Web
Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter

Deer hunt at RBG this week met with organized opposition on social media

The Haudenosaunee Wildlife and Habitat Authority will be harvesting deer this week as part of a controlled hunt at the Royal Botanical Gardens Arboretum.

From December 16-20 trails will be closed to the public as the HWHA helps the park control deer populations within its borders.

The Haudenosaunee Wildlife and Habitat Authority will be harvesting deer this week as part of a controlled hunt at the Royal Botanical Gardens Arboretum.

From December 16-20 trails will be closed to the public as the HWHA helps the park control deer populations within its borders.

In a press release earlier this week the RBG stated that it is “one of Canada’s most important botanical gardens, distinguished by a first class horticultural collection”. This distinction has become threatened by what the RBG says is an out of balance population of deer in the park.

The press release also states the “…health and well-being of RBG collections is threatened. It is well documented that the White-tailed deer population in the region is well above the provincial average density. A segment of the regional deer population has moved from natural food plants to collections material in the arboretum resulting in significant damage from browse and antler rubbing–in many cases causing death of the plants.” For this purpose the park has sought the assistance of the Haudenosaune, inviting the hunters to collect deer for one week.

Royal Botanical Gardens also stated in the release that they “…approached the Haudenosaunee Wildlife and Habitat Authority (HWHA), representatives of the Hadenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, because of their relationship with Dundas Valley and Ontario Parks (Short Hills). The HWHA has experience instituting deer harvests that may help manage deer populations.”

However the deer hunt is being opposed by an online collective under the Facebook group ‘Protest against Royal Botanical Gardens Deer Hunt’. The group has organized a social media campaign via Facebook and Twitter to express their opposition. Many group members participated in a campaign, using social media to offer bad reviews of the RBG online in relation to the hunt. This organized effort resulted in a barrage of anti-hunting comments left on the park’s Facebook site and a ratings loss, bringing the park down to 4 out of 5 stars.

Group members are taking to Twitter, using the hashtags #RBGCanadaDeerKill and #deeroverlilacs in hopes these will be start to trend on Twitter, bringing social media attention to the voice of opposition.

The group lists contact information for Ministry officials and MP’s to voice their opposition. There will be an on-site protest of the hunt at the gates to the park for the week.

The Hamilton Police Services have been contacted to ensure public safety for all throughout the week.

44 comments

Posts Carousel

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

44 Comments

  • Cory Grant
    December 16, 2013, 6:48 am

    Hunting in southern Ontario is an Indignenous right – not a tradition or a special occasion – tha has already been confirmed by the courts (on many occasions).

    REPLY
    • Garry Horsnell@Cory Grant
      December 16, 2013, 8:20 am

      For people from the Six Nations, that is assuming the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty is valid.

      In the 1990 R. v. Ireland case, some Oneida men from the Oneida of the Thames reserve near London were charged with hunting without permits outside of the reserve. They used the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty to justify hunting outside of the reserve and the case against them was dismissed.

      The lawyers and the judge simply assumed the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty was valid. Nobody actually challenged the validity of the treaty. That was not what the case was about.

      And, by the way, there is nothing in the 1923 Williams treaties with the Mississauga Indians and the Ojibwa (Chippewa) Indians that says they can hunt without permits outside of their reserves.

      And how about the Mississauga of the New Credit? Do they have any agreement or treaty that says they can hunt without permits outside of their reserve?

      REPLY
      • Cory Grant@Garry Horsnell
        December 16, 2013, 4:12 pm

        There is no assumption that the Nanfan is valid. It has been confirmed by the courts and accepted as a treaty right.

        REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Cory Grant
          December 17, 2013, 7:20 am

          I wouldn’t say the Canadian court have confirmed 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty is valid. The courts have simply assumed the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty is valid. There is a difference.

          No one, to my knowledge, has actually challenged the validity of the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty itself in court.

          When only 20 chiefs from the Five (later Six) Nations Haudensaunee Confederacy signed the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty, why would it be valid if there are 50 Grand Council chiefs and Six Nations people have said 50 chiefs should reach consensus and sign treaties according to conditions in the Great Law of Peace?

          And, if a land surrender is valid with the signatures of only 20 Five (later Six) Nations chiefs and the signatures of 50 chiefs are not required, why do Six Nations people now say the surrenders of use of land along the Grand River are not valid because fewer than 50 chiefs signed those surrenders?

