Originally Posted by
Looking_4_Jerky
Hey Corb,
Please allow me to disassociate myself from almost every member on this site and say that I'm sorry the mods on this site do a super-shitty job in filtering bigotry, racism, bullying and belittling comments from the threads.
There are a few people on this site who have a clue what they're talking about when it comes to aboriginal rights, aboriginal title areas, property held in fee simple, and reservation land. Unfortunately, they are a minority and not overly vocal. I don't blame them. It gets old trying to explain something when people just don't want to hear or understand it. They don't like the shitty legacy that they inherited from our political forefathers. Neither do I really, but understanding how it came to be helps me cope with the fact that I am a descendant of a non-aboriginal culture that finds itself here in many cases illegally, and at very least, with lesser hunting rights than aboriginals. Am I envious that aboriginals' right to hunt is entrenched in the constitution and mine is not? You betcha. Do I reluctantly accept the reality of our nation's (and specifically, our Province's) cultural history and what it means today? Yes.
As an answer to the original question:
Although the title "traditional territory" has implications on aboriginal hunting rights, it does not equate to FN reserve lands nor lands held in fee simple (private), and thus isn't off-limits, unless perhaps they have marked their reserve boundary with those signs, in which case they can control access because it is FN reserve, not because it's traditional territory. A quick search in the "administrative layers" folder in IMAP BC will reveal whether the spot is on reserve or not.