Sports Fishermen told to leave native land.

Don't they first have to gain their aboriginal title through the courts, as the last tribe did, before they have the legal right to attempt such a thing?

Technically yes, but that ruling opens up a lot of grey area, that causes a lot of uncertainty when it comes to enforcement. I say it's better that the Liberal Government try to work with the FN by engaging them in meaningful and sincere discussion instead of being arrogant and ignoring Supreme Court rulings like they have at least twice and I'm not just talking about the Public Education system. I don't want my money going to fight court battles that the Government will lose. Work with them, engage in fair, meaningful discussion, and don't buy into the 'us and them mentality' that a lot of people do.
 
hey reelfast

I recognize the emotions behind all this ---down here there were shootings and hacked up gill nets after the Boldt Decision was enacted. The dynamic that pushed that decision is now working on the FN's up north. They smell opportunity in resource extraction. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

But my experience has been the opposite yours with the tribes or bands or FN's. I do business with several of the tribes down here. They pay their bills, they act in a professional manner and they work hard.

They're also highly regulated by the tribal police. We had some of the young bucks selling under-sized crab to the Asian mafia a few months ago. They got busted, lost their boats and forfeited their catch.

Up where you are, you might have to watch some evolution take place in their approach to business and the market place before the behavior improves.

I guarantee that behavior will improve. The question is, how are we all going to approach them if and when they get what they're after and they turn around and try and sell it back to us
 
Hey Sharphooks,

What happened to the public access to the fishery in the US when this all went through? What about public access to the rivers and land for steelhead fishing, camping and hunting?

Right now a lot of us are writing to the government to see what we will have for access as there are lots of unanswered questions. I would like to see a referendum on this issue then the general public would get a fair say in how this will end.
 
I am surprised at the ferocity of allowed posts though. Last time I made any statement about our proud and environmentaky hard working FN's my post got deleted.
 
Hey Sharphooks,

What happened to the public access to the fishery in the US when this all went through? What about public access to the rivers and land for steelhead fishing, camping and hunting?

Right now a lot of us are writing to the government to see what we will have for access as there are lots of unanswered questions. I would like to see a referendum on this issue then the general public would get a fair say in how this will end.

Referendum question would be what?? Something like this? Q: "What do you think of the recent ruling by the Supreme Court?" A: yes; B: no.

This is the Supreme Court, they make rulings based on existing legislation and legal precedent. You don't get a referendum on this, and nor should we. Judicial and political systems are two different critters.
 
Hey Sharphooks,

What happened to the public access to the fishery in the US when this all went through? What about public access to the rivers and land for steelhead fishing, camping and hunting?

Right now a lot of us are writing to the government to see what we will have for access as there are lots of unanswered questions. I would like to see a referendum on this issue then the general public would get a fair say in how this will end.


the Deschutes r. in OR is a pretty good example of what happened. if you are drifting and fishing that river down from Warm Springs, the west bank belongs to the tribes. you must acquire a tribal fishing permit, directly from them, in order to be fishing anywhere along those stretches of river. and yes, OR F&W will also check you out and cite if you don't have a tribal permit. straight forward and easy and not expensive. I don't think they permit camping, but I could be wrong. many of the other rivers that flow through reservations seem to be locked up for now. I assume all of those super expensive lodges along your world famous steelhead rivers are having fits right about now. I will be interested to see how they resolve all of this, maybe leases for beats, who knows.

for river access down this way, crossing tribal lands is in the same boat as above. get a permit, if the specific tribe allows such, and go for it. remember, the tribes are about making money so any opportunity is gold for them but some just lock up the lands for tribal members. more contentious was private land crossing in places like Montana. the rule is, at the moment, if you gain access to moving water from a public point, bridges are a good example, you can move along so long as you remain below the high water mark. this has been contested multiple times by the private land owners but so far it has survived the courts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it should be resolved the same way they did it before the "white locust" showed up.
 
VICTORIA — As the new federal adviser on how to fix treaty-making here in B.C., Vancouver lawyer Douglas Eyford must already have a good idea of the challenges involved in rescuing a troubled process with First Nations.

Eyford has been on the case since Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed him as special representative to engage First Nations on the development of some $100 billion worth of energy projects on the West Coast.

“This will not be dialogue for dialogue’s sake, but dialogue in search of solutions,” said then natural resources minister Joe Oliver in announcing the appointment in March 2013. “We don’t want another process. We want a product.”

But Eyford was not long in signalling that Ottawa could expect no quick fixes on the aboriginal file here in B.C.

Much time had already been lost in building support with First Nations and many communities were simply not ready for the pace of decision-making that governments and industry now expected of them, he warned.

