Indian band declares Ashnola valley protected

[ElectricDyck]

Following Rob's comment above, it 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.

I understand what you are saying but ironing out details to "a new path" could take 20 years...our gov't is useless and doesn't care about it's citizens..the FN groups are mostly useless and some don't even care about their own, the bands can't can't agree on much, anything they manage seems to go to shit...I think in the meantime access will be shut down and/or so complicated or expensive it will be too much for most. In 20 years I could be dead..my kids will have grown up not hunting...I think its over.

[Livewire322]

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.

This line of thinking is ignorant of the fact that FNs are not beholden to the majority of the population. At best, they are beholden to 5% of the population.

[Rob Chipman]

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.

The declaration of the Ashnola IPCA was not made by the province or the feds - it's a unilateral declaration of the Lower Similkameen Indian Band. As far as I know neither the province nor the feds have recognized it.

The long term impacts of DRIPA and the federal version, Bill C-15 are unclear, but the action plan to implement DRIPA has been released. Prior to that was the draft action plan, and prior to that was passage of the DRIPA act itself. The draft action plan and the plan itself were developed by the NDP, but the DRIPA Act was passed, unanimously, by the elected government of the day, and unless I've got my dates mixed up, there's been an election since then and the NDP won an even stronger mandate.

DRIPA is distinctions base (meaning it acknowledges the unique and specific rights of FNs, Metis and Inuit peoples), it's legally plural, meaning we officially recognize the Indigenous laws and legal orders exist with distinct authorities and roles (it's not clear that this Ashnola declaration has the force of law, but we could get there), and it embraces the concept of the inherent right to self government of Indigenous peoples and will provide resources to see that it is achieved.

You can read the plan here, and I recommend that all of you give it a gander: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/go...ction_plan.pdf

[Rob Chipman]

....details to "a new path" could take 20 years...our gov't is useless and doesn't care about it's citizens..

Like I've said before, we're on our own. The province and the feds engage FNs on a G2G basis and have started referring to these agreements as "tripartite". The province is not doing what most resident hunters or anglers want. The province will resource FN governments to help them build capacity. Maybe it's time to recognize that FNs governments already have some powers, and will get more, and they will be able to enforce their will upon non-Indigenous hunters and anglers. Their powers will very likely continue to grow.

They say you can't fight City Hall, but you can figure out how to navigate their rules to get what you want. Some forum members will express disgust at this, but they'll also buy provincial hunting licenses and pay traffic tickets and property tax, so colour me doubtful when they rattle the sabre of rebellion. Sending a convoy of flag waving white guys anywhere will result in the group being ignored and called racists. Breaking laws that are recognized by any provincial or federal government (and they've indicated that they will give FNs laws an as yet to be determined amount of validity) will get you in criminal or misdemeanour trouble.

I might be worth recognizing that what I've described above has already happened. It isn't going to be stopped anytime soon. Yelling at FNs and complaining about them isn't going to get them to think fondly of resident hunters and anglers. It might be wise to come up with a different approach.

....the FN groups are mostly useless and some don't even care about their own, the bands can't can't agree on much, anything they manage seems to go to shit...

The flip side of that is that some FNs groups are doing effective predator control and ungulate recovery and that many are making concrete progress looking after their people. They often disagree because they are 198+ different entities. It's also fair to observe that in this country the non-Indigenous peoples don't agree on much either.

I think in the meantime access will be shut down and/or so complicated or expensive it will be too much for most. In 20 years I could be dead..my kids will have grown up not hunting...I think its over.

That's a fair position and a lot of resident hunters and anglers of a certain age feel that way as well. For those of us not ready to give up yet, though, I've got a request: don't make our attempt at solving this challenge harder. We might be successful and your kids may become adult onset hunters.

[358mag]

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

Bawahahahahaaaaa!!!!

Yes that what they the government and FN's want .
You will own nothing and be happy

[wildcatter]

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.

According to what poll and why does it matter?
To you it may be a distorted idea, but to many of us it's reality.

[wildcatter]

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.

Maybe you voted for him, I never did and never will.
You don't make any sense in your reply.

[wildcatter]

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.

When Pierre T. brought the constitution back the RP should have stayed with the Crown, afterall it WAS their decision.
Now nearly 260 years later we should have nothing to do with it and ALL men should be equal on the land.

[wildcatter]

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.

"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."
And in your opinion we shouldn't be?

"Being positional against other users of the land, simply is not going to work."
I assume "being against other users of the land" you mean us, but it's no problem if we flip this 180 degree, right?

[VLD43]

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
Thanks for such a great discussion on this topic and being patient with all of this. You have shed a lot of light on the challenges facing us as hunters and fishermen, and on the province. I have learned a lot from you over the course of the last few days. I would say that all of us should become much more informed about the realities of our history (like it or not) before being so short sighted. I know this is a bitter pill to swallow at some level, but i fully agree that the only way ahead is thru respect and concensus.