          If, in on case, a decision by 20 chiefs and fewer than 50 chiefs is acceptable, why not in others?

          Do you see the inconsistency?

          REPLY
        • BIG6MOHAWK@Garry Horsnell
          December 17, 2013, 1:45 pm

          If it was done in according to conditions there would be a wampum not a piece of paper Garry.

          REPLY
        • Kawao Wene John Garlow@BIG6MOHAWK
          December 17, 2013, 6:25 pm

          very true!! skywah

          REPLY
        • Kawao Wene John Garlow@Garry Horsnell
          December 17, 2013, 3:00 pm

          good question concerning hunting..ali six nations were land stewards by all hauenosauni way before haldimond deed..so how can one nations of the binding arrows claim they have land stewardship above any of the six nations unless done illegally or misunderstanding an why i do not trust white mans version of deed when way before any agreement we all were equal stewards?? therefore like too keep all people stewards of our hunting grounds and will not submit to the white mans version and understanding of the haldimond deed..the deed is only a agreement of dwelling on our hunting grounds therefore no one nation can claim more stewardship of hunting ground even tho we dwell on hunting lands so alot has to be worked out..so idk i was always taught we don`t sign our native names to white mans paper.. but that may have changed recently so idk??

          REPLY
    • Margaret Robinson@Cory Grant
      December 17, 2013, 10:14 am

      Just because we have a right to do it doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

      REPLY
      • Pentortoise@Margaret Robinson
        December 17, 2013, 10:32 am

        Yes, death in any form for any reason is not nice, but thats why we are taught to give thanks for these gifts, Without them we would perish.

        REPLY
  • Margaret Robinson
    December 16, 2013, 6:37 am

    There’s no such thing as “harvesting” deer. They’re not turnips. These deer are about to be murdered.

    REPLY
    • Nahnda Garlow@Margaret Robinson
      December 16, 2013, 5:43 pm

      The term harvesting was used to imply that the deer will be used for food.

      Harvest – http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harvest

      Murder is defined as the premeditated killing of one human being by another and would not be a factual term in the context of the article.

      REPLY
      • Margaret Robinson@Nahnda Garlow
        December 17, 2013, 10:12 am

        Not every Aboriginal person sees hunting as an appropriate expression of values in our contemporary context. Mi’kmaq culture views animals as having personalities, souls, and their own relationship with the creator. Their lives are sacred, and are their own. Since animals are our siblings they aren’t to be killed unless our survival requires it. And nothing about this plan sounds like survival hunting to me.

        REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Margaret Robinson
          December 17, 2013, 10:36 am

          so what do we Do Margaret, teach our children how to hunt plastic, or Mcdonalds, and never teach our children how to survive from the land as creator intended. Try to not see it through spoiled eyes, there is no Need to judge or condemn our human brothers for their understandings, As we say take pity on those who do not see your view of life.

          REPLY
        • Margaret Robinson@Pentortoise
          December 17, 2013, 2:37 pm

          As someone who grew up in poverty I resent being dismissed as spoiled. I think we should be teaching our children to choose healthy whole foods over processed foods. We should teach them to protect the environment and our fellow animals from exploitation. Whether it’s an oil company, the Federal Government, or an Aboriginal brother, we need to stand against the abuse of the environment.

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Margaret Robinson
          December 17, 2013, 3:48 pm

          whats the abuse? is there a waste or a needless slaughter? Would you tell a cat to eat Tin can tuna if he can catch his own salmon?

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Margaret Robinson
          December 17, 2013, 3:54 pm

          What would jesus do Margaret You have a Phd In Theology, so im curious your thought on, If Jesus could turn one Deer into a million would that make a difference, why should one people struggle with ideological and philosophical indifference, while some just want a winters worth of food.

          REPLY
        • Kawao Wene John Garlow@Margaret Robinson
          December 17, 2013, 6:09 pm

          ok if there were no cities there an we went hunting is there a problem?? no so instead of bitch,n just get the city to move an let nature take its coarse.. chances are those dear still would feed us if no cities were involved,, if they were killed for the sake of killing for a wall mounting or for just money then is wrong.if it really bothers you then move the city an we,ll live our way…hunt!.

