That's the wrong analogy you're using. Every Fish and Game animal in the USA is our national treasure. It is directly owned by We The People. The individual gets a license to harvest that animal and we all operate on an equal footing under the same Public Trust Wildlife Doctrine with the same seasons and limits regardless of race or creed. Biology and Conservation are consistently applied.
In Canada by contrast, simply by the color of your skin or your national origin, you are a class of citizen that must support conservation, pay for licenses, and obey reasonable principles to ensure your take is sustainable. On the other hand, simply by the color of your skin and national origin you are allowed to rape and pillage the crown resources, waste food, and destroy ecosystems that the other class pays dearly to protect. It has devastated the tourism economy of what was the finest Atlantic Salmon run in North America as just one example.
One Canadian group is paying dearly and responsibly for conservation, the other is exploiting the resource unfettered. What I've witnessed in their New Brunswick fisheries is nothing but absolute devastation and now their parliamentarians want to ban American sporting tourism as if there was any resources left to bring us there? Absurd.
In 2025 for example, New Brunswick estimated a total run of 5000 Atlantic salmon in both branches of the Miramichi River. The first nations were authorized to take up to 13,136 salmon that year using a variety of methods including nets, snagging, etc. First nations were allowed 263% of the total population!
It actually is the correct analogy. And, in fact, it works almost exactly the same way.
It also has nothing to do with the colour of your skin though, it is about national origin. But I guess trying to bring race into it suits your approach to try and denigrate a certain group with a broad brush. But in both Canada and America, race is not the test, it is sovereign citizenship. So, in the case of Canada's east coast say a Haida, a native Canadian, would have no special fishing rights. So the fact a Haida is native Canadian or "the colour of his skin" gives him no privileges, it is his national status.
I don't blame you for not understanding the role of your constitutional structure, I bet your civics don't cover it very well.
In the United States there are three sovereign powers you can be a citizen of (and obviously most people are at least two and some are three). Federal, state and native nations.
So, for instance, it is perfectly legal and consititutional for a state to differentiate between state citizens or residents and out-of-state residents in what they do for hunting or other natural resource allocation (or other areas but that is alonger storey). It is not about race, a white Montana citizen would have the same rights as a black or asian, or whatever vis-a-vis a black Texan etc. Race is not the operative feature, citizenship (or residency) effectively is. Are you equally as bothered by that aspect of American constitutionalism? People's rights to use natural resources etc are differentiated by their state citizenship. Am I not correct that resident and non-resident opportunities in various states can be very different?
In the U.S. the third clearly recognized sovereign power are native nations. As individual nations, not a racial group. They also have lots of special hunting, fishing, resource use, gambling options, because they are citizens of a third power. But it is not one giant power, it is unique to each native nation. A Seneca does not have the same rights as say an Aleut. Just like a Texan does not have the same rights as an Alaskan.
So it is not their race, or creed, or the colour of their skin that differentiates the rights, it is their citizenship in a nation that defines it. We tend to forget about the existence of native nations in our thinking.
It's a pity that our educational systems don't teach this properly, it could avoid very common race based thinking like yours which leads to inaccurate conclusions.
The easiest way to really understand it is just to think as each native nation as a "mini-state." It helps avoid lazy, inaccurate race-based thinking.
Personally I think the idea of banning American hunters is daft. Always happy to have my hunting neighbours come up and enjoy themselves here.
