Crown Land Given To Now Be FN Land

[dany]

Is there any temporal outlook on when these land-ownership changes may become effective in a relevant manner? As there is a lot of money involved, I’d be surprised if we are speaking about a timeframe of less then 10 years? Doesn’t make it better but still, to understand the context better that would be interesting.

Also, wouldn’t it be feasible to negotiate a term that grants access for recreational use and non indigenous hunting and fishing rights? The FN are hunters and fishers themselves, they should have an understanding for us. In business, you never win by concentrating what doesn’t work. I’m sure there are possibilities to find win wins for both sides of the table, and non resident hunting fishing rights should be the bare acceptable minimum.

Actually, people take the word of the Supreme Court because it sets out what will and will not be enforced by the government, and it sets out what the government can and cannot legally do. It ain't a religious thing.


Two examples: if the Supreme Court says that Tsilhqot'in Nation Declared Title Land belongs to the Tsilhqot'in and that they can govern it, but I don't agree with the SCC and I don't like the rules the Tsilhqot'in impose, what can I do? I can't take them to court and win, as it's been decided. I can't take up arms against anyone, because the Feds, the Tsilhqot'in National Government and the Province will all agree that I'm committing a criminal act. There's nothing religious about that. It's just the way the forces of coercion are aligned.

Second example: the Tsilhqot'in prohibit hunting without TNG permission in TNDT lands. The government cannot over-rule them, because they'll lose in court. It's not religion. It's statute and common law.

You may not like it.

You may argue that government can throw out statute and common law and over-ride what Indigenous peoples have won through long and hard legal battles, and you are 100% correct, but....we are a long, long way from seeing that happen. There's very little benefit to existing governments to do that.

It's also about much more than "land claims" - if it was only that there would be much less worry about what the future holds. It's about sovereignty. This post's title includes the term "Crown land" - that concept is in dispute. It's extremely common for Indigenous people to argue that there is no such thing as Crown land, so there's no way "Crown land" can be given to anyone, anywhere, anytime.

[Rob Chipman]

Depends.

A court ruling can occur anytime without regard for the financial interests of stakeholders or parties to the dispute. It takes longer if it has to go to the SCC, but with Tsilhqot'in once they won at SCC they'd won. There was an implementation timeframe, but ask people who'd invested time and money in that area - they have to live with the ruling, no ifs, ands or buts. Right now the province is going to court with the Nuchatlaht over a land claim. BC is arguing that the Nuchatlaht abandoned the land and so don't have a valid claim. Nuchatlaht disagrees. If Nuchatlaht wins at court it'll be hard to say "OK, can we negotiate and be reasonable now that the government lost?" So, court process vs negotiated process are very different.

Negotiating is different from a court case because, as you point out, you can maximize the win-win aspect of it.

If Indigenous governments do agree that non-Indigenous people should be able, whether by right or privilege, to hunt and fish lands that the Indigenous governments control, great. Everyone will be happy. It's important to remember that an over the counter tag for a mule deer probably doesn't generate enough revenue for FN government to be very concerned about. At the same time, not allowing non-Indigenous hunting of fishing on the territory that the FN government controls may not seem like a bad thing for the particular FN.

It's also worth remembering that not all FNs think the same way. There will be different aproaches to things.

[adriaticum]

If Indigenous governments do agree that non-Indigenous people should be able, whether by right or privilege, to hunt and fish lands that the Indigenous governments control, great. Everyone will be happy.

Everyone, except anti hunters, vegans, vegetarians, urban hippies, animal rights activists etc.
But all I care about is my people

[ElectricDyck]

Page 14! Surprised no one moved it to politics and debates to die.... I really do think this should be in the most watched forum to gather the most attention...hunters need to see what's on the horizon, educate their friends, government seems ok with throwing hunters under the bus..

[REMINGTON JIM]

I have lost my business due to Titled land. Never fun loosing something you built from scratch. Government is a joke, bowing to UN at every tern. More businesses will be lost , and more families displaced due to titled land that is what is coming.

I used to love this country and province but libtards have ruined a once great nation. Not the Canada I grew up in that is for sure.

Very Unfortunate for you - I FEEL your Pain ! Country is Nearly Ruined now ! RJ

[browningboy]

The only thing that would wake people up is to give the FN Vancouver or in fact the lower mainland! Otherwise if it doesn't affect them they really don't care and just move to the next head line!

[jshansen]

That's it! I've had it! I'm going back to Norway

[jshansen]

What really bugs me is that in the eyes of society these days white outdoorsmen and white commercial fishermen are portrayed and viewed as evil, greedy, blood thirsty, and they think we only kill animals to take nice pictures with big antlers and leave the meat to rot. But the natives can do no wrong! They are viewed as stewards of the land, saviors of the wilderness. If I've read once, I've read a million times that natives have special hunting and fishing priviledges for "food, social and ceremonial purposes" What the heck are these social pr ceremonial purposes? If we shot something for anything other than food we'd have our heads on poles in downtown Vancouver. I've even read, and I don't know if this is true or will be, that the grizzly hunting ban and potential wolf hunting ban doesn't apply to them because of these ceremonial purposes and traditions. And the public gives them their blessing! Guess what, the natives of today aren't the natives of the 1700's or 1800's, their favourite method of harvest is pit lamping and they don't rely on wild meat like they used to or any more than we do. Sorry for the lack of organized direction here this is just a cluster of thoughts.

[REMINGTON JIM]

Very TRUE ��

[Surrey Boy]

What really bugs me is that in the eyes of society these days white outdoorsmen and white commercial fishermen are portrayed and viewed as evil, greedy, blood thirsty, and they think we only kill animals to take nice pictures with big antlers and leave the meat to rot. But the natives can do no wrong! They are viewed as stewards of the land, saviors of the wilderness. If I've read once, I've read a million times that natives have special hunting and fishing priviledges for "food, social and ceremonial purposes" What the heck are these social pr ceremonial purposes? If we shot something for anything other than food we'd have our heads on poles in downtown Vancouver. I've even read, and I don't know if this is true or will be, that the grizzly hunting ban and potential wolf hunting ban doesn't apply to them because of these ceremonial purposes and traditions. And the public gives them their blessing! Guess what, the natives of today aren't the natives of the 1700's or 1800's, their favourite method of harvest is pit lamping and they don't rely on wild meat like they used to or any more than we do. Sorry for the lack of organized direction here this is just a cluster of thoughts.

Old stock Canadians are going to have to stick up for themselves. I don't want to become like South Africa.