There are still a lot ofpeople asleep, but hopefully change is coming.Originally Posted by TheObserver
However I don't see this whole thing end well.
HuntingBC Champ
There are still a lot ofpeople asleep, but hopefully change is coming.
However I don't see this whole thing end well.
WLM
I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it. - Clint Eastwood
"Lots of critters to still shoot. And there'll be no quitters until we bag some critters" - 180grainer
"Politicians should wear sponsor jackets like Nascar drivers, then we know who owns them" - Robin Williams
Flush the Turd!
Located and residing on the unceded territory of European Settler's traditional land.
Click here to learn more 🖕
Different Member
You brought up a lot of stuff, and it's all very valuable. Like I said - lots of things going on in this thread. A lot of them have nothing to do with restoring fish, wildlife or habitat, or, equally critical, access to those there things for everyone in BC. You'll hear that broken record a lot. get used to it.
So we agree on that. I don't plan on leaving here either and I don't want to see my ability to hunt, fish and recreate in others ways across this province diminished. Like I said, I wish it were a choice between a future that is perfect and one that sucks, but that's not the choice we face.
Neither I nor the BCWF want to do that, nor have I ever indicated that we want to. We advocate fun firearms rights and access and spend a lot of time and energy on it. We also advocate for habitat and fish and wildlife population restoration (I wish we could still just "conserve", but we're past that point and now have to restore). What I want, and what I've asked for, is that people who claim to want to continue to fish and hunt don't make the work we're doing harder, and that's exactly what you're doing.
You've probably heard Rinella's observation "Hunters *are* all in the same boat, but some of us are chopping hole sin the boat" - when you deliberately stick your finger in the eyes of Indigenous people that's exactly what you're doing: chopping holes in the boat that we all find ourselves in.
Why would you do that? (I know, you say you won't respond, but you'll still read this, and so will others, so ask yourself the question: what is pissing you off so much that you'll make restoration of fish, wildlife, and habitat, and access to it, harder for people trying to attain those goals for guys like you?
I get that you don't like or trust the government. That's a fair position, I won't try to change your mind on that. But what is it doing to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and what is it doing to maintain our access to those things? I'm all ears to hear the plan.
The "we" I speak of are me and all the other people I run across in meetings who are trying to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to it for resident hunters and anglers. Like I said - Not all resident hunters and anglers actually want to preserve the activities we've all done all our lives. They demonstrate this by their words and actions. They're chopping holes in the boat. If you don't want to be put in that category then, before making the job os us trying to achieve restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat while maintaining access to it for resident hunters and anglers *but don't like what I'm recommending?* Come up with a better plan (I'll support it if it is better) or stop making the work that volunteers like myself and others on this forum are doing tougher by needlessly pissing off potential opponents.
I'm glad you won't throw in the towel. We need more people to win this battle. I appreciate your concerns and am glad you aren't certain that governments that want to restrict freedom will be successful. We're on the same page. I, and other people who spend a lot of time and energy on this work would appreciate your help, but if you can't help (for whatever reasons) it would still be nice if you didn't make things harder.
The answer to that double question is, actually, pretty simple. The answer to the first question is that the Indigenous leaders I work with around fish, wildlife and habitat restoration get to their positions by running for Indigenous government positions, getting appointed by government to advisory boards (some at very high levels where they exercise a great deal of influence over fish and wildlife policy), being elders, being hereditary leaders or being employees of an individual First Nation. You may not like the way that these individuals get to a position where they can influence what you're allowed to do, but they do get to those positions of influence. They're going to keep getting to those positions of influence. They are going to keep exerting influence over what you and I like doing. (The fear that they'd exert that influence in a way we don't like is what spurred this thread, after all, so let's not pretend to be confused about the subject matter).
Are they honest? Indigenous people are people. Some are honest and some are not, just like everyone else. That said, I've met and worked with some absolutely outstanding individuals who impress me with their skills, reason, control of their emotions and their vision.
