Slope Is Getting More Slippery And Steeper

[Lionhill]

This doesn't make sense.... Your logic is extremely flawed

If you need to respond to pemby, please do not add his comment as a quote. I have had him on ignore for a year now, and it's quite nice. Highly recommended.

The Okanagan is getting weird with all the various "Nations" moving towards some self directed for of Government. Until everyone can vote for said Government, they aren't one.

[whitlers]

If anyone FN or not came onto my PRIVATE property regardless of so called 'traditional' territory and poached wildlife. We would have ourselves a big issue.

[Pemby_mess]

This doesn't make sense.... Your logic is extremely flawed

in what sense?

[Ourea]

And elk are not native to the area where this happened.
They are an introduced species.

Where is the historical right to that species?

[ACE]

If you need to respond to pemby, please do not add his comment as a quote. I have had him on ignore for a year now, and it's quite nice. Highly recommended.

How to use the 'ignore' feature ?

[dapesche]

I'm white. I'm fairly "well-off"; Let's say i got it into my mind that i wanted to put together a group of super "well-off" guys and buy all vacant land North of PG. Then exclude everyone from it under tenet of "private property". Would you be Ok with that? We're both white, so nothing racially untoward.

The justice system is operating as you say it should. FN as incorporated organizations, have just as much right to challenge crown title as anyone else. If a government took your land and put it in a supposed trust, never to give it back; i'd imagine you'd find yourself in court with them sooner, rather than later. Whether they had previously advanced rent to you or not.

WRT the OP;

the guys were convicted of tresspassing on private property. so the legal system is again, working as intended. Charges related to poaching were stayed as part of the plea. A white guy would have been rightfully charged for illegally taking game. But members of the PIB have rights to the game within their traditional territory, that supercede's the crown's rights. So why is that legally inconsistent?

Pemby, what is your solution for fixing the relationship between FN and British Columbians? How do you feel giving up large chunks of British Columbian's land to FNs will help?

[Pemby_mess]

Pemby, what is your solution for fixing the relationship between FN and British Columbians? How do you feel giving up large chunks of British Columbian's land to FNs will help?

Thanks for the question:

First, we have to understand that the relationship between BC and FNs is heavily influenced by the relationships between both Canada and FN, and Canada with BC.

We need both our federal, and provincial representatives to faithfully consult with the youngest adult generations of FN, to get a sense of what they want to see 3 decades out; nationally. Hopefully some kind of formal process with a designed minimum of direct interference from current FN leadership with uniquely generational axes to grind. Then that same process can be brought down to a finer resolution regionally, to identify regionally specific concerns. I'd imagine most of those talks would be about abolishing the Indian Act, first and foremost, and replacing it with something more enlightened; since no party is at all happy with the way that contract interferes in modern negotiation.

I would make determining what the Crown is prepared to lose a topline priority. The suresest way to lose everything, is being unprepared to concede anything. That doesn't however mean that there aren't some non-negotiable principles that make the crown, "the crown".

All of this will ultimately flush out who controls what resources, but i would aim for some kind of shared structure, based on free market principles known to work. It would be my preference to see the crown retain certain rights to large negotiated land settlements, such as the right of the public to recreate; even if a share of the market derived material benefits, from those previously wholly owned crown rights, may now in fact flow to FN governments.

A lot of the concerns I hear voiced on this forum, from hunters not on this forum, other stakeholders, and even from FNs; fall nicely along the lines of resentment, secondary to sloppy land use policies in general; and don't necessarily have anything to do with racial friction, or legal ambiguities at their core.

[IronNoggin]

How to use the 'ignore' feature ?

Right click on anyone's avatar / handle.
Open in new tab.
Takes you to their profile.
Subheading "Add to ignore list".
Done.

And as Lionhill noted above, quite nice & highly recommended.
Especially so for this particular narcissist. who has NOTHING hunting related to share... Ever...

Cheers,
Nog

[DarekG]

Pemby, you use so many words but say so little. What does your post even mean? Where is your solution?
Any jackass can provide their perspective with a "high level" overview from their armchair with zero experience.

All of this will ultimately flush out who controls what resources, but i would aim for some kind of shared structure, based on free market principles known to work.

What does that even mean? Is this any different from the situation we are currently facing? Are we not currently flushing it out, is the problem not that its been flushing for hundreds of years?

[Pemby_mess]

Pemby, you use so many words but say so little. What does your post even mean? Where is your solution?
Any jackass can provide their perspective with a "high level" overview from their armchair with zero experience.



What does that even mean? Is this any different from the situation we are currently facing? Are we not currently flushing it out, is the problem not that its been flushing for hundreds of years?

i should have used an other adjective i suppose: "efficiently flush out control of resources". That can only be done using negotiation in "good faith".

seems to me, till recently, we have been waiting for the courts to weigh in on whom controls what. That is not an efficient mechanism. The courts are a mostly "winner take all" advesarial process. It is not a place to seek "win-win" outcomes.

The best way to remedy a breach of contract, is to renegotiate. Encouraging governments to double-down on the breach, isn't going to benefit any of us. In fact it is looking increasingly likely, doing so will grievously harm all of us. So no, i wouldn't say my proposal is at all in line with historical strategy.