How do you figure Dew? They live in a different country, live by different rules, aren't "Canadian Born" as you like to say....That would make them foreigners by any definition.....

yep. last time i checked, Kiwis, Aussies, etc. needed a passport and had to clear customs, immigrations, etc. to get into Canada. and i am pretty damn sure that they had to buy non-resident, alien hunting licenses. but of course Dewey considers all Commonwealth citizens to be non-foreigners, right Dewey?(including Bahamians, Bermudans, etc.) in fact there are 53 Commonwealth countries, with India being the largest and Tuvalu the smallest. since they are all members( with a combined population of 2.1 billion people) of the Commonwealth, it could get pretty crowded hunting in BC with just the "non-foreigners" or do you exclude the "non-white" Commonwealth members on general principles? my, my Dewey, your racism is showing unless you consider all these fine folks worthy of your support. after all, India is certainly a member of "the old Commonwealth" as you so eloquently put it. Dewey you just can't seem to help tripping over your own tongue.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
yep. last time i checked, Kiwis, Aussies, etc. needed a passport and had to clear customs, immigrations, etc. to get into Canada. and i am pretty damn sure that they had to buy non-resident, alien hunting licenses. but of course Dewey considers all Commonwealth citizens to be non-foreigners, right Dewey?(including Bahamians, Bermudans, etc.) in fact there are 53 Commonwealth countries, with India being the largest and Tuvalu the smallest. since they are all members( with a combined population of 2.1 billion people) of the Commonwealth, it could get pretty crowded hunting in BC with just the "non-foreigners" or do you exclude the "non-white" Commonwealth members on general principles? my, my Dewey, your racism is showing unless you consider all these fine folks worthy of your support. after all, India is certainly a member of "the old Commonwealth" as you so eloquently put it. Dewey you just can't seem to help tripping over your own tongue.

And no special priveledges for FN,either.

You are both Americans and WHO IN HELL are YOU, to presume to tell ME, what I should think about MY country and the traditional "Old Commonwealth" of which we are one of the four members. Maybe I should support the re-emergence of "The Confederate States of America?"

...racism... from YOU is a good one, I was in high school, during the 1960s when YOUR people in several of your southern states, in "The Land of the Free", were still LYNCHING your fellow citizens to death on Sundays after going to church BECAUSE of their RACE.....geezuz, you guys are beyond pathetic, you are simply nuts!

The fact is that REAL Canadians, like me, are very supportive of, as I posted, "The Old Commonwealth". Do you actually have the utter gall to try to tell me that I/we do not have the RIGHT to such feelings in OUR country and to act upon them, as we see fit? It seems as though you do entertain such arrogant opinions and, this is a major reason why I and many Canadians dislike your type of Americans and want them banned from hunting/fishing here.

I imagine that good Americans dislike your kind of Yankee loudmouths even more than I do.

BTW, India IS NOT a member of "The Old Commonwealth", this is a very specific term which you do not understand and it refers ONLY to the nations I listed.

I'm nuts?

You,maybe.

Me? no.
I dont have a dog in the fight,Im not trying to tell you anything.I just point out flaws in your commentary.Of which,there are quite a few.

For the record, Dewey is the only person up here whom I have ever heard talk about "the old Commonwealth", or being "supportive" of same...Foreign countries are just that to us now....Not a resident of Canada, then you have no claim to rights here.....Any more than any other non-resident at any rate.

jb,

Do you EVER actually READ what you post? Your posts are illiterate and simply foolish and, as you admit, this is NOT your affair.

To constantly lecture me about this is simply going to make me that much more determined to see very harsh restrictions on American access to our wildlife and fish and it IS happening, now.

Whether YOU agree with me, or not, whether my ...commentary...IS flawed or not, means nothing. This is one relatively inactive forum where few Canadians post very often and most of the very few that comment on this are, well, if you can't figure it out............

Really, jb, perhaps you should enroll in some "remedial English composition" courses BEFORE continuing with your blether here?

Perhaps, you might care to comment on the photos in "Life Magazine" in the early '60s, of nice, well-dressed WHITE AMERICAN youths, on SUNDAYS, after CHURCH, you know, "In God We Trust" and all that, HANGING their neigbours because they were BLACK AMERICANS????