Again, we agree on something here. Indigenous people in BC have had a rough go. Yes, a lot of other people have, through the ages, had a rough go. Yes, a lot of non-Indigenous people were killed by Indigenous people in the past. Yes, at some times and in some places, it was war. Here's the question: what do we do with your statement, which, while true, doesn't tell the whole picture and doesn't as far as I can see, help restore fish, wildlife and habitat or access to it for all of us. Do you have an alternate plan that has a reasonable prospect of success?
As for the "it was war" statement, where, exactly, was it war, and who was it between? There was the Chilcotin War in BC, and there were a few short fights between miners and militias on one side and First Nations on the other, but there was no formal war of conquest waged by Canada or BC against First Nations. It didn't happen in BC and nobody in power claims that it did. That's why nobody can argue successfully in Canadian courts that Indigenous title in BC was extinguished through conquest. The conquest never happened.
The idea that it was "never their land" isn't supported by facts. You may believe it to be true, but that's merely one opinion among millions. The opinions that matter (and this is borne out by history and centuries of documented law) say that Indigenous people did have title to the land, and that that title had to be alienated from Indigenous people according to a specific process. Again, you don't need to like those facts, but they are, indeed, the facts of the matter and like all facts, we need to deal with them whether we like them or not. (If what' i'm saying isn't factual, by all means point out that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 isn't an actual fact with legal force, or that the concept of the honour of the Crown is not an actual fact with legal force, or tell me when and where the war of conquest which alienated Indigenous title occurred).
And yes, there have been times in global history where an invading population took a resident population's lands and exterminated the resident population. That's true. Those people and places had different rules that the rules that we all agree to govern ourselves by, however, and that's an important difference. Conquest by war did not actually happen in BC, and it's not going to start anytime soon. We live where we live under the rules that we all are subject to. I get that you're not happy about that, but it is what it is.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
Different Member
I thought I was pretty clear about why I was bringing up racism. This may blow your mind, but think it through. The people who you agree have had a rough time aren't thrilled about it. I know, right? They think they've been the victims of a long history of racism. Go figure! I mean, there is that whole legal structure called the Indian Act, and a legal definition of what an "Indian" is (I'm pretty sure we don't have those definitions for other ethnicities, and I don't think we have a "Greek Act" or a "Scottish Act" or legal definitions of who qualifies to be any other ethnicity), plus reserves, and residential schools, and the voting thing, etc etc.
Now, if you want to make the argument that First Nations people in BC have not been subjected to racism, go make it. I don't think it will help with the restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat, and I don't think it will help us maintain access to those three things for everyone in BC, but fly at 'er.
But if you accept that Indigenous people have experienced and still do experience racism then you'll understand that they sometimes have a villain in the story, and that villain is old white guys like me. And I've had Indigenous leaders on one extreme rip me a new asshole for being a racist, and I've had Indigenous elders suggest, much more gently, that it would help to acknowledge the 94 Calls to Action and UNDRIP.
I understand that you may find acknowledging those two things triggering, just as you find the idea of being called a racist triggering, but that's not what this is about. It's about what people who exert a great deal of influence over what we do feel. Unless you think that resident hunters and anglers are going to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to those three things for everyone, and that we'll do it regardless of what the Indigenous people and the government say, then what those two groups think and feel matters. You can't insult the person you're trying to make a deal with and expect them to want to deal with you. This isn't hard.
Whether you think you or I are racist doesn't matter when it comes to dealing with Indigenous people. Why would you think it does? What matters is what *they* think. Indigenous people are a very influential group who exert a lot of control over what we do and what we want to continue to do. Why would you argue with them over things that don't help us achieve our goals?