          REPLY
        • Kawao Wene John Garlow@Margaret Robinson
          December 17, 2013, 2:17 pm

          so what let the white man slaughter them and waste em? it is survival hunting we as people are losing to white mans drink his ways…maybe Aboriginals don`t see good in it but onkweonkwe do better than eating McDonalds??/

          REPLY
        • Margaret Robinson@Kawao Wene John Garlow
          December 17, 2013, 2:32 pm

          Given how many white hunters are clamouring to join in the deer hunt this activity seems to have more in common with white ways to my mind.

          REPLY
        • Kawao Wene John Garlow@Margaret Robinson
          December 17, 2013, 6:55 pm

          well turn your word s to the white men. heck i would shoot Rudolph the red nose deer or bambi if it feeds family ..an yeah should only be onkwehonkwe hunting but it is not our problem they are jealous of us.. so move the city and if all those deer were taken by a large hunting party an if no city was there is it wrong?? or is it wrong cause some non native say it is when they have no clue how we live or think as onkwehonkwe… if some of that meat made it here to kanonstaton which would help me out since i am broke and no monies for a bit. an be very lucky to see end of month.so i should not eat cause city people say it is wrong??.

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Margaret Robinson
          December 18, 2013, 3:14 pm

          Me thinks the vocal minority has something to say then… :)

          REPLY
        • Nahnda Garlow@Margaret Robinson
          December 18, 2013, 2:33 pm

          It is never wise to lump all members of a nation together when talking about values. Here you say something regarding Mi’kmaq culture not hunting and yet I have also met people from that nation who don’t eat domesticated meat, only wild meat. I was taken on a fishing trip where hunting and fishing were part of their subsistence lifestyle. We harvested hundreds of fish, and also participated in harvesting a seal, of which we ceremonially ate the liver. It’s totally fine to make the decision to not eat meat however it is never appropriate to condemn another person and/or nation who chooses the opposite.

          REPLY
  • jp
    December 15, 2013, 8:02 pm

    If deer population control is needed as a quick solution to the greater problem than so be it. The preference is to not take a life and any deer that are killed should be done with as much repsect and reluctance as possible. I agree with tradition but find it difficult to simply say let the tradition continue because its been around for a long time. How long is long enough? Where’s the cut off? Who decides? “Why do we not cry when taking the lif on an animal or plant but shed many tears when we lose a family member?” “What makes us so special?” All life is equal, and should be treated as such. Our ways of life now has cause this imbalance with nature and created this problem. A symptom of the greater issue. If you participate in the hunt, and I would, when the moment comes where the life will be taken, remember you are part of the cause, you are about to kill your brother, and never view it as a triumph over nature, never see the head as something to mount on a wall as a trophy, don’t waste any part of the body. In the end, what happens when someone decides the human population is too high? Like when mother nature decides to no longer support us because our numbers are too many and WE are destroying our environment beyond our ‘Botanical Garden’. Mother nature will heal herself after we cause our own extintion, because she has all the time in the world.

    REPLY
    • Garry Horsnell@jp
      December 15, 2013, 9:28 pm

      It’s interesting. People at the Royal Botanical Gardens (RBG) near Hamilton Ontario said the deer population in that area is too high and they are eating the Lilac bushes. People who run Short Hills Provincial Park said the deer population was in the range of 300 deer but should be in the range of about 50.

      The deer in those areas seem very healthy so it seems mother nature is looking after them and they are flourishing. It seems the people don’t like the deer simply because they ruin what people are growing.

      The deer are flourishing. If they weren’t flourishing, they would die out naturally from lack of food and starvation so are there really too many deer or just too many deer for peoples’ liking?

      REPLY
  • Garry Horsnell
    December 15, 2013, 5:54 pm

    Some people oppose the deer hunt on Royal Botanical Gardens (RBG) land near Hamilton Ontario because they don’t likie hunting period. Some people oppose the deer hunt on Royal Botanical Gardens (RBG) land because they think it is dangerous to hunt so close to a populated area. Some people don’t mind the deer hunt to cull deer but think the hunt should be open to non natives and natives not just natives.

    Six Nations Haudenosaunee hunters say the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty gives them the right to hunt on that land.

    In 1701, 20 chiefs, including 6 Mohawk chiefs, from the Five (later Six) Nations Haudenosaunee Confederacy (League) surrendered their beaver hunting grounds, including land in what is now the U.S.A. and land in what is now southwestern Ontario, to the British Crown and “for ever quite claime” to that land according to that treaty on condition Five (later Six) Nations people could hunt on that land “forever”. That treaty is presented on the Six Nations of the Grand River website under land claims.

    Six Nations Haudenosaunee hunters now say the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty gives them the right to hunt on RBG and and on other land in southern Ontario as they did recently in Short Hills Provincial Park near St. Catharines Ontario.

    That is interesting because some Six Nations people have said the Six Nations Haadenosaunee never surrendered land in southern Ontario.

    In addition, during a long conversation I recently had with a Six Nations person from the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve, that person said he didn’t think the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty is valid because only 20 chiefs, including 6 Mohawk chiefs, from the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) Confederacy (League) signed that treaty, not all 50 Grand Council chiefs according to the Great Law of Peace.

    He basically suggested that, without the signatures of all 50 chiefs according to the Great Law of Peace, the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty would not be valid.

    He basically suggested that, without the signatures of all 50 chiefs according to the Great Law of Peace, the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty did not represent the will of all the Haudenosaunee people.

    So is the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty valid or not and should Six Nations Huadenosaunee hunters be using it to justify hunting on land outside of the Six nations of the Grand River reserve if the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty not valid?

    REPLY
    • KarlD@Garry Horsnell
      December 15, 2013, 6:40 pm

      Mr. Horsnell,

      You keep repeating the same points that are basically an effort to either undermine treaty rights or claims to governance by pointing out some of the dichotomies of arguments for/against sovereignty and for/against Nationhood. I had originally hoped that you are intending to spur a conversation that could progress relations between the Haudenosaunee People and the government of Canada. This does not appear to be the case as your central points on TRT articles (and maybe every article ever written anywhere since you seem to have a lot of time to make your points) are that any claims to treaties or to working towards reclaiming nationhood are moot because of this point or that point.

      Just for the sake of clarity, so that I can save myself a little time trying to understand your viewpoint is it fair to say that you hold the belief, based on your interpretation of the records of treaties and your studies of history, that Haudenosaunee have no claims to Nationhood or any treaty rights and that we are in fact either subjects of the Queen and/or regular every day Canadians?

      This seems to be the point you keep re-iterating, and I respect your wish to hold that viewpoint but I think that you have a very constricted view of these agreements. The courts and the actions of the Canadian/US/British/French/Dutch/Crown government have been wildly inconsistent with policy over the lifetime of the Two Row arrangement. The Haudenosaunee, despite your consistently critical claims, have maintained the view that it is important to respect whichever government is in power as long as they are trying to respect the spirit of arrangements such as the Two Row.

      It seems that the Haudenosaunee, in your view, must be held to the most restrictive interpretations of these agreements, and that the “Nation” of “Canada” has all rights and claims to any and all land, parks, reserves, citizenship, wampum, the way the Haudenosaunee chew gum with limited or no accountability to their benefit from these agreements. Have I characterized your interpretation incorrectly? Is your central point something other than a fancy intellectual quote laden version of “get over it?”

      REPLY
      • Garry Horsnell@KarlD
        December 15, 2013, 6:50 pm

        I simply pointed out what it says in the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty, mentioned what some Six Nations people say about surrendering land in southern Ontario, what some Six Nations people say about the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty and asked some questions.

        There seems to be some difference of opinion about the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty among people from the Six Nations of the Grand River.

        So which way is it? Do most Six Nations people think that treaty is valid or not?

        Can’t I ask questions?

        REPLY
        • jp@Garry Horsnell
          December 15, 2013, 7:47 pm

          I agree with Gary Horsnell. I only see him asking a question while trying not to offend anyone (like walking on egg shells). I, a Mohawk from Akwesasne, would be able to ask the same question. However, I already think I know then answer. Is or is not the ‘treaty’ valid. Well, yes and no. Both points are valid, not all 50 chiefs signed but is that’s what is required? It is clear there was not a majority that signed. Is majority of the signatures required or all 50? A minority of the chiefs that did sign 20/50, does not seem acceptable in any sort of nation decisions, niether Haudenosuanee nor Canadian nor any other ‘democracy’. Just as Canadian citizens are not 100% in favor, nor is the Five/Six nations confederacy. Was the original intent to obtain the remainder of the chiefs’ signatures (all 50) at some point over time and never completed?

