Quinte Fishing

Thinking and reading, researching and always trying to keep an open mind (even for an old guy...or gal).....such is the life of ODG.

Here is a twist to accomodate a few factions (there are a number of reasons why this will not work....but I must play with this one); I have other personal assignments, but found this entertaining.....

Regarding Aboriginal Harvest (simple but containable regulatory method for any area...let alone the whole country...lol; that part is silly)
____________________________________________________________
1) Season: throughout the entire calendar year for species present during the time of said treaty's were introduced, or Canadian confederation (1867).
2) Harvest Area- defined as within a bands treaty area and limited to card carrying members of that band; this can be transferred, but must be supported by band endorced documentation and acceptance; harvest without documentation support by the local band will be deemed an offence covered a fine, confiscation of all related equipment and assets used while incurring or supporting said actions; all money to be given to the local band to support local fish and wildlife projects
3) Harvest Methods- A) traditional harvest methods, and materials (eg. handmade- spear, hand net, bow and arrow, etc.) from a given area at the time of treaty will be allowed a harvest amount equal to the amount the harvest bearer may carry by oneself, without assistance to an appropriate storage area on a daily basis; this includes a possecian equal to 3 times what the harvester can carry themselves, in order to assist family needs for the calender year.
B) Harvest amounts using equipment and techniques not introduced at the time a treaty or Canadian confederation was introduced (eg. semi automatic rifle, forged hooks on a set line and including gill nets not made out of local natural/non-processed materials) will be limited to sporting methods and limits employed by the provincial or territory area, and the provincial or territory limits employed by said area. Daily limits will be enforced with a possecian limit not to exceed 3 times the provincial or territory amount

Simple ideas from a simple old man....or woman. This could be introduced in select areas of acceptance and on the surface, looks interesting. Just having a whale of a time......with abstract resource allocation notions
ODG

I have consciously left out breech of harvest options..... this area is so much fun....it is puzzling why some daring young up and coming judge or lawyer has not tried to bring something like this forth.....just food for the imagination.....
ODG

Could you please re-define further-.."handmade?"

_________________
yours in conversation.,
Todd

ODG:

We're normally pleased whenever you decide to share your musings with us but this post would appear to be somewhat beyond the semblance of acceptable realism for many "factions" because it maintains a predilection for "special" Aboriginal rights (i.e. rights different from non-Aboriginals). The concept that text penned some 240 years ago and oral historical accounts of events guide/rule what rights/privileges Aboriginals now enjoy is silly and both logically and morally unacceptable. Indeed, it is this text and judicial interpretations of it that permit the present useless slaughter and waste of spawning walleye.

Aboriginal communities have always fought vigourously against "assimilation" into the Canadian fabric of life from the very start. Can anyone realistically expect a change in direction? Consequently, piece-meal solutions draped with unique rights and privileges separate from all non-Aboriginal Canadians should not even be considered as potentially acceptable. Aboriginal communities would reject such suggestions anyway. The Canadian Government experiment with Aboriginal communities has failed miserably as have other government experiments (with select groups of people) that include the wholesale hand out of assets (dollars, residences, properties, services, make-work-employment, education, health care, etc). Such programs have had questionable results and have served only to demean and undermine the self esteem of those impacted. Inaction by various levels of governments within Canada to protect natural resources for the equal benefit of all Canadians has not surprisingly culminated in ill feelings and illegal actions by some law abiding (normally) citizens (e.g. rock throwing, vehicles vandalized, etc). Government inaction is to blame for allowing such situations to deteriorate to this. Bold new steps, not tied to the past, are required to protect and preserve our natural resources for both present and future generations.

"...wholesale hand out of assets (dollars, residences, properties, services, make-work-employment, education, health care, etc)."

Sorry, can't totally agree with your response Acceptable. Not sure about other special interest groups you refer to in your post, but in the Aboriginal situation the above items (hand outs as your refer to them) would be the equivalent of rent. It's basically shut up money to cover up the real issue of government control and exploitation of natural resources on lands with unextinguished Aboriginal title. Avoids the courts and is probably an Acceptable expense in the view of government given the other alternatives. Anyway on another note...
Regarding the Bay of Quinte advisory committee. A friend of mine called Gord Prisco's office (of the Minister of Natural Resources' office) to inquire about a phone number for Tom Worden and guess what? The secretary didn't know who he was!

Must be a freeking lawyer...right.........hahahahaha.......

Ahhhhh.....it is good to see some questioning, fertile minds like Acceptables responce. (just a pun)

Please read this in full my inquisitive inquring fellow outdoorsperson. This is merely meant to fuel abstract thought into alternative methods. That is all. Debate and questioning can be a very good thing. Thank-you for responding.
ODG