I'm crazy.... no pal, I remember the KKK, American Nazi Party, Lincoln Rockwell, Selma, "Ol' Miss" and all the rest of your sorry, recent, bloodsoaked past!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...08/jun/12/canada.usa

It would seem your past is no better.



PM to apologise for Canada's treatment of native Americans
Digg it
Ewen MacAskill in Washington The Guardian, Thursday 12 June 2008 Article history
The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, was yesterday scheduled to apologise for one of the darkest episodes in the country's history: the inhumane treatment of native Americans spanning two centuries.

The Canadian government issued a general apology in 1998 but Harper's apology yesterday will be aimed at 150,000 students, many of whom were forcibly taken from their homes as part of a strategy aimed at destroying their culture and enforcing assimilation. Some were put in residential schools where mistreatment included sexual abuse.

One of them, Michael Cachagee, who spent 12 years in three different schools from 1944, told Associated Press: "I was beaten. I was put in tubs of hot water. I suffered great pains of hunger. I was force-fed rotten food." He added: "The intent was to destroy the Indian."

Normal business at the House of Commons in Ottawa was due to be suspended while Harper delivered the apology. About 200 representatives from the country's estimated 1 million native American population, comprising mainly the First Nations, Metis and Inuit, were invited.

Harper told the Commons on Tuesday: "I hope that we will begin the process of healing."

This year, the Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, issued a similar apology to the country's aborigines taken from their families as part of a similar assimilation programme.

The Canadian apology comes two years after the government and the churches that ran the schools settled a lawsuit brought by victims, offering C$2bn (£1bn) compensation. The forced removal of the children began in the 19th century and continued until the 1970s. At the schools, children were forbidden to use their own languages and discouraged from learning about their own cultures.

A senior official in the Indian affairs department, Duncan Campbell Scott, wrote in 1920 that the aim was to "kill the Indian in the child" until "there is not a single American Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed". About 90,000 of the 150,000 students who went through the system are still alive.

Phil Fontaine, chief of the Assembly of First Nations, described this as Canada's "dark history". Grand Chief Weaselhead, who was among those invited to attend the Commons, said the apology was "monumental".

The native population makes up about 4% of Canada's population though it remains among the poorest. Canada was one of the few nations that last year voted against the UN declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples, saying that it would create constitutional problems.

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT'S 1969 WHITE PAPER
Even in this more enlightened era, it seems they never learn from experience, governments were not through with trying to make sweeping changes in the lives of First Nations peoples without their consent. After the disaster of centralization http://www.danielnpaul.com/Centralization Implemented-1942.html, one would have thought that they would have been more sensitive when trying to introduce drastic changes into First Nations communities. But they weren't! In 1969 the government of Canada under the leadership of Pierre Elliott Trudeau had its Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chrétien, later the country's Prime Minister, present to Parliament a draconian policy on Indian Affairs for future implementation. His "White Paper" advocated the complete and immediate integration of First Nations citizens into Canadian society. This would have assured the realization of Britain and Canada's 254-year-old goal of the extinction of First Nations by assimilation.

In line with historic practices, this paper blamed the plight of the Registered Indian on everything and everyone but the biggest culprit of all, Canadian governments. The First Nations peoples were blamed, the provinces were blamed and so on, but Canada walked away almost unscratched.

This definition of the "Indian" used in the White Paper exemplifies the racist mentality still prevalent:

"To be an Indian is to be a man [sic], with all a man's needs and abilities. To be an Indian is also to be different. It is to speak different languages, draw different pictures, tell different tales and to rely on a set of values developed in a different world.

Canada is richer for its Indian component, although there have been times when diversity seemed of little value to many Canadians.

But to be a Canadian Indian today is to be someone different in another way. It is to be someone apart-apart in law, apart in the provision of Government Services and, too often, apart in social contacts.

To be an Indian is to lack power-the power to act as owner of your lands, the power to spend your own money and, too often, the power to change your own condition.

Not always, but too often, to be an Indian is to be without-without a job, a good house, or running water; without knowledge, training or technical skill and, above all, without those feelings of dignity and self-confidence that a man must have if he is to walk with his head held high.