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@jp
          December 15, 2013, 7:55 pm

          Thank you. It is my understanding that according to the Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace individual nations among the Five (later Six) Nations can make agreements that affect only them but all 50 Grand Council chiefs would have to reach consensus on any issue that would affect all Five (later Six) Nations.

          REPLY
        • Kawao Wene John Garlow@Garry Horsnell
          December 17, 2013, 3:35 pm

          first of all you think like white man gary?? six nations cannot sell surrender land the nafan is only agreement that the protection of our hunting lands when you say surrender it is white thinking in a way to brainwash people into thinking we got rid of land..however in onkweonkwe thinking we were making agreements to protect our hunting lands not surrendering our lands of hunting therefore misunderstanding of agreements and intent to steal our hunting lands or said a surrender of our lands when the crown changed our wording to fit their own needs we are not subject to the great white mother and father. and her people… we are alies..

          REPLY
        • BIG6MOHAWK@jp
          December 17, 2013, 1:33 pm

          They may have discuss it in council before hand to send 20 chiefs to represent the interest of the people.

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@BIG6MOHAWK
          December 17, 2013, 10:06 pm

          If you think those “20 chiefs represent the interest of the people”, would you say the same thing about the Six Nations surrenders of use of land along the Grand River?

          Would you say, when Joseph Brant and later, at various times, various groups of fewer than 50 chiefs surrendered use of land along the Grand River to the Crown for sale, Brant and those Six Nations chiefs represented the interests of the Six Nations people?

          If you would say it for one case, why not the other?

          REPLY
        • KarlD@jp
          December 17, 2013, 8:47 pm

          @jp My points are simply that Mr. Horsnell’s literal interpretations of only the settler government view of the document are simplistic, dismissive of known Haundenosaunee policy and treaty stances, and working towards the assimilation agenda. The fact was and is that the Haudenosaunee had and do work with whichever government is the government of the day. This is done by remembering the things that have gotten us on our respective places and trying to continue the things that will make the world as good or better for those that will follow us. Minimizing “treaty(a non-native word)” rights by being dismissive and hypercritical of documentation that had little or no meaning to the Nation then or now does not form a constructive path.

          REPLY
      • Cory Grant@KarlD
        December 16, 2013, 7:07 am

        Garry is so misinformed that you might just as well ignore everything he has to offer. He uses personal interpretation, conjecture and lacks any proof what so ever that his opinions hold any truth. The fact is that the Crown never received land from Six Nations. Maps in 1757 (before the Royal Proclamation 1763) and in 1778 (after the Royal Proclamation) show all of Ontario south of the Ottawa River – Nippising as Haudenosaunee / Six Nations territory.

        The Royal Proclamation 1763 required surrender or treaty with the Crown for any land before any British (or French) subject could use it. That meant that no on could use, farm, harvest, occupy, rent or tresspass in Ontario unless it was surrendered.

        Garry claims that the Mississauga surrendered the land to the Crown who then gave it to Six Nations. This is a lie that he often repeats. The fact is that the One Spoon One Bowl treaty invited the Mississauga down from the North Shore of Superior to harvest from the lands as an effort to keep settlers & Wendat from Detroit out. It also is a fact that the meeting at Burlington he says Mississauga surrendered the land, was in fact brokered by Six Nations & was made to obtain compensation for the Mississauga relocation back to their homelands. The Grand River already belonged to Six Nations prior. The meeting at Burlington by the way fails the Supreme Court of Canada test for surrender.

        The Haldimand Proclamation was not a gift of land (the British did not have possession of or right to but a recognition of the boundaries of territory where settlers and subjects were prohibited.

        The British never had any control over Six Nations sovereignty and are allies with the Crown perpetuated under the Covenant Chain / Two Row Wampum. This Peace and Friendship Treaty not only guaranteed protection of Six Nations lands & territories in exchange for aid in policing the British colonies & brokering land deals, but it stands today. The Crown recognizes Six Nations sovereignty.

        In June 2010 Queen Elizabeth II presented the Chiefs of Six Nations and Tyendinaga with gifts of silver as practiced on many occasions, in recognition and renewal of the long-standing Covenant Chain between them. An inscription on the silver handbells presented by HRM states: “300 years of Peace and Friendship”.. This is legal proof that the Crown still respects the sovereignty and autonomy of Haudenosaunee / Six Nations Confederacy.

        REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Cory Grant
          December 16, 2013, 8:58 am

          If the Five (later Six) Nations Haudenosaunee never surrendered land to the British, how do you explain the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty that says the following?

          “Wee say upon these and many other good motives us hereunto moveing have freely and voluntary surrendered delivered up and for ever quit claimed, and by these presents doe for us our heires and successors absolutely surrender, deliver up and for ever quit claime unto our great Lord and Master the King of England called by us Corachkoo and by the Christians William the third and to his heires and successors Kings and Queens of England for ever all the right title and interest and all the claime and demand whatsoever which wee the said five nations of Indians called the Maquase, Oneydes, Onnondages, Cayouges and Sinnekes now have or which wee ever had or that our heirs or successors at any time hereafter may or ought to have of in or to all that vast Tract of land or Colony called Canagariarchio beginning on the northwest side of Cadarachqui lake and includes all that vast tract of land lyeing between the great lake of Ottawawa and the lake called by the natives Cahiquage and by the Christians the lake of Swege”.

          How do you explain where it says “for ever quit claime”?

          And how do explain the Clowes (Clows) map of the 1701 Albany (Nanfan ) Treaty area that shows the area surrendered includes land in what is now southwestern Ontario? Samuel Clowes (Clows) was a surveyor who attended the 1701 meeting, drew the map of the treaty area and placed his name on the treaty.

          And how do you explain the following statements in the 1701 Albany (Nanfan )Treaty?

          1) “wee having subjected ourselves and lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake wholy to the Crown of England”

          2) “wee have lived peaceably and quietly with the people of Albany our fellow subjects”

          Is the 1701 Albany (Nanfan ) Treaty invalid?

          REPLY
        • Cory Grant@Garry Horsnell
          December 16, 2013, 4:13 pm

          Its been explained to you thousands of time. Nanfan does not cover southern Ontario north of Hamilton.

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Cory Grant
          December 17, 2013, 10:58 am

          According the 1701 map of the Albany (Nanfan) Treaty area produced by Samual Clowes (Clows) who attended the treaty meeting in 1701, who drew the map of the area covered by the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty and who signed the treaty, the area covered by the treaty extends a lot further north in Ontario than Hamilton.

          In Ontario, it covers the land east from the Detroit River and Lake Huron (Georgian Bay area) all the way west to a diagonal line from near Parry Sound south to about Hamilton or Burlington.

          REPLY
        • Kawao Wene John Garlow@Garry Horsnell
          December 17, 2013, 5:53 pm

          the words that were agreed on is not was sent back to crown per say.. so it was easier to steal our land.. proof is it probably got you thinking we are subjects to the crown..so do not believe in lies.. we surrender no lands we have stewardship to the land and i for one not giving up my duti to the lnd becuase of whitemans paper says so…

          REPLY
    • Kawao Wene John Garlow@Garry Horsnell
      December 17, 2013, 7:12 pm

      it is not RBG land it is stolen haudenisonni land.. and is not outside six nations of the grand the deed was for dwelling but we never gave up the rest of our hunting lands even tho we live on a small piece of the entire hunting grounds.

      REPLY
  • Tony King
    December 15, 2013, 4:59 pm

    Let the deer hunt begin! Natives have been doing it for thousands of years. it’s good experience for the young native males and it will control the deer population.

    REPLY
    • Margaret Robinson@Tony King
      December 17, 2013, 10:14 am

      Racism has a long history too. That doesn’t make it good.

      REPLY
      • Kawao Wene John Garlow@Margaret Robinson
        December 17, 2013, 4:46 pm

        so your saying we should starve and have no ceramonail meat for ceramonies? just because a few cannot accept they are on stolen land it sounds like your helping kill us off?? i was in longhouse before hunting agreement started between our govrnments and will not let my people go without..maybe you can watch your people go with out i cannot…now all get meat when a few yrs back only a few got some or barelly got some.to watch a child sit and wonder why they don,t get meat when there is not enough.. now there is…

        REPLY

Headquarters:


Oneida Business Park Suite 124
50 Generations Drive, Box 1
Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0
Six Nations of the Grand River Country


Email: info@tworowtimes.com


Main office: (519) 900-5535


Editorial: (519) 900-6241


Advertising: (519) 900-6373

Latest Posts