The comment that unmarked graves haven't been excavated is true, It is a fact, as far as I am aware. What's your point? If I tell you that my dad, my mum and my brother have all passed away and are interred in such and such a place, do you demand proof that they're there? If you did most reasonable people would think you're a weirdo. But you do it with Indigenous graves that everyone involved in the process agrees exist and have kids (to a number as yet unknown) in them? Why would you do that? I understand that you don't trust the government or the churches but I also know that you understand that Indigenous people take this very seriously and I know that you understand that Indigenous people exert a great deal of influence and control over what we do, and I understand that you don't want to throw in the towel on preserving those activities.
Why would you intentionally be rude, insensitive and insulting when referring to the deceased family members of people we need to reach agreements with? Why wouldn't you treat them like anyone else? They are not the government or the churches. They are people that you admit had a rough go of things.
They weren't discovered. The First Nations who attended the schools knew that the graveyards were there, the churches that ran the schools knew that the graveyards were there, and the government knew that the graveyards were there. The government has been talking about this problem since at least 1906. The United and Anglican Churches started sharing records and trying to resolve this in the 90s. The TRC got a lot of the original numbers of deceased children from those church records, and those records are notoriously incomplete, either because they were badly kept in the first place or because they were badly cared for or destroyed by fires and floods.
None of this was discovered. You may not have known about it yet, but contact was and is a real thing that happens in real time to real people. It was recognized and recorded. You learning about it or the mainstream media reporting on it is not "discovery".
What you experienced from the 215 in Kamloops and the subsequent events? That's you learning the news.
Think that through. You admit, on the one hand, that you believe that churches and government had Indigenous children in their care and that some of those kids died and were buried, but that nobody can have an aunt or uncle in the graves because the graves are too small.
Imagine you were one of those Indigenous kids, and that you attended the schools with a brother or a sister. Imagine that your brother or sister died in the custody of the church or government and was buried, but that you survived, grew up and had a family. Imagine you telling your kids that you are in the school with your sister or brother and that the sister and brother died and are buried at the school. Imagine that the name of the sister or brother turns up in government or church records indicating that they did, indeed die and are buried at the school.
It's not hard to imagine because you've already agreed to most of it. The only thing you haven't disputed so far is that there could have been siblings at the schools.
Now, imagine your kid telling the story to me. How would they refer to your brother or sister? Probably as an uncle or an aunt, right? Because uncles and aunts can be children.
Now imagine that the kid using the phrase "uncle or aunt in the graveyard" is a band councillor at the Lower Similkameen Indian Band and I have to meet with that person to see if we can resolve this resident hunter access restriction and he asks me "So, do you think this story about my family being in residential schools and dying there is bullshit?"
I think you can see how you're making the job of those who want to restore fish, wildlife and habitat while maintaining access to it for all British Columbians a helluva a lot harder than it needs to be. You're chopping holes in the boat.
You've already said you don't doubt that kids were taken to the schools and that some died and were buried at the schools. There are government documents from 1906 that indicate an 8% mortality rate in the schools. The kids were taken there by force of law.
That's fairly tragic.
Denying it doesn't help with the restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat in BC. It also doesn't help with maintaining access to that for all British Columbians. I can only conclude that you don't actually want to help with that project.
There are only 24 hours in the day and only 7 days win the week. If your concerns are the media, the Jews and Zionism and the UN, great. Fly at 'em. But again (broken record, I know) we will not restore fish, wildlife and habitat nor maintain access to those three things without getting into some sort of healthy and mutually beneficial relationships with Indigenous people. You're not helping when you take your anger from other issues and bring them to that challenge.
You might be right. Regardless, that's a fight that I'm not in. I, and others like me, are trying to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to those three things. Indigenous people exert a lot of influence ad control over that challenge. Pissing them off because you don't like Justin Trudeau doesn't help.
You're incorrect on that score and the facts back me up. Indigenous people on BC are on the record, through written declarations publicly available on the web, saying that the land is unceded and that treaties need to be made. These statements date to 1910 at least, and there are earlier instances that express similar agendas. They predate the UN by decades.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
Different Member
Ok, fine. It's pretty clear that there are large globalist forces trying to reshape how we live. That's pretty obvious. What do you want to do about it?