All these conditions of the Indians are the product of history and have nothing to do with their abilities and capacities. Indian relations with other Canadians began with special treatment by government and society, and special treatment has been the rule since Europeans first settled in Canada. Special treatment has made of the Indian a community disadvantaged and apart.

Obviously, the course of history must be changed.

To be an Indian must be to be free-free to develop Indian cultures in an environment of legal, social and economic equality with other Canadians."

Whoever wrote this statement either did not know or chose to ignore Canadian history. It reads like the product of someone's stereotypical imagination. It talks of "special treatment"-does that include the genocide practised in eastern Canada? Does that include the "special treatment" of being denied schooling for 129 years during British colonial times? Does that include the "special treatment" of being denied equal citizenship until Bill C-31 was enacted 118 years or more after Confederation?

The authors discuss the lack of power of First Nations, but they do not explain why. They don't mention that White society would not permit First Nations peoples any power. It doesn't mention that the drive to take away the power of the First Nations forever was a fixation with the English and their successors in this country.

Further, the authors don't mention that the drive to strip the First Nations of their dignity, independence and property was exemplified by the 1715 meeting between the Chiefs and the British officers who demanded submission and the extinction of Mi'kmaq culture. The authors of the White Paper would not have displayed such ignorance of Canada's past if schools had taught them the true history of their country. If they had been so taught then they would have been aware that the only "special treatment" First Nations citizens ever received from British society was the "special treatment" of unbridled horrors, and that an almost identical course was adopted by Canada.

Armchair historians such as those who wrote this "statement," which stereotypes First Nations peoples, are one of the enduring obstacles that Canada's First Nations peoples confront in modern times. Native Americans from across the Americas have suffered greatly from the misrepresentation of historical facts by these people. I would suggest that before such people begin to use their pens they should appreciate this: to become a knowledgeable historian of Native American-European relations requires many years of study and research. It is beyond the capacity of any one human being, even over a lifetime, to put a dent in the mountains of material available on the First Nations in this country alone. I can state from experience that the material available on the Mi'kmaq encounter with the Europeans is mountainous and takes years to analyze adequately.

Compounding our problems further, many professional historians write about us with minds clouded by White elitist views. To write objectively about Native American-European relations requires one to have an ability to see Amerindians as dignified human beings in their own social environment. It is incredibly biased to try to judge Native Americans' "degree of civilization" only according to European concepts and standards. I have read many works of individuals who have aspired to write intelligently about the subject, but the stereotypes they hold of "uncivilized Native American savages" hamper their efforts greatly.

When trying to appreciate, analyze and understand the First Nations' viewpoints, these writers must put themselves in the shoes of these peoples who suffered continuous oppression under European occupation. They should put themselves in the place of the families and friends of those who were held hostage at British forts; in the place of those who were starving in the midst of plenty in the 1800s; and in the place of peoples who loved their way of life and tried unsuccessfully to fend off the extreme efforts of another civilization over five centuries to bring them to extinction. The non-Native writer must try to understand that, in the midst of the hardship they have been forced to endure because of their race, these people have loved and cared for one another just as non-Natives have loved and cared for family and friends!

The one line of the White Paper that does state the profound truth of why is: "All these conditions of the Indians are the product of history and have nothing to do with their abilities and capacities."

The only reason First Nations peoples have been forced to endure their sorry plight for so long is because they wish to maintain their separate identities and cultures. If they had agreed to renounce their civilizations and assimilate, they would not have been subjected to the hideous treatment they have endured. Of course, if they had renounced their civilization, their Nations would no longer exist.

This crucial fact was ignored by the bureaucrats who thought out the White Paper: The First Nations of the Americas are a unique race of people in this world. They cannot be lumped into the same pot with, for instance, the English citizen. Canadians of English heritage have another country called England that they can always refer to as their ancestral homeland, and the same holds true for the French, Italians and so on. The Native Americans have only the Americas to call home. No country beyond the American continents affords them a place under the sun. In this context Canada must give their inherent right to revive and enhance their cultures the utmost protection under law.

After country wide protests the Paper was later withdrawn

i could go on,and probably will,if need be.

