Hunting in the dark fraught with danger, whatever court says
The Province
Published: Wednesday, December 27, 2006
When Governor James Douglas agreed to treaty terms in 1852 with members of the Tsartlip nation on Vancouver Island, he had every reason to be generous.
The 1,000-odd white settlers were hugely outnumbered by about 30,000 natives, whose friendship was essential for protection from raids by warring tribes from the North.
Douglas took care to guarantee the Tsartlip the right to hunt and fish as they had since "time immemorial" on all "unoccupied lands."
And since the Tsartlip had a long tradition of foraging in the dark, using pitch lamps to light their way in canoes, their treaty included the right to hunt at night.
Today, of course, the "unoccupied lands" are vastly more populated, and the gear for night- hunting includes motor vehicles, lights and rifles.
The question that came before the Supreme Court of Canada last week was whether this contemporary version of the traditional hunt impacts on the 1852 treaty.
The Court ruled 4-3 that it did not -- with the majority of the justices asserting that Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen were within their treaty rights when, in 1996, they blasted away in the dark at a decoy deer set up near a gravel road by conservation officials.
The two natives were convicted under provincial law of hunting with a firearm during prohibited hours. The trial judge found their actions "inherently unsafe."
But the Supreme Court demurred, ruling that safety wasn't an issue.
It said that, since B.C. "is a very large province," night hunting isn't "unsafe everywhere and in all circumstances."
The ruling means that the Tsartlip treaty overrules provincial laws outlawing hunting at night.
The decision has triggered some predictable outrage, with most letter-writers to The Province agreeing with the three minority judges on the court that hunting in the dark is downright dangerous, full stop.
We think it is a general rule that native treaties should be generously interpreted to the advantage of aboriginal people. But generosity must stop short of exposing citizens to unnecessary hazards.
In today's changed world, it is silly to allow hunters wielding guns in the woods in the dark. Even the two natives were unable to distinguish between a decoy and a deer.
The provincial government is right to insist it will continue to protect us from such folly.
The law, as it's said, is sometimes an ass.
- What do you think? Leave a brief comment, name and town at: 604-605-2029, fax: 604-605-2099 or e-mail: provletters@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Province 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Province
True hunters don't pitlamp
Letter
Published: Wednesday, December 27, 2006
True hunters would be ashamed to pitlamp.
Tradition is an opinion, belief or custom handed down from ancestors to posterity especially orally or by practice.
Blinding an animal with a high-powered light and then shooting it with a high-powered rifle just doesn't seem to be right. How can you be proud after that?
Copper pots of burning pitch, bows and arrows, now there's something you can be proud of.
Don Mowat,
Shalalth
Your Vancouver Sun
Night hunting ruling missed the target
Letter
Published: Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Re: Chiefs' union hails night hunting ruling, Dec. 22
The Supreme Court of Canada has decided it's acceptable for some Canadians to drive around at night with high-powered rifles and brilliant electrical spotlights and, when they spot the reflection of eyes from the forest, to shoot -- presumably between the eyes. This decision was based on a treaty from 1852 when, if I have my timelines right, there were no trucks, high-powered rifles or electrical spotlights.
What if those eyes don't belong to a deer? What if they belong to a stray cow? Or to the farmer searching for his stray?
The only thing supreme about this ruling is the stupidity.
Robert A. Turnbull
Richmond