Me, and people like me? Again, broken record, but there are only 24 hours in the day and only 7 days in the week, so we're concentrating on restoring fish, wildlife and habitat and maintaining access to it for all British Columbians. A lot of Indigenous people agree with our restoration goals. A lot of them get stuck on the access part. Look at the IPCA that is the subject of this thread. There's a lot to like. It's the access part that has reminder hunters mad. Resident hunters and anglers need to get Indigenous people onside for access. Insulting them because you don't like Trudeau or the UN or Zionists doesn't actually help.
Fair question. We probably shouldn't have to prove that. But here in the real world? We do have to prove that. You understand this as well as I do. You don't like it and can't accept it, but you still understand it.
You also understand that many Indigenous people make no bones about their concerns about racism and racists.
And you understand that resident hunters and anglers have to have Indigenous people onside if we're going to maintain access.
So, why *should* we have to *prove* that we're not racist? Because a large majority of the people who we need to reach an accommodation with want us to prove it. If you want to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to those three things you're going to need to learn to accept that.
You are correct. The "nobody" includes Indigenous people. They do not need to do anything for resident hunters and anglers if they don't want to and we cannot force them. They have to want to do what we'd like them to do. We both understand that.
If you want Indigenous people to help maintain access for all BCers to restored fish, wildlife and habitat, if you want Indigenous people to help all of us on this forum do what we love, why would you insist on pissing them off?
Nobody's stopping you from asking questions here. I'm giving you answers and I'm sharing facts. You and I agree on a lot of the facts, and where we disagree I think the reason is that you're uninformed.
That's an interesting perspective. As you know, or should know, some Indigenous people want the graves exhumed and the remains properly re-interred, and some don't. What's curious is your motivation. You don't seem to want the graves exhumed and the remains properly disinterred because its the right thing to do for the families involved.
You want them excavated so that you can see with your own eyes what's true, because you don't believe records that were possibly falsified, you don't believe the government, you don't believe the churches and you think the some of the Indigenous people are controlled puppets.
I don't think anything is stopping you from going to Kamloops and suggesting to people working in that school that the graves re-opened under your watchful eyes so that you can trust what you've seen (since you don't believe records, government, churches or controlled Indigenous puppets).
I'm pretty sure that approach will not help maintaining access to a restored population of fish and wildlife or restored habitat, but if that's your goal, hey, it's still a free country. You know where the graveyards and the nations are.
Again, we agree. And yet you dispute the degree to which the government and churches in BC acted. That's called cognitive dissonance. You know deep down that this stuff happened, but you don't want to believe it, so you hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time and it drives you up the wall. It's completely understandable and I am not making fun of you or attacking you. You've said you can barely handle the racist charge anymore, for example, and yet you also agree, among other things, that Indigenous people had a rough go at the hadn't of government and churches, and that Indigenous kids died in church and government custody. It's not easy to square that circle. I get it.
But you can work work throughout if you want to. The truth is available and you can confirm it yourself.
That's too bad. Those of us trying to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to those three things for all BCers could use your help. If you don't want to help it would be nice if you didn't chop holes in the boat. As a critical thinker you must understand that lots of people read this forum and comments made on the forum come up in conversations with Indigenous people when we're trying to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to those three things for all BCers (I know, broken record, but when you keep dragging int he UN, churches, the government, globalism and Zionism I think a broken record is on order to keep us on track).
Im a great believer that the truth is always friendly. We're not really disagreeing over truth anyway, are we? You've agreed that kids died at the schools and were buried there. You've agreed that governments and churches are capable of horrid behaviour. You/ve made some mistaken statements about wars and Indigenous title, but if you're committed to the truth you can get past those mistakes of fact, so you and I don't really have a problem.
