Indian band declares Ashnola valley protected

[HappyJack]

Getting rid of the Indian Act and assimilating First Nations was the first signature move that PET tried and had to abandon. He faced lots of opposition from First Nations. I recall at the time, and for a long time afterwards, that non-Indigenous Canadians often attributed this the FN leadership's love for money from the feds. Over time I've come to realize that FNs have long been opposed to assimilation (fair enough, right?). Point being, he thought about getting rid of the Indian Act long, long before he repatriated the Constitution and it was just too hard for him to do.

We should get rid of it. It is, by definition, racist legislation. The problem is: what takes it's place? There are lot of answers circulating, but few that most people will agree on.

The federal govt has a fiduciary duty for Canada's aboriginal peoples, and if you study how that duty has been followed in regards to those that lost Status due to C-31 or Metis you would understand why FNs are opposed to getting rid of the Indian Act. IF the Indian Act was gone it would remove well defined responsibilities of the government and would mean more law suits as the Federal govt would consider it a severing of that fiduciary duty.

Metis and non status had to resort to a long protracted law suit [Daniels case] just to establish their status as full 'aboriginals under the law' and even after that our governments waffle and weasel away to get out of providing equal rights for all aboriginals under the law. So it's no wonder that Status/on reserve people don't support having that legal definition under the Indian Act eliminated. I believe many believe that 'self government' is the answer, but that is generations away from ever being able to replace the Indian Act.

[J_T]

"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?

Not at all. We need to hold Government accountable. We've endured almost 8 years of NDP promises of change and a focus on wildlife. Promises of budgets for wildlife, which are only trickling in. It isn't happening fast enough. We (collective we) need to be making better decisions about and for wildlife. The health of our wildlife populations is first and foremost. We need to work with Government to hold them accountable and see real action, on the ground. And we / Gov can work with FN on the common goal, an objective of improved wildlife habitat and wildlife populations.

"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?

The point being, we need to stop following Government around like a puppy, and as the relationship between Indigenous Gov and the BC Gov shifts and evolves, we need to remain open to new concepts, new ideas and new conversations about how this/everything goes forward.

I'm not giving up. Recognized a long time ago, the continuation of the 'hunt' is a long term commitment. I only wish more hunters recognized that and remained committed to it.

If I have one position in this conversation, it is that I am appalled at the reduction of hunter opportunity on the premise of 'saving what's left'. I'm equally opposed to the misuse and shift to LEH and lost opportunity for all hunters.

[J_T]

Let me walk you through it.

That's how JT does things.

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

I continue to struggle in these discussions, having the same initials as the PM. Fact is, if "I" was running things, things would be different. I don't operate from a place of entitled arrogance.

[J_T]

J_T I was reading your post and highlighted to line in it. I am not trying to be disrespectful hear, but broaden the scope of your comments. First Nations love to tell you how respectful they are of the land and all living things. But then they turn around when empowered and contradict the very etho's they tell you they live by. Just think back over the years, the number of very questionable hunting practices and harvest violations commited by first nations. And their leadership seems to turn a blind eye. Look at the mess presently going on in Fairy Creek regarding old growth. The unfortunate part is that most First nations can't even agree among themselves. The LNG project would be another example. I want to be very clear that I recognize that not all first nations are this way.

First nations have also demonstrated by past actions that they will be the only ones hunting in certain areas they have claimed need to be managed by them. They then invite members from other areas outside the province to hunt on their land. They have this misguide idea that somehow they can subsist off the land like their ancestors did. They may achieve that goal in the short term, but it will be unsustainable in the long term. As their populations grow and more people live on this planet, along with the financial pressures, it will be all but impossible maintain. So you will excuse me if I don't buy into the rhetoric first nations sell, that they are the keepers of the land and know how to do it better than the colonizer. As I recall and correct me if I am wrong please, but hunting regulations were brought into force in the very early 20th century because of over harvest of wildlife.

Thanks for expanding on this. Yes, I do agree with some of your concerns. The relationship between ourselves, European settlers and Indigenous, has been tenuous at best. Got off to a rocky start with the Federal Indian Affairs and Catholic church. But that's another discussion. The distrust runs deep and the 'risks' you mention are real. I do look at it as not much different than hoping to hunt on someone's private land. If I'm respectful and operate with good intention, I'm more likely to have an enjoyable hunt. Also to your point that FN do struggle to agree amongst themselves. I'm hopeful that some of the new processes, around wildlife management (the new Regional Wildlife Advisory Committee) "Together for Wildlife" establishes working relationships and empower FN to assist in the decision process along with BC Gov and you and I at the table, the dissention that possibly exists within the BCGov, Resident Hunter, FN, and other stakeholders finds a framework that works for everyone. And most importantly works for wildlife.

