Something will be done alright. The Muslims that are getting involved in politics more and more aren’t going to put up with the Indian bullshit. First Nations be warned.Originally Posted by Brambo
HuntingBC Champ
Something will be done alright. The Muslims that are getting involved in politics more and more aren’t going to put up with the Indian bullshit. First Nations be warned.
"Careful what you wish for"
FN groups are in the process of defining that term legally. The outcome of that process is certainly not going to result in any less rights over the land than they enjoy currently.
HuntingBC Champ
I thought it had already been defined, funny thing though, traditional territory is something that only gets the attention on this side of the rockies from our socalist governments. In one form or another the TT of the Cree is from Quebec to the rocky mtns at time of contact, I wonder if thats going to change too? or is it going to be a BC thing?
Territories changed greatly after Canada/BC were already governed by the Crown, as an example could be the Saulteax in north eastern BC and the Sioux on the plains. The Cree/Sioux/Saulteax all share in the respective resource peacefully at this time.
TT has been broadly defined for the purposes of legal claims, and only defined under binding judgement in a few cases where legal title has been awarded. I'll assume you have at least a superficial understanding in the legal difference between Southern land claims east of the Rockies, and those west of the Rockies, toward the Arctic. Those here and in the North, are unlikely to influence case law much for those in the East.
Those legal differences have nothing to do with the socialistic tendencies or lack thereof, between various provincial and territorial governments. Much more to do with old common law interpretations of what constitutes private property vs that owned by the monarch.
I will assume shared common ownership will actually be a commonly negotiated theme in the land settlements to follow. Ideally the crown negotiates a continuance of certain ownership interests, even where FN title prevails.
HuntingBC Champ
I will put the left wing lobbiest on ignore if this confusion persists.^^^^
I wonder if we are headed to.... the FN who's territory a resident intends to hunt will need to ask and receive permission from the band to hunt said territory in the future, anywhere in BC, because I have a feeling that is where this is going.
Banned
This issue has been interesting and will be getting more so;
On July 27th, Harvey Andrusak, President BC Wildlife Federation wrote a letter to John Horgan stating that.....”The TCG have publicly called for a ban on resident hunting, offered a voluntary ban by Tahltan people but no ban on Guide Outfitters who guide non-resident hunters”.....
This is a flat out lie.
In Chad Days request to MLA Doug Donaldson it states...”The Tahltan Central Government is concerned about the safety of all hunters and is respectfully asking resident hunters and others to refrain from hunting throughout Tahltan Territory until such a time that the state of emergency has been lifted, the fires contained and the damage to the regions wildlife can be properly assessed.
Many of the local Tahltan families and hunters will refrain from hunting and are encouraging others to do the same.
The Tahltan homelands encompass BC’s Wildlife Management Units 6-19 to 26 and 7-52 respectively.”.......
President Days letter to the Province states...”The Tahltan Nation is requesting that the Province support our position by formulating a temporary hunting ban within Tahltan Territory for this hunting season”.
It does not get any clearer ....IF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT PLACES A BAN ON HUNTING IN TAHLTAN TERRITORY IT WILL BE FOR ALL LICENSED HUNTERS.
RESIDENT AND GUIDED NON-RESIDENT.
Harvey Andrusak and whoever within the BCWF is standing beside him in his statement are straight up liars.
HuntingBC Champ
I have Known Harvey for well over 40 years. I always found him to be a very honest and genuinely concerned professional biologist and one who risked his career to fight against major issues concerning wildlife and fisheries habitat and management.
I will stop here as I am inclined to become a bit irate on issues such as this............
HuntingBC Champ
Good of them to be concerned for the safety of resident hunters, but thats not their job.
I presume the part that is questionable from what I can tell is the part about "no ban on guide outfitters who guide non-resident hunters" am I right?
who are these "others" that are referred to? do you know?
(asking resident hunters and others to refrain from hunting throughout Tahltan Territory)
Banned
Lets put it this way....as a GO that works within Tahltan Territory I am fully aware that if a hunting closure takes place ...THE CLOSURE WILL BE FOR ALL LICENSED HUNTERS.
The BCWF has been doing a remarkably fine job lately of driving wedges between themselves and who should be working with them.
Like I said, what was put in that letter to Horgan was BS.
Banned
First. I doubt andusack wrote that release, more like a staff and it went out under his name That said it is incredible the falsehoods in the statement. It is pretty clear that the Tahltan are asking... not telling gov for a closure, which includes everyone , no where does it mention guide outfitter exemptions, secondly where in the Tahltan release does it even hint at blockades??? The Tahltan could of done what First Nations in the caribou have done..simply issue a closure notice in their territory, they did not , they chose a more respectful professional tact.
Perhaps what the fed could of done instead of just issuing a statement based on falsehoods and fear mongering is met with Chad day , outfitters etc and come up with a temporary closure on affected areas that all could support, or at least try to get to that resolution. Picking unnecessary fights with First Nations, cattlemen,outfitters seems a strange strategy in working in a collaborative manner for wildlife
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote