Indian band declares Ashnola valley protected

[ElectricDyck]

I love the outdoors but I wouldn't plan expensive float plane/jet boat trips to climb to the top of a remote northern mountain if I wasn't allowed to carry a rifle or hunt an animal. In time I would lose some interest in that remote country. The amount of wildlife on the land would have less value, if the wolves decimate a population it would not really matter, they would come back in time. If that time frame was 30 years it would not matter. This is why I believe the "privledge" to own a firearm and the "privledge" to hunt trump wildlife and habitat. If you have the first you will hold sacred the 2nd and work to enhance it.

I don't find conservation politicians inspiring, they seem to double speak, hint at one thing and then when pushed say another. Double tongues. I get a sense their priorities are gaining a seat at the table and gaining stature.

[Rob Chipman]

I brought up the truckers convoy again because it sounded like you thought it had no effect and will be remebered for being racist..

I think the way things are going you might just be able to raise a convoy of hunters and donations. When buddy moved the klappin rail grade blockade people donated, myself included...but people need to take risks..hard to give donations to politicians...

I dont seek to offend people, most don't, but to have an honest conversation you risk offending people.

I think we both understand that we live in very complex times. As you've said, it's a post-truth era and I'll go further and say the truth is less important than a good story when it comes to achieving your goal. That's not a good thing. In fact is a very bad thing because it allows people of bad faith to get away with all sorts of bad behaviour. Politicians and political actors exploit this environment while the majority of people are just going around doing their everyday business.

The trucker's convoy, like the January 6 demonstration at the US capital, strike me as short lived explosive negative reactions to a persistent official narrative that contains a high percentage of bullshit. When the powers that be keep telling the great unwashed stories that a lot of them don't believe eventually a significant group will coalesce and yell "That's bullshit and I'm tired of it and you need to stop". At the same time, a significant portion of the great unwashed does not detect the bullshit and thinks the people calling "bullshit" are tin foil hat conspiracy theorists.

We know this is true be use on this very forum, on this very thread, there are lots of people saying "Wake up!" They wouldn't be saying that if everyone agree on what we're seeing.

We know it to be true because the Covid and Ukraine threads have two very distinct sides who disagree strongly with each other. One of those sides is very aligned with the dominant elite narrative and the other is continually saying "Wake up!"

That produces a lot of heat but not much light.


So, did the truckers convoy end mandates and was it an overall positive that cleared anything up long term?

No, no and no.

But it absolutely helped send a message that government should back off.

I say they helped rather than were the cause because I think, at least in BC, the writing was on the wall about getting rid of the mandates even before the truckers started off, and I believe that was the case because of two distinct events. One was one of Dr. Bonnie Henry's press conferences where I detected a very different tone. I turned to my wife and saiid "It's over. She's throwing in the towel. Watch what happens when Keith Baldry comes on. He won't know what to say with this new tone, given that he seems to love this whole emergency Covid world". Sure enough, he had a hard time pivoting.

The next instance was when they locked down over Covid after Christmas and shut down gyms, again. At my gym staff figured out a way to have private trips for one on one sessions. It was a work around that got us back in, but nobody was happy and many clients were vocally pissed off. Gossip and government indication was that the lockdown for gyms would be extended, and the counter gossip was that all the franchise owners for the gym franchise system I belong to were going to rebel and ignore the extended lockdown order. Clients, most of whom had been very compliant through '21 (like most BCers - we're not all sheep, we just not all super agro) were absolutely supportive of the gym owners.

I think government clued in and recognized they'd have a mini rebellion on their hands that they would lose, so they backed off and opened the gyms completely.

Those two things told me the mandates were in the death rattle stage. The convoy kicked off right after and it was, in my view, more of the same: a significant number of people saying "Nope, had enough".

So the convoy was effective political protest, except.....unlike the gym owners.....it was heavily attacked by the mainstream media and the dominant political culture. Gym owners and clients got their freedom without being called racist lunatics (you can add the rest of the labels, we all know them). The truckers? They were used by the powers that be to divide the population even more (you see that division on this forum). That's the downside of the trucker's convoy.

I think you see what I'm saying: the truckers' convoy was a high cost relative to the reward operation. It didn't have a long term goal or plan. It did some damage to the government policies , and that's a good thing, and it helped bring some change, which is a good thing, but it also helped the government, longer term, and that's a bad thing. It also hardened a lot of positions in the general population both ways. You may not know about that, but there is a huge portion of the population in BC that wants *more* lockdowns. Immuno-compromised people, people motivated by health fears and fear in general. They pay taxes, they vote, and they see the truckers convoy as a Trump phenomena - it's negative and it makes them oppositional.

I don't think Justin Trudeau changed his mind at all. I think he and his crew will use the truckers convoy to advance their agenda because they'll be able to cast the truckers as irresponsible extremists (wait, he already has done so, right?)

You can see that dynamic as soon as you ask "Why are so many people saying that freedom is a bad thing?" It seems impossible to understand, but we all see it. I'd argue that the divide and conquer approach of government is a big reason. Divide and conquer is a great business model if you want to avoid an organized and effective opposition.

What's the best response to divide and conquer? I'd say its a long game that provides people enough time to change their minds on things and come together by recognizing who's an enemy, who's a mere obstacle and who's actually a person with common interests.

I'd say that it isn't an effective strategy for a minority of the population like resident hunters and anglers to say "You're either with us or against us and we're going to make a huge stink right now and demand you make a choice". It actually helps the government divide and conquer. We've all witnessed that. We live in perhaps the most divided times I've experienced since the early '70s, with the main difference being that today we're divided over many, many things, and many of them are completely irrational. Some groups thrive on division. Resident hunters and anglers do not.


Does the government divide resident hunters and anglers from First Nations? Every. Single. Day.

It is the system. They built it that way. They maintain it. J_T and anyone else who works with government will confirm this.

Should we be divided? Look at the Ashnola IPCA. What exactly, is the problem? The primary problem and point of fundamental disagreement is access. Sure, there are disagreements over how to achieve the other goals the IPCA has, but if the Lower Similkameen Indian Band said "the government has screwed this place up and we're going to take over management of it, we're going to be reasonable, and *everyone* can come and use the area in a sustainable way" I doubt we'd be so upset about it. Tell me I'm wrong. Show me what else there is in the declaration that upsets you for example.

So my answer to the "Should we be divided" question, whether it's division over Covid, or truckers or FNs, is "No, we have much more in common with each other than the things that divide us and we should recognize that because division helps our opponents".



So, go ahead. Raise a convoy. Lock horns with the LSIB. Get the news out to cover it. I predict it will add to the division and weaken our prospects of success if the goal is restoration fish, wildlife, habitat and maintenance of access to those three things for everyone in BC. Again, tell me I'm wrong. We live in a world where a father is jailed because he opposes the transitioning of his pre-pubescent kid. Explain to me, slowly, how truth and common sense will carry that day if only we get a chance to show the people.

You'll recall that resident hunters protested on the steps of the legislature. We had a truckers' convoy before truckers' convoys were cool. Result? Grizzly hunt gone. Wolf cull suspended pending a lawsuit that still hasn't been resolved. 50% reduction in moose harvest in 7B and on LEH. No caribou hunting in 7B. Fears that this will carry over to R6.

Why would you donate to a politician? Donate to a political action group. It's more effective. Donate to an advocacy group that has the minsters' number on speed dial. More effective. Make allies with people who have influence and punch way over their weight. More effective.

I am right there with you when you say we have to risk offending people if we're going to have a honest conversation. Is anyone under the impression that I don't know I'm risking offending people who I tell them that they are ignorant of some critical facts? Nobody likes hearing the they are misinformed and it takes a mature person to say "You know what? I was unaware of that", but there are plenty of guys on this forum who do exactly that. We've all seen it in real time.

If we're honest about things the offence that we sometimes can't avoid giving doesn't last long with out people of good will.

[Rob Chipman]

I love the outdoors but I wouldn't plan expensive float plane/jet boat trips to climb to the top of a remote northern mountain if I wasn't allowed to carry a rifle or hunt an animal. In time I would lose some interest in that remote country. The amount of wildlife on the land would have less value, if the wolves decimate a population it would not really matter, they would come back in time. If that time frame was 30 years it would not matter. This is why I believe the "privledge" to own a firearm and the "privledge" to hunt trump wildlife and habitat. If you have the first you will hold sacred the 2nd and work to enhance it.

I don't find conservation politicians inspiring, they seem to double speak, hint at one thing and then when pushed say another. Double tongues. I get a sense their priorities are gaining a seat at the table and gaining stature.

You are aligned with the thinking of Shane Mahoney, Dr. Bruce McLellan and me. It is clear, and there is more than a century of evidence to support this, that without hunters and anglers on the ground or water fish, wildlife and habitat will suffer. It's a story that goes back to Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir.


I will disagree with you slightly - and this is really just a quibble because I don't want to sidetrack an important and timely conversation - it's not a privilege to own firearm or to hunt. Those are both rights.

[ElectricDyck]

Time will tell if you re strategy works, so far the results have been dismal...

[Rob Chipman]

Time will tell if you re strategy works, so far the results have been dismal...