Having said that, the BC Gov priority #2 is wildlife for Indigenous people. We hunt, have opportunity to hunt, when wildlife populations are trending up and sustainable. I would suggest LEH is a bigger risk to the sustainability of hunters, than FN.

[VLD43]

Thanks for expanding on this. Yes, I do agree with some of your concerns. The relationship between ourselves, European settlers and Indigenous, has been tenuous at best. Got off to a rocky start with the Federal Indian Affairs and Catholic church. But that's another discussion. The distrust runs deep and the 'risks' you mention are real. I do look at it as not much different than hoping to hunt on someone's private land. If I'm respectful and operate with good intention, I'm more likely to have an enjoyable hunt. Also to your point that FN do struggle to agree amongst themselves. I'm hopeful that some of the new processes, around wildlife management (the new Regional Wildlife Advisory Committee) "Together for Wildlife" establishes working relationships and empower FN to assist in the decision process along with BC Gov and you and I at the table, the dissention that possibly exists within the BCGov, Resident Hunter, FN, and other stakeholders finds a framework that works for everyone. And most importantly works for wildlife.

Having said that, the BC Gov priority #2 is wildlife for Indigenous people. We hunt, have opportunity to hunt, when wildlife populations are trending up and sustainable. I would suggest LEH is a bigger risk to the sustainability of hunters, than FN.

Thankyou for a well thought out response. Nice to know there are people like you involved in this.

[Rob Chipman]

I continue to struggle in these discussions, having the same initials as the PM. Fact is, if "I" was running things, things would be different. I don't operate from a place of entitled arrogance.

Jim, I apologize! The obvious similarity of initials never occurred to me and I'm sorry. I will not link you to Justin Trudeau anymore and I can confirm that you are not entitled or arrogant! Sorry for the inadvertent smear

[Walking Buffalo]

457,000 people out of 5.24 million gives 8.7%, not .087%.

In other words, a larger segment of the population purchases hunting and fishing licenses than are of native ancestry.

No one buys both hunting and fishing licenses?
Point being, these numbers are are quite inaccurate.
Yet important.

We must all recognize that an even larger segment of the population live with hunting and fishing as an active part of their culture.
Most likely, very few people don't benefit from hunting and fishing by fellow community members when "downstream" connections are made.

For both Native and non-Native peoples, a minority of the community are active hunters and fishers.
I suspect that in the Native community, the percentage of hunters/fishers per capita is not a huge amount higher than in the non-Native community.
Most of this variance is going to be based on residency being urban or rural.

[J_T]

Jim, I apologize! The obvious similarity of initials never occurred to me and I'm sorry. I will not link you to Justin Trudeau anymore and I can confirm that you are not entitled or arrogant! Sorry for the inadvertent smear

Haha, no worries Rob, the struggle is mine and mine alone. The day he was first elected, I considered changing my handle on here. FYI my handle has nothing to do with the Prime Minister or his Liberal party and everything to do with what he is not. Transparent.

Carry on as you have. As I stated, the struggle is internal and mine alone. Guilt by association.

[wildcatter]

Not at all. We need to hold Government accountable. We've endured almost 8 years of NDP promises of change and a focus on wildlife. Promises of budgets for wildlife, which are only trickling in. It isn't happening fast enough. We (collective we) need to be making better decisions about and for wildlife. The health of our wildlife populations is first and foremost. We need to work with Government to hold them accountable and see real action, on the ground. And we / Gov can work with FN on the common goal, an objective of improved wildlife habitat and wildlife populations.



The point being, we need to stop following Government around like a puppy, and as the relationship between Indigenous Gov and the BC Gov shifts and evolves, we need to remain open to new concepts, new ideas and new conversations about how this/everything goes forward.

I'm not giving up. Recognized a long time ago, the continuation of the 'hunt' is a long term commitment. I only wish more hunters recognized that and remained committed to it.

If I have one position in this conversation, it is that I am appalled at the reduction of hunter opportunity on the premise of 'saving what's left'. I'm equally opposed to the misuse and shift to LEH and lost opportunity for all hunters.

I think we all agree with you on this.

[Livewire322]

No one buys both hunting and fishing licenses?
Point being, these numbers are are quite inaccurate.
Yet important.

We must all recognize that an even larger segment of the population live with hunting and fishing as an active part of their culture.
Most likely, very few people don't benefit from hunting and fishing by fellow community members when "downstream" connections are made.

For both Native and non-Native peoples, a minority of the community are active hunters and fishers.
I suspect that in the Native community, the percentage of hunters/fishers per capita is not a huge amount higher than in the non-Native community.
Most of this variance is going to be based on residency being urban or rural.

Even if every licensed hunter purchased a fishing license, which I don’t accept as true, that still represents 6.7% of the population that is directly impacted. And as you point out, most of those hundreds of thousands of licensed anglers have satellite individuals that are impacted indirectly.