Indian band declares Ashnola valley protected

[wildcatter]

You're not completely wrong. Like I said:

"I think it's fair to say the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was a short term, politically expedient imperial move that nobody executing it ever thought would mature into what it has become two and a half centuries later."


However, in 1763 BC was on the map. Yes, it was not called "BC", but it was on the map, claimed by Spain, and by the mid-1700s was just becoming the subject of imperial wrangling.

Should they RP apply to BC? There's an argument that it should not, for sure, but that argument failed in the Canadian legal system. The obvious question arises: do we accept legal decisions we don't like, or do we protest the legal system and demand that it gives us decisions that jurists do not think comply with the law but do comply with what we want to see? (Anyone want to defend left wing pro-abortion process outside SCOTUS personal residences because SCOTUS is circulating a draft opinion that a lot of pro-abortion people don't like?)

Has everything else been "cooked up out of convenience" since 1763? That's also a tough argument to make unless you dismiss the rule of law. On the other hand, it's really easy to find a lot of historical documents that have been interpreted in ways to clarify the boundaries of legally recognized rights. The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and US law said two mutually exclusive things at the same time regarding slavery, but in the fullness of time slavery was recognized as completely illegal (among other things), and nobody argues that this was cooked up out of convenience.

We all understand that laws often get things wrong initially and that tons of lawyers (both the ones arguing the particular cases and the ones sitting as judges) try to correct the original errors. The same basic question arises: do we respect the rule of law, understanding that humans will interpret the law in open court and that some citizens will not like the decisions, or do we chuck centuries of legal tradition out the window and adopt the Honduran model?


Regardless of what any of us *want* to see we know two indisputable facts on the ground: Canadian courts (love 'em or hate 'em) have found and accepted that the RP is valid in BC, and government does observe the concept of "the honour of the Crown".

There are two solutions if you're on the side of those who don't like the ruling.

First, reverse the idea that the RP is valid in BC on a point of law. Again, Roe vs Wade in the US is likely getting tossed because it was a faulty decision *base on a correct reading of the law*. Anyone with enough time and money can do this. Simple, not easy (unless no error in the reading of the law exists).

Second, we can toss out the idea that the honour of the Crown matters, and allow the government to just change the rules whenever not suits them without the requirement to have those changes comply with our legal system. Lots of countries do that, but it's not a western enlightenment nor an Anglo-Saxon/British legal & political tradition. We're generally bigger fans of laws, precedent and an independent judicial system.

You mean like the turd changed it to suit his agenda envoking the Emergencies Act for something that was totally uncalled for?

[VLD43]

You're not completely wrong. Like I said:

"I think it's fair to say the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was a short term, politically expedient imperial move that nobody executing it ever thought would mature into what it has become two and a half centuries later."


However, in 1763 BC was on the map. Yes, it was not called "BC", but it was on the map, claimed by Spain, and by the mid-1700s was just becoming the subject of imperial wrangling.

Should they RP apply to BC? There's an argument that it should not, for sure, but that argument failed in the Canadian legal system. The obvious question arises: do we accept legal decisions we don't like, or do we protest the legal system and demand that it gives us decisions that jurists do not think comply with the law but do comply with what we want to see? (Anyone want to defend left wing pro-abortion process outside SCOTUS personal residences because SCOTUS is circulating a draft opinion that a lot of pro-abortion people don't like?)

Has everything else been "cooked up out of convenience" since 1763? That's also a tough argument to make unless you dismiss the rule of law. On the other hand, it's really easy to find a lot of historical documents that have been interpreted in ways to clarify the boundaries of legally recognized rights. The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and US law said two mutually exclusive things at the same time regarding slavery, but in the fullness of time slavery was recognized as completely illegal (among other things), and nobody argues that this was cooked up out of convenience.

We all understand that laws often get things wrong initially and that tons of lawyers (both the ones arguing the particular cases and the ones sitting as judges) try to correct the original errors. The same basic question arises: do we respect the rule of law, understanding that humans will interpret the law in open court and that some citizens will not like the decisions, or do we chuck centuries of legal tradition out the window and adopt the Honduran model?


Regardless of what any of us *want* to see we know two indisputable facts on the ground: Canadian courts (love 'em or hate 'em) have found and accepted that the RP is valid in BC, and government does observe the concept of "the honour of the Crown".

There are two solutions if you're on the side of those who don't like the ruling.

First, reverse the idea that the RP is valid in BC on a point of law. Again, Roe vs Wade in the US is likely getting tossed because it was a faulty decision *base on a correct reading of the law*. Anyone with enough time and money can do this. Simple, not easy (unless no error in the reading of the law exists).

Second, we can toss out the idea that the honour of the Crown matters, and allow the government to just change the rules whenever not suits them without the requirement to have those changes comply with our legal system. Lots of countries do that, but it's not a western enlightenment nor an Anglo-Saxon/British legal & political tradition. We're generally bigger fans of laws, precedent and an independent judicial system.

