peaches5

It isn't narrow minded at all. There are seasons for when you can and can't fish for lobster if it's not lobster season then you can't sell the lobsters you caught out of season.

If you are going out every day fishing for lobsters and selling them I would consider that commercial fishing and that should be regulated. If you're going out every single day and feeding your family or the families on the reserve with those lobsters then all the power to you. Leave it up to the courts to decide what they can and can't do and until then they can, and anyone trying to stop them should be stopped by the RCMP.

I am saying, and from what I've seen from some of the natives in Nova Scotia, the treaty needs more clarity. Let the courts decide what they can and can't do. Until then yea they can keep catching and selling all the Lobster they want. I just think the treaty isn't meant for commercial fishing. If you want to commercially fish for Lobster then you have to follow the lobster season... If the courts say they can.. then nothing I can do about it. If people are going to burn down cars and poison lobsters and destroy equipment ect because they don't like what the courts decided they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

You'd have to ask the officers involved or the captain giving the orders why they aren't making arrests/charging people in Nova Scotia. Hopefully in the coming days/months arrests are made.

What I believe is your reserve doesn't give you the right to create your own laws and that you can bypass canadian laws - with exceptions but not for $$$. I consider you a canadian citizen and with that you must abide by Canadian law. The RCMP should work for you as it does any canadian citizen and there shouldn't be any difference.

I am not saying you're not right about that. The RCMP should have gotten involved and stopped this and arrested/charged the people involved.

You're muddling multiple issues into a yes or no answer. You don't want to be segregated but then you want to be segregated when it benefits you. Not going to work. Good luck with that.

If the government wants to put a pipeline through your yard they are going to put a pipeline through your yard. It's like if the government wants to build a dam that will flood your property.. your property is getting flooded. The government doesn't care.

I'm being dramatic? Are you kidding me look at your posts and the other guys posts. Nothing I said was dramatic. There are laws put in place to protect certain animals and you want to bypass those laws in order to feed your family... I don't have an issue with that if that's what you're doing but if you're hunting or fishing to make $$$ then you can abide by the same laws as everyone else. It's like the whale hunting is a "tradition". If you want to go hunt and kill a whale because it's a tradition... I have no issues with that. But you'd better do it the traditional way and not get a speed boat mounted with a machine gun and shoot the whale. What is traditional about that? That is a complete joke.

What you're saying isn't even relevant but if you want to go back hundreds of years you'd be dead when you tried to take 1/3 of my land. I would have defended my land. Goodluck with that.

I am not segregating the two of us, you are. I am the one saying we all should abide by the same laws and you want your own special laws on "your land". I am even saying you can keep your traditions alive and give leeway with the laws but not exploit them. You are the one being intolerant. You think it's okay to shoot a 1000 elk and be like well if it weren't for the white man the elk would be fine so it's not my problem the elk are dying.

Owning land doesn't give you the the right to make your own laws on it.

You can have beef with that and the government should have to cough up a lot of money for that. That should not have happened.

Palestine has a valid point because this happened in pretty modern times we are not talking about hundreds of years ago like with natives and "their land". Palestine has been fighting constantly to get their land back.

"The white settlers".

Every land that has been conquered since the dawn of time has disrupted the previous settlers livelihoods. Every land has been taken from someone at some point in time. You don't get to say oh 2000 years ago my ancestors lived on this land so I have the rights to it. That's not how it works.

BC doesn't even have treaties - which is an issue the government is having right now. The treaties are different for each province. I also said I don't agree with what they're doing but that doesn't mean I agree with what the natives are doing. I don't agree with them selling lobsters outside of the lobster season for money.

I don't agree with what they're doing but the natives know they are using a broad interpretation of the treaty. The treaty is meant to allow natives to fish to feed their families. They're abusing it and selling the Lobsters they catch for $$$... I've heard them say the treaty doesn't define what feed or provide for their family really means... so certain individuals are just catching Lobsters and selling them.. which I think is BS. If you aren't eating the Lobster and selling them for $$$ then you should abide by the same laws as everyone else. Not all of them doing this.. but some of them are and that is what is pissing off the fisherman.

Arbitration Ruling: Player & Club can settle on a deal at any point prior to the official ruling Once the hearing has taken place, the Salary Arbitration decision must be issued by email within 48 hrs of the closing [CBA 12.9(n)(i)] Arbitration awards can only be 1 or 2 years in length [CBA 12.10(a)&(b)] The party (Player or Club) who did not elect for Arbitration decides on the awarded term [CBA 12.10(a)&(b)] Players who are in their final year Restricted Free Agency are only entitled to a 1 year term. Club cannot walk away from a Club elected Arbitration Settlement [CBA 12.10(e)] Player elected Arbitration Settlements of 1 year and greater than $4,538,958, Club can walk away from the awarded salary, making the player a UFA [CBA 12.10(a)] Player elected Arbitration Settlements of 2 years and greater than $4,538,958, Club can walk away from the second (2nd) year of the awarded salary, making the player a UFA at the end of year 1 [CBA 12.10(b)] This is from CapFriendly so you might be right.

Salary Arbitration. Both the player and his current team submit their expectations for the player's salary for the coming year. The team cannot request a reduction in salary of greater than 15%. The arbitrator hears the case from both player and team and renders a verdict. The verdict sets the salary the team is required to pay the player. In cases where the player requested arbitration, once the arbitrator's verdict is rendered the team must make a decision within 48 hours of the verdict being rendered. If the team accepts, the player is signed to a new contract at the salary set in the verdict. Should the team decline, the player then becomes an unrestricted free agent. Teams cannot decline contracts resulting from club-elected arbitration. I don't know who went to arbitration but my guess is Virtanen. If he is awarded too much money Vancouver can only walk away. They cannot trade him.

You can't trade him after arbitration.. you either sign him or he becomes a UFA.

The only way I can see them being able to move him is if he is first traded to a team like Detriot who gets a ton of prospects and draft picks and then sent to a contending team that has the cap space and wants him or possibly the contender team sending Detroit more prospects/picks to take back salary as well to clear cap space. I don't see him going to a team that isn't a contender.. but with his injury history I can't see a team giving up really anything for him.

Gm's talk to player agents. Could have been passed along down the grapevine to Pietrangelo. Now if Vegas talked directly to his agent or Pietrangelo that is something that is worth a significant punishment.

My guess is Vegas made it clear to teams they were trying to dump players to that the deals were pending Pietrangelo signing. That is technically tampering to let a player know you are going to make a big push for them even if it is kinda indirectly.

Except Boychuk can still play hockey.