Do go on, this is utterly fascinating, inasmuch as it parallels the "Wounded Knee" era, you remember, "Feebee's" shooting Lakotas....close to "YOUR" ,state, wasn't it?

There HAVE been SOME relatively minor injustices concerning aboriginal peoples here, nobody denies that. HOWEVER, my sanctimonious, hypocritical and Yankee friend, the ONLY "massacre-extirpation" of aboriginals WAS BY the very "Micmacs" who you use to bolster your false and gutter level comments and THEY slaughtered the "Beothuks" of Newfoundland.

BTW, are YOU a aboriginal, or, merely a leftist-liberal poseur who knows little history, less wildlife science and very little correct English? What you ARE, is an asshole who merely wants to bloviate here about BC hunting and you know sweet fuckall about it...or, it seems, much else.

So, carry on, just keep making false comments about Canada and telling yourself that pricks like you would be welcome to hunt here...not bloody likely.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

There HAVE been SOME relatively minor injustices concerning aboriginal peoples here, nobody denies that.

Children beaten, sexually molested, killed....Those are MINOR INJUSTICES?

Even for you Dewey thats a stretch....You are a class act dewey...a class act.

Please inform me which comments are false,they will be removed promptly.provide documentation.

No I am not an aboriginal.

Im certainly not "leftist liberal".

As always,when you have no facts to support your position,you resort to name calling,and personal attacks on the opposition.Are you going to PM me your name and address,like you did to norton,when he tried to debate with you last week,asking him to show up and fight?
The problem is ,your statements are so ridiculous,they need to be opposed.

who's nuts?

Actually, I did not ask Norton to fight, I merely gave him the opportunity to meet me, as he stated that he wanted to and then, he chose to NOT backup his boasting.

If, you want my full name, address and so forth, sure, I will PM it to you if you ask me to; I have nothing to hide and have nothing but utter contempt for you and your kind.

WHY, do you "need" to oppose what a foreign national says or wishes to do in HIS country; THAT is the real problem here. Very simply, foreigners like you are NOT welcome in BC, as hunters, anglers, investors in GO businesses or even as simple tourists. While I have no problem with most Americans and have scores of close relatives in the US, my comments concerning you and those like you are not ridiculous, they are factual.

like I thought,no facts or debate,just name calling.

arguing with Dewey is like dueling with an unarmed man- ultimate pointless and of no challenge. when logic fails him, he resorts to schoolyard name calling and ignores the facts, i can't comprehend how forcing a child to give up his/her culture," sodomy, etc. amount to a few 'MINOR" injustices? and in case the facts escape you Dewey, these abuses persisted well past their cessation in the US.

I'm imagining a man in a fur hat, red in the face, hyperventilating and on the verge of tears.

Aren't there any forum "rules of conduct" here?

As to some statements about 'welcome', please know Dewey doesn't represent many of 'us', but of course, hopefully you already knew that.

Daryl, one of the best things about AR IS the freedom to express one's thoughts/opinions/feelings openly as is impossible on most lesser forums. I prefer this, with all of it's "warts" to the "moderation" found on most forums and most here are big boys who can handle a few back and forth "shots" with little trouble.

Now, are you currently guiding and a member of the GOABC as this does tend to make your posts rather biased, IMHO. I think that, should you conduct a survey throughout BC, that FAR MORE BC citizens ARE opposed to foreign trophy hunting here than support your position and that of the GOABC.

Not to re-open this rather acrimonious and largely immaterial thread, but, as you are/were a guide, I think that your posts here are deliberately intended to advance the GOABC's agenda. In any event, when the "Five Ring Circus" is over and the government changes, the situation concerning foreign hunting will change and I would bet you know WHO will benefit........

Interesting concepts - yes - I've guided in the past, but only because I like to hunt & guiding allowed me to 'hunt' solid for 2 month, rather than the day or two it takes to fill my own freezer. Guiding was also an opportunity to see first hand, the calibre of hunter and enabled me to make a direct comparrison with locals - ehtics, skill, etc.

I'm not guiding right now due to back pmoblems, but hope to in the future - maybe next year - maybe the year after - before I get too old for it.

A number of 'foreign' hunters I've met while camp sitting (I love to be in the bush) remain today most valued friends - in the US as well as in England & Germany. I'm proud to call them friends and hope they return hunting soon.

