Share Your Opinion With Us

Definition of marriage has never changed

In response to Tina Kennedy's "Just who do Canadians think they are eh?"

Kennedy asks, "So if the definition of marriage changes so much, when did it become traditional and entrenched as being one thing and one thing only?"

I would ask, when did the definition of marriage change? It never has. Marriage was instituted by God when he brought Eve to Adam in Genesis 2:18-25. The tradition of marriage as we know it now comes from the grand original instituted by God in Eden. One man and one woman. It was man's fall into sin that has brought perversions such as polygamy.

That this was the beginning of the marriage institution is affirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God's ultimate revelation to mankind, in Matthew 19:4-6.

Though marriage is for life, divorce is allowed as Christ stated in Matthew 19:9 in case of fornication. The Greek word for fornication, (porneia, from which we get our English word pornography) includes adultery and incest.

Though polygamy was practiced in Old Testament times it was not approved of God; therefore, Christ set the record straight in Matthew 19.

Many of the Jewish laws in the Old Testament were for the Jewish nation only because they were a theocracy. That's why they had the death penalty for certain sins Deuteronomy 22:13-21 as well as for adultery, Sabbath breaking, idolatry etc. These laws were meant to keep the Jewish nation pure from the sins practiced by the Gentile nations around them till the time that Messiah should come. The same goes for the law of a childless widow marrying her husband's brother - a purely Jewish law not for Gentiles and done away with in New Testament times.

Furthermore the old ceremonial laws of the Jewish people had a spiritual meaning - they were all fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Bible is a spiritual book and Scripture must be carefully compared with Scripture in order to see the true meaning of a passage.

It doesn't say anywhere in Scripture that unbelievers can't marry. Hebrews 13:4 states that marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. In Ezra and Nehemiah the purpose of forbidding mixed marriages was to keep the Jewish nation pure till Christ's coming. In 2 Corinthians 6:14 believers are instructed to marry only believers and not be unequally yoked, for the success of the marriage and the purity of the church.

So marriage can be defined using the Bible. The Creator has clearly revealed His will to us and it is everyone's duty to obey it. Society may change, but God never changes. It is not man's prerogative to change the basic laws of nature; in fact, he can't. To say that a basic law of nature such as marriage between one man and one woman can be changed is the same as making a law that would from now on make 2 + 2 = 5.

Kennedy, you stated "I can't imagine what someone who really knows the Bible might find." I find in the Bible the answer to life's questions and a perfect rule for faith and practice.

If our nation obeyed God's plan for family relationships many of the problems in our society would evaporate. Repentance and faith in God's Word is the only hope for solutions in this troubled world, but instead people reject it and go on blindly in their sinful ways. Salvation is of the Lord. Repent and believe the Gospel. God is not mocked for whatsoever a man sows so shall he reap.

Anne Winnicky,

Guy, Alta.

Everyone has role to play in province's wildlife management

This letter is in response to the two articles written by Tina Kennedy in regards to the Interim Metis Harvest Agreement in the Feb. 9 paper.

I, as a teacher, professional outfitter, and Alberta resident, have always supported hunting and fishing rights. Hunting is an extremely valuable tool to wildlife management. It has been, and continues to be, a significant part of my culture. It offers a healthy and active way to enjoy nature, and can provide excellent table fare. In this respect, I continue to encourage and promote all people, Metis included, to exercise this privilege.

The challenge arising from the Metis Harvest Agreement is to implement this agreement in such a manner that it benefits fish and wildlife, and not impacts it negatively.

Wildlife management was never a concern 200 years ago when populations and technology were limited. Wildlife management then was the responsibility of Mother Nature. She had a very complex way of controlling animal populations through disease, drought, deep snow, starvation, predation, etc. While it worked then, things began to change.

As human populations increased, technology developed, and landscapes were altered, we found ourselves in the position where uncontrolled harvests decimated the buffalo herds, predators, birds and fish. Shortly after Alberta became a province in 1905, the first hunting and fishing regulations were put into effect to prevent further damage - and to restore many of the species.

For almost 100 years now, Fish and Wildlife has worked to balance the rights, demands, and desires of aboriginal people, recreational hunters, commercial users, industry, farmers and ranchers, and many others to achieve optimum levels. The challenges faced by wildlife management have been met with a variety of efforts. Aerial and creel surveys have been used extensively to monitor fish/animal populations. Phone surveys of licensed hunters/anglers attempt to monitor harvests. Draws for tags, barb less hooks, catch and release, steel shot, partner license, seasons and limits - there have been so many efforts to maximize the enjoyment of wildlife and minimize negative impact.

Alberta is not alone in these efforts. Across North America, and in many places in the world, the "richness" of wildlife has been recognized and valued. In many regions of Africa, economies are dependant on the money generated by their carefully managed wildlife. In areas of the United States, wild turkeys, elk, deer, sheep, moose, and other animals have been reintroduced and revitalized due to sound, wildlife management. Within Alberta, we've seen a dramatic change in moose populations east of hiway # 2, and south of hiway # 16. Twenty years ago, moose hunting there was never a consideration. Now, those areas produce almost as much as the rest of the province.

In the past 30 years, groups like Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The Foundations for North American wild sheep, Safari Club International, and many more - have recognized government limitations. They have stepped up to the plate to make significant contributions of money, time, and resources to further enhance wildlife management. Organizations like the Hunting For Tomorrow Foundation, and the Alberta Hunter Education Instructors Association promote hunting and fishing as a positive contribution to wildlife management. We have come a long way.

With the implementation of the Interim Metis Harvest Agreement in Alberta, our wildlife managers and enforcement people are now facing a new challenge. The Alberta Government's interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings has decided that Metis hunters and fishers are now exempted from participating in the existing wildlife management plans.

All safety concerns, such as carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle, not shooting across roads or in proximity to residences, etc. will continue to be observed - for obvious reasons. The enforcement of these rules continues to be the responsibility of the enforcement branch of Fish and Wildlife. The concern raised here is how they can be expected to handle these additional responsibilities when their budgets and staff is woefully inadequate to handle the existing load. Recently, these folks have experienced times in which they have exhausted their budgets prior to hunting season and can only respond to initiated calls. It is highly unlikely that they will be able to meet this challenge.

Wildlife managers (biologists) will face at least two additional challenges. The IMHA also excuses Metis from purchasing licenses. A portion of all license sales goes directly to funding aerial and creel surveys. Less money for these budgets will mean fewer surveys. The budgets required for this critical information gathering process, again, are already inadequate. Wildlife managers are going to be asked to do more with less.

Secondly, harvest data is collected annually using phone surveys of licensed hunters. With Metis hunters and fishers no longer being identified by licenses, their harvests will be unknown. Another critical piece of wildlife management information will be lost. With reduced information about the numbers of fish and animals, and reduced information about harvests, these challenges faced by our wildlife managers will inevitably result in poorer wildlife management.

Stated very clearly in the IMHA, and, repeatedly acknowledged by those involved, is a commitment to conservation. In its present context, for the most part, the commitment to conservation will demonstrated only when fish or animal populations have reached a level at which continued procreation is threatened. Then, Metis hunters/fishers will be asked to refrain from further harvest. Again, the responsibility for monitoring this and enforcing it has been given to Fish and Wildlife.

Wildlife management is an extremely complex operation requiring the skills and talents of trained professionals. They must be provided with the funding and equipment necessary to carry out their task. It is most effective when it is well understood, respected and appreciated by all - including users and non users of the resource. Although Fish and Wildlife staff attempt to deliver their message to the public, active support is generally quite lethargic - if attendance at the annual public meetings is any indication. With the demands of jobs and careers, raising families, etc., most of us simply hope and trust that the folks hired to do this work are indeed doing so - and are successful. Are we doing our part?

I'm sure that folks have said to themselves, "What could possibly be significant about keeping 1 undersize walleye?" "What difference does 1 moose make?" "There are lots of deer. What difference does it make if I take 1 extra one?" They are right. The difference of 1 fish, 1 moose, or 1 deer is insignificant, until that number is multiplied by a number like 30,000 - the number of card carrying Metis. One doesn't make a difference - 30,000 can make a huge difference. And one of the greatest concerns that our wildlife managers have is, we don't know how many Metis will exercise this right. How can our wildlife managers be expected to provide appropriate direction and leadership - when they don't know how many people are involved, what their harvests are, nor what the populations of fish or wildlife are? How can Metis harvesters be expected to make wise harvest choices, unless they are provided the appropriate leadership and direction? This appears to be an insurmountable challenge to me.

The east coast cod fishery should be a reminder to us of the capacity we have as a society to abuse a resource. The revitalization of elk herds on aboriginal lands in Arizona - should be a reminder of what can be accomplished in wildlife management if the commitment is followed through with action.

As Albertans contemplate the celebration of 100 years as a province, we need to recognize that we truly are the envy of almost every jurisdiction in North America - and perhaps the world. We are debt free, and have wealth like no other. We have a vibrant economy. We are truly blessed with a magnificent landscape, and as diverse a collection of fish, birds, and wildlife as you'll find anywhere in North America. We owe it to future generations to pass this blessing on - to leave it better than we found it!

Recognizing the limitations of our Fish and Wildlife departments, and the recent privileges granted to Metis people, I see only two options. Firstly, if there are no changes to the funding provided Fish and Wildlife, their ability to manage the resource will be compromised, and we will all reap the results of that. You, as a citizen in a democratic province and country, can make a difference by asking your elected officials to demonstrate their commitment to this resource by allocating the funding necessary to ensure that this resource remains healthy and viable. DO we value wildlife? DO we recognize and appreciate its importance? DO you care? WILL you exercise your democratic right, and your commitment to conservation, and contact your elected official? We all share the responsibility of wildlife management. It is simply not enough to hope that "the other guy" will do your part.

The second option, and one certainly worth of consideration, will be to encourage Metis to demonstrate their commitment to wildlife management and conservation by remaining active in the current Alberta fish and wildlife management program. The implementation of any special right or privilege, like the Alberta Metis Harvest Agreement, would be difficult for anyone to turn down. We would all enjoy the benefits of being relieved of financial obligations of a $21.00 fishing license, or a $55.00 moose license. We would all enjoy the freedom to harvest what we want, where we want, and whenever we want. However, is it worth the exercising of this right if the outcome proves detrimental?? I have been repeatedly told that the impact of the Metis harvest will be insignificant. I'd like to believe this, but I don't. And I think that it is extremely naïve of anyone to think this way.

I know and applaud the commitment of Metis people who have told me that they feel because of their commitment to wildlife management and conservation, they fully intend to continue to purchase a hunting and fishing license, and abide by the present wildlife management strategies. Some of these folks have gone even further, by sharing of their time and resources with conservation minded organizations like Ducks Unlimited and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. To me, this is an example of the commitment to conservation that the Interim Metis Harvest Agreement proclaims.

The responsibility to passing on to future generations, what we presently enjoy, lies with each one of us. What they will have, depends on how we act now. What will you do?

Bob Heyde

Salt Prairie