NStQ First Nations, B.C., Canada advance to final treaty negotiations

[bearvalley]

I'm not saying I don't understand your frustration, but the government is making deals with FNs. This isn't new. The FNs are getting land. It's a pretty big ask to demand that BCWF make the government and the FNs change their understanding of private property

Endorsing Weaver and his “right to roam” act should get the problem delt with.
“No more privatization of BC land”........

[Sirloin]

The letter fails to address that crown land will now become private and access will be limited when it comes to hunting and fishing. I feel that this is where the government must state that the general public must be allowed access to hunt fish.

By leaving the " right to access " in the controll of the natives it gives the governemt the ability to wash their hands of the issue.

It appears to be more complicated than this. SOME land will become private. There is a lot of complication with this particular NStQ treaty agreement it creates multiple sets of different land classifications and different laws for each. Then within that there are times when provincial or federal law trumps NStQ law and other times when NStQ law trumps prov/fed law....as well as areas where the NStQ can create new laws.

It looks like new land classifications would be (and there could be more i've missed):

-the overall NStQ territory (the largest collection of land) (What new authority will they have in this largest piece of land?)

-NStQ treaty settlement lands (I don't think these are finalized)

-NStQ Private lands (these are not even listed in the current version of the treaty from what I see)

-NStQ public lands ( NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands that are NOT NStQPrivate Lands) The only references to "NStQ public lands" Throughout the entire treaty seems to come up only when referring to access for hunting/fishing/recreation and hunting guides access. Which makes me very suspicious what loopholes can be exploited here after the final agreement. Also it mentions we would have to follow provincial/fed/ AND NStQ laws while hunting on "NStQ public lands" (i'm not sure what those laws are or what can be created by them in the future after the agreement is finalized) The treaty also fails to address public hunting/fishing access for the larger NStQ territory entirely, or if we would be required to follow NStQ hunting laws in the larger territory or what authority they could have to control wildlife management/access in the territory.

-Cultural Sites this one puts up a big red flag for me. A loophole very possible to exploit and keep the public out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"25.3.1 - On the Effective Date, or as soon as practicable after the Effective Date, British Columbia will commence the provincial designation process under
the Heritage Conservation Act for sites of cultural or historic significance
set out in Appendix M of the Final Agreement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they state these sites will be determined AFTER the agreement, and Appendix M is left blank right now.
And they could be established anywhere in the ENTIRE TERRITORY

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"25.3.3
NStQ and British Columbia will explore ways to provide for themeaningful participation of NStQ in the identification, conservation,
interpretation, presentation, management and protection of Cultural Sites
that are:

a. of significance to NStQ;
b. outside NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands; and
c. within the NStQ Territory"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.0 - LAW-MAKING AUTHORITY6.4.1 - NStQ may make laws in respect of public access on NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands for:

a. the prevention of harvesting or extracting resources owned by NStQ;
and
b. the protection of NStQ Cultural Sites."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and a big one here...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.2 NStQ Law under paragraph 6.4.1 will prevail to the extent of a Conflictwith Federal or Provincial Law."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What IS a "cultural site"? the definition listed in the treaty:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“NStQ Cultural Sites” means sites of archaeological, historical, cultural or
ceremonial significance and burial sites including individual graves;"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"historical" "cultural" and "ceremonial significance" seems like a very open ended definition and could(and have been) bent a long ways to suit their desires i'm assuming. After all, wasn't pit-lamping with high powered lights on ATV's in the middle of the night deemed legal and "traditional" hunting method for FN?

(From my assumptions) in theory they could claim an area is of historical significance (traditional, historical hunting lands, the best spots) claim it as a "cultural site" and then have authority to create laws around public access and establish exclusive FN only access rights. Also, when in a conflict with provincial/fed law, their NStQ access/management laws would prevail...

Be very very careful with this portion of treaty above me thinks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.3 NStQ may make laws in respect of public access on NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands for:

a. purposes of public safety;
b. the prevention of nuisance or damage, including forest fire
prevention; and
c. the protection of sensitive habitat."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.2 Public access under paragraph 6.3.1 will not include:

a. harvesting or extracting resources unless authorized by NStQ or in
accordance with the Final Agreement;
b. causing damage to NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands or resources on
NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands; or
c. causing nuisance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So most all alpine zones and riparian zones could be considered "sensitive habitat" could they make public access laws based on that?
Which types of sensitive habitat are included within the NStQ treaty lands?

also the term "nuisance" is a very open ended term and it is entirely left undefined in the definitions section of this treaty. Regularly defined as "causing inconvenience or annoyance" How far can this one be stretched?

Then there are the sections that give them full hunting rights within provincially protected areas that are established now, and any in the future. While at the same time giving them the ability to push the government to create new protected areas where they will have weight to push around on the new management of these protected areas (allow public hunting or not) and could create exclusive FN only hunting rights in these protected areas. Also the treaty gives them weight to negotiate for themselves exclusive hunting rights to any national parks within NStQ territory existing before the final agreement, and any established after the agreement. Another path to exclusive FN hunting access, the anti's/ GreenDP government with anti-hunters/environmental activists at their side would love to exploit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.2.1 NStQ may make proposals to British Columbia from time to time to
establish a Provincial Protected Area within the NStQ Territory, and such
proposals will be reviewed by British Columbia, following which British
Columbia and NStQ will meet to discuss the proposals.

27.2.5 British Columbia and NStQ may negotiate an agreement consistent with
the Final Agreement and legislation establishing Provincial Protected
Areas within the NStQ Territory that may address the following:
a. park planning;
b. management and operations;
c. economic opportunities; and
d. other matters agreed to by British Columbia and NStQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.1.1 Subject to any agreement under paragraph 27.2.5 and measures for
conservation, public health and public safety, NStQ Citizens may access
any Provincial Protected Area wholly or partially within the NStQ Territory and exercise harvesting, fishing and gathering rights under the Final Agreement without any fees except those fees that are charged for visitor facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.4.2 If, after the Effective Date, any National Park is established wholly or
partly within the NStQ Territory, NStQ and Canada will negotiate and
attempt to reach agreement in respect of the exercise of NStQ harvesting rights by NStQ Citizens in that National Park.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sirloin]

One wonders what the future of public land access would look like in BC when we already have this before anything is even in place

[boxhitch]

do a search of Westbank band...houses on band land are not low priced...there is change coming..no one knows exactly how it will play out..best to keep your head.

Not apples vs apples
In WBFN houses are one indigen lands and pay taxes to the band, values are a bubble due to demand and naivity . Ask the home owners that have been evicted without compensation.

Srupps property would still be his by BC title, but surrounded by treaty lands on all sides with non-BC laws, in an area that will likely loose market interest = priceless

[boxhitch]

..........I think it would be fair for BCWF to demand that access to non-private property not be unreasonably restricted by FNs who happen to have public roads going through their private property.

That would already be covered under BC law if it is a public road. There will be public BC roads as well as out-of-province Non-BC roads

[DarekG]

That would already be covered under BC law if it is a public road. There will be public BC roads as well as out-of-province Non-BC roads

Well they are already in the habit of blockading roads they have no right to and the RCMP doesn't seem to care, this just gives them more leniency to do stupid shit.

[Scotty76]

It appears to be more complicated than this. SOME land will become private. There is a lot of complication with this particular NStQ treaty agreement it creates multiple sets of different land classifications and different laws for each. Then within that there are times when provincial or federal law trumps NStQ law and other times when NStQ law trumps prov/fed law....as well as areas where the NStQ can create new laws.

It looks like new land classifications would be (and there could be more i've missed):

-the overall NStQ territory (the largest collection of land) (What new authority will they have in this largest piece of land?)

-NStQ treaty settlement lands (I don't think these are finalized)

-NStQ Private lands (these are not even listed in the current version of the treaty from what I see)

-NStQ public lands ( NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands that are NOT NStQPrivate Lands) The only references to "NStQ public lands" Throughout the entire treaty seems to come up only when referring to access for hunting/fishing/recreation and hunting guides access. Which makes me very suspicious what loopholes can be exploited here after the final agreement. Also it mentions we would have to follow provincial/fed/ AND NStQ laws while hunting on "NStQ public lands" (i'm not sure what those laws are or what can be created by them in the future after the agreement is finalized) The treaty also fails to address public hunting/fishing access for the larger NStQ territory entirely, or if we would be required to follow NStQ hunting laws in the larger territory or what authority they could have to control wildlife management/access in the territory.

-Cultural Sites this one puts up a big red flag for me. A loophole very possible to exploit and keep the public out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"25.3.1 - On the Effective Date, or as soon as practicable after the Effective Date, British Columbia will commence the provincial designation process under
the Heritage Conservation Act for sites of cultural or historic significance
set out in Appendix M of the Final Agreement."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they state these sites will be determined AFTER the agreement, and Appendix M is left blank right now.
And they could be established anywhere in the ENTIRE TERRITORY

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"25.3.3
NStQ and British Columbia will explore ways to provide for themeaningful participation of NStQ in the identification, conservation,
interpretation, presentation, management and protection of Cultural Sites
that are:

a. of significance to NStQ;
b. outside NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands; and
c. within the NStQ Territory"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.0 - LAW-MAKING AUTHORITY6.4.1 - NStQ may make laws in respect of public access on NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands for:

a. the prevention of harvesting or extracting resources owned by NStQ;
and
b. the protection of NStQ Cultural Sites."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and a big one here...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.2 NStQ Law under paragraph 6.4.1 will prevail to the extent of a Conflictwith Federal or Provincial Law."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What IS a "cultural site"? the definition listed in the treaty:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“NStQ Cultural Sites” means sites of archaeological, historical, cultural or
ceremonial significance and burial sites including individual graves;"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"historical" "cultural" and "ceremonial significance" seems like a very open ended definition and could(and have been) bent a long ways to suit their desires i'm assuming. After all, wasn't pit-lamping with high powered lights on ATV's in the middle of the night deemed legal and "traditional" hunting method for FN?