I've not met very many local BC hunters I'd even want to call friends - hunter slobs is closer to the truth for many hunting in this area, and many of those come from the lower mainland & Van. Island to hunt. They aren't all like that, but many are - the resident slobs far outnumber non-residents - per capita hunting, that is. That is my observation.

BTW, residents could learn a great deal from US fishermen on stream etiquette and how to release fish. Resident fishermen, for the most part, lack morals when it comes to our fish. How many residents would save for year to come fishing just to catch and release Steelhead? I've met a good dozen US flyfishermen who do just that.


Maybe I'm biased, probably am, but I prefer to think of my experiences with non-resident hunters and fishermen as being eyeopening and valuable experiences.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
Daryl, one of the best things about AR IS the freedom to express one's thoughts/opinions/feelings openly as is impossible on most lesser forums. I prefer this, with all of it's "warts" to the "moderation" found on most forums and most here are big boys who can handle a few back and forth "shots" with little trouble.

Now, are you currently guiding and a member of the GOABC as this does tend to make your posts rather biased, IMHO. I think that, should you conduct a survey throughout BC, that FAR MORE BC citizens ARE opposed to foreign trophy hunting here than support your position and that of the GOABC.

Not to re-open this rather acrimonious and largely immaterial thread, but, as you are/were a guide, I think that your posts here are deliberately intended to advance the GOABC's agenda. In any event, when the "Five Ring Circus" is over and the government changes, the situation concerning foreign hunting will change and I would bet you know WHO will benefit........

when the situation changes, it will be the anti-hunters that win. Vancouver/Victoria is the voting tail that wags the electorate dog in BC and when the yuppie/Chinese/ other minorities with NO hunting tradition there are swayed by the PETA adds and decide to "save" Bambi and Yogi, you and the rest of BC hunters will be SOL. if you don't think it can happen, look at the title of this thread. ALL hunters in BC are going to need all the political muscle they can get and that includes the lobbying power of GOABC. keep up your idiotic crusade to exclude "foreign" hunters( realizing of course that Aussies, Kiwis, and Brits aren't foreign), and soon enough you will be headed to Alberta to fill a tag.

If you want to know where Dewey gets his xenophobia, then just research this topic:

"After Great Britain entered the First World War in August 1914, the government of Canada issued an Order in Council under the War Measures Act. It required the registration and in certain cases the internment of aliens of "enemy nationality". This included the more than 80,000 Canadians who were formerly citizens of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. These individuals had to register as "enemy aliens" and report to local authorities on a regular basis. Twenty-four "concentration camps" (later called "internment camps") were established across Canada, eight of them in British Columbia. View a list of World War 1 Concentration Camps. The camps were supposed to house enemy alien immigrants who had contravened regulations or who were deemed to be security threats. In fact, the "enemy aliens" could be interned if they failed to register, or failed to report monthly, or travelled without permission, or wrote to relatives in Austria.

Other less concrete reasons given for internment included "acting in a very suspicious manner" and being "undesirable". By the middle of 1915, 4000 of the internees had been imprisoned for being "indigent" (poor and unemployed). A total of 8,579 Canadians were interned between 1914 and 1920. Over 5,000 of them were of Ukrainian descent. Germans, Poles, Italians, Bulgarians, Croatians, Turks, Serbians, Hungarians, Russians, Jews, and Romanians were also imprisoned. Of the 8,579 internees, only 2,321 could be classed as "prisoners of war" (i.e. "captured in arms or belonging to enemy reserves"); the rest were civilians.

Upon each individual's arrest, whatever money and property they had was taken by the government. In the internment camps they were denied access to newspapers and their correspondence was censored. They were sometimes mistreated by the guards. One hundred and seven internees died, including several shot while trying to escape. They were forced to work on maintaining the camps, road-building, railway construction, and mining. As the need for soldiers overseas led to a shortage of workers in Canada, many of these internees were released on parole to work for private companies."