Four obvious questions:


1) How would you describe my strategy, including the goal and the tactics?
2) How long has it been in execution and who's executing it?
3) What have the results been and why do you call them dismal?
4) What's the alternative and what does that alternative strategy look like?


As you and I have agreed, honest questions lead to good places. It can, of course, be tough to get answers.

[IronNoggin]

You can absolutely make the argument that First Nations then fanned the flames. I think that's fair comment. How about some context?

Context this: Fan the flames is a very large underestimate of how they conducted themselves.
I understand the frustration with moving forward on most of the action items as noted.
I can not & will not condone the overt claims that all these graves contain innocent children.
They don't.
I cannot condone the burning down and vandalizing of churches, including the potential that the Litton disaster was spurred by that.
Period.

You can make the argument that these many of these so-called unmarked cemeteries were just that - cemeteries which served a wide range of folks, including FN's but most certainly including a great many locals who were not, and you'd be correct. You'd also be missing the point and and you'd be misleading people a bit.

Not at all.

as the records show and as all parties involved agree, there were kids buried without names, without dates, without identifying details and without causes of deaths.

There likely were. I agree. But the numbers being touted (and anyone who questions them are labelled racist) are undeniably inflated. For the cause of sensationalism.

So they're not "so called" graveyards. They're graveyards that may very well hold more people than they are supposed to, with little record or explanation of how they got there, and that's a problem in most people's books. Recognizing that does not make me an apologist.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Who do you think I'm being an apologist for and why?

You are openly supporting the media & FN narrative in this case. You openly accept the touted numbers as "real" and do not question them. You openly suggest that somehow disinterring these radar found anomalies would be an affront rather than a truth finding mechanism.

Personally I consider that to be the actions of an apologist. My Opinion. As to why you do so, I have no understanding.

It is an uphill struggle. I'm suggesting, since we're out gunned and under manned and have to conduct, for lack of a better term asymmetrical warfare, that we avoid pissing off people who are critical to our success, especially when some nations do work with us on some things that we value in common.

What's your plan? I'm all ears.

Never suggested I had a plan, I leave that to your bailiwick.

I will say this - I spent the vast majority of my working career fully engaged with an extremely functional Co-Management (Cooperative Management) regime that performed wonders for the habitat and the resources thereon. It was at times difficult work, but all sides engaged for the explicit purpose of making proper focused management meet the demands of doing so. Differences, although often discussed, were set aside to ensure the best outcome for the resources in question. A true and functional collaborative effort.

Would be fantastic if we could do that today here in BC.
But that chicken has likely flown the coop in my estimation.
What is required is for both (all) sides of the equation to focus on the task at hand, bury historic wrongs to do so, and to engage on an equal standing basis. Or it simply will not fly.
I do not see that occurring here. I see one side's desires to dictate the entire program, and to generally over-ride other's concerns when doing so. That is a recipe for failure in my mind.

That said, if you can somehow persuade the collective FN's to come to the table with an open mind, a focus on proper management and to do so in a truly collaborative manner, I will be the first to offer to step back into the harness and throw my weight in support.

That my friend, is the uphill battle I was referring to.
And while I do indeed wish you luck and success, I won't be holding my breath for that outcome any time soon.

Nog

[Livewire322]

You are aligned with the thinking of Shane Mahoney, Dr. Bruce McLellan and me. It is clear, and there is more than a century of evidence to support this, that without hunters and anglers on the ground or water fish, wildlife and habitat will suffer. It's a story that goes back to Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir.


I will disagree with you slightly - and this is really just a quibble because I don't want to sidetrack an important and timely conversation - it's not a privilege to own firearm or to hunt. Those are both rights.

As much as I wish the bolded statement to be true, it simply isn’t in Canada. Legal precedence and Canadian social opinion confirms this - both can be taken from individuals permanently.
How can you argue about legal precedent supporting the application of the Royal Proclamation in BC and sociopolitical will to support giving control to natives and the need to work within that in one stroke, and with the other believe that access to firearms is a right in Canada…?

Try cutting up your PAL and not renewing it and see how much of a right firearms ownership is for you.

[wildcatter]

Context this: Fan the flames is a very large underestimate of how they conducted themselves.
I understand the frustration with moving forward on most of the action items as noted.
I can not & will not condone the overt claims that all these graves contain innocent children.
They don't.
I cannot condone the burning down and vandalizing of churches, including the potential that the Litton disaster was spurred by that.
Period.



Not at all.
[/COLOR]


There likely were. I agree. But the numbers being touted (and anyone who questions them are labelled racist) are undeniably inflated. For the cause of sensationalism.