(From my assumptions) in theory they could claim an area is of historical significance (traditional, historical hunting lands, the best spots) claim it as a "cultural site" and then have authority to create laws around public access and establish exclusive FN only access rights. Also, when in a conflict with provincial/fed law, their NStQ access/management laws would prevail...

Be very very careful with this portion of treaty above me thinks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"6.4.3 NStQ may make laws in respect of public access on NStQ Treaty
Settlement Lands for:

a. purposes of public safety;
b. the prevention of nuisance or damage, including forest fire
prevention; and
c. the protection of sensitive habitat."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.3.2 Public access under paragraph 6.3.1 will not include:

a. harvesting or extracting resources unless authorized by NStQ or in
accordance with the Final Agreement;
b. causing damage to NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands or resources on
NStQ Treaty Settlement Lands; or
c. causing nuisance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So most all alpine zones and riparian zones could be considered "sensitive habitat" could they make public access laws based on that?
Which types of sensitive habitat are included within the NStQ treaty lands?

also the term "nuisance" is a very open ended term and it is entirely left undefined in the definitions section of this treaty. Regularly defined as "causing inconvenience or annoyance" How far can this one be stretched?

Then there are the sections that give them full hunting rights within provincially protected areas that are established now, and any in the future. While at the same time giving them the ability to push the government to create new protected areas where they will have weight to push around on the new management of these protected areas (allow public hunting or not) and could create exclusive FN only hunting rights in these protected areas. Also the treaty gives them weight to negotiate for themselves exclusive hunting rights to any national parks within NStQ territory existing before the final agreement, and any established after the agreement. Another path to exclusive FN hunting access, the anti's/ GreenDP government with anti-hunters/environmental activists at their side would love to exploit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.2.1 NStQ may make proposals to British Columbia from time to time to
establish a Provincial Protected Area within the NStQ Territory, and such
proposals will be reviewed by British Columbia, following which British
Columbia and NStQ will meet to discuss the proposals.

27.2.5 British Columbia and NStQ may negotiate an agreement consistent with
the Final Agreement and legislation establishing Provincial Protected
Areas within the NStQ Territory that may address the following:
a. park planning;
b. management and operations;
c. economic opportunities; and
d. other matters agreed to by British Columbia and NStQ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.1.1 Subject to any agreement under paragraph 27.2.5 and measures for
conservation, public health and public safety, NStQ Citizens may access
any Provincial Protected Area wholly or partially within the NStQ Territory and exercise harvesting, fishing and gathering rights under the Final Agreement without any fees except those fees that are charged for visitor facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27.4.2 If, after the Effective Date, any National Park is established wholly or
partly within the NStQ Territory, NStQ and Canada will negotiate and
attempt to reach agreement in respect of the exercise of NStQ harvesting rights by NStQ Citizens in that National Park.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the breakdown, I’m going to copy this and use this and do whatever I can do get attention to it. I’m sure your ok with that?

time is now to make some noise. Even if it doesn’t do much. Gotta try.

[Sirloin]

Thanks for the breakdown, I’m going to copy this and use this and do whatever I can do get attention to it. I’m sure your ok with that?

time is now to make some noise. Even if it doesn’t do much. Gotta try.

Go for it, keep in mind i'm no expert and just looking at the possible ramifications for us with these treaties best I can.
We really need a proper lawyer+someone who really knows hunting regs to help understand where this will really leave us. Given some of the blockades that were teamed up with anti hunting groups, fisheries, grizzly ban on non-FN only, new motor vehicle bans fon non-FN only, morel picking permitting, claimed moose LEH ban, ect.. the direction the compass is pointing in is not good for us.

[Bugle M In]

Yup...we resident hunters who are not "indigenous, or should I say FN" do really need some lawyers, who are themselves hunters, who do understand the ramifications of this down the road.
Someone who make a difference, for all, and leave a "legacy" behind them for that work, that will never be forgotten and
best, benefit everyone...equally, not just status based on race.
It's not about the past, it's about what "tomorrow will hold", for everyone.

[Jelvis]

That's a problem also, living in the past or the future, we must live in the present and deal with each other now! Get this done!
Jelly Brainz