"During World War II the War Measures Act was used again to intern Canadians, and 26 internment camps were set up across Canada. In 1940 an Order in Council was passed that defined enemy aliens as "all persons of German or Italian racial origin who have become naturalized British subjects since September 1, 1922". (At the time, Canada didn't grant passports and citizenship on its own, so immigrants were "naturalized" by becoming British subjects.) A further Order in Council outlawed the Communist Party. Estimates suggest that some 30,000 individuals were affected by these Orders; that is, they were forced to register with the RCMP and to report to them on a monthly basis. The government interned approximately 500 Italians and over 100 communists."

http://www.britishcolumbia.com...al/details.asp?id=44

Daryl, I agree, there are slob hunters here in BC who are residents and that is a frustrating situation for we who love the bush and practise conservation in our personal lives. I carry a garbage can, contractor's bags, two rakes, two shovels and other such tools in my vehicles and have cleaned up many campsites....including garbage left by Americans at "White Swan Lake" campground.

I do not, however, see a causative link between this and the deliberate and on-going campaign by the GOABC to severely restrict resident's access to our game/fish and their lack of adherence to the provincial allocation policy that they were part of negotiating and signed off on. The fact is that the GOABC HAS, IS and seems to want to continue to grab more of BC's wildlife and fish for their foreign clients and they use foreign money to finance this.....would you deny this?

As to the Steelhead situation, I am totally opposed to ANY fishery for ANY species where "catch and release" must be used to keep their population levels at a sustainable level. I want to see a fishery that will provide food fish for we BC citizens who OWN these fish, this done by sporting tackle, not nets or weirs, and if that is not sustainable, I do not want rich foreigners playing "catch and release" with these fish.

I appreciate that you have friendships with former clients from various parts of the world and that is neat. However, we in BC cannot base our management and allocation decisions upon personal friendships and we simply have to stop allowing foreign interests to dominate and control our resource issues as they have for so long....the "catch and release" comes, in large measure, from an AMERICAN who was, for years, the head of the fishery section of MOE, David Narver and, HE WAS VERY "pro" Yankee fishing here, when I spoke with him on this issue...simply, NOT acceptable.

We will never settle this issue here and many of the foreigners who choose to make false and arrogant comments concerning it have simply made me realize that the problem of perceived RIGHT to hunt/fish here by these foreigners is far worse than I had thought. So, my attitude is growing more in favour of Canadian-only hunting/fishing in BC and I sure know a lot of people here who agree.

I hope your back heals, I spent decades working in the "tall and uncut" with severe orthopaedic injuries and know what it feels like. I would be pretty cautious about a return to big game guiding with a back problem, if I were you, you only get "issued" one spine!

If, you ever get to Vancouver, shoot me a PM and I will buy you lunch and we can BS over this in person. Don't worry, I am not nearly as terrible a person as some here would depict me and, if you are into guns, I can show you some pretty neat stuff I have collected over the years.

quote:

For the record, Dewey is the only person up here whom I have ever heard talk about "the old Commonwealth", or being "supportive" of same...Foreign countries are just that to us now....Not a resident of Canada, then you have no claim to rights here.....Any more than any other non-resident at any rate.

I disagree with bushmonkey on this. I and many of my friends feel a high level of kinship with all Commonwealth, post and present peoples. This is probably due to our upbringing under the "Jack".

Dewey, as the back, it's been healing since the operation 10 years ago and is slowly getting better - morphine helps - a bit.

Used to be in Vancouver twice a year, but since my wife's family will be all moved to the Kootenies by next spring, that's unlikely to happen again. I would have like to have a brew with you - I've been 'involved' with firearms since 1960 (10 yrs. old), when I got my first rifle, a .22 Ace single shot & started hunting on my own in SouthWestern Ontario. Times have changed.
As to the guides and outfitters grabbing game from us, I don't see it. They have stringent restrictions on quotas in their areas - and those outfitters I've guided for, hunt where no residents hunt so there is literally no impact on 'our' game as far as we, the BC resident is concerned. Perhaps this is different in other areas - but not in my own meagre experience.

Just returned from a long and relaxing trip to MT.....it was nice to check in to this thread and see a voice of reason added by Daryl S. Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
I should also mention here that ALL non-resident hunting in B.C. IS NOW under attack by various forces and it is merely a matter of time until the government sees a political advantage to totally ending it, as they now do with banning bear hunting.