One of the complications or considerations in this, is Canadas relationship with England and the crown. As the RP was originally their document then what liability do they have in this? Since Trudeau senior repatriated the constitution could that possibly mean all liability is the transferred to Canada?

[Ohwildwon]

The NDP has brought this on,

now they don’t want to deal with it…

They need to have it shoved in their face

[Rob Chipman]

That "monumental puzzle" need to be solved, just not the way FN want to do.

It's unclear how "FN" want the puzzle solved, because there isn't a monolithic First Nation with an agreed upon position.

It's clear that non-Indigenous citizens and voters of this province have differing opinions on how it should be solved as well.

The idea that this is some sort of 3% minority vs a 97% majority is just untenable and we should stop pretending its a reflection if reality, no matter how much it offends us to accept it. Polls indicate that increasing numbers of non-Indigenous Canadians not only support more reconciliation, but that they trust Indigenous leaders more than their own government (low bar, I know, but it is what it is).

If you want to solve a challenge (as in, restoring fish, wildlife and habitat and maintaining access to all three things for everyone) its best to have an accurate idea of the challenge rather than a distorted one.

[Rob Chipman]

You mean like the turd changed it to suit his agenda envoking the Emergencies Act for something that was totally uncalled for?

Pretty much. If you want to run things the way JT does then vote for him and his kind and support the BS that they do.

[Rob Chipman]

One of the complications or considerations in this, is Canadas relationship with England and the crown. As the RP was originally their document then what liability do they have in this? Since Trudeau senior repatriated the constitution could that possibly mean all liability is the transferred to Canada?

It's a good question, and if I understand you correctly then I think the short answer is "yes, all liability for observing the RP has been transferred to Canada". I guess the longer answer would be "But First Nations can probably still go after the British government as well (they'd need good lawyers) and that Canada can extinguish transferred liability for the honour of the Crown if Canada explicitly revokes that liability in a legally acceptable way" (the US accomplished this by forcing Cornwallis to surrender and starting a new country).

Caveat: Caution: the coffee is hot, I'm not a lawyer and your mileage may vary.

[Rob Chipman]

The NDP has brought this on,

now they don’t want to deal with it…

They need to have it shoved in their face

It's been coming a long time. IPCAs have been established outside of BC and before the NDP were in power. Every provincial party voted in favour of DRIPA, and Harper was the first PM to apologize for residential schools.

Again, if you have a challenge to address (FWH and access to them for everyone) it's good to accurately define the challenge.


Forcing government to deal with this challenge in a timely manner, reach an equitable and sustainable solution of face the consequences? Absolutely fair and valid point. They should have done it 100 years ago. We'd be further ahead.

[browningboy]

The NDP has brought this on,

now they don’t want to deal with it…

They need to have it shoved in their face

I just don't get how monumental decisions could be made like this without a vote, I mean when it affects many British Columbians in terms of financially or mentally? How can one government just do a whatever I want attitude? Like I say I wish they went after downtown because that would raise awareness! Otherwise unless it's Vancouver they just will hide it.

[J_T]

Following Rob's comment above, if Government had done the right thing 100 years ago, this would not really be an issue.

But I admit I'm a bit confused by the position of resident hunters. 20 years ago, I'm sure I would have responded as many on here have. Times are very different now.

More recently, outdoors people, and hunters have become more critical of the BC Government's ability to effectively manage the land. We as hunters are constantly criticizing Government.

I understand when power shifts from BCGov to Indigenous groups we typically get concerned about a loss of access and even a loss of opportunity.

As Rob mentioned, in reality, this has been coming a long time.

Loss of opportunity is important, to me and to each of you. What if, we start from the informed position that perhaps, Indigenous groups - with a traditional vested interest in the land, would be more responsible as stewards of defined areas of land? Remembering we are constantly accusing the current BC Gov of a lack of responsible stewardship.

At which point - if we act responsibly and with respect - the discussion is less about "us vs them", and more about the quality of the land value and what activities can 'continue' to occur on the land? Which don't compromise the land value.

It is Crown land and the BC Gov should be having the discussion on the basis of stewardship rather than leaving us residents to be worried about alienation. Government should frame the discussion from a valued position to negotiate terms on behalf of residents.

To my point, if hunters carry themselves appropriately and show respect, it would be my assumption the land may benefit, and our outdoor activities might not be compromised. Our 'friend' will almost always trust us. Rather than separate from us, if we are rude, entitled and obnoxious.

The politics of the land has changed from 5 or 10 plus years ago. Establishing a "Demand seeking compliance" relationship, is simply not going to work. Being positional against other users of the land, simply is not going to work. The use of terms, "Protected" are not always accurately used. Protection vs Conservation.

Finding a new path, to carry on 'our' heritage is in my opinion, the best alternative.

[RugDoctor]

Always obey your government. Also, obey what some random indians tell you to do.

Bawahahahahaaaaa!!!!