Impacts of the Interim Métis Harvesting Agreements

• The intent of this agreement is to allow Métis people the opportunity to harvest for “subsistence” purposes. Fish & Wildlife’s interpretation of subsistence is “food”. The Métis have expanded this definition to include clothing, shelter, ceremonial, religious, and cultural pursuits. Consequently, Métis people may now be able to legally harvest bald eagles, caribou, pregnant cow moose in March, elk calves in July, trophy bighorn sheep rams during the sensitive breeding season in December, mountain goats while on their wintering range, grizzly bears, duck eggs in May, and whooping cranes. Exactly what they can and cannot harvest is not clearly defined. It could take many, many years of litigation in order to solve this.

Alberta's licenced hunters have just recently been given the opportunity to draw for a mountain goat harvest. This draw is limited to a mere 7 tags and is a once-in-a-lifetime opportuntiy. Métis can now hunt as many mountain goats as they wish. The end result will be a closure of the draw to regulated licenced hunters in Alberta. Is this acceptable?

• There are two terms used in this agreement, which seem to have made it palatable to government and the public – “conservation and subsistence.” The agreement states that Métis people will be able to harvest year-round, unless there is a “closure for conservation reasons.” While this sounds reasonable, in reality, closure for conservation reasons will occur only once a species is in crisis. While recreational licenced hunters are prohibited from hunting, for example, in March (for conservation reasons), this does not apply to Métis. While recreational licenced hunters must draw for one of the few goat tags available in the province, a Metis hunter can shoot any number of goats. While recreational licenced hunters cannot shoot a caribou, Metis hunters can shoot any number, any sex, at any time. In reality, Metis hunters have been effectively released from any conservation or wildlife management responsibility, and have simply been encouraged not to harvest beyond what is reasonable.
   

• This agreement is in effect for “subsistence” harvest. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that subsistence equates to food. The Métis Nation of Alberta (MNA) has expanded that definition to include clothing, shelter, ceremonial, religious, and cultural pursuits. In reality, almost everyone who hunts in Alberta today does so primarily as a form of recreation – Métis included. What the Métis are claiming is “subsistence” – is in reality, recreation.

For many people in Alberta the grizzly bear is considered to be threatened. While this may not be true, an unregulated hunt of this magnificent animal will be disastrous for the management of the species. If Métis hunters decide to pursue the great bear where its numbers are low, the impact will be forever.

• There are few people in Alberta who can honestly claim that they need more meat than what current wildlife management regulations will allow them to harvest - Métis included.
   

• There have already been a number of trophy animals killed under the auspices of the Métis Harvest Agreement. The reports of bighorn sheep harvests, for example, are just starting to show up – and they are alarming. Two rams shot in January were killed by the same person. He shot one with a rifle, and another with a bow. The Métis Nation of Alberta will tell you that their people are only hunting for food. This simply is not the case. There are many Métis people who have “recreationally” hunted under the current Alberta Government wildlife management regulations, who now believe that they have struck a windfall of opportunity to harvest whatever they want, when they want – and they are doing exactly that.
   

• Wildlife management is very complex at the best of times. Managing for the unknown treaty harvest is a huge challenge. Introducing at a minimum 67,000 or as many as 90,000 more unknown potential harvesters into the equation totally flies in the face of the very basic principles of twenty-first century wildlife management. This agreement has the potential to totally reverse many of the gains made in wildlife management – often by the sacrifice and sweat of Alberta’s sportsmen and women.
   

• The Métis Nation of Alberta has been swamped by new members ever since this agreement was announced. The biggest majority of these people are urban dwellers who see this as an opportunity to hunt without the restrictions of licences, seasons, harvest quotas, etc. The Métis Nation of Alberta is crossing their fingers that their members will hunt “responsibly”.

The vast majority of Métis people reside in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary and do not require or need the right to unregulated hunting, fishing and trapping. In fact, only those living an "Indian Mode of Life" should even be considered for such a right on our crown lands.

• If this agreement goes through without challenge, it seems logical that the next steps are land claims, income tax exemptions, education and health care supplements, etc. All of the provinces in Canada will be faced with the same situation.
   

• In 1989, the Alberta Government signed the Métis Settlement Accord, which gave special recognition to the Alberta Métis Settlements. There are 8 of these settlements, with a 2006 population forecast of about 8,000 people. They were given title to 1.26 million acres of land, a cash payout of $310,000,000 and basically a fairly strong mandate of self government. They have had year-round, hunting, fishing and harvesting privileges on these “traditional lands” for many years now. This recognition satisfies the requirements of the Powley case.
   

• Similarly, with few exceptions, Métis people will now be allowed domestic fishing nets in almost all bodies of water – including lakes with zero catch tolerances for licenced recreational fishers.

• Métis people are your neighbours, your bosses, your doctors and your lawyers. They are a modern people living in modern cities running successful businesses. This right to unregulated hunting and fishing will do little more than harm fish and wildlife populations as well as create social tension and financial implications that may never be undone. Many Métis themselves are against this agreement.