As an "educated guess", I would give foreign hunting here in B.C. from 5-9 years and I suspect that that former figure is closer to what will happen. ANY licence CAN be cancelled by a Ministry Regional Manager and they are receiving a LOT of domestic pressure to ban "trophy" collecting by foreigners.

Anybody can make foolish and nasty comments, but, B.C. is changing rapidly and not in a way that is supportive of foreigners killing our wildlife for their ego-gratification. Too bad, so sad and about bloody well time!

Within 5 years we will all be one Big Nation(Canada,US,Mexico)Its on the fast track now.Nothing you can do about it.Then you will see even more Hunters.

When that happens there won't be any hunting any where in N. Amer. and you won't be able to own firearms.

[/QUOTE]
Within 5 years we will all be one Big Nation(Canada,US,Mexico)Its on the fast track now.Nothing you can do about it.Then you will see even more Hunters. [/QUOTE]

What utter nonsense, must be too much "Wild Turkey" on Thanksgiving..........

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:

Within 5 years we will all be one Big Nation(Canada,US,Mexico)Its on the fast track now.Nothing you can do about it.Then you will see even more Hunters. [/QUOTE]

What utter nonsense, must be too much "Wild Turkey" on Thanksgiving..........[/QUOTE]

Nope NAFTA was the prelude to The North American Union .No borders between Canada,USA and Mexico .All currancy will be replaced by the Amero.You best get busy and check what treatys your Politicos are signing behind your back.The more you check,you will find out it is real.

Another idiot for my "ignore list".

Damn Dewey, I thought everyone was on your ignore list.....you don't need anyone's input with the crap you proffer.

Will the NA Union be preferred to the New World Order?

Can't help but think of the member countries of Disarmed Populace the UN was spouting about a few years back- or so the 'word' was.

quote:

Originally posted by Daryl S.:
Will the NA Union be preferred to the New World Order?

Can't help but think of the member countries of Disarmed Populace the UN was spouting about a few years back- or so the 'word' was.

Prelude to One World Government.I am not happy about it,but it is coming unless people are made aware and kick all the self serving politicians out of office.

quote:

Originally posted by Dewey:
Another idiot for my "ignore list".

Bury your head in the sand.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Dewey:

There HAVE been SOME relatively minor injustices concerning aboriginal peoples here, nobody denies that.


Children beaten, sexually molested, killed....Those are MINOR INJUSTICES?

I was wondering about the Small-Pox infested blankets handed out in Alberta - but that was ????only????? one province/

The ONLY report of such a barbarous act, came from the USA and involved an 18thC. situation. Recently and, I am sorry, but, I cannot offer a link to documentary evidence at this time, this has been debunked and NO actual evidence of DELIBERATE GOVERNMENT POLICY condoning such actions exists.

When, you research a historical topic, you must consider it in it's entire context to understand it factually. The hideous practice of slavery, for example, stained the "land of the free" for longer than any other "civilized" nation, yet, very FEW Americans in what became, briefly, the CSA EVER actually owned slaves....were/are THEY guilty?

The major incidents I recall here in BC, were the forcible removal of Indians from what is now the park close to "the Planetarium" and the destruction of some of their villages by the flooding of the Kemano Dam for the aluminum smelter at Kitimat. This last left coffins floating in the forming hydro reservoir and is a bloody disgrace to BC.

However, I KNEW people from the oldest pioneer families in the Arrow Lakes and Lardeau regions of the Kootenays that were forcibly removed from THEIR farms and then THESE were flooded and they STILL are not allowed to buy them back from "Beastly Hydro"......is there a difference?

My point in that post was simply to point out that ALL humans have been horribly treated BY other humans and the aborigines here have no greater "right" to complain about this than do the "Acadians" or the returned wounded and maimed, dying WWI Canadian "vets" and on and on and on..........

I am skeptical of "oral history" as I tend to agree with Napoleon Bonaparte, "history is a story told by the victor"..... So, I do not accept the various myths about "abuse" without research and corroboration....

I was a pupil at the school in BC which had the WORST record of abuse and I KNOW about it......but, I learned to deal with it as everyone must if you wish to survive and have a good life.