You are openly supporting the media & FN narrative in this case. You openly accept the touted numbers as "real" and do not question them. You openly suggest that somehow disinterring these radar found anomalies would be an affront rather than a truth finding mechanism.

Personally I consider that to be the actions of an apologist. My Opinion. As to why you do so, I have no understanding.



Never suggested I had a plan, I leave that to your bailiwick.

I will say this - I spent the vast majority of my working career fully engaged with an extremely functional Co-Management (Cooperative Management) regime that performed wonders for the habitat and the resources thereon. It was at times difficult work, but all sides engaged for the explicit purpose of making proper focused management meet the demands of doing so. Differences, although often discussed, were set aside to ensure the best outcome for the resources in question. A true and functional collaborative effort.

Would be fantastic if we could do that today here in BC.
But that chicken has likely flown the coop in my estimation.
What is required is for both (all) sides of the equation to focus on the task at hand, bury historic wrongs to do so, and to engage on an equal standing basis. Or it simply will not fly.
I do not see that occurring here. I see one side's desires to dictate the entire program, and to generally over-ride other's concerns when doing so. That is a recipe for failure in my mind.

That said, if you can somehow persuade the collective FN's to come to the table with an open mind, a focus on proper management and to do so in a truly collaborative manner, I will be the first to offer to step back into the harness and throw my weight in support.

That my friend, is the uphill battle I was referring to.
And while I do indeed wish you luck and success, I won't be holding my breath for that outcome any time soon.

Nog

The way I see it Rob don't see or agree that FN CAN NOT have all the land, resources, wildlife and fish in BC, because this is what it comes down to.
They want it all, but that's wishful thinking.
I know the talking heads say we need to get all the parties together and work out an agreement, but we know what they are gunning for.
Again may sound like a broken record, this government is totally signed onto the UN agenda and this is the result.

[Rob Chipman]

The way I see it Rob don't see or agree that FN CAN NOT have all the land, resources, wildlife and fish in BC, because this is what it comes down to.
They want it all, but that's wishful thinking.
I know the talking heads say we need to get all the parties together and work out an agreement, but we know what they are gunning for.
Again may sound like a broken record, this government is totally signed onto the UN agenda and this is the result.

We're all here and we aren't going anywhere. Giving all the land, resources and wildlife to one group is not sustainable. I think we both agree on that.

You say "they" want it all. I know Indigenous people who do not say that and who recognize that we are all there and we are all staying here and that we need to figure out a way to make that happen that is sustainable. Clearly you and I disagree on who the "they" are and what it is that the "they" want. If you're correct and there is one monolithic "they" and they do indeed want everything then refer back to my first answer. That arrangement isn't sustainable.

I don't know who the talking heads are and I don't know who is going to form government going forward. We just saw Donald Trump walk into a sclerotic political establishment in the US, kick it in the nads and take control of the presidency. He accomplished a lot and he failed in many ways but he was no fan of the UN, NATO in its current form or foreign wars waged for the benefit of globalists.

Today we have Lyndsey Graham saying there is no way Putin can remain in power, that he must be removed and that there is no off ramp. The US has sent huge amounts of money and weapons to Ukraine and is helping them fight Russia. US government officials are on the records as saying that they are in it to win it and that the goal his to destroy Russia's military, and apparently now Finland has formally asked to join NATO, much to Russia's dismay.

We may very well be at the same stage we were at in July 1914, marching towards disaster.

Forgive me if I doubt your accuracy when you predict the future.

[Rob Chipman]

As much as I wish the bolded statement to be true, it simply isn’t in Canada. Legal precedence and Canadian social opinion confirms this - both can be taken from individuals permanently.
How can you argue about legal precedent supporting the application of the Royal Proclamation in BC and sociopolitical will to support giving control to natives and the need to work within that in one stroke, and with the other believe that access to firearms is a right in Canada…?

Try cutting up your PAL and not renewing it and see how much of a right firearms ownership is for you.

We disagree on the nature of rights.

You apparently believe that rights come from the government. I believe that the government merely recognizes or refuses to recognize rights.

The Royal Proclamation isn't the creation of a right. It's a recognition of title to land subject to the Crown, and it is a legal precedent that has been interpreted by the courts to have application in BC.

Refer to one of the most brilliant pieces of political writing in the English language: We holds these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness --That tp secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Some people don't believe that bit prose, but I do. There's no need to justify it, which is the beauty of saying "I hold this to be self-evident". You believe it our you don't.

What's clear is that rights pre-exist government, and that the rights come not from other men, but from whoever it was who created us (which is why it says "Creator" and not "God").


But if you own your firearms because Justin Trudeau and his band of cronies allows you the privilege and you're ok with that, more power to you.