“First Nations communities are expected to become experts in energy policy and make decisions that may permanently alter their cultural connection to their traditional territories,” Eyford told a conference on liquefied natural gas in September 2013.

“These projects are profoundly challenging for aboriginal leaders, and confrontation and resistance are the likely outcomes if their communities are not effectively engaged during the planning and development stages.”

Then came his end-of-the-year report to the prime minister, which suggested that the federal government had fallen short in the basics of relationship building.

“Canada must take decisive steps to build trust with aboriginal Canadians, to foster their inclusion into the economy, and to advance the reconciliation of aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people,” wrote Eyford as a prelude to recommending measures for “deep engagement” with First Nations.

He expanded on the theme of federal neglect in a speech to a conference of treaty negotiators in June of this year, referring specifically to Ottawa’s decision to let Enbridge take the lead in engaging First Nations on the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

“I’ve been surprised at the extent to which the federal government has been content to allow project proponents like Enbridge to engage aboriginal communities with little or no Crown oversight, direction or assistance,” Eyford was quoted as saying in the report by Justine Hunter of the Globe and Mail.

“I was struck that some of the communities that are today threatening judicial proceedings and civil disobedience were at one time requesting meetings with federal officials and making what I believe, in retrospect, were feasible proposals to address the environmental and other issues associated with the project … Regrettably, there was no uptake.”

Against that backdrop of criticism came the announcement Monday by federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt of a revised approach to treaty making here in B.C.

Plus he appointed the author of those criticisms, Eyford himself, as “ministerial special representative to lead engagement with aboriginal groups and key stakeholders to renew and reform the comprehensive land claims policy.”

Many of the sweeping changes, reported by Peter O’Neil in The Vancouver Sun, echo what Eyford and others had already been urging.

Ottawa will now be open to negotiating incremental agreements, as interim steps on the road to treaties. It will establish new standards for consultation, incorporating principles laid down by the courts, and take leadership in resolving overlapping claims, a major obstacle to pipelines and other large-scale projects.

Finally, after years of pleadings by First Nations and the province, Ottawa will come to the table with a revised mandate on the fishery.

The federal government will abandon one of the more perverse disincentives for aboriginal people to participate in the development of lands and resources. No longer, when First Nations develop their own sources of revenue, will Ottawa deduct those from federal transfer payments for health, education and social services.

Plus, by appointing Eyford to revitalize the treaty process, Valcourt addressed what many natives see as a sucker’s game — where they are obliged to borrow money against future proceeds from treaty settlements to participate in talks that have produced only a half dozen treaties in 20 years.

First Nations have collectively taken on about half-a-billion dollars in debt via the treaty process to date. By comparison, in that landmark aboriginal title case won by the Tsilhqot’in people recently, the tens of millions of dollars in legal costs were paid (per order of the court) by the government.

“I am pleased to be a part of this initiative to advance reconciliation with aboriginal people,” said Eyford, in the quote attributed to him in the press release. “In my (earlier) report, I noted the importance of open and constructive dialogue between governments and aboriginal communities. To this end, I look forward to hearing the views of all parties on how best to reform the comprehensive land claims policy.”

Long overdue, as the government background paper itself confessed. The federal policy on land claims goes back to 1973 and hasn’t been updated since 1986.

But in recruiting Eyford for the makeover, the government has at least chosen someone with demonstrated expertise and a willingness to tell Ottawa where it needs to mend its ways.
 
What a gong show...

Listen to this one from today back east:

We're prepared to die to protect lands:chief


by Canadian Press - BC Local News
posted Jul 29, 2014 at 2:20 PM— updated Jul 29, 2014 at 3:53 PM

By The Canadian Press

TORONTO - Five First Nations leaders in Ontario say their people are prepared to lay down their lives to protect their traditional lands.

The aboriginal chiefs are serving notice on the Ontario and federal governments, developers and the public that they'll assert their treaty rights over their ancestral lands.

They say the two levels of government haven't respected the agreements their ancestors signed more than a century ago, which gives First Nations the right to assert jurisdiction over lands and resources.

Grand Chief Harvey Yesno of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation says aboriginal people are no longer just going to engage in civil disobedience, but are prepared to die to defend their lands.

He says they'll draw a line in the stand, put a stake in the ground and tie themselves to it if that's what it takes.

Ontario Regional Chief Stan Beardy says they don't want to harm others, but they'll do what they must to stop any incursion on their lands.

Grand Chief of Treaty #3 Warren White says Prime Minister Stephen Harper recognizes the state of Israel, so he should treat aboriginal lands the same way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top