Over 40,000 of us with an elected leadership that operates in and engages with the public. Again, if you want to dispute points of fact, or dispute the approach, let's do it.
Who is stopping you from questioning the official narrative? Question it all you like. Believe what you like. Argue with me over something we disagree on.
I'm saying that Indigenous people exert a lot of control and influence over what we want to do, especially access. Resident hunters and anglers need Indigenous people onside if we're going to maintain anything close to what we've had in the past. You make that harder to achieve by pissing them off. Telling them that you believe that there are dead children in graves on residential school grounds but that you still need to see the skeletons with your own eyes pisses them off. Do you disagree with that? Do you think we don't need Indigenous people onside or do you think they don't get pissed off by comments like yours?
As a critical thinker you surely understand that I'm not trying to convince you. You've got your own challenge to work through reconciling your contradictory beliefs.
I'm responding to you because lots of people read this forum. The comments in it come up in all sorts of places. You are representative of what Minster Rankin referred to as "the belligerent". People who read this forum need to know that not all resident hunters and anglers share your feelings because people like you piss a lot of other people off.
I don't need your response. I need other people to read your comments, think about them and read other comments. If we have enough resident hunters and anglers who are willing to accept that we need Indigenous people onside with our goal of access, and if we have those same people accept that pissing of Indigenous people isn't the way to get them onside then I've made some progress. You've served your purpose and I thank you for it.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
Different Member
I think you're missing my point.
We need Indigenous people onside if we're going to maintain access to any fish, wildlife or habitat that we restore. We both know this not only form the IPCA declaration, but also from what's coming down in 7B.
When someone says "I agree there are Indigenous kids in the graveyards but I need you to excavate them before I'll agree to how many there are" it pisses off people who have family members and nation members in the graveyards or who attended the schools.
That's a problem that I actually run into as I try to find ways to maintain access and restore fish, wildlife and habitat. It's something I continually have to get past.
What does the fire in Lytton have to do with that? Imagine you tell me that your parents died and are buried somewhere and I respond "I agree your mum died, but before I agree that your dad died I need to see the bones, and btw, who started the fire in Lytton?" You'd look at me like I was a weirdo.
When the kids were taken it was a different time, but don't forget that there are people alive right now who are leaders in the Indigenous nations who attended those schools.
Many of the kids died from disease and malnourishment. As I've said elsewhere, the Canadian government first started seeing this as a problem in 1906 (if not earlier). 8% mortality in the schools according to 1906 government reports. The fact that other people in other places had bad experiences, or that some Indigenous people did not have bad experiences does not change the fact that residential schools and missing kids is a huge issue for Indigenous people. As I've said elsewhere, it is public record that church people have plead guilty to sexual abuse.
The popular narrative doesn't really matter. You can believe it or disbelieve it, but do you really want to argue that Indigenous people don't believe what they're saying and that the children in graveyards and the whole residential school experiences doesn't matter *to them*?
I'm here to tell you (in case you live under rock) that it matters very much to Indigenous people. I was recently at a meting with some Indigenous elders where a matriarch had a new drum. Guess what was on it? The numbers "2125" and the phrase "Every Child Matters". They care. They care very much. It's a big deal to them. (And frankly, taking kids by force without the parents consent, keeping them in schools, having them die while in custody, burying them but not keeping proper records? That should be a pretty big deal to all of us).
If it matters to Indigenous people and denying it pisses them off, and if we need their cooperation to maintain access to restored fish, wildlife and habitat, why would we keep saying things that piss off Indigenous people? It makes no sense.
UNDRIP is an aspirational document. It has no force of law. In BC our elected representatives voted unanimously to give UNDRIP the force of law, and the feds are filling suit. There are a lot of tax paying voters in this province who support that. It's time we realized this.
7B is clearly not a case of the UN doing anything. It's a claim of a breach of a treaty signed in 1899-1900 that was proven in court over 6 years according to Canadian law. The Canadian Constitution is not a UN directive. The legal history of Indigenous people getting their rights recognized by government is exactly that: it's legal history proven in court over more than half a century.
What would I have you do?
First, realize that pissing off people that resident hunters and anglers need the cooperation of isn't useful and is in fact harmful.
Second, yes, write letters, and what's more, meet with your MLAs on a regular basis. Give them a consistent message that a large constituency agrees on and that the government can use.
Third, yes, donate. Give until it hurts. Put your money where your mouth is. Talk is cheap. It takes money to buy whiskey, cigarettes and lawyers.
Fourth, if a bunch of white guys protest and wave flags, yes, it throws rocks in my road. I think you'd I already agreed on that. The truckers' protest is a good example. In the year of our Lord 2022 a bunch of old white guys in trucks will be portrayed as racist extremists. (Tell me I'm wrong and that it will actually win friends and influence people).
Fifth, if people go hunt the Ashnola this fall its possible the nothing will happen. This declaration by the Lower Similkameen Indian Band hasn't been recognized by the province as valid. It might turn into nothing. It's possible that conversations might be held with the nation that lead it to change it's mind. It's harder to accomplish that change of perspective among Indigenous people if we keep insisting on pissing them off and diminishing their concerns.
Sixth, asking questions in and of itself isn't racist. But I don't need to tell you that telling Indigenous people that they're better off now because they don't have to boil water in cedar pots is a little rich in a country with a ton of boil water advisories for Indigenous communities. Those kinds of statements piss them off. Telling them that they lost their Indigenous title because of a war of conquest that never happened and despite the fact that Indigenous title is recognized in Canadian law pisses them off. Telling them that the residential school experience wasn't as bad as they claim pisses them off.
You don't need to be a racist to piss people off enough to call you a racist. It happens. It is not the rule, but it is far from uncommon, for Indigenous people of influence to be very sensitive and angry about what they see as racism.
Why would we keep throwing gas on that fire?
Last edited by Rob Chipman; 05-11-2022 at 11:58 AM.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
Different Member
You may have the ability go back.
Keep pissing off the nations for no good reason? You decrease the chances. We all understand this. The challenge is to decide how much longer we're going to do it.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
Senior Member
Rob Chipman! Thank You. Thank You. Thank You.
A Salt Weapon
Re: Indian band declares Ashnola valley protected
Rob, you and I concur on a great many things.
Other's not so much.
This is one of the latter.
The Media turned this quagmire into a sensationalist circus $hitshow, to which the FN's collectively fanned the flames as hard as they could. The numbers of identified "ground disturbances" were trotted out and held as hard, fast, horrific numbers of "graves".
Many FN's then noted they would begin and conduct investigations, including interments, to determine actual numbers and identities.
They then turned around and blocked investigations by the RCMP, Coroners and more. The narrative was to "rich" to take the chance that reality might cause it's desmise it would seem.
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.
What's the point? If you are going to cry Wolf, be well prepared to back that up.
As for you being an apologist for these actions, I am somewhat taken aback. Doing so appears to be coming across as a politico rather than a proponent of what you claim IMO.
I agree with the focus on restoring and maintaining wild lands and wild resources. It is a worthwhile pursuit if we (and our children) are to try to preserve something of our way of life. I do at the same time see this as an uphill struggle when those you suggest we should consider "partners" ain't so much interested in working with us, preferring to dictate instead.
Cheers,
Matt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVNNhzkJ-UU&feature=related
Egotistical, Self Centered, Son of a Bitch Killer that Doesn't Play Well With Others.
Guess he got to Know me
HuntingBC Champ
Good post Nog.
HuntingBC Champ
Why waffle and argue over the graves outside of residential schools? Whether it's 10 or 10,000, or even if there are a few Vikings in there? I honestly can't recall of any other schools in Canada [other than residential] that had their own graveyards and buried 'students' in them. I can't even think of a penitentiary that buried their 'students' in the yard?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote