Indian band declares Ashnola valley protected

[tracker]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/367470/Lower-Similkameen-Indian-Band-declares-Ashnola-Valley-a-protected-and-conserved-area

[whitlers]

And here we go again. Curious to see how this will effect outdoor use including hunting, camping and fishing. Thats a large persitne area that I have spent some wonderful time in. This is very concerning.

[Arctic Lake]

Is there going to be any place left for us to do what we love in the great outdoors ? I’m having a sense of remorse for the times I sat on my ass when I could have been OUT THERE ! What a mistake I made ! I do think however if Joe Average gets more and more restrictions placed upon them they are going to be very dis pleased !

Arctic Lake a
And here we go again. Curious to see how this will effect outdoor use including hunting, camping and fishing. Thats a large persitne area that I have spent some wonderful time in. This is very concerning.

[Bugle M In]

Yup, here we go.
And last year I talked about my MD shunting area and how the local bands would like to see full on closures as well.
Its only a matter of time.

[358mag]

Its only a matter of time before we have to go to local FN's office to buy our hunting-Fishing licence and tags .
Thanks John Horgan and the NDP you slimy pricks

[358mag]

And here we go again. Curious to see how this will effect outdoor use including hunting, camping and fishing. Thats a large persitne area that I have spent some wonderful time in. This is very concerning.

Just the tip of a very large Ice Berg thats coming down the pipe .

[Bugle M In]

Its only a matter of time before we have to go to local FN's office to buy our hunting-Fishing licence and tags .
Thanks John Horgan and the NDP you slimy pricks
Took my daughter to the driving range by museum last night.
You all can guess what political affiliated signs are up in the area.

[Danny_29]

Its only a matter of time before we have to go to local FN's office to buy our hunting-Fishing licence and tags .
Thanks John Horgan and the NDP you slimy pricks

Serious question. Our license fees are not going back into conservation or the area we generally hunt in, if managed properly isn't this a better alternative? We've seen manage to zero for farrrr to long.

[2chodi]

https://www.lsib.net/?page_id=3823

[RyoTHC]

And I declare a thumb war?
who really cares at this point.

maybe once they have all “their” land, the handouts can stop, and then they will quickly sell it all back to us.

[islandhunter]

I hereby declare that Im still hunting there

[GEF]

They will be setting up a toll booth and charge day use fees is what I was told

[GEF]

It’s time to push back !

[dino]

There is a few ways to get in there. Good luck trying to keep me out.lol

[whitlers]

I won't be paying any 'fee'. That being said I'm sure if you find your way in there and leave your vehicle over night it will probably get trashed.

[tracker]

I hereby declare that Im still hunting there
**** ya !!

[358mag]

Serious question. Our license fees are not going back into conservation or the area we generally hunt in, if managed properly isn't this a better alternative? We've seen manage to zero for farrrr to long.

Well the multi - million $$$$$$ question is " if" there managed properly . Do you for one moment have any faith in how any FN's areas has been managed properly when FN's are in control ?

[358mag]

**** ya !!

Lock + Load

[horshur]

Feds were trying to make it a park were they not? Maybe not that bad? IDK.

[GEF]

Yea I see FN guys chasing down an slathering moose on sleds in the winter ,keepers of the land !

[TheObserver]

What are some actual boots on the ground solutions? Anybody got any ideas? Not contacting MLA's or things like that. But showing up in numbers and just taking these toll booths down? Like what can be done before we lose apparently the right to do anything in the outdoors or go anywhere.....

Anybody got any ideas?

[TheObserver]

Get together with locals from Princeton and the Okanagan, network and literally remove this f**king bs that would also send a message.

Bringing it up on here does nothing if we do not try and do something about it instead of taking it

[GEF]

Im in !Time to put up or shut up !Keep me posted .

[HarryToolips]

Lock + Load

And this is exactly what everyone will have to do....we've all had enough....

[The Hermit]

Is the Ashnola part of the proposed National Park? If so it is gone anyway regarding hunting. Right?

[high horse Hal]

Lots of resistance to the NP from various groups including some indigens, it is still at the proposal stage
and may not include the Ashnola bands claim depending on how large a loop they throw

[high horse Hal]

I won't be paying any 'fee'. That being said I'm sure if you find your way in there and leave your vehicle over night it will probably get trashed. Circle the wagons

[Mosin]

Mass disobedience

[Treed]

Never hunted there but I will now. Our traditional hunting grounds and traditional practices will be take away from us unless we act. They are, will you?

[evcity]

The statement doesn't mention hunting or fishing at all. If access is maintained, is this even a bad thing?

[whitlers]

The statement doesn't mention hunting or fishing at all. If access is maintained, is this even a bad thing?

You are foolish to think this will not effect backcountry use.

[mwalter]

https://www.lsib.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-04-25-FAQ-re-Ashnola-IPCA_public-PDF.pdf

they want everyone out except ecotourists

alarming and ridiculous

[Arctic Lake]

I think the time is now for the rest of the population to lay claim to the rest of the province !
Arctic Lake

[Weatherby Fan]

Hunters/ Guide outfitters


With the IPCA declaration, we are confirming the current moratorium on non-sməlqmíx hunting in the area.
We will enforce sməlqmíx / syilx protocol with our neighbouring nations. We are protecting moose and ungulates by protecting winter range,
migration corridors, lambing areas.
For example, ceremonial burning can assist with restoration of ungulate habitat. E.g., area around Crater is starting to in-grow / sicknesses can occur when animals hemmed in in one place.

[evcity]

Well that settles that question.

[TheObserver]

Anybody got any solutions?

All I can think of right now is showing up in numbers and removing infrastructure which I would be willing to take part in.

I would have to sit and think about it more for other on the ground solutions, i'm not talking about goofy **** like contacting mla's.

Something that would deal with it or see actual results from, anybody got anything?

[quarterman]

I will be hunting it weather they say I can hunt it or not. I’ve had enough. If all the areas circled in red end up closed I’ll still hunt it and I would like to see someone stop me.

[dino]

I will be hunting it weather they say I can hunt it or not. I’ve had enough. If all the areas circled in red end up closed I’ll still hunt it and I would like to see someone stop me.

^^^^^^^this. I hear ya, im done too. I just dont care anymore about any of this bs. Try and stop me if you can,lol.

[srupp]

hmmm I was on the thcilcotin land and was numerous times informed i SHOULD not be there..it was indian land....its very angering to be told i should not be in BC the purple robes gave it away.

still pissed at that..and the draining of OUR lands..resources..and monies...BC looking like swiss cheese..soon the land or resources wont be there to support taxpaying citizens..it will get to violence...wait till they come for YOUR area.
Steven RUPP

[TheObserver]

hmmm I was on the thcilcotin land and was numerous times informed i SHOULD not be there..it was indian land....its very angering to be told i should not be in BC the purple robes gave it away.

still pissed at that..and the draining of OUR lands..resources..and monies...BC looking like swiss cheese..soon the land or resources wont be there to support taxpaying citizens..it will get to violence...wait till they come for YOUR area.
Steven RUPP

I can honestly say my temper is not good, I could see myself doing something very stupid if I spend money to go somewhere I want to go and am told I can't at some toll booth/roadblock. This could push to the boiling/point of no return one day

[Brew]

I am at my wits end with this province/country. It seems every other month people like me are getting the shit end of the stick. It’s full on harassment and discrimination at this point. I’m bad because I’m white, I’m male, I work in forestry, I’m a hunter, I’m a fisherman and I’m a despicable gun owner. Sign me up I’m ready for battle so my kids can enjoy what I have enjoyed up until this time in my life.

[scoutlt1]

I am at my wits end with this province/country. It seems every other month people like me are getting the shit end of the stick. It’s full on harassment and discrimination at this point. I’m bad because I’m white, I’m male, I work in forestry, I’m a hunter, I’m a fisherman and I’m a despicable gun owner. Sign me up I’m ready for battle so my kids can enjoy what I have enjoyed up until this time in my life.

Bang on...

[willyqbc]

I doubt you could ever convince business owners to do it....but lobby them and have EVERY business of EVERY kind stop selling ANYTHING to band members. No groceries, no hardware, clothes....NOTHING. if they want to keep everyone out...return the favor.

Jmo
Chris

[TeeVee]

When does this end? It's only going to get worse with the dipsh*t in charge. Natives aren't native to BC, they're from eastern asia and like all of us we all originated from another place. I know some awesome native people that work hard and don't have the poor me hand out card that think the lazy embarrass them! Get over it ffs! We're all immigrants from somewhere!

[TheObserver]

When does this end? It's only going to get worse with the dipsh*t in charge. Natives aren't native to BC, they're from eastern asia and like all of us we all originated from another place. I know some awesome native people that work hard and don't have the poor me hand out card that think the lazy embarrass them! Get over it ffs! We're all immigrants from somewhere!

Simple answer, it is not going to until we push back and "just say no".

I'm ready to put some of my comfort on the line to actively fight this, whether it is there in the flesh or whatever else any of us can come up with

[Brew]

Who wants to do a bear derby in two weeks?

[TheObserver]

Who wants to do a bear derby in two weeks?

I would join

[TheObserver]

Who wants to do a bear derby in two weeks?

If this picks up steam we should get a thread going to try and get numbers up

[browningboy]

Well from what I read the Indians just declared it, I don’t believe it’s recognized by the government yet.. but getting pretty annoyed as non Indians keep getting the shit end of the stick

[WhiteTailAB]

Damn, this is terrible. FN can't even maintain their house let alone land or animals.

[tlinti]

At the end of the day, it'll come down to numbers and whether people are willing to mobilize and fight this nonsense. I believe there's a strong case of a Human Rights argument using the Protected Personal Characteristics as baseline. This is simply discrimination based on race, ancestry, place of origin...

http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/human-rights-duties/characteristics.htm

There's also an argument to be made about allowing a religion to dictate policy "the Great Creator' has given this land to FNs. What if my 'Creator' told me that this land is now given to me and my buddies?

[Ourea]

Gov is in full support of this proposal at all levels.
Gov is in full control of law enforcement at all levels and corners.

If conflict erupts Gov will only support one side.
Just how it works and it drives me nuts as well.

[Dour]

What does this mean for all cabins around otter lake ? The cole mine on loadstone mnt. So will this mean no more snowmobile at coq summit to Tulamean no more dirt biking or quading ? What about fishing ? Is that now a no go ? What will farmers do that use that mountain for grazing ground ???? I read what they are pushing sounds like they want the land back from owners kinda. Or will they be receiving the property taxes ?

[139grainsofhell]

I would think they will lose the rights and ownership of the land and would be on a leasehold to the natives??Fishing quading pay the ransom at the toll booths,the biggest concern I think would be all the other "tribes" doing the same thing up the valley and elswhere.

[tim3500]

From what I understand this is a form of bullying from one special interest group it's very important to unite, we need to hire profecanal protestors and play this better than they do.

[TheObserver]

Gov is in full support of this proposal at all levels.
Gov is in full control of law enforcement at all levels and corners.

If conflict erupts Gov will only support one side.
Just how it works and it drives me nuts as well.

100% correct, the united nations undrip agenda starting full swing

[Ourea]

Sportsmen are enduring closures on the Fraser from depleting stocks but meanwhile, back at the ranch, it is openly gill netted.
What you see playing out in the Ashnola will be one of many more to come.

Take your blood pressure medication and go easy on the salt.

[Arctic Lake]

Would the cabin owners not have to be paid out at fair market value for the property ?
Arctic Lake
I would think they will lose the rights and ownership of the land and would be on a leasehold to the natives??Fishing quading pay the ransom at the toll booths,the biggest concern I think would be all the other "tribes" doing the same thing up the valley and elswhere.

[139grainsofhell]

Would the cabin owners not have to be paid out at fair market value for the property ?
Arctic Lake

I'm not sure I would hope things would just stay the same and they keep thier property.seems leasehold is pretty popular on native owned land ,so if they take it back I would think that would be the way they would want to go.

[dino]

I will not comply! Catch me if you can. If they block the roads i know of a few hidden atv trails in. And dont forget there's some crazy people out there not afraid to drop a match either. All this crap is going to backfire.

[browningboy]

I can’t see people sit idle on this, if they do they are gutless cowards… 1% or the population is dictating this? Come on

[ACE]

I will not comply! Catch me if you can. If they block the roads I know of a few hidden ATV trails in.

No ATV trail is ever hidden.

[quarterman]

I know everyone hates writing to our MLA's, but everyone needs to voice their concerns to their MLAs. Don't let them ignore us. I sent Emails today. If I dont get a response Ill email again, followed by a phone call. Show up in person if you can.

[dino]

No ATV trail is ever hidden.

Im the one that cut them and every year im the one that clears them. Everyone is welcome to them but they are seldom used.

[BCHunterTV]

The Tahltan has said the same thing in the past.. unless it's in the regs continue hunting

[180grainer]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/367470/Lower-Similkameen-Indian-Band-declares-Ashnola-Valley-a-protected-and-conserved-area
Who's going to protect it from them?

[180grainer]

With the political and social issues coming at us. The Indians are ****ed anyway you look at it. I doubt anyone will recognize anything in 10 years. These agreements and treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on.

[GEF]

Government was fully aware of the proposals and are in agreement .Just look at the Global news report Everyone thinks its great !

[Hadda]

Have you looked into counseling? I'm not even joking or trolling. You're talking about your temper, doing something very stupid, and the point of no return. Might be something to look into.


I can honestly say my temper is not good, I could see myself doing something very stupid if I spend money to go somewhere I want to go and am told I can't at some toll booth/roadblock. This could push to the boiling/point of no return one day

[high horse Hal]

Have you looked into counseling? I'm not even joking or trolling. You're talking about your temper, doing something very stupid, and the point of no return. Might be something to look into.What? there's a counsel formed for those opposed and willing to take a stand?
where do we sign up?

[high horse Hal]

I am at my wits end with this province/country. It seems every other month people like me are getting the shit end of the stick. It’s full on harassment and discrimination at this point. I’m bad because I’m white, I’m male, I work in forestry, I’m a hunter, I’m a fisherman and I’m a despicable gun owner. Sign me up I’m ready for battle so my kids can enjoy what I have enjoyed up until this time in my life.someone pointed out its 2% getting the control
the tail wagging the dog and the only thing inbetween is the ndp azzole spewing shite about how good BC is being handled
waiting for that meme

[139grainsofhell]

someone pointed out its 2% getting the control
the tail wagging the dog and the only thing inbetween is the ndp azzole spewing shite about how good BC is being handled
waiting for that meme

A quick Google search 200,000 natives in BC, population of just over 5 million,lmao

[TheObserver]

Have you looked into counseling? I'm not even joking or trolling. You're talking about your temper, doing something very stupid, and the point of no return. Might be something to look into.

Hahaha nope, can't say it's something that has crossed my mind.

I do know one thing though that has. It's doing something about this illegal/unlawful bs and not just standing watching the whole province be shut off. Because that's what they are going to do.

[Arctic Lake]

Well fellas when is the protest going to be held ? Location at major access points to the areas in dispute ?
Hwy 3 information protest ? Hand out pamphlets ? Hmmmmm
Arctic Lake

[TheObserver]

Well fellas when is the protest going to be held ? Location at major access points to the areas in dispute ?
Hwy 3 information protest ? Hand out pamphlets ? Hmmmmm
Arctic Lake

I will 100% partake if we come up with something

[IronNoggin]

I'm not sure I would hope things would just stay the same and they keep thier property.seems leasehold is pretty popular on native owned land ,so if they take it back I would think that would be the way they would want to go.

Confiscating fee simple titled properties is quite the undertaking.
What you are suggesting would open the government up to major litigation efforts.
Won't happen IMO.

Nog

[beadblaster]

The tulameen watershed on the map is where the whipsaw trail runs thru. I wonder what the 4wd assosciation of bc will have anything to say if the native decide to restrict access.

[wideopenthrottle]

that didn't happen where I grew up...the 99 year leases got a huge increase in cost followed by a bad fire season for the many various cabins and a main lodge at a tourist camp (devils gap lodge lake of the woods kenora). not sure which side lit em up.....it was a different situation but the ill feelings resulted in "scorched earth" ending.
Would the cabin owners not have to be paid out at fair market value for the property ?
Arctic Lake

[browningboy]

Try telling land owners that are mortgage free that they now have to pay a lease or trespass fee, I just can't see people complying?

[Arctic Lake]

There are plenty of intelligent HBC ers that would know how to get this done ,a protest . I also think there are plenty of HBCers that would show up to protest ! Get the 4wheel drive clubs the BCWF and every other organization that values the freedom to access and use the land of this province to join in ! I will , barring some serious unforeseen situation be there to support , C’mon leaders you know who you are , step up ! Then you will get to meet Arctic Lake the guy with all the questions LOL !
Arctic Lake

I will 100% partake if we come up with something

[HappyJack]

Try telling land owners that are mortgage free that they now have to pay a lease or trespass fee, I just can't see people complying?

"You will own nothing and be happy." KS

[BCHunterTV]

without the government adjusting the regs and making this law.... its all smoke

[358mag]

Any word from BCWF on this ?

[Livewire322]

The tulameen watershed on the map is where the whipsaw trail runs thru. I wonder what the 4wd assosciation of bc will have anything to say if the native decide to restrict access.
The same thing they said when the band near Lytton closed access to Molybdenum peak and Texas creek - zip, zilch, nada.

[beadblaster]

I read somewhere that they open the texas creek rd for july and august. Not sure if that is true.

[TeeVee]

Have you looked into counseling? I'm not even joking or trolling. You're talking about your temper, doing something very stupid, and the point of no return. Might be something to look into.

It's not if but when we've all had enough of this. I'm with the observer....just a matter of time.

[Ourea]

Any work from BCWF on this ?

Last platform they would engage to comment.

[Livewire322]

I read somewhere that they open the texas creek rd for july and august. Not sure if that is true.
I’d be interest to know if that is true. I’ve not seen it anywhere, though.

Last I checked, the road is closed still - it was closed by the band in 2020 without MoE consent, but nothing was done. There was an interaction between a YouTuber that is associated with the 4wd association and a biologist that worked for/with the band (https://youtu.be/NvJlQ7Is7uE @4minutes), and the gate was subsequently closed and locked. Some people have speculated that the amount of traffic was of concern, and that videos like the one I’ve linked to were driving more traffic to the roads. Who knows.

It’d be a bear to get up there and not be able to get past the gate. My blood pressure doesn’t need that.

[HappyJack]

I’d be interest to know if that is true. I’ve not seen it anywhere, though.

Last I checked, the road is closed still - it was closed by the band in 2020 without MoE consent, but nothing was done. There was an interaction between a YouTuber that is associated with the 4wd association and a biologist that worked for/with the band (https://youtu.be/NvJlQ7Is7uE @4minutes), and the gate was subsequently closed and locked. Some people have speculated that the amount of traffic was of concern, and that videos like the one I’ve linked to were driving more traffic to the roads. Who knows.

It’d be a bear to get up there and not be able to get past the gate. My blood pressure doesn’t need that.

What is stopping someone from ripping the gate right out?

[TheObserver]

What is stopping someone from ripping the gate right out?

Looks like a good idea to add a portable/rechargeable angle grinder with zip cuts to a guys hunting/scouting/camping check lists

[Livewire322]

What is stopping someone from ripping the gate right out?
You tell me.

Seems like a good way to have a bunch of rocks and loc-blocks placed on the road, potentially while you’re back in the valley.

[HappyJack]

You tell me.

Seems like a good way to have a bunch of rocks and loc-blocks placed on the road, potentially while you’re back in the valley.

Well that would put a damper on your day. But bad things can happen whether a gate gets ripped out or not, like a landslide or downed trees.

[high horse Hal]

Does anybody really believe these people had a 'management plan' pre-contact?

[Retiredguy]

Does anybody really believe these people had a 'management plan' pre-contact?

I completely agree with you. Pure bunk. They all did what they had to in order to eat and survive. If you go back a couple hundred years you can see the archeological evidence and historical information from explorers of the use of fire to drive entire herds of bison off cliffs (the buffalo jumps) in the plains. Massive over kill of caribou at crossings during the migrations, where rotting carcasses littered the shorelines. I know of instances just a few decades ago where I personally witnessed the waste of moose, caribou and salmon in quantities that just made me shake my head.

There are many cases of incredible waste by Indigenous hunters and anglers that has been documented but it has not been politically acceptable to say anything about it. To do so will end an individuals career and have you branded a racist.

Sad times. But don't worry the NDP is on top of things that is why they have announced a new deal regarding Crown forest harvest revenues. Indigenous communities in BC received $58 million in 2021, but the terms of the new revenue sharing formula could see that increase to $130 million this year.

When it comes to the politics that currently exist with respect to Indigenous people no one dares to really get down to the brass tacks and speak the truth. Not an evening goes by when the news does not include some item to do with "truth and reconciliation"and the momentum is such that anyone who actually speaks the truth risks crucifixion.

[stosto]

This isn't all that bad. We (whities) took all their land and now they want some of it back. That's still a pretty good math for us. Concesion, fellas, is the word of the day. We need to be ok with losing a bit. I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but a necessary one in 2022. Besides, coming from europe, this province is huge and full of opportunity.

Good hunting.

[Livewire322]

This isn't all that bad. We (whities) took all their land and now they want some of it back. That's still a pretty good math for us. Concesion, fellas, is the word of the day. We need to be ok with losing a bit. I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but a necessary one in 2022. Besides, coming from europe, this province is huge and full of opportunity.

Good hunting.

Speak for yourself. I, for one, didn’t take anything from anyone - I was born here and have no option of going back to some other far flung place. I have nothing to reconcile, nor do many people alive today, save for those that took part in the residential school systems.
People existed here before others, I don’t dispute that, and perhaps I could be on board for them getting a stipend, based on the logic that they had enough resources available to them to make a living from the land, that they may not have access to now, but nothing beyond that. Though, that idea falls flat on its face when you consider that despite them having access to enough resources to live, they also had the risk of those resources going away (famine would not have been unheard of pre-contact).

[fozzy]

The statement doesn't mention hunting or fishing at all. If access is maintained, is this even a bad thing?

If you check on their web site under FAQ's they state they will have a kiosk set up and be charging all entrants fee's and all hunting is under a moratorium for the area they see fit. 2022-04-25 FAQ re Ashnola IPCA_public - Google Docs (lsib.net) (https://www.lsib.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-04-25-FAQ-re-Ashnola-IPCA_public-PDF.pdf)
"With the IPCA declaration, we are confirming the current moratorium onnon-sməlqmíx hunting in the area."

[fozzy]

Anybody got any solutions?

All I can think of right now is showing up in numbers and removing infrastructure which I would be willing to take part in.

I would have to sit and think about it more for other on the ground solutions, i'm not talking about goofy **** like contacting mla's.

Something that would deal with it or see actual results from, anybody got anything?

That big red bridge is made of wood....

Set up a kiosk before the bridge and charge them a huge fee to get to the highway, Walmart and all the infrastructure on OUR land.

[VLD43]

This isn't all that bad. We (whities) took all their land and now they want some of it back. That's still a pretty good math for us. Concesion, fellas, is the word of the day. We need to be ok with losing a bit. I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but a necessary one in 2022. Besides, coming from europe, this province is huge and full of opportunity.

Good hunting.
Your comments while well intentioned are far from the factual truth. They are that of the Left wing. The reality is that when Europeans showed up in North America they were confronted with a bronze age society. First Nations lived on the land but could not defend what they claimed to be theirs. If they could have, they would never have signed treaties or capitulated to the foreign invaders. They could defend small areas from each other, but had none of the modern weaponry the Europeans had. Thankfully for them, the invaders were generous with them and allowed them to remain with conditions. Just take a look at how the Spanish or the Americans dealt with indigenous residents. In some areas they were enslaved or worked to death, or just out right slaughtered. This whole truth and reconciliation thing is far from what it should be. There is no truth , little reconciliation. If you look back on history it is very clear that many people and cultures have been displaced by invading forces, with little or no compensation. But like what has been said earlier, none of us is allowed to discuss the truth. We are just supposed to listen to their narrative and not question it. This country is and has been on a steady decline lately, mostly because of complacency and political cowardice.

[scoutlt1]

Your comments while well intentioned are far from the factual truth. They are that of the Left wing. The reality is that when Europeans showed up in North America they were confronted with a bronze age society. First Nations lived on the land but could not defend what they claimed to be theirs. If they could have, they would never have signed treaties or capitulated to the foreign invaders. They could defend small areas from each other, but had none of the modern weaponry the Europeans had. Thankfully for them, the invaders were generous with them and allowed them to remain with conditions. Just take a look at how the Spanish or the Americans dealt with indigenous residents. In some areas they were enslaved or worked to death, or just out right slaughtered. This whole truth and reconciliation thing is far from what it should be. There is no truth , little reconciliation. If you look back on history it is very clear that many people and cultures have been displaced by invading forces, with little or no compensation. But like what has been said earlier, none of us is allowed to discuss the truth. We are just supposed to listen to their narrative and not question it. This country is and has been on a steady decline lately, mostly because of complacency and political cowardice.

Very well said. Thank you.

[TheObserver]

That's what I find ironic, they call it "truth and reconciliation" far from the truth.

I think the leftist comment must be trolling

[HappyJack]

That big red bridge is made of wood....

Set up a kiosk before the bridge and charge them a huge fee to get to the highway, Walmart and all the infrastructure on OUR land.

Now that would be something to see on the news. I imagine the kiosk wouldn't be there long because they'd arrest everyone in attendance.

[VLD43]

That's what I find ironic, they call it "truth and reconciliation" far from the truth.

I think the leftist comment must be trolling

The leftist thing was not trolling. It was the Liberals (Leftists) that have adopted UNDRIP as well as the NDP in BC. I don't recall the Cons adopting any of these ideas. Unfortunately the Cons have to comply at this point or be vurtue shamed out of existence. You have seen this very tactic from the Liberals on other contentious issues. You either parrot their narrative or the character assassination begins. This is what free speech looks like in Canada these days.

[David]

Your comments while well intentioned are far from the factual truth. They are that of the Left wing. The reality is that when Europeans showed up in North America they were confronted with a bronze age society. First Nations lived on the land but could not defend what they claimed to be theirs. If they could have, they would never have signed treaties or capitulated to the foreign invaders. They could defend small areas from each other, but had none of the modern weaponry the Europeans had. Thankfully for them, the invaders were generous with them and allowed them to remain with conditions. Just take a look at how the Spanish or the Americans dealt with indigenous residents. In some areas they were enslaved or worked to death, or just out right slaughtered. This whole truth and reconciliation thing is far from what it should be. There is no truth , little reconciliation. If you look back on history it is very clear that many people and cultures have been displaced by invading forces, with little or no compensation. But like what has been said earlier, none of us is allowed to discuss the truth. We are just supposed to listen to their narrative and not question it. This country is and has been on a steady decline lately, mostly because of complacency and political cowardice.

You've heard the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

You're not telling the whole truth - I don't know if that's because you are ignoring it or because you don't know.

Everything you said is mostly true, but it leaves out one important thing - the King of England - meaning the government and head of state at the time - told the Hudson Bay company, colonists, etc. to treat the First Nations as if they owned the land. The King and government of England recognized First Nations sovereignty. That's why we have treaties - that was the government of the time buying land off the First Nations.

For whatever reason in BC the colonial government, colonists, etc. chose to ignore the dictates of the King and just started occupying First Nations land without buying it first. That is why we have all our problems today - early settlers in BC ignored their government and now the courts are finding "Hey, you were told this land belonged to somebody and instead of buying it you just took it. That's illegal".

It doesn't matter if you are 110% right about bronze age society, inability to defend, etc. The King said you are not to invade you are to purchase, and we ignored the King and our chickens are coming home to roost.

[VLD43]

You've heard the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

You're not telling the whole truth - I don't know if that's because you are ignoring it or because you don't know.

Everything you said is mostly true, but it leaves out one important thing - the King of England - meaning the government and head of state at the time - told the Hudson Bay company, colonists, etc. to treat the First Nations as if they owned the land. The King and government of England recognized First Nations sovereignty. That's why we have treaties - that was the government of the time buying land off the First Nations.

For whatever reason in BC the colonial government, colonists, etc. chose to ignore the dictates of the King and just started occupying First Nations land without buying it first. That is why we have all our problems today - early settlers in BC ignored their government and now the courts are finding "Hey, you were told this land belonged to somebody and instead of buying it you just took it. That's illegal".

It doesn't matter if you are 110% right about bronze age society, inability to defend, etc. The King said you are not to invade you are to purchase, and we ignored the King and our chickens are coming home to roost.

Thanks for the info. I admit I did not know that fact. So that brings up a couple of other questions. Why then would treaties be signed? Could this be construed as payment? And can Government not expropriate land in the national interest?

[scoutlt1]

You've heard the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

You're not telling the whole truth - I don't know if that's because you are ignoring it or because you don't know.

Everything you said is mostly true, but it leaves out one important thing - the King of England - meaning the government and head of state at the time - told the Hudson Bay company, colonists, etc. to treat the First Nations as if they owned the land. The King and government of England recognized First Nations sovereignty. That's why we have treaties - that was the government of the time buying land off the First Nations.

For whatever reason in BC the colonial government, colonists, etc. chose to ignore the dictates of the King and just started occupying First Nations land without buying it first. That is why we have all our problems today - early settlers in BC ignored their government and now the courts are finding "Hey, you were told this land belonged to somebody and instead of buying it you just took it. That's illegal".

It doesn't matter if you are 110% right about bronze age society, inability to defend, etc. The King said you are not to invade you are to purchase, and we ignored the King and our chickens are coming home to roost.

So if one follows that way of thinking (not saying it's historically "correct" or not), then all the rules/laws/regulations of the time need to be adhered to today. Or are we to just cherry pick what's most "convenient" in todays day and age?

[VLD43]

So if one follows that way of thinking (not saying it's historically "correct" or not), then all the rules/laws/regulations of the time need to be adhered to today. Or are we to just cherry pick what's most "convenient" in todays day and age?

I think it's doing the work to understand the meaning of the agreement at the time. What does not make sense to me, is if what David posted is correct, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is, why would you need treaties. And why would all first nations be moved onto reserves? At the time if I am correct, they were guaranteed the right to hunt and fish. But does that give them the right to manage wildlife as they are trying to do now? Maybe it's part of the we own the land statement. Don't know and that is the crux of the issue. I guess i should do some research on this.

[TheObserver]

The leftist thing was not trolling. It was the Liberals (Leftists) that have adopted UNDRIP as well as the NDP in BC. I don't recall the Cons adopting any of these ideas. Unfortunately the Cons have to comply at this point or be vurtue shamed out of existence. You have seen this very tactic from the Liberals on other contentious issues. You either parrot their narrative or the character assassination begins. This is what free speech looks like in Canada these days.

No I meant the guy that wrote that comment I think is trolling, unless he's hardcore brainwashed and has drunk the kool aid

[high horse Hal]

You are not telling the whole truth either
The King bought up all the Rupertsland off the HBC in 1870, so everything west became crown lands, he allowed indigens to occupy specific reserve areas
The Proclamation of 1791 also denotes reserves for indigens

But aside from all that Eastern Canadian conflict, British Columbia Territory was handled differently , had its own capital in Victoria and later joined Canada, well after the Kings proclamation so BC was not part of those earlier rulings
the only treaty in BC was the over reach of Treaty 8, no other lands were settled so we are where we are


You've heard the phrase "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

You're not telling the whole truth - I don't know if that's because you are ignoring it or because you don't know.

Everything you said is mostly true, but it leaves out one important thing - the King of England - meaning the government and head of state at the time - told the Hudson Bay company, colonists, etc. to treat the First Nations as if they owned the land. The King and government of England recognized First Nations sovereignty. That's why we have treaties - that was the government of the time buying land off the First Nations.

For whatever reason in BC the colonial government, colonists, etc. chose to ignore the dictates of the King and just started occupying First Nations land without buying it first. That is why we have all our problems today - early settlers in BC ignored their government and now the courts are finding "Hey, you were told this land belonged to somebody and instead of buying it you just took it. That's illegal".

It doesn't matter if you are 110% right about bronze age society, inability to defend, etc. The King said you are not to invade you are to purchase, and we ignored the King and our chickens are coming home to roost.

[David]

You are not telling the whole truth either



You are correct. I was trying to simplify, so I may have left important points out.

This is actually a pretty good and neutral synopsis of how we got here (meaning legally - in terms of the Supreme Court):
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/delgamuukw-case

This is a little more political (current BC government website):
https://www.bctreaty.ca/aboriginal-rights#:~:text=Before%20Canada%20was%20a%20country ,was%20typically%20done%20through%20treaties

For me (and this is admittedly opinion not fact), the key takeaways are:
1 - Before Canada was a country, Britain recognized that Indigenous people living here had title to land: the Royal Proclamation of 1763 declared that only the British Crown could acquire land from First Nations, and that was typically done through treaties

2 - Delgamuukw confirmed that aboriginal title was never extinguished in BC and therefore still exists; it is a burden on Crown title; and when dealing with Crown land the government must consult with and may have to accommodate First Nations whose rights are affected

I also think (opinion again) that First Nations, Government, and the media (meaning gauging public opinion) are ignoring decisions post-Delgamuukw that put limits on aboriginal title. But that's kind of another topic. I just think of it as: In BC we never went to war with First Nations, and we never bought their land, so they still have legal rights to that land.

[David]

I think it's doing the work to understand the meaning of the agreement at the time. What does not make sense to me, is if what David posted is correct, and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is, why would you need treaties. And why would all first nations be moved onto reserves? At the time if I am correct, they were guaranteed the right to hunt and fish. But does that give them the right to manage wildlife as they are trying to do now? Maybe it's part of the we own the land statement. Don't know and that is the crux of the issue. I guess i should do some research on this.

Honestly, those questions are way beyond me - I can offer opinion, but that would be it.

I can say this - we think of First Nations in the same way we think of Canada - as one big unified thing, but First Nations are individual and distinct.

In the rest of Canada almost all First Nations made treaties with the Government - their problem is they are saying the Government didn't abide by those treaties. In BC we are different - except for the Northeast (Treaty 8 - who are also saying the Government didn't abide by that treaty) and parts of Vancouver Island - we never established Treaties. The Supreme Court (and I'm simplifying here) said "You idiotic Government of BC and Canada, you were supposed to make Treaties - so if you didn't do it then, do it now". So BC First Nations are saying, since you need to make a Treaty with us to do stuff on our traditional land we're going to drive a much harder bargain than those other Nations did 150 years ago".

So you have two different things going on:
First Nations with Treaties saying the government didn't abide by the Treaty
and
First Nations without Treaties who are saying you need to make a Treaty with us, and we are going to bargain hard.
Rightly or wrongly, the courts in Canada are agreeing with the First Nations.

[Rob Chipman]

There are a lot of things going on in this thread, and it's tough to figure out the right way to respond.

A few things to keep in mind are that the relationship between Indigenous peoples in BC and non-Indigenous peoples in BC has not been settled and is in fact a work in progress.

There is no blueprint for how this relationship is going to unfold. What we are (all of us) doing is something that I do not think has been done before, anywhere. The relationship is currently very unhealthy, and getting it to a state of health (however that looks) is the right thing to do.

There is a huge gap in knowledge on many sides - a lot of myth and legend where we need some facts, some understanding and some empathy.

There are not two sides or two teams. There are, in fact, a few million individuals who need to come to terms with the reality in which we exist.

The future that is coming is going to bring a lot of change, and change is scary. At the same time it's worth recognizing and acknowledging that for some of the people involved in this relationship there was already a lot of change that came, and it was scary and unpleasant.


Some of the comments made on this thread are accurate, fact based and reasonable. Some are not well informed and quite emotional (and I detect a lot of fear in some of them).

Fear based emotional reactions are usually not good ones when you've got to work through a difficult relationship.

A better alternative, I think (and feel free to call me crazy) is to figure out which values you really want to commit to, and then figure out how you're going to reconcile those values with the facts.

One thing I know for sure: if this thread is representative of the values and perspectives of resident hunters in BC, we're in a lot of trouble. We're going to be shut out and marginalized. Those future hunters, anglers and outdoors people? Those yet to be born? They will be denied the opportunity to do the things that all of us love and treasure so much, and we will not have done our best to preserve it.

I'm pretty confident that if we can move past fear of change we can actually accomplish something workable. I'm also pretty confident that if we do not move past that fear of change and start influencing the change in a positive way we, resident hunters and anglers, will not be happy with what emerges as this relationship develops.

[TheObserver]

Honestly, those questions are way beyond me - I can offer opinion, but that would be it.

I can say this - we think of First Nations in the same way we think of Canada - as one big unified thing, but First Nations are individual and distinct.

In the rest of Canada almost all First Nations made treaties with the Government - their problem is they are saying the Government didn't abide by those treaties. In BC we are different - except for the Northeast (Treaty 8 - who are also saying the Government didn't abide by that treaty) and parts of Vancouver Island - we never established Treaties. The Supreme Court (and I'm simplifying here) said "You idiotic Government of BC and Canada, you were supposed to make Treaties - so if you didn't do it then, do it now". So BC First Nations are saying, since you need to make a Treaty with us to do stuff on our traditional land we're going to drive a much harder bargain than those other Nations did 150 years ago".

So you have two different things going on:
First Nations with Treaties saying the government didn't abide by the Treaty
and
First Nations without Treaties who are saying you need to make a Treaty with us, and we are going to bargain hard.
Rightly or wrongly, the courts in Canada are agreeing with the First Nations.

You have got to be kidding right? After what we have gone through in the last 2 years you believe the supreme court, or any branch of government for that matter? Sorry not trying to be rude but the writing is on the wall bud. The system lies about almost everything.

Anyways I respect you however much we may disagree.

Good day!

[dino]

There are a lot of things going on in this thread, and it's tough to figure out the right way to respond.

A few things to keep in mind are that the relationship between Indigenous peoples in BC and non-Indigenous peoples in BC has not been settled and is in fact a work in progress.

There is no blueprint for how this relationship is going to unfold. What we are (all of us) doing is something that I do not think has been done before, anywhere. The relationship is currently very unhealthy, and getting it to a state of health (however that looks) is the right thing to do.

There is a huge gap in knowledge on many sides - a lot of myth and legend where we need some facts, some understanding and some empathy.

There are not two sides or two teams. There are, in fact, a few million individuals who need to come to terms with the reality in which we exist.

The future that is coming is going to bring a lot of change, and change is scary. At the same time it's worth recognizing and acknowledging that for some of the people involved in this relationship there was already a lot of change that came, and it was scary and unpleasant.


Some of the comments made on this thread are accurate, fact based and reasonable. Some are not well informed and quite emotional (and I detect a lot of fear in some of them).

Fear based emotional reactions are usually not good ones when you've got to work through a difficult relationship.

A better alternative, I think (and feel free to call me crazy) is to figure out which values you really want to commit to, and then figure out how you're going to reconcile those values with the facts.

One thing I know for sure: if this thread is representative of the values and perspectives of resident hunters in BC, we're in a lot of trouble. We're going to be shut out and marginalized. Those future hunters, anglers and outdoors people? Those yet to be born? They will be denied the opportunity to do the things that all of us love and treasure so much, and we will not have done our best to preserve it.

I'm pretty confident that if we can move past fear of change we can actually accomplish something workable. I'm also pretty confident that if we do not move past that fear of change and start influencing the change in a positive way we, resident hunters and anglers, will not be happy with what emerges as this relationship develops.

You cannot run a business (country) when there is more water draining from the water barrel than going in. The first nations and Canada need to find some common ground because what the FN want is not sustainable. We are pretty close to bankrupt already. What are the FN going to do when they can no longer bite the hand that feeds them.

[Deer_Slayer]

What I say on this crap is F them. Their authority is for their people only. I am not native so I do not abide by their laws. They can govern their own people. Aboriginal law does not apply to non aboriginals so they can go F themselves. Our government better grow some balls and stop drinking Liberal Snowflake soup. I will hunt anywhere in BC that is legal under "BC" law!

[dino]

Your comments while well intentioned are far from the factual truth. They are that of the Left wing. The reality is that when Europeans showed up in North America they were confronted with a bronze age society. First Nations lived on the land but could not defend what they claimed to be theirs. If they could have, they would never have signed treaties or capitulated to the foreign invaders. They could defend small areas from each other, but had none of the modern weaponry the Europeans had. Thankfully for them, the invaders were generous with them and allowed them to remain with conditions. Just take a look at how the Spanish or the Americans dealt with indigenous residents. In some areas they were enslaved or worked to death, or just out right slaughtered. This whole truth and reconciliation thing is far from what it should be. There is no truth , little reconciliation. If you look back on history it is very clear that many people and cultures have been displaced by invading forces, with little or no compensation. But like what has been said earlier, none of us is allowed to discuss the truth. We are just supposed to listen to their narrative and not question it. This country is and has been on a steady decline lately, mostly because of complacency and political cowardice.

Some of The first nation tribes fought brutally with each other here in bc. Land occupants changed many times.

[HappyJack]

The whites brought alcohol, disease infected blankets, and worst of all, religion. They taught the FNs that white people speak out of both sides of their mouths and they have no honour.

[Deer_Slayer]

Actually. I identify as a native. I am transitioning:-x

[scoutlt1]

The whites brought alcohol, disease infected blankets, and worst of all, religion. They taught the FNs that white people speak out of both sides of their mouths and they have no honour.

And this, is why there's really no point in having a discussion.

Let the chips fall where they may..

[HappyJack]

Actually. I identify as a native. I am transitioning:-x

LOL, you're going to be a jingle dancer?

[Ourea]

I will skirt the spiral of this thread.

As hunters/conservationists, our concern is about wildlife sustainability and access to this wonderful province.
Talk all you want about treaty this, treaty that.

Access to the back country is paramount to folks like us.

It will pain me if I have to pay for a permit or be refused access to any area I have been hunting for decades without ever encountering an FN member.

Curious to see where this goes.





Hopefully Gov will stop caving to every special interest request.

[TheObserver]

Some of The first nation tribes fought brutally with each other here in bc. Land occupants changed many times.

It was notorious all over north america

[VLD43]

There are a lot of things going on in this thread, and it's tough to figure out the right way to respond.

A few things to keep in mind are that the relationship between Indigenous peoples in BC and non-Indigenous peoples in BC has not been settled and is in fact a work in progress.

There is no blueprint for how this relationship is going to unfold. What we are (all of us) doing is something that I do not think has been done before, anywhere. The relationship is currently very unhealthy, and getting it to a state of health (however that looks) is the right thing to do.

There is a huge gap in knowledge on many sides - a lot of myth and legend where we need some facts, some understanding and some empathy.

There are not two sides or two teams. There are, in fact, a few million individuals who need to come to terms with the reality in which we exist.

The future that is coming is going to bring a lot of change, and change is scary. At the same time it's worth recognizing and acknowledging that for some of the people involved in this relationship there was already a lot of change that came, and it was scary and unpleasant.


Some of the comments made on this thread are accurate, fact based and reasonable. Some are not well informed and quite emotional (and I detect a lot of fear in some of them).

Fear based emotional reactions are usually not good ones when you've got to work through a difficult relationship.

A better alternative, I think (and feel free to call me crazy) is to figure out which values you really want to commit to, and then figure out how you're going to reconcile those values with the facts.

One thing I know for sure: if this thread is representative of the values and perspectives of resident hunters in BC, we're in a lot of trouble. We're going to be shut out and marginalized. Those future hunters, anglers and outdoors people? Those yet to be born? They will be denied the opportunity to do the things that all of us love and treasure so much, and we will not have done our best to preserve it.

I'm pretty confident that if we can move past fear of change we can actually accomplish something workable. I'm also pretty confident that if we do not move past that fear of change and start influencing the change in a positive way we, resident hunters and anglers, will not be happy with what emerges as this relationship develops.

You make a number of observations and some conclusions that in my mind miss an underlying theme. That being that we live in a democracy and the majority rules. Also that the Government is acting in our best interest. One of your statements : A better alternative, I think (and feel free to call me crazy) is to figure out which values you really want to commit to, and then figure out how you're going to reconcile those values with the facts. I have figured out how I want to live and what i want to commit to. In short a fair system which recognizes the wishes of the electorate(majority). That rewards hard work and an honest lifestyle and respects and rewards those values. The way things are headed is far from that view. We have a Federal Government who continually creates division between people, classes races, and genders. Add to this the idea that roughly 3% of the population are going to dictate terms to the other 97%. The Governments , both provincial and federal have little idea how to deal with this other than deflection and dragging there feet. They have now decided to listen to the 3% and virtue shame any of the 97% who oppose the idea. I would hope we can all prosper in this country well based on our individual skill sets and what we bring to the table. Unfortunately the Government has decided that merit plays no role in modern society and there should be equal outcomes for all and especially minorities. In my opinion that only weakens a society and a nation. I wish First nations the best, but feel the path we are presently headed down is not one of earned prosperity, but one of continual Government hand outs and subsidies. And as you have witnessed in this thread, a certain amount of animosity. I very much admire the hard work and leadership of First Nations in Kitimat and Osoyoos, who have developed economic strategies and business plans that align with present day realities. I can see why there are people who are afraid or concerned with the way things are going. Instead of working together to find solutions that are beneficial and fair to all. There seems to be a cycle of reinventing history to suit the appropriate narratives and or erasing past history or historical figures to fit the same narrative.

[wildcatter]

I will skirt the spiral of this thread.

As hunters/conservationists, our concern is about wildlife sustainability and access to this wonderful province.
Talk all you want about treaty this, treaty that.

Access to the back country is paramount to folks like us.

It will pain me if I have to pay for a permit or be refused access to any area I have been hunting for decades without ever encountering an FN member.

Curious to see where this goes.





Hopefully Gov will stop caving to every special interest request.

Not this government!
Otherwise I agree with what you said.

[wildcatter]

You make a number of observations and some conclusions that in my mind miss an underlying theme. That being that we live in a democracy and the majority rules. Also that the Government is acting in our best interest. One of your statements : A better alternative, I think (and feel free to call me crazy) is to figure out which values you really want to commit to, and then figure out how you're going to reconcile those values with the facts. I have figured out how I want to live and what i want to commit to. In short a fair system which recognizes the wishes of the electorate(majority). That rewards hard work and an honest lifestyle and respects and rewards those values. The way things are headed is far from that view. We have a Federal Government who continually creates division between people, classes races, and genders. Add to this the idea that roughly 3% of the population are going to dictate terms to the other 97%. The Governments , both provincial and federal have little idea how to deal with this other than deflection and dragging there feet. They have now decided to listen to the 3% and virtue shame any of the 97% who oppose the idea. I would hope we can all prosper in this country well based on our individual skill sets and what we bring to the table. Unfortunately the Government has decided that merit plays no role in modern society and there should be equal outcomes for all and especially minorities. In my opinion that only weakens a society and a nation. I wish First nations the best, but feel the path we are presently headed down is not one of earned prosperity, but one of continual Government hand outs and subsidies. And as you have witnessed in this thread, a certain amount of animosity. I very much admire the hard work and leadership of First Nations in Kitimat and Osoyoos, who have developed economic strategies and business plans that align with present day realities. I can see why there are people who are afraid or concerned with the way things are going. Instead of working together to find solutions that are beneficial and fair to all. There seems to be a cycle of reinventing history to suit the appropriate narratives and or erasing past history or historical figures to fit the same narrative.

Changes, prosperity and good solutions not gonna happen with the current government, both provincial and federal.
We are in a downward spiral of marxist/socialist idealogical dictate and we need to get the UN, UNDRIP out of our lives!

[VLD43]

Changes, prosperity and good solutions not gonna happen with the current government, both provincial and federal.
We are in a downward spiral of marxist/socialist idealogical dictate and we need to get the UN, UNDRIP out of our lives!
Fully agree

[358mag]

Changes, prosperity and good solutions not gonna happen with the current government, both provincial and federal.
We are in a downward spiral of marxist/socialist idealogical dictate and we need to get the UN, UNDRIP out of our lives!


^^^^^^^^^^X2^^^^^^^^
Nailed it 100%

[dino]

The whites brought alcohol, disease infected blankets, and worst of all, religion. They taught the FNs that white people speak out of both sides of their mouths and they have no honour.

Progress has a price.

[HighCountryBC]

The ironic part about LSIB declaring the area "protected" is that they are the ones mainly responsible for the issues they're claiming. Large FN hunting camps bombing around the Easy Going Creek motor vehicle closure in August shooting at anything with a heartbeat. Mule deer does and cow moose by the truck load. It's a sickening sight if you've ever been up there in the summer before hunting season opens up for residents.

When the forest licensee at the time wanted to harvest pockets of spruce showing signs of bark beetle, the band shut them down. They eventually got so frustrated with the band that they handed them the tenure. Now, what hasn't burnt are just grey match sticks and blow down as the entire valley has been hammered by bark beetle.

I consider this my traditional territory and will still recreate there as I please.

[Rob Chipman]

You cannot run a business (country) when there is more water draining from the water barrel than going in. The first nations and Canada need to find some common ground because what the FN want is not sustainable. We are pretty close to bankrupt already. What are the FN going to do when they can no longer bite the hand that feeds them.


Thanks, Dino. Like I said, there are a lot of things going on in this thread and it can be tough to figure out how to respond, but when one person brings up one issue it gets way easier.

It seems to me that in the comment you're concerned about the fiscal management, and probably the monetary, policies embraced by the Federal government, with a chaser of the FNs wanting something unsustainable (I don't want to put words own your mouth, but I think Im reading you 5x5).

You are 100% correct on the fiscal and monetary policies. I'm with you. There will be a reckoning at some point and it will hurt a lot of people in the pocketbook. The declaration of an IPCA or restricting access to the IPCA for resident hunters, of course, is neither fiscal nor monetary policy, and the LSIB doesn't make those policies. Yes, I understand that the government loves throwing more borrowed money at *any* problem. But, government borrowing and spending their way to power has very little to do with fish, wildlife and habitat restoration, nor with access to those three things for resident hunters and angler.

So, I sure your concern on fiscal and monetary issues, and you're pretty accurate about the state of those two things, but I want to figure out how to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to it for everyone, and do that according to the rules and conditions that actually exist in BC.


What will FNs do when they can no longer bite the hand that feeds them? Good question, I guess, but why single out FNs? :-) On a serious note, it's worth pointing out that there isn't a monolithic FN with a list of common demands, and I'll guarantee that there are Indigenous people who have some good answers to that question. Do the math, war-game the obvious. Do you really want an answer to the question of what, for example, Kaska Dena or Tahltan *might* do if they lost all government funding? You think Squamish Nation, holders of some of the mot expensive real estate the world couldn't survive without Justin and John?

Anyway, thanks for pulling out one of the threads that is part of the tangle of "a lot of things going on" in this discussion. If you can expand on how fixing monetary and fiscal policy gets resident hunters and anglers access to an abundant landscape I'm all ears.

[Rob Chipman]

What I say on this crap is F them. Their authority is for their people only. I am not native so I do not abide by their laws. They can govern their own people. Aboriginal law does not apply to non aboriginals so they can go F themselves. Our government better grow some balls and stop drinking Liberal Snowflake soup. I will hunt anywhere in BC that is legal under "BC" law!

"...lot of things going on in this thread...."


If you're going to follow BC laws then I don't think anyone has a problem with your approach. If you haven't read the draft plan for the implementation of DRIPA you might want to. It seems clear to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you think of as "Aboriginal law" will (and in some cases I think we can argue it already has) be given the full force of BC law.

If you are upset that the feds and province don't share your politics I get it. You're not alone. Mind you....the BC Liberals all voted for DRIPA and Stephen Harper was the first PM to apologize for residential schools.

Anyway, there is a relatively recent world-wide trend among government to do some fairly dumb, divisive and unsustainable social engineering. Truth and reconciliation is not one of those things. If you think it is you haven't been paying attention (it's very simple to demonstrate that the T&R process we're going through now has been around much longer than the stuff you're complaining about).

If you're ok with First Nations governing First Nations people only, you're really going to want to read the draft plan for DRIPA. You're also going to want to wrap your head around the whole "unceded" concept. Those two things can very easily lead to a completely legal place that I don't think you'll like *if you're concerned about the restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat and access to it.*

So, I think I'm with you on the majority of what you're saying (abide by BC laws, our governments should stop embracing stupid and divisive policies) but I'm not sure that telling First Nations to **** themselves is going to solve the restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat and access to it challenge.

Pick your battles, right? I'm worried about restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat and access to it. That's my battle.

[Rob Chipman]

Some of The first nation tribes fought brutally with each other here in bc. Land occupants changed many times.


That is absolutely true.

Land occupancy changed many times. Title to land? Different story, and critical to this issue.

Its a fact that most of the First Nations I've looked into don't dispute that who possessed the land was a concept pre-contact, was an issue at the time of contact, and still is an issue to this day. Many celebrate their long defence of their lands and celebrate the spilling of blood to do it.

So, you are correct and I agree with you in terms of occupancy.

We need to think through what that means for *title* and whether we want to accept the answer (which has been proven substantially at the highest court in the land and which is getting pushed further, all in accordance with the Canadian legal system.

Before anyone hits the keyboard to fast or too hard take a quick gander at the leaked draft decision bun toss going on in the US right now. You wouldn't want to pick some strange bedfellows, right? Or maybe you do actually line uppolitically with Joy Behar and the ladies on the View :-) )

[Rob Chipman]

I will skirt the spiral of this thread.

As hunters/conservationists, our concern is about wildlife sustainability and access to this wonderful province.
Talk all you want about treaty this, treaty that.

Access to the back country is paramount to folks like us.

It will pain me if I have to pay for a permit or be refused access to any area I have been hunting for decades without ever encountering an FN member.

Curious to see where this goes.





Hopefully Gov will stop caving to every special interest request.

You are right about our concern (that is, the concern of you and me, but like I said, there are a lot of other things going on in this thread): restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat and access to it.

I don't know where you've been hunting for decades, but there have long been no go zones and permits that you have to buy. If FN instituted a permit and access system that was reasonable and corresponded to your views on conservation (ie, the FN rules aligned with western science, were as transparent as the current system and were applied fairly) would you still feel pain or would you accept it?

In terms of government caving to special interests, I think you're being a bit unfair when the government loses to the FN in open court according to the laws of Canada. In other applications, sure, ok, fine, but when someone fights a multi-year court battle and wins it's tough to call complying with the ruling "caving". Not applicable yet in this LSIB IPCA, but you see where I'm going.

[TheObserver]

Changes, prosperity and good solutions not gonna happen with the current government, both provincial and federal.
We are in a downward spiral of marxist/socialist idealogical dictate and we need to get the UN, UNDRIP out of our lives!

X3 well said

[Rob Chipman]

You make a number of observations and some conclusions that in my mind miss an underlying theme. That being that we live in a democracy and the majority rules. Also that the Government is acting in our best interest. One of your statements : A better alternative, I think (and feel free to call me crazy) is to figure out which values you really want to commit to, and then figure out how you're going to reconcile those values with the facts. I have figured out how I want to live and what i want to commit to. In short a fair system which recognizes the wishes of the electorate(majority). That rewards hard work and an honest lifestyle and respects and rewards those values. The way things are headed is far from that view. We have a Federal Government who continually creates division between people, classes races, and genders. Add to this the idea that roughly 3% of the population are going to dictate terms to the other 97%. The Governments , both provincial and federal have little idea how to deal with this other than deflection and dragging there feet. They have now decided to listen to the 3% and virtue shame any of the 97% who oppose the idea. I would hope we can all prosper in this country well based on our individual skill sets and what we bring to the table. Unfortunately the Government has decided that merit plays no role in modern society and there should be equal outcomes for all and especially minorities. In my opinion that only weakens a society and a nation. I wish First nations the best, but feel the path we are presently headed down is not one of earned prosperity, but one of continual Government hand outs and subsidies. And as you have witnessed in this thread, a certain amount of animosity. I very much admire the hard work and leadership of First Nations in Kitimat and Osoyoos, who have developed economic strategies and business plans that align with present day realities. I can see why there are people who are afraid or concerned with the way things are going. Instead of working together to find solutions that are beneficial and fair to all. There seems to be a cycle of reinventing history to suit the appropriate narratives and or erasing past history or historical figures to fit the same narrative.

I'm not missing your underlying theme.

You are, however, missing some important information that might force you to make some tough choices, and I'm not sure you've done that. It's a long conversation and we won't wrap it up all in a couple forum comments, but if you think there is some sort of 3% vs 97% split on this issue you're sorely misinformed. If you think that 3% of the population is "dictating" terms to the other 97%, again, look out your window or turn on your TV. (I'm not attacking you personally, but you've already admitted in other comments on this thread that you were unaware of some pretty critical facts).

A lot of what you say is correct. I can't see what it has to do with solving the problem of restoring fish, wildlife and habitat, or maintaining access to it. I think you're pissed that you (like many of us) hold some minority political values that aren't being recognized or empowered. That's a fair position, but it is also one of those "lot of things going on in this thread".

I'll get back to you on some of the facts you're missing. You can figure out what to do with them.

[Rob Chipman]

Changes, prosperity and good solutions not gonna happen with the current government, both provincial and federal.
We are in a downward spiral of marxist/socialist idealogical dictate and we need to get the UN, UNDRIP out of our lives!


You're right on a lot of that. The question is: if you want to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to them what's the best way to accomplish that? There are a lot of Marxist, socialist and UN supporters who live, work, pay taxes and vote in this province.

Now, if you want to get rid of the political voice of the Marxists, socialists and UN supporters who live, work, pay taxes and vote in this province? Please keep me updated on how you do and what successes you enjoy. It's certainly one of the interesting things going on in this thread (it might be more suited for "Politics and Debates" rather than Lower Mainland hunting and fishing, but who cares, right?).


I'll keep you updated on the fish, wildlife, habitat and access thing.

[Rob Chipman]

The ironic part about LSIB declaring the area "protected" is that they are the ones mainly responsible for the issues they're claiming. Large FN hunting camps bombing around the Easy Going Creek motor vehicle closure in August shooting at anything with a heartbeat. Mule deer does and cow moose by the truck load. It's a sickening sight if you've ever been up there in the summer before hunting season opens up for residents.

When the forest licensee at the time wanted to harvest pockets of spruce showing signs of bark beetle, the band shut them down. They eventually got so frustrated with the band that they handed them the tenure. Now, what hasn't burnt are just grey match sticks and blow down as the entire valley has been hammered by bark beetle.




I don't know the particulars in this case, and it seems like you do, but there's no question you absolutely identify a real issue (and you're not alone at seeing it).



I consider this my traditional territory and will still recreate there as I please.

I like the honesty and respect the values.

[dino]

Thanks, Dino. Like I said, there are a lot of things going on in this thread and it can be tough to figure out how to respond, but when one person brings up one issue it gets way easier.

It seems to me that in the comment you're concerned about the fiscal management, and probably the monetary, policies embraced by the Federal government, with a chaser of the FNs wanting something unsustainable (I don't want to put words own your mouth, but I think Im reading you 5x5).

You are 100% correct on the fiscal and monetary policies. I'm with you. There will be a reckoning at some point and it will hurt a lot of people in the pocketbook. The declaration of an IPCA or restricting access to the IPCA for resident hunters, of course, is neither fiscal nor monetary policy, and the LSIB doesn't make those policies. Yes, I understand that the government loves throwing more borrowed money at *any* problem. But, government borrowing and spending their way to power has very little to do with fish, wildlife and habitat restoration, nor with access to those three things for resident hunters and angler.

So, I sure your concern on fiscal and monetary issues, and you're pretty accurate about the state of those two things, but I want to figure out how to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to it for everyone, and do that according to the rules and conditions that actually exist in BC.


What will FNs do when they can no longer bite the hand that feeds them? Good question, I guess, but why single out FNs? :-) On a serious note, it's worth pointing out that there isn't a monolithic FN with a list of common demands, and I'll guarantee that there are Indigenous people who have some good answers to that question. Do the math, war-game the obvious. Do you really want an answer to the question of what, for example, Kaska Dena or Tahltan *might* do if they lost all government funding? You think Squamish Nation, holders of some of the mot expensive real estate the world couldn't survive without Justin and John?

Anyway, thanks for pulling out one of the threads that is part of the tangle of "a lot of things going on" in this discussion. If you can expand on how fixing monetary and fiscal policy gets resident hunters and anglers access to an abundant landscape I'm all ears.

I would be asking the impossible to keep the politics out of it and just attacking the real issues with regards to fish and wildlife.
I can remember working for a fish hatchery in port renfrew 30 years ago and fighting tooth and nail to get any funding for the hatchery. Mostly it was volunteers that came together raised and released millions of fry. The money that the FN received for their hatchery that never existed was at that time around 7-800 thousand dollars.
This is one small example. Im at a stage that is past reconciliation. I am a simple man trying to understand how anyone that believes the path were on is sustainable economically or environmentally.
The only way (based only on opinion) i see a way forward is that some hard decisions need to be made. This next opinion will sound horrible but its where im at.
I believe in one county,one law.
When we understand we are equal with no special treatment to anyone our success will be based on our own merits. The system has to change because we are headed on a collision course with even greater division.

Im a good example of where many of us are at. I just dont care anymore. I really dont.

[Rob Chipman]

I would be asking the impossible to keep the politics out of it and just attacking the real issues with regards to fish and wildlife.
I can remember working for a fish hatchery in port renfrew 30 years ago and fighting tooth and nail to get any funding for the hatchery. Mostly it was volunteers that came together raised and released millions of fry. The money that the FN received for their hatchery that never existed was at that time around 7-800 thousand dollars.
This is one small example. Im at a stage that is past reconciliation. I am a simple man trying to understand how anyone that believes the path were on is sustainable economically or environmentally.
The only way (based only on opinion) i see a way forward is that some hard decisions need to be made. This next opinion will sound horrible but its where im at.
I believe in one county,one law.
When we understand we are equal with no special treatment to anyone our success will be based on our own merits. The system has to change because we are headed on a collision course with even greater division.

Im a good example of where many of us are at. I just dont care anymore. I really dont.

I hear you. There has been a lot of divisive mismanagement of the body politic. I agree with you that the larger path we are on is not sustainable economically or environmentally, and hard decisions will be made one way or another. That's a much bigger problem than T&R and an IPCA, mind you, or how RH are going to maintain access.

The opinion that there should be one country and one law isn't a terrible one. I happen to share it. It's something that's never existed in this country, mind you, it's also not widely held, and our legal system doesn't support it. Given that there are only 24 hours in a day and we have to pick our battles I'm not picking the battle to establish one country, one law. That's a big battle that means risking your life, liberty and property with little prospect of success.

There is a really good chance that we're headed for more division. The cavalry ain't coming, and if it does it ain't coming to rescue resident hunters and anglers. We need to carve out our own space.

When you say you don't care anymore, what, exactly, is it that you don't care about? If it's restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat and access to it for all BCers then you and I don't need to talk about this anymore - we've got completely different agendas and I wish you success. If you do care about those issues, well, see above: the cavalry ain't coming. We're outgunned and on our own. We need to figure out which problem we're going to solve and move past the complaint stage.

[TheObserver]

I'm not missing your underlying theme.

You are, however, missing some important information that might force you to make some tough choices, and I'm not sure you've done that. It's a long conversation and we won't wrap it up all in a couple forum comments, but if you think there is some sort of 3% vs 97% split on this issue you're sorely misinformed. If you think that 3% of the population is "dictating" terms to the other 97%, again, look out your window or turn on your TV. (I'm not attacking you personally, but you've already admitted in other comments on this thread that you were unaware of some pretty critical facts).

A lot of what you say is correct. I can't see what it has to do with solving the problem of restoring fish, wildlife and habitat, or maintaining access to it. I think you're pissed that you (like many of us) hold some minority political values that aren't being recognized or empowered. That's a fair position, but it is also one of those "lot of things going on in this thread".

I'll get back to you on some of the facts you're missing. You can figure out what to do with them.

I might be mistaken but I think the 3%-97% he is reffering to is the 3% global power elite that make the decisions for government rule and social engineering, vs. The 97% being us the indians and whoever else exists in this melting pot experiment, in the end we will all be f** ked over by "them" as history proves if we keep on this course we are headed. It seems to me and many more would agree worlwide that the powers that be are intentionally destroying the economy, and pretty much every facet of the system so they build up a new one how they see fit which will be total control not just of guns and hunting.

The "highest court in the land" or literally anything the government or media says cannot be trusted.

P.s. nevermind on his meaning 3-97% reread that

[RyoTHC]

How come BC is the only province that seems dumb enough to entertain this shit?
doesn’t seem like many if any other places in North America are tripping over their own two feet to virtue signal their own citizens into poverty and despair.

[dino]

I hear you. There has been a lot of divisive mismanagement of the body politic. I agree with you that the larger path we are on is not sustainable economically or environmentally, and hard decisions will be made one way or another. That's a much bigger problem than T&R and an IPCA, mind you, or how RH are going to maintain access.

The opinion that there should be one country and one law isn't a terrible one. I happen to share it. It's something that's never existed in this country, mind you, it's also not widely held, and our legal system doesn't support it. Given that there are only 24 hours in a day and we have to pick our battles I'm not picking the battle to establish one country, one law. That's a big battle that means risking your life, liberty and property with little prospect of success.

There is a really good chance that we're headed for more division. The cavalry ain't coming, and if it does it ain't coming to rescue resident hunters and anglers. We need to carve out our own space.

When you say you don't care anymore, what, exactly, is it that you don't care about? If it's restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat and access to it for all BCers then you and I don't need to talk about this anymore - we've got completely different agendas and I wish you success. If you do care about those issues, well, see above: the cavalry ain't coming. We're outgunned and on our own. We need to figure out which problem we're going to solve and move past the complaint stage.

I think were on the done part. All caring about our country, people and the future of fish and wildlife has done for me has just caused stress. I will be respectful but will only mind my own business.
Wish you success also.
Thanks

[358mag]

How come BC is the only province that seems dumb enough to entertain this shit?
doesn’t seem like many if any other places in North America are tripping over their own two feet to virtue signal their own citizens into poverty and despair.

Remember there's no shortage of people that have voted in the NDP time + time again . There just might be a answer to your question of dumb enough to entertain this shit !

[ACE]

The FI (first immigrants) play on 'white' collective guilt, and view themselves as forever victims. It's their 'trump card' . . . disagree with anything concerning FI, and you're immediately branded as racist.
The Federal Liberals will also play the 'trump card' to their advantage as the Conservatives seek to become government again.

[Rob Chipman]

I might be mistaken but I think the 3%-97% he is reffering to is the 3% global power elite that make the decisions for government rule and social engineering, vs. The 97% being us the indians and whoever else exists in this melting pot experiment, in the end we will all be f** ked over by "them" as history proves if we keep on this course we are headed. It seems to me and many more would agree worlwide that the powers that be are intentionally destroying the economy, and pretty much every facet of the system so they build up a new one how they see fit which will be total control not just of guns and hunting.

The "highest court in the land" or literally anything the government or media says cannot be trusted.

P.s. nevermind on his meaning 3-97% reread that

If you're asserting that a small elite exercise excessive influence over the majority of us, yeah, I'm with you. It's very clear that happens. It's kind of the history of the world with some eras seeing the small elite have less control, or exercise it more wisely, and other eras when it's a shitshow.

The media is a for profit corporation, not a truth source (and yes, that includes the CBC). Again, this is well established. That doesn't mean the media is never trustworthy, but you need to be careful and read the cards on the table realistically.

If you can't trust the highest court in the land you've got bigger problems than the Lower Similkameen Indian Band, their IPCA, and truth and reconciliation. Like I said - a lot of things are going on in this thread, and distrust of the Canadian state is one of them. It is a valid thing to be upset about, but it has limited practical bearing on fish, wildlife, habitat or access to those three things. Pick your battles, right? Even if you want o fight more than one it's good to fight one at a time when you're not winning any of them (and that's where restoration of fish, wildlife, habitat and access to them is right now).

[Rob Chipman]

How come BC is the only province that seems dumb enough to entertain this shit?
doesn’t seem like many if any other places in North America are tripping over their own two feet to virtue signal their own citizens into poverty and despair.


It all tracks back to contact. In some parts of North America Indigenous people were, in fact, conquered and title to land was extinguished. That never happened in most of BC. First Nations have made their cases, repeatedly, in Canadian courts and won.


You can describe the response to these legal victories as virtue signalling, but the fact is that Canada is a country of laws, and the government follows the laws, even when it has to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so.

[Rob Chipman]

I think were on the done part. All caring about our country, people and the future of fish and wildlife has done for me has just caused stress. I will be respectful but will only mind my own business.
Wish you success also.
Thanks


Fair enough. Like I said, I hear where you're coming from and have to tell you, frankly, that a guy saying "I'm stressed, don't like the division, and can't see this ending well" is way more valuable to getting T&R sorted out than a guy saying "We conquered them. They need to face facts. This woke BS is getting to be too much".


1) We're all here. 2) We aren't going anywhere. 3) Someone needs to figure it out. 4) I don't have a lot of faith that Justin or John are up to the task.

If 4 is true it doesn't make 1,2 or 3 less true.

Thanks for the good wishes. When you shed some stress come back and contribute. Like I said, you're making some valid points.

[Rob Chipman]

Remember there's no shortage of people that have voted in the NDP time + time again . There just might be a answer to your question of dumb enough to entertain this shit !


Don't forget that the BC liberals all supported DRIPA, and Harper was the first PM to apologize for residential schools. This isn't as clearly a Right/Left divide as some people assume.

[Livewire322]

I'm not missing your underlying theme.

You are, however, missing some important information that might force you to make some tough choices, and I'm not sure you've done that. It's a long conversation and we won't wrap it up all in a couple forum comments, but if you think there is some sort of 3% vs 97% split on this issue you're sorely misinformed. If you think that 3% of the population is "dictating" terms to the other 97%, again, look out your window or turn on your TV. (I'm not attacking you personally, but you've already admitted in other comments on this thread that you were unaware of some pretty critical facts).

A lot of what you say is correct. I can't see what it has to do with solving the problem of restoring fish, wildlife and habitat, or maintaining access to it. I think you're pissed that you (like many of us) hold some minority political values that aren't being recognized or empowered. That's a fair position, but it is also one of those "lot of things going on in this thread".

I'll get back to you on some of the facts you're missing. You can figure out what to do with them.

You’ve clearly got a good handle on the situation, based on the above and your other posts - so I likely have little to add.
That written, the 3% to 97% (I think it’s closer to 5% to 95%) has less to do with politics and more to do with blood. The way we are trending now will have the balance of power, land, resources, etc… shifted from the non-natives (95%), to the natives (5%).

That power shift might not matter to most folks when it comes to back-country access and fish/wildlife management, but what it does to resource extraction will matter to the larger population group when it causes companies to leave in favor of greener pastures.

The LSIB IPCA declaration makes it clear that all non-LSIB owned forestry, mining, range tenure, guide outfitters, water users, and fee simple property owners days are numbered and or outlawed directly - that means commercial impacts. The people from the 95% of the population that don’t have native blood are going to see and feel direct and indirect impacts of that (and of similar declarations made by other bands in the future), regardless of their political leanings.

[Rob Chipman]

The FI (first immigrants) play on 'white' collective guilt, and view themselves as forever victims. It's their 'trump card' . . . disagree with anything concerning FI, and you're immediately branded as racist.
The Federal Liberals will also play the 'trump card' to their advantage as the Conservatives seek to become government again.


There's no shortage of people who play the victim card. There's plenty on this thread.

On the other hand, there's no shortage of Indigenous people who reject playing the victim and instead say "Let's get 'er done". They've proven successful. They're still here, despite everything the Canadian state attempted in terms of assimilation, legislation and treaty making, and they're putting some significant wins on the board.

It's worth recognizing that reality.

As for being branded a racist I think it's a good idea to adopt the belief that what other people think of you isn't any of your business. If you do what's right then the people who matter will think we'll of you and those who don't think well of you? They don't matter. You see examples of that every single day on the TV.

[Rob Chipman]

You’ve clearly got a good handle on the situation, based on the above and your other posts - so I likely have little to add.
That written, the 3% to 97% (I think it’s closer to 5% to 95%) has less to do with politics and more to do with blood. The way we are trending now will have the balance of power, land, resources, etc… shifted from the non-natives (95%), to the natives (5%).

That power shift might not matter to most folks when it comes to back-country access and fish/wildlife management, but what it does to resource extraction will matter to the larger population group when it causes companies to leave in favor of greener pastures.

You are not wrong. The only thing I'll add to the 3% vs 93% is "Are you counting your annoying sister-in law in the 97%. 'Cause she ain't aligned with you". I don't mean you specifically, as you know, but T&R is immensely popular in this country, even when most people don't know what it means.

You are 100% correct: shut down hunting in a remote part of the province that most people don't even know exists? No problem.

Build a huge tower on private Indigenous land in the middle of Vancouver and blow off zoning and rental laws? Watch progressive vegan bike riders lose their shit. We've already seen that on TV. Resource extraction? You and I know the corporations have figured it out. The rest of us? Not so much.

[Ourea]

Rob Chipman, u r on fire today. Love it

[VLD43]

I'm not missing your underlying theme.

You are, however, missing some important information that might force you to make some tough choices, and I'm not sure you've done that. It's a long conversation and we won't wrap it up all in a couple forum comments, but if you think there is some sort of 3% vs 97% split on this issue you're sorely misinformed. If you think that 3% of the population is "dictating" terms to the other 97%, again, look out your window or turn on your TV. (I'm not attacking you personally, but you've already admitted in other comments on this thread that you were unaware of some pretty critical facts).

A lot of what you say is correct. I can't see what it has to do with solving the problem of restoring fish, wildlife and habitat, or maintaining access to it. I think you're pissed that you (like many of us) hold some minority political values that aren't being recognized or empowered. That's a fair position, but it is also one of those "lot of things going on in this thread".

I'll get back to you on some of the facts you're missing. You can figure out what to do with them.
Thanks for your reply Rob. Good discussion so far. I will try my best here to be as respectful as I can. You suggest I should look out the window. That I have some sort of minority view point here. That could not be further from the truth. I used to be a proud canadian. I have seen the complete lack of leadership and vision practiced by both the present and previous governments. Things like poor wildlife management, irresponsible resource extraction, gross budget overspending. All of this is done for purely political reasons, with no regard for the future of this country. There have been numerous examples of this over time. My political view is only a minority one because of the way the political class manipulates the voting process. It speaks volumes when practically, the wests vote does not count in a Federal election, as the northern or rural vote counts for little in a provincial election. I can remember back in the 70's when guys were raising concerns about logging and forestry practices. It still goes on today and removes valuable old growth habitat. And the only thing that drives it is money. Wildlife Bio's can raise concerns all day long about critical wintering areas, stream and watershed damage etc. and it lands on deaf ears. All because of money. Take a look at net pen damage that has created ecological damage to the surrounding areas, and impacted wild stocks. it was known long ago that net pens were a bad idea, but Canada embraced the idea because it meant jobs. They are now trying to shut them down, but First nations are balking. Really, the protectors of the land, so they tell us. We have all heard of many cases of hunting and fishing activities by the same group that are both wasteful and or unsustainable. Yet their leadership does little to curtail these activities as it's their inherent right so were told. So I find it very rich when they state they are shutting down areas for conservation reasons to everyone but themselves. My impression is they love to talk the talk, but rarely walk the walk. Don't get me wrong here, as i have respect for anyone who practices ethical and conservation minded harvest of either fish or wildlife. And i don't care which race or gender they are. Like it or not, we cannot continue with different rules for different groups. It is completely unsustainable as will be living off the land in the near future. Yes I may have lots to learn and I am open to that. I care very much about wildlife and it's future in this country. What disturbs me to no end is the politics around it and all the double standards. We are supposed to be leaving future generations a good legacy and so far that legacy is falling far short because of poor political decisions and greed. Keep up the good fight Sir.

[TheObserver]

If you're asserting that a small elite exercise excessive influence over the majority of us, yeah, I'm with you. It's very clear that happens. It's kind of the history of the world with some eras seeing the small elite have less control, or exercise it more wisely, and other eras when it's a shitshow.

The media is a for profit corporation, not a truth source (and yes, that includes the CBC). Again, this is well established. That doesn't mean the media is never trustworthy, but you need to be careful and read the cards on the table realistically.

If you can't trust the highest court in the land you've got bigger problems than the Lower Similkameen Indian Band, their IPCA, and truth and reconciliation. Like I said - a lot of things are going on in this thread, and distrust of the Canadian state is one of them. It is a valid thing to be upset about, but it has limited practical bearing on fish, wildlife, habitat or access to those three things. Pick your battles, right? Even if you want o fight more than one it's good to fight one at a time when you're not winning any of them (and that's where restoration of fish, wildlife, habitat and access to them is right now).

I can not trust the highest court in the land, and whether some of us are aware of it or not we ALL have bigger problems then these indian bands and access, the world and especially the west are headed into a new world order of hybrid communism/extreme control.

Wildlife and their habitat holds dear to my heart and would like to see it accessible for all who get gouged by taxes and pay into the system here, not just certain areas for one ethnic group alone where a substantial amount of that group slaughter without mercy, you cannot conserve wildlife with policies like that it will never happen, giving it an inch it will go a mile all over this province until everything and everywhere is off limits for only certain people.

[Livewire322]

Don't forget that the BC liberals all supported DRIPA, and Harper was the first PM to apologize for residential schools. This isn't as clearly a Right/Left divide as some people assume.
The relevance of Harper’s apology is dubious at best. People can simultaneously apologizes for the (large) role that the Canadian government played in the residential school school system and believe that there are better paths forward than relinquishing control of the lands and resources that have been, in reality, held by crown, province, and people for a century or more - we can argue semantics about the land being stolen and subsequently bought and sold all we want, but as the old saying goes, possession is 9/10 of the law.
This all becomes relevant when we move back to resource extraction and other commercial tenures that exist on the land and what happens to the jobs and micro-economy of an area when a new “owner” (or and old one) comes to town and causes a stir.

The clear path forward, in my mind at least, is to offer a seat at the table and resources (financial or otherwise) sufficient to support those who were here first (and arguably made their living doing so before we got here) - this would recognize the current situation of us non-natives being here now and having nowhere else to go, and restore them as close to how they were when we showed up.

[ElectricDyck]

Companies already have left..there was a resource extraction company, I wish I could remember the exact details including dollars invested, that pulled the plug on their plans to start buisness in Alberta after the company had invested HUGE amounts of money starting the process. They pulled the plug and walked away from their cash. A clear signal that Canada was not worth investment due to the political climate...since then it has gotten worse and canadians will be taxed to make up for the lost revenue.

I believe the fight for sport fishing and resident hunting has already been lost. I believe there was too much focus on habitat and the ethical idea of being ashamed of killing as taught in the core manual or maybe it is just the natural shift of thinking as cities grow and move away from the connection to the land, maybe it was inevitable. We tend to follow Europe. Maybe its that politicians care more about corporations than citizens. You can't fight the courts and the rulings are not on our side. If they can imprison a guy for calling his daughter his daughter, freeze bank accounts based on who you donated to, close Grizzly based on feelings, give control of land to first nations restricting access to 2nd nations (canadians) while we still pay for everything, you can commit murder and be out in four years these days lol, we have no hope.

Lots have left Canada this year after seeing how things are going. I think this will continue. I'm still not allowed on a plane, train or a ship...

[IronNoggin]

You can describe the response to these legal victories as virtue signalling, but the fact is that Canada is a country of laws, and the government follows the laws, even when it has to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so.

While I understand and concur with much (not all by any means) of what you say, I do not believe that statement is correct if taken in a blanket context. In fact, the current Federal government and it's "leader" have shown time & time again they do not pay much attention to "laws" that supposedly govern their behavior.

Nog

[Ourea]

How about that Ashnola.

[TheObserver]

While I understand and concur with much (not all by any means) of what you say, I do not believe that statement is correct if taken in a blanket context. In fact, the current Federal government and it's "leader" have shown time & time again they do not pay much attention to "laws" that supposedly govern their behavior.

Nog

Exactly this

[Livewire322]

You are not wrong. The only thing I'll add to the 3% vs 93% is "Are you counting your annoying sister-in law in the 97%. 'Cause she ain't aligned with you". I don't mean you specifically, as you know, but T&R is immensely popular in this country, even when most people don't know what it means.

You are 100% correct: shut down hunting in a remote part of the province that most people don't even know exists? No problem.

Build a huge tower on private Indigenous land in the middle of Vancouver and blow off zoning and rental laws? Watch progressive vegan bike riders lose their shit. We've already seen that on TV. Resource extraction? You and I know the corporations have figured it out. The rest of us? Not so much.

I believe I’m being very clear where I think the line is drawn - those with native blood on one side (5%), and those without (95%) on the other - the fact is, regardless of political affiliation, very few people on the (95%) side of things stand to gain anything from control being relinquished to the 5%.

The difference between folks on this forum and our collective hypothetical wind-bag of a sister-in-law, who thinks radical T&R (seeing control turned over to the minority, land-back type ideas) is a smashing idea, is that we’ve all seen, felt, and anticipate more of, the impacts of turning over control (restricted access to far flung places). As soon as the concept turns from remote land access to jobs being lost, taxes going up, or anything tangible for the masses, we see a broader swath of the population moving to the “woah, this ain’t good camp”.

I won’t feign to be in a political majority with my views, but I extend the same to those who hold radical views of what T&R is and should be - they have a platform (mainstream media & social media) and allies (JT and Horgan, to name a few) which makes them seem loud and strong - but the reality is that their views aren’t all that popular and won’t stand the test when people are asked to put the money where their mouths are in a substantial way.
I’m a millennial, and I run in some fairly white collar circles now a days, if the volume of the radical T&R message can be extrapolated to size of its followers, the majority of the people in my demographic should be all for it - it simply isn’t the case. I’ve got a sister whose in Gen Z, and while I’m confident more of her friends would be gullible enough to believe the radical T&R crap, I still don’t believe it is a majority, not will it last through them hitting the job market, having kids, and buying homes (so long as interest rates don’t keep flying upwards).

[ElectricDyck]

I think if control is given to the 5% there will be more government dollars with less oversight, I can see corrupt politicians, green charities and corporate intrests rubbing their hands together. Much like the money given to first nations now with no expectation of any accountability.

[TheObserver]

I'm still not allowed on a plane, train or a ship...

I'm with you there Brother!!

[ElectricDyck]

Us pure bloods need to stick together lol

[TheObserver]

Us pure bloods need to stick together lol

Hahaha you got that right!!!

[358mag]

Don't forget that the BC liberals all supported DRIPA, and Harper was the first PM to apologize for residential schools. This isn't as clearly a Right/Left divide as some people assume.

Yes forsure , but you will have to admit the biggest nail in this mess was pounded in with Horgan + the NDP when the snuck in UNRIP under the table , such a greasy move on there part and a hill we as tax payers will never pay off or be able to climb .
If you want end this mess and Left/Right/ Racism mess its got to get down to One Law for all .

[ElectricDyck]

From what I heard all politicians cheered when it was voted in...the only political group I've heard speak out against the UN provincially or federally has been the peoples party..

[wildcatter]

While I understand and concur with much (not all by any means) of what you say, I do not believe that statement is correct if taken in a blanket context. In fact, the current Federal government and it's "leader" have shown time & time again they do not pay much attention to "laws" that supposedly govern their behavior.

Nog

Not only they don't pay attention to laws, but break them as they see it fit their agendas and get away with it!

[wildcatter]

I can not trust the highest court in the land, and whether some of us are aware of it or not we ALL have bigger problems then these indian bands and access, the world and especially the west are headed into a new world order of hybrid communism/extreme control.

Wildlife and their habitat holds dear to my heart and would like to see it accessible for all who get gouged by taxes and pay into the system here, not just certain areas for one ethnic group alone where a substantial amount of that group slaughter without mercy, you cannot conserve wildlife with policies like that it will never happen, giving it an inch it will go a mile all over this province until everything and everywhere is off limits for only certain people.

The courts are bought and paid for under a marxist regime doing everything the UN tells them!
The break up of western society is the goal, but there are some apologists here who got blinders on.

[wildcatter]

I think if control is given to the 5% there will be more government dollars with less oversight, I can see corrupt politicians, green charities and corporate intrests rubbing their hands together. Much like the money given to first nations now with no expectation of any accountability.


Accountability, what's that?
But we must bend over backward in the name of reconciliation untill everything is taken.

[wildcatter]

You're right on a lot of that. The question is: if you want to restore fish, wildlife and habitat and maintain access to them what's the best way to accomplish that? There are a lot of Marxist, socialist and UN supporters who live, work, pay taxes and vote in this province.

Now, if you want to get rid of the political voice of the Marxists, socialists and UN supporters who live, work, pay taxes and vote in this province? Please keep me updated on how you do and what successes you enjoy. It's certainly one of the interesting things going on in this thread (it might be more suited for "Politics and Debates" rather than Lower Mainland hunting and fishing, but who cares, right?).


I'll keep you updated on the fish, wildlife, habitat and access thing.

I wish I had the answer.

[Rob Chipman]

I wish I had the answer.

1) Pick your battles and get focused;
2) Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good;
3) Identify who the biggest obstacles are;
4) Increase the size of your group rather than making it continually smaller;
5) Don't believe fairy tales, no matter how much you like the sound of them.

[Rob Chipman]

Thanks for your reply Rob. Good discussion so far. I will try my best here to be as respectful as I can. You suggest I should look out the window. That I have some sort of minority view point here. That could not be further from the truth. I used to be a proud canadian. I have seen the complete lack of leadership and vision practiced by both the present and previous governments. Things like poor wildlife management, irresponsible resource extraction, gross budget overspending. All of this is done for purely political reasons, with no regard for the future of this country. There have been numerous examples of this over time. My political view is only a minority one because of the way the political class manipulates the voting process. It speaks volumes when practically, the wests vote does not count in a Federal election, as the northern or rural vote counts for little in a provincial election. I can remember back in the 70's when guys were raising concerns about logging and forestry practices. It still goes on today and removes valuable old growth habitat. And the only thing that drives it is money. Wildlife Bio's can raise concerns all day long about critical wintering areas, stream and watershed damage etc. and it lands on deaf ears. All because of money. Take a look at net pen damage that has created ecological damage to the surrounding areas, and impacted wild stocks. it was known long ago that net pens were a bad idea, but Canada embraced the idea because it meant jobs. They are now trying to shut them down, but First nations are balking. Really, the protectors of the land, so they tell us. We have all heard of many cases of hunting and fishing activities by the same group that are both wasteful and or unsustainable. Yet their leadership does little to curtail these activities as it's their inherent right so were told. So I find it very rich when they state they are shutting down areas for conservation reasons to everyone but themselves. My impression is they love to talk the talk, but rarely walk the walk. Don't get me wrong here, as i have respect for anyone who practices ethical and conservation minded harvest of either fish or wildlife. And i don't care which race or gender they are. Like it or not, we cannot continue with different rules for different groups. It is completely unsustainable as will be living off the land in the near future. Yes I may have lots to learn and I am open to that. I care very much about wildlife and it's future in this country. What disturbs me to no end is the politics around it and all the double standards. We are supposed to be leaving future generations a good legacy and so far that legacy is falling far short because of poor political decisions and greed. Keep up the good fight Sir.


You're making my point about a lot of things going ion in this thread. I'm in agreement with you on a lot of them, and frankly, you're in agreement with a lot of Indigenous people about a lot of what you're saying.

I never said you've got a minority view (although on a lot of thing you and I both have some minority opinions, which is fine) - but the idea that 3% is dictating to the other 97%, or that rural and northern voters didn't get the NDP elected, or that the Liberals would be different? That's unsubstantiated and counter-factual.

Your understanding of the history of contact in the the Canadian context is also a bit off. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 combined with the concept of the honour of the Crown are critical. Underneath this whole thing is who owns the land. That question has not been settled. If you think it was settled through conquest you need to get a bit more informed. You can always state the truth (and you do people a service by doing so) but you need to know what it is first. BC is predominantly unceded Indigenous land and that creates a huge problem that we still have to resolve.

[TheObserver]

The courts are bought and paid for under a marxist regime doing everything the UN tells them!
The break up of western society is the goal, but there are some apologists here who got blinders on.

F**k do they ever!!

[VLD43]

You're making my point about a lot of things going ion in this thread. I'm in agreement with you on a lot of them, and frankly, you're in agreement with a lot of Indigenous people about a lot of what you're saying.

I never said you've got a minority view (although on a lot of thing you and I both have some minority opinions, which is fine) - but the idea that 3% is dictating to the other 97%, or that rural and northern voters didn't get the NDP elected, or that the Liberals would be different? That's unsubstantiated and counter-factual.

Your understanding of the history of contact in the the Canadian context is also a bit off. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 combined with the concept of the honour of the Crown are critical. Underneath this whole thing is who owns the land. That question has not been settled. If you think it was settled through conquest you need to get a bit more informed. You can always state the truth (and you do people a service by doing so) but you need to know what it is first. BC is predominantly unceded Indigenous land and that creates a huge problem that we still have to resolve.

Rob
Thanks for your wise words and explanations. I have looked at some of the reference info you have included in your reply and I appreciate the redirect. It puts things in a new light. I plan on doing a bunch more reading on this. So far all I can say, is that it appears successive Governments over the decades and centuries have really dropped the ball on this. It really is a shame that this has to dealt with the way it is now. A divisive and troubling situation for a country that advertises itself around the world as inclusive. Cheers

[Rob Chipman]

Rob
Thanks for your wise words and explanations. I have looked at some of the reference info you have included in your reply and I appreciate the redirect. It puts things in a new light. I plan on doing a bunch more reading on this. So far all I can say, is that it appears successive Governments over the decades and centuries have really dropped the ball on this. It really is a shame that this has to dealt with the way it is now. A divisive and troubling situation for a country that advertises itself around the world as inclusive. Cheers


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. It was raised in a FN title battle in an Ontario court in the 1800s - got no traction, what with politics and legal opinions being downstream from culture. By the early 1900s the writing was on the wall, though. Personal opinion only, but I think premier Richard McBride understood this and bought fifty years of time for his side. That was just a holding action and by the 1970s it was becoming clear that the RP would mean that failure to properly extinguish Indigenous title was going to be a monumental puzzle to solve.

[high horse Hal]

Interesting that when the RP of 1763 was created, BC wasn't even on the map, not a consideration
and while it mentioned 'rights' no where were these explained or defined, because it didn't matter back then
Everything since has been cooked up out of convenience

[HappyJack]

"Rights" aren't explained or defined in our Constitution [1982] either, and it's a conveniently used excuse to oppress peoples basic and generally accepted Constitutionally protected Rights.

[Rob Chipman]

Interesting that when the RP of 1763 was created, BC wasn't even on the map, not a consideration
and while it mentioned 'rights' no where were these explained or defined, because it didn't matter back then
Everything since has been cooked up out of convenience



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.

[wildcatter]

Interesting that when the RP of 1763 was created, BC wasn't even on the map, not a consideration
and while it mentioned 'rights' no where were these explained or defined, because it didn't matter back then
Everything since has been cooked up out of convenience

I think you got a valid point.:wink:

[wildcatter]

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. It was raised in a FN title battle in an Ontario court in the 1800s - got no traction, what with politics and legal opinions being downstream from culture. By the early 1900s the writing was on the wall, though. Personal opinion only, but I think premier Richard McBride understood this and bought fifty years of time for his side. That was just a holding action and by the 1970s it was becoming clear that the RP would mean that failure to properly extinguish Indigenous title was going to be a monumental puzzle to solve.

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

[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!!!!

[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/government/ministries-organizations/ministries/indigenous-relations-reconciliation/declaration_act_action_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.

[Rob Chipman]

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.

Multiple polls, and the reason it matters is because if you think that the challenge we face is 3% of the population when in fact we face a much bigger challenge you're going to recommend and support solutions that don't work.

When more Canadians trust Indigenous leaders than federal or provincial leaders, who do you think the voting public will support and why? When JT went to Williams Lake recently, along with Marc Miller, did you notice that Global News didn't run any clips of Trudeau or Miller speaking? They ran Chief Sellars. Thats' a clue about how the world is moving. We all realize that on fish, wildlife, habitat and access to it the voting population is divided into 3 groups - us, a minority on one end, antis, a minority on the other end, and the great big middle of undecided voters who don't have our issues as one of their concerns. We need their support if we're going to throw any weight around. If you want to remain a puritan with minority beliefs and lose, fly at 'er. I'm interested in winning. Colour me selfish and competitive.



You don't need to like what I'm telling you, but if you want to dispute it do so on it's accuracy, not on the basis of whether you like the sound of it.

[Rob Chipman]

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


Let me walk you through it.

If you don't like the fact that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 has been found by the courts to be valid in BC, meaning that most of BC is unceded land, and you don't want to reverse the decision through legal channels, you can ignore the law and just apply pressure (just like JT did in your example). That's how JT does things.

I think it's wrong, and I think he knows its wrong but that he can get away with it.

Are you suggesting he's got the right approach or (and this will make it very tough for you) do you agree with me that we should follow the law as interpreted by our court system and follow the honour of the Crown?

[Rob Chipman]

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.


I don't disagree, as I've stated elsewhere, but the *facts* are that the RP does have force of law, that force of law arises with the Crown (we are a constitutional monarchy, remember? The Crown is the highest authority) , we have *plenty* do do with it (like it or not) and while all men *should* be equal, we've never run Canada on that principle and we aren't about to start.

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just giving you accurate data.

[Rob Chipman]

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.


Thanks, but give yourself some credit as well.

I agree that we need to get better informed on this subject, and that probably starts with conversations between everyone on "our team" (not a great term, but you see where I'm going) before we can hope to make a deal with Indigenous peoples.

[VLD43]

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.

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.

[wildcatter]

Let me walk you through it.

If you don't like the fact that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 has been found by the courts to be valid in BC, meaning that most of BC is unceded land, and you don't want to reverse the decision through legal channels, you can ignore the law and just apply pressure (just like JT did in your example). That's how JT does things.

I think it's wrong, and I think he knows its wrong but that he can get away with it.

Are you suggesting he's got the right approach or (and this will make it very tough for you) do you agree with me that we should follow the law as interpreted by our court system and follow the honour of the Crown?

My comment was strictly to this one line you wrote:
"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."

[VLD43]

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.

And/or maybe back when Trudeau senior was repatriating the constitution he should have gotten rid of the Indian Act?

[Ron.C]

And/or maybe back when Trudeau senior was repatriating the constitution he should have gotten rid of the Indian Act?


he tried to do exactly that.

"White Paper" in 1969

[Greenthumbed]

So… here’s a couple of numbers to help calculate the percentages in BC.
350000 licensed anglers in BC
107000 licensed hunters in BC
5.24 million people in BC
This works out to be .087% of the population of BC.
I wouldn’t say we are in the majority. I would say it’s time to make some allies, powerful ones with common interests instead of making more enemies. It’s obvious to me the government cares little for fish, wildlife and habitat and less about hunters and anglers.

[VLD43]

he tried to do exactly that.

"White Paper" in 1969

Thanks Ron. I have heard it mentioned before as being a concern. To bad he ran into opposition.

[VLD43]

So… here’s a couple of numbers to help calculate the percentages in BC.
350000 licensed anglers in BC
107000 licensed hunters in BC
5.24 million people in BC
This works out to be .087% of the population of BC.
I wouldn’t say we are in the majority. I would say it’s time to make some allies, powerful ones with common interests instead of making more enemies. It’s obvious to me the government cares little for fish, wildlife and habitat and less about hunters and anglers.

Agreed......

[ElectricDyck]

Well Mr Chipman, I don't disagree with the make friends not enemies tactic, work within the rules, keep lines of communication open etc..but times are different now. Certain canadians are not allowed to travel because they disagreed with the government on taking a vacine for a virus they already had already recovered from. Some were put in jail for speaking about it. Others were put in jail for their words, simple things like calling your daughter your daughter. Whole country in disbelief at indian child burrial grounds that were never found and may be just a made up headline, anybody who asks questions is a racist.

You say a bunch of white hunters with flags cant have a protest because it will be deemed racist ect..I think you re correct, we just had people from all over Canada, mixed background, mixed ethnicity protest about something as generic as freedom and we saw how far they got despite having epic amounts of financial support for lawyers.

So the plan is to play by their rules, form relationships with the 200 indian bands and the politicians to somehow negotiate slowing the erosion of resident hunting? A sport that none of the parties involved care if we can participate in.

Curious if you are a volunteer or paid? What is your #1 priority? Hunting and firearms ownership or conservation and habitat?

Maybe Im just pessimistic because of the events of the last few years and the speed that everything is changing....but if I were a betting man, I know where my bet will be when it comes to erosion of resident sport hunting.

[ElectricDyck]

So… here’s a couple of numbers to help calculate the percentages in BC.
350000 licensed anglers in BC
107000 licensed hunters in BC
5.24 million people in BC
This works out to be .087% of the population of BC.
I wouldn’t say we are in the majority. I would say it’s time to make some allies, powerful ones with common interests instead of making more enemies. It’s obvious to me the government cares little for fish, wildlife and habitat and less about hunters and anglers.

Who are these allies?

Sierra Club or the Tides Foundation? Lots of money and power..Im sure they'd work together on a conservation project lol.

Edit: Speaking of making inroads, relationships etc...if this were a fight I thought I could win for residents I would be making friends with GOABC and fighting with them, not against..

[Rob Chipman]

My comment was strictly to this one line you wrote:
"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."

So....do you want to respect the rule of law and follow our court system and observe the honour of the Crown or do you want to do things the way JT occasionally does? I suspect you actually want rule of law, and that means accepting things like the RP. Correct me if Im wrong. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[Rob Chipman]

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.

[Rob Chipman]

Well Mr Chipman, I don't disagree with the make friends not enemies tactic, work within the rules, keep lines of communication open etc..but times are different now. Certain canadians are not allowed to travel because they disagreed with the government on taking a vacine for a virus they already had already recovered from. Some were put in jail for speaking about it. Others were put in jail for their words, simple things like calling your daughter your daughter. Whole country in disbelief at indian child burrial grounds that were never found and may be just a made up headline, anybody who asks questions is a racist.

You say a bunch of white hunters with flags cant have a protest because it will be deemed racist ect..I think you re correct, we just had people from all over Canada, mixed background, mixed ethnicity protest about something as generic as freedom and we saw how far they got despite having epic amounts of financial support for lawyers.

So the plan is to play by their rules, form relationships with the 200 indian bands and the politicians to somehow negotiate slowing the erosion of resident hunting? A sport that none of the parties involved care if we can participate in.

Curious if you are a volunteer or paid? What is your #1 priority? Hunting and firearms ownership or conservation and habitat?

Maybe Im just pessimistic because of the events of the last few years and the speed that everything is changing....but if I were a betting man, I know where my bet will be when it comes to erosion of resident sport hunting.


So...time to repeat: there are a lot of things going on in this thread.

Yes, the government (not FNs) restricted the freedoms of Canadians over the vaccine. That was clearly wrong, and in time we'll have even more proof of that. (For pro-mandate guys that doesn't mean vaccines don't work, or that I'm anti-vax. It means that you can't say "My body my choice" when you're arguing abortion rights but then say "Not your body and not your choice" when a virus turns up. It means I think that you either believe in individual freedom or....you don't).

Yes, people in Canada have been imprisoned (through a contempt of court work around) for speaking words about their kids that a judge didn't like. It happened and its wrong, but again, that isn't a FN or a fish, wildlife and habitat issue.

FN burial grounds were never lost, so they didn't need to be found. The whole "discovery" aspect was the media. What was known at a bare minimum for decades and decades, was that 1) Indigenous kids were forcibly taken from their families and sent to residential schools 2) some of the kids died in residential school custody 3) those kids' deaths and their bodies were very often not handled properly 4) the kids were generally buried at the schools, in graveyards that were known, and 5) the record keeping was atrocious.

FN said this for a long time. They said "We know that there are kids missing, we know they died at the schools, we know that they are buried at the schools, we know where the graveyards are, this was all kinds of wrong and it's time the churches involved and the government acknowledged it and made it right.

The Anglican Church, the United Church and the Canadian government said "Yup, that pretty much sums it up. It happened pretty much like you said, and we're sorry".

The FNs then said "It was probably worse than we know, because what we know is based on what survivors saw. We'd like to see your records to see what else was happening". The story quickly got worse when the Anglican Church and United Church shared their records and the Canadian go ernment shared some of their records.

The Catholic Church did not share records and has only recently started down the road to apologizing, but I think that when you can get Stephen Harper and the Pope to apologize for something we can read the cards on the table: there are bodies in the graveyards, everyone involved always knew it, the parties involved don't deny it and it's time we moved past believing that it's a made up story.

There are Indigenous people exercising influence over fish, wildlife and habitat and our access to it who have family in those graveyards. None of this was "discovered". The wider Canadian public finally learned about it.

Ground penetrating radar found *disturbances* in locations that were known to be graveyards. The numbers don't add up (and if you look at the records, many of which are online, you'll understand why -they are sloppy and incomplete) but the error is leaning towards *more* bodies, not fewer.

I think you have to imagine, given the overwhelming evidence, and the fact that most of the parties involved have agreed that it happened, that if you question it people will ask "Why are you trying to defend something that everyone involved admits happened? Is it simply that you're ignorant of these facts or is is something a bit more sinister?" When you think you hear someone implying that you're a racist maybe consider that question.


What's the plan? I don't know yet. Chime in and let me know what you think will work. I know what *won't* work. That's as far as I have gotten.

I'm a volunteer. My number 1 priority is preserving and enhancing a wild landscape and waterscape that is home to as many natural species as possible, managed in as sustainable way as possible, with equal access to all BCers so that they can practice their traditional, sustainable outdoor pursuits from now until the end of time. I am a big supporter of firearms rights and hunting. I'm going bear killing (hopefully) this weekend. I've got wild meat (mammalian and fish) in my freezer. I can't separate hunting and firearms from conservation and habitat. If you can, tell me how, because I can't see how the hell I can hunt and kill anything if we don't restore fish, wildlife and habitat and then, once we've done that, conserve all three. You can't hunt and kill what isn't on the landscape, and you can't catch a salmon or a steelhead if there are none in the water.


I am a betting man. We're holding bad cards. But you cannot win if you do not play. I'd rather go down swinging.

[TheObserver]

Well Mr Chipman, I don't disagree with the make friends not enemies tactic, work within the rules, keep lines of communication open etc..but times are different now. Certain canadians are not allowed to travel because they disagreed with the government on taking a vacine for a virus they already had already recovered from. Some were put in jail for speaking about it. Others were put in jail for their words, simple things like calling your daughter your daughter. Whole country in disbelief at indian child burrial grounds that were never found and may be just a made up headline, anybody who asks questions is a racist.

You say a bunch of white hunters with flags cant have a protest because it will be deemed racist ect..I think you re correct, we just had people from all over Canada, mixed background, mixed ethnicity protest about something as generic as freedom and we saw how far they got despite having epic amounts of financial support for lawyers.

So the plan is to play by their rules, form relationships with the 200 indian bands and the politicians to somehow negotiate slowing the erosion of resident hunting? A sport that none of the parties involved care if we can participate in.

Curious if you are a volunteer or paid? What is your #1 priority? Hunting and firearms ownership or conservation and habitat?

Maybe Im just pessimistic because of the events of the last few years and the speed that everything is changing....but if I were a betting man, I know where my bet will be when it comes to erosion of resident sport hunting.

Not one excavation has been done, not. one.

[Livewire322]

So… here’s a couple of numbers to help calculate the percentages in BC.
350000 licensed anglers in BC
107000 licensed hunters in BC
5.24 million people in BC
This works out to be .087% of the population of BC.
I wouldn’t say we are in the majority. I would say it’s time to make some allies, powerful ones with common interests instead of making more enemies. It’s obvious to me the government cares little for fish, wildlife and habitat and less about hunters and anglers.
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.

[Greenthumbed]

My apologies… a slip of the decimal place. My point was that we as hunters and anglers are not in the majority.

[ElectricDyck]

Well Rob my point bringing up all the specific incidents was to show that the truth is not winning these days...hunting and fishing need the truth to survive. At the core our passion is pure, healthy ans sustainable. You cant slow the erosion of our sport if you have to play within these current standards of truth.

Asking questions of the current narrative makes you a racist these days but its not true. I heard a quote I liked recently...skeptism is the chastity of truth.

Either way, I think you re positivity is naievity but who knows I was surprised by how quick change has been in the last few years maybe it will surprise me again..history tends to show otherwise though..

[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.

[Rob Chipman]

Not one excavation has been done, not. one.

This is a great example of the problem we face.

We all know that Indigenous people play a huge role in restoring fish, wildlife and habitat and maintaining access to all three of those things for everyone. We know that even if we create good relationships with Indigenous people we *may not* be able to continue the sustainable and healthy activities we've pursued in the past, but we also all understand that without a relationship with Indigenous people we *will not* continue doing what we do.

I wish it were choice between a gold star and a fail, or a choice between what we have always had or a complete fail, but that's not what we're faced with. We're faced with *not doing it at all before very long* or *doing something that we were able to maintain to a degree yet to be determined*.

If we do, indeed, get to a place where we can't do it at all in BC I'll be going elsewhere, and when that happens, guess what? I won't be doing what I have always done here and I will be doing something that other people and other governments let me do. It's not hard to see that we may be able to create that here.

If you don't have faith that we can do that, fine. Throw in the towel, tell people how accurately you can predict the future, and bitch from here to the old folks home. I'm not going to do that.

So that's challenge #1. 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.

Building on that understanding of the role Indigenous people play in the restoration of fish, wildlife and habitat and maintaining access to it for everyone I think we can all imagine that a guy like me spends a certain amount of time working with Indigenous people on things like fish habitat restoration, or harvesting methods, or ungulate range, or predator control. I meet these people face to face and speak with them. They are generally very experienced people who hold positions of influence in their nations, either as chiefs or councillors or elders. Their opinions matter if I'm going to contribute to actually restoring fish, wildlife and habitat and maintaining access to those three things.


As I've said many times, in a world full of problems, that problem is the one I'm committed to trying to solve. Other people may want to address other challenges, and more power to them, but I'm all about restoring fish, wildlife and habitat and maintaining access to those three things. Indigenous people are critical to any success.

Most of those Indigenous people, especially the ones my age or older, have experience with residential schools, the Indian Act, the results of contact and a healthy dollop of racism. I don't think any of us actually dispute that Indigenous people have had a rough go of things, and those who do dispute this do not have the facts on their side. Some of them have relatives in the graveyards. These are influential people who either attended or had parents and grandparents and other family members attend residential schools, who grew up hearing the stories, and who did not enjoy the experience. And then, of course, there's always the issue of land - they had it, we took it, and there are hard feelings.

There is, understandably, a great deal of mistrust and anger that we need to get past in order to make any relationship or deal.

So challenge #2 is to demonstrate that I, personally, am not a racist son of a bitch, and carrying on, that resident hunters and anglers are not racist sons of bitches. That challenge gets tougher when resident hunters don't want to subordinate their petty individual concerns to accomplishing the larger goal. How the hell do I explain a comment like "Not one excavation has been done, not. one." to someone who says "My aunt is in that graveyard. We've always known it. Why do I have to prove it to you? When your mum passes away I don't say "I don't believe you. Show me the body"; I say "I'm sorry to hear that. My condolences".

Again, if your concerns are that Justin Trudeau is a ****, or that you're afraid of people calling you a racist, or that you're concerned that communists are going to take over western civilization, great. Go address those challenges. More power to you.

But stop throwing rocks in my road.

What's challenge #3? In addition to demonstrating to Indigenous people that neither I nor the majority of resident hunters and anglers aren't racist sons of bitches I need to get resident hunters and anglers to to stop throwing rocks in my road. It's that simple.

A quick Google search will take you directly to United Church websites where the United Church agrees that it had Indigenous kids in residential schools, that some of those kids died, that they were often buried on school grounds, and that records were very shoddily kept and that the interments were not done properly. The United Church agrees that it's records were shitty, but they still share them with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and have helped make these records public.

That is, one of the "guilty" parties agree that they did what First Nations allege. First Nations and the United Church agree on the basic facts.

What about the Anglican Church? Same story. The First Nations, the Anglican Church and the United Church all agree on the basic facts. The Anglican Church has also shared their records. They were also incomplete.

Both churches apologized for this decades ago.

What about the government? Same story as far as agreeing on the basic facts, but the government has been a bit less forthcoming with the records.

Catholic Church? They've begun the apology process, but haven't shared the records.

What can you conclude? A lot of things, I guess, depending on your motivations.

But no reasonable person can dispute that all of the players in the event, the First Nations, the government, the United Church, the Anglican Church and, slowly but surely, the Catholic Church, all admit that kids were taken to the schools by force, that some of them died, that they were often buried on site, and that the records were not only poorly kept from the start, but also poorly preserved.

Everyone involved understands, agrees and admits that records of deaths and burials were made, but later lost. No reasonable person would conclude that the lost records would show that *fewer* kids died at the schools, and any reasonable person would in fact conclude that the number his probably higher.

These graves *were not discovered* as if nobody involved lied knew that they were there.

They were, at best, relocated. The government, the churches and the First Nations all knew that they were there. The government has documents indicating that they knew they had a problem on their hands as early as 1906. Documents exist that indicate that the government knew by the 60s the government knew that residential schools were a huge mistake that had to be stopped.

What's the difference between the government, the churches and the First Nations? Again, all parties involved acknowledge, admit and agree that the government and the churches don't have family members buried in unmarked graves with improper records.

So challenge #3 is convincing resident hunters and anglers that when the government, the churches and the First Nations all agree that something happened, and they back that up with decades of research and more than a century of documented evidence, maybe the reminder hunter or angler shouldn't say "Bullshit. Dig up you uncle's grave and prove it to me. An admission of guilt from the actual people who did the acts is not enough for me".

Sorry to be a bit harsh, and if what I've said about the First Nations, the churches and the government all agreeing that the event occurred pretty much as described (and they've all got a lot of the receipts and a lot of those receipts are online, free and public) is inaccurate, go to the archives and the reporting bodies and demonstrate to me that I'm mistaken.

But if your problem is that you can't accept that the government and churches would do bad and evil stuff? That's a petty personal issue that you need to work through. History shows, time and again, that while governments and churches do many things that are excellent and beneficial, they aslo have a long history of doing bad shit and denying it. If that is your problem, don't make it my problem by publicly identifying as a reminder hunter and angler and then publicly asking for even more proof of death. You're not helping any of us.

[goatdancer]

Thank you Rob for your explanations on this thorny subject.

[Ohwildwon]

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.

This, ^^^^^

well over a million voters is my guess, this can’t be stated enough

[Rob Chipman]

This, ^^^^^

well over a million voters is my guess, this can’t be stated enough


^^^^^^^

There is a lot of impact. You guys are basically making the same argument Shane Mahoney makes: that sustainable hunting and fishing impacts the public by orders of magnitude more than what many think. It's a good thing to consider when you start thinking "It's all over and can't be saved".

It's an extremely solid position.

https://thewildharvestinitiative.com/initiative/

[TheObserver]

Okay so, this is not a problem confined to Canada, or even the US. You can't outrun what we are facing it is a global ban on hunting and the ownership of weapons, for me getting ran out of my home province because apparently I wouldn't be aloud to enjoy my passions and hobbies is not an option I see, I would feel like a coward and an abandoner.

You, the government, bcwf, members here are not going to stop me from living my life and doing the things I love.

Who is this we you keep on speaking of? Is Huntingbc.ca? BCWF? Hunters and Anglers of BC? I'm not sure but I could guarantee a lot of people in those categories do not align with your beliefs and ideas therefore maybe think about using "I" statements.

You know little if anything at all about me and I have spoken nothing of "throwing in a towel" as far as I am concerned there will be an eventual all out ban on hunting and gun ownership whether they are successful or not is another matter.

I must say you sure have a lot of time to write on internet forums for someone that busy. For a lot of those indians in positions of power that are now making decisions, I wonder how they got there, and if they are honest.

Yes they have had a rough go, a lot of people have throughout real true HIStory. A lot of people and family members on the other side of the conflict have people put in graves by the hands of the natives, it was a war. It was never "their" land, they did not create it they could not hold it, other wars throughout history people have not been so fortunate.

Why are we even bringing up the topic of racism and "racists son of a bitch", don't we hear enough of that daily already? It is stuffed down our throats. I never recalled either you or me being particularly racist. My comment saying not one excavation has been made is not racist it is factual truth, I am talking about the child mass graves apparently discovered last summer, not one an aunt or grandmother could be in, it is now known that one excavation has not been made and probably will not because what we have been told is just not true. I don't doubt the government, the churches had native children die at their hands and they were buried, but this massive huge tragedy we are being forecfed is so distant far from the truth it's scary. Ironic isn't it the government/United Nations names one of it's agendas "truth and reconciliation" truth, yeah, right okay there. But the media ran with it, and now it is like the jews with zionism the average citizen won't speak out about undrip or what is being handed to the natives, who knows nevermind hunting and access, could be your house next. All to push the agendas further unhindered. Professors from BC schools are even calling it falsehoods and even the national post which is mainstream(someones going to lose there job for that I bet). Someones Mom passing away is a ridiculous comparision these native/undrip agendas have MASSIVE implications for every person in this country, there is a lot at stake to be lost that's how you answer that question think critically and do not believe everything they see on TV is what these people need.

Justin Trudeau is a mere puppet of the controllers, that is my thoughts on him. Hahaha afraid of people calling me a racist, go ahead. The native/undrip agendas are one small facet of a global conspiracy that will unfold and unravel whether you me jim or bob like it or not, what is happening in the world right now is much much larger than communism or the west or a possible "takeover".

Why should anyone have to prove that they are not racist(can barely even handle this word anymore), or have you prove they aren't, we are all adults in this conflict of interest. Some are some aren't, such is life.

Nobody needs to do nothing for you man sorry to say, that includes "throwing rocks" people are going to do what they are going to do, you have no control over them.

Of course the churches and governments readily admit to their guilt and it is way way over exaggerated. Again this all furthers the agendas. They are using the natives as pawns to achieve an end, just like "climate change" "covid" and all these other false created "crises". It all gives the system and government the illusion of legitimacey as they go forward with undrip until it gets so bad you cant do or say or own anything on "native land".

By the way those 3 churchers are horribly infiltrated and taken over I am a Christian and don't even go to official churches because almost all are 501c3 compromised.

No actually people who are reasonable would say show us facts, why is it that your a bad man and you can't ask questions about what we are being told about the official narrative, kind of reminds me of 9/11.

Again lets get an excavation going so we can see with our own eyes it is true, and even better yet give them a proper burial, those who would disagree to that disgust me personally.

I don't believe possibly falsified documents, the government, possible natives that have been put in positions to speak like controlled puppets, definitely not the churches.

I know, not think, that the government and controlled churches like rome do much more horrid things than that discussed here. I am not a naive child.

I'm not trying to help anyone, truth wins in the end and gets exposed. It always does. No matter how long it takes.

If you and your views expressed here represent the BCWF fully and with authority then that would lead me to believe that they would be controlled opposition if we can not even question the official narratives about the issues that are threatening and pressing us. I'm sure I will receive quite some hate for even speaking a possibility of that.

P.s I have no time for back and forths of this magnitude on the internet or any screen for that matter so I will not be replying to you. Have a great life.

[TheObserver]

^that message was to Robchipmans reply to mine, I could not fit it with the quote

[ElectricDyck]

Hey Rob, I don't think it's the fact that not one excavation has been done that is the problem. The problem is the lack of leadership in the FN community and our elected leadership, they said nothing and watched as a reaction to a inconclusive ground survey led to churches being fire bombed as if indians are the only people who have survived hardship in the last 100 years...for something that you say they all acknowledge and agree on...

Has there been a determined cause to the fire that destroyed Lytton?

Don't forget when those children were taken it was a different time..lots died of disease..my moms eldest brother died at a young age...some parents volunteered their children for the schools as they saw the times were changing so fast and they wanted their kids to be successful. The indians went from having slaves and boiling water in a cedar pot with hot rocks to having pots, pans, guns, medicine, metal traps etc..technology overload..This is not the popular narrative of the day but there are Indians with good experiences from the schools...not reported or taught to my kids in school now... I read in his science book that first nations are often first responders to ecological disasters lol ...If you believe this you also believe all the church people running the schools were horrible abusers...

I believe the only reason indigenous people play a role in hunting and fishing is because of our tax dollars and UN directives and now you are forced to deal with them to get the scraps of whats left of hunting...so far the history is not showing we have a chance..klappin rail grade moose closures, atlin moose closures, now 7b closures...

What would you have us do? Write letters? Donate? Align ourselves with powerful conservation organizations? If so who? If "a bunch of white guys protest and wave flags" and go hunt ashnola this fall, are we "throwing rocks in your road"? Are we acting like racists for asking questions?

[wildcatter]

Okay so, this is not a problem confined to Canada, or even the US. You can't outrun what we are facing it is a global ban on hunting and the ownership of weapons, for me getting ran out of my home province because apparently I wouldn't be aloud to enjoy my passions and hobbies is not an option I see, I would feel like a coward and an abandoner.

You, the government, bcwf, members here are not going to stop me from living my life and doing the things I love.

Who is this we you keep on speaking of? Is Huntingbc.ca? BCWF? Hunters and Anglers of BC? I'm not sure but I could guarantee a lot of people in those categories do not align with your beliefs and ideas therefore maybe think about using "I" statements.

You know little if anything at all about me and I have spoken nothing of "throwing in a towel" as far as I am concerned there will be an eventual all out ban on hunting and gun ownership whether they are successful or not is another matter.

I must say you sure have a lot of time to write on internet forums for someone that busy. For a lot of those indians in positions of power that are now making decisions, I wonder how they got there, and if they are honest.

Yes they have had a rough go, a lot of people have throughout real true HIStory. A lot of people and family members on the other side of the conflict have people put in graves by the hands of the natives, it was a war. It was never "their" land, the did not create it they could not hold it, other wars throughout history people have not been so fortunate.

Why are we even bringing up the topic of racism and "racists son of a bitch", don't we hear enough of that daily already? It is stuffed down our throats. I never recalled either you or me being particularly racist. My comment saying not one excavation has been made is not racist it is factual truth, I am talking about the child mass graves apparently discovered last summer, not one an aunt could be in, it is now known that one excavation has not been made and probably will not because what we have been told is just not true. But the media ran with it, and now it is like the jews with the zionism the average citizen won't speak out about undrip or what is being handed to the natives, who knows nevermind hunting and access, could be your house next. All to push the agendas further unhindered. Professors from BC schools are even calling it falsehoods and even the national post which is mainstream(someones going to lose there job for that I bet). Someones Mom passing away is a ridiculous comparision these native/undrip agendas have MASSIVE implications for ever person in this country, there is a lot at stake to be lost that's how you answer that question think critically and do not believe everything they see on TV is what these people need.

Justin Trudeau is a mere puppet of the controllers, that is my thoughts on him. Hahaha afraid of people calling me a racist, go ahead. The native/undrip agendas are one small facet of a global conspiracy that will unfold and unravel whether you me jim or bob like it or not, what is happening in the world right now is much much larger than communism or the west or a possible "takeover".

Why should anyone have to prove that they are not racist(can barely even handle this word anymore), or have you prove they aren't, we are all adults in this conflict of interest. Some are some aren't, such is life.

Nobody needs to do nothing for you man sorry to say, that includes "throwing rocks" people are going to do what they are going to do, you have no control over them.

Of course the churches and governments readily admit to their guilt and it is way way over exaggerated. Again this all furthers the agendas. They are using the natives as pawns to achieve and end, just like "climate change" "covid" and all these other false created "crises". It all gives the system and government the illusion of legitimacey as they go forward with undrip until it gets to bad you cant do or say or own anything on native land.

By the way those 3 churchers are horribly infiltrated and taken over I am a Christian and don't even go to official churches because almost all are 501c3 compromised.

No actually people who are reasonable would say show us facts, why is it that your a bad man and you can't ask questions about what we are being told about the official narrative, kind of reminds me of 9/11.

Again lets get an excavation going so we can see with our own eyes it is true, and even better yet give them a proper burial, those would disagree to that disgust me personally.

I don't believe possibly falsified documents, the government, possible natives that have been put in positions to speak like controlled puppets, definitely not the churches.

I know not think, that the government and controlled churches like rome do much more horrid things than that discussed. I am not a naive child.

I'm not trying to help anyone, truth wins in the end and gets exposed. It always does. No matter how long it takes.

If you and your views expressed here represent the BCWF fully and with authority then that would lead me to believe that they would be controlled opposition if we can not even question the official narratives about the issues that are threatening and pressing us. I'm sure I will receive quite some hate for even speaking a possibility of that.

P.s I have no time for back and forths of this magnitude on the internet or any screen for that matter so I will not be replying to you. Have a great life.

The UN, Horgan the gofer keep fanning the flames and FN now riding high, they know
they can do anything they want and it will get support, approval, or at least no opposition.
Anybody who has a different opinion is racist, this got to end!

[TheObserver]

The UN, Horgan the gofer keep fanning the flames and FN now riding high, they know
they can do anything they want and it will get support, approval, or at least no opposition.
Anybody who has a different opinion is racist, this got to end!

I know how it won't end!!

People are waking up to this garbage, because they went to hard and fast with muh cOvAiDs, that a lot of commoners/autobelievers pre "covid" now question everything they are told(which is one of the best things that could happen to the general populace). As before they never questioned the gov or system that made them so comfortable and decadent

[ElectricDyck]

By the way, my family hiked in 4 hours off the ashnola fsr before season a few years back. We saw nothing in the evening, woke up, made coffee, and decided to go on a stroll and look across and down into the fingering meadows. That transition zone where it goes from rocks to lush green meadows fueled by run off to forest. I saw first the tallest velvet 2 point Id ever seen, then a 3 point, then a 4point, then a 4th deer, a 4 point that made me shake. It was preseason and I had no gun but that was the biggest deep forked tallest 4 point Id ever seen.... we made plans to come back 2 weeks later than the whole place was on fire...we made plans to go back again and covid hit...we had plans to go back this year now this..

[wildcatter]

I know how it won't end!!

People are waking up to this garbage, because they went to hard and fast with muh cOvAiDs, that a lot of commoners/autobelievers pre "covid" now question everything they are told(which is one of the best things that could happen to the general populace). As before they never questioned the gov or system that made them so comfortable and decadent

There are still a lot ofpeople asleep, but hopefully change is coming.
However I don't see this whole thing end well.

[Rob Chipman]

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.



Okay so, this is not a problem confined to Canada, or even the US. You can't outrun what we are facing it is a global ban on hunting and the ownership of weapons, for me getting ran out of my home province because apparently I wouldn't be aloud to enjoy my passions and hobbies is not an option I see, I would feel like a coward and an abandoner.


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.





You, the government, bcwf, members here are not going to stop me from living my life and doing the things I love.


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.



Who is this we you keep on speaking of? Is Huntingbc.ca? BCWF? Hunters and Anglers of BC? I'm not sure but I could guarantee a lot of people in those categories do not align with your beliefs and ideas therefore maybe think about using "I" statements.


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.



You know little if anything at all about me and I have spoken nothing of "throwing in a towel" as far as I am concerned there will be an eventual all out ban on hunting and gun ownership whether they are successful or not is another matter.


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.



For a lot of those indians in positions of power that are now making decisions, I wonder how they got there, and if they are honest.


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.







Yes they have had a rough go, a lot of people have throughout real true HIStory. A lot of people and family members on the other side of the conflict have people put in graves by the hands of the natives, it was a war. It was never "their" land, they did not create it they could not hold it, other wars throughout history people have not been so fortunate.


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]

Why are we even bringing up the topic of racism and "racists son of a bitch", don't we hear enough of that daily already? It is stuffed down our throats.


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.









I never recalled either you or me being particularly racist.


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?



My comment saying not one excavation has been made is not racist it is factual truth...


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.









I am talking about the child mass graves apparently discovered last summer....


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.





....not one an aunt or grandmother could be in, it is now known that one excavation has not been made and probably will not.... because what we have been told is just not true. I don't doubt the government, the churches had native children die at their hands and they were buried...


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.



....but this massive huge tragedy we are being forecfed is so distant far from the truth it's scary.


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.





Ironic isn't it the government/United Nations names one of it's agendas "truth and reconciliation" truth, yeah, right okay there. But the media ran with it, and now it is like the jews with zionism the average citizen won't speak out about undrip or what is being handed to the natives, who knows nevermind hunting and access, could be your house next. All to push the agendas further unhindered.


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.



Justin Trudeau is a mere puppet of the controllers, that is my thoughts on him.


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.



The native/undrip agendas are one small facet of a global conspiracy.....


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]

...a global conspiracy that will unfold and unravel whether you me jim or bob like it or not, what is happening in the world right now is much much larger than communism or the west or a possible "takeover".


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.







Why should anyone have to prove that they are not racist(can barely even handle this word anymore)...


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.





Nobody needs to do nothing for you man sorry to say, that includes "throwing rocks" people are going to do what they are going to do, you have no control over them.


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?





No actually people who are reasonable would say show us facts, why is it that your a bad man and you can't ask questions about what we are being told about the official narrative....


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.



Again lets get an excavation going so we can see with our own eyes it is true, and even better yet give them a proper burial, those who would disagree to that disgust me personally.


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.





I know, not think, that the government and controlled churches like rome do much more horrid things than that discussed here. I am not a naive child.


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.







I'm not trying to help anyone....


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).





....truth wins in the end and gets exposed. It always does. No matter how long it takes.




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.







If you and your views expressed here represent the BCWF fully and with authority then that would lead me to believe that they would be controlled opposition...


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.





....if we can not even question the official narratives about the issues that are threatening and pressing us. I'm sure I will receive quite some hate for even speaking a possibility of that.


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?



P.s I have no time for back and forths of this magnitude on the internet or any screen for that matter so I will not be replying to you. Have a great life.


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]

Hey Rob, I don't think it's the fact that not one excavation has been done that is the problem. The problem is the lack of leadership in the FN community and our elected leadership, they said nothing and watched as a reaction to a inconclusive ground survey led to churches being fire bombed as if indians are the only people who have survived hardship in the last 100 years...for something that you say they all acknowledge and agree on...

Has there been a determined cause to the fire that destroyed Lytton?

Don't forget when those children were taken it was a different time..lots died of disease..my moms eldest brother died at a young age...some parents volunteered their children for the schools as they saw the times were changing so fast and they wanted their kids to be successful. The indians went from having slaves and boiling water in a cedar pot with hot rocks to having pots, pans, guns, medicine, metal traps etc..technology overload..This is not the popular narrative of the day but there are Indians with good experiences from the schools...not reported or taught to my kids in school now... I read in his science book that first nations are often first responders to ecological disasters lol ...If you believe this you also believe all the church people running the schools were horrible abusers...

I believe the only reason indigenous people play a role in hunting and fishing is because of our tax dollars and UN directives and now you are forced to deal with them to get the scraps of whats left of hunting...so far the history is not showing we have a chance..klappin rail grade moose closures, atlin moose closures, now 7b closures...

What would you have us do? Write letters? Donate? Align ourselves with powerful conservation organizations? If so who? If "a bunch of white guys protest and wave flags" and go hunt ashnola this fall, are we "throwing rocks in your road"? Are we acting like racists for asking questions?


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?

[Rob Chipman]

...we had plans to go back this year now this..

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.

[markathome]

Rob Chipman! Thank You. Thank You. Thank You.

[IronNoggin]

... 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?

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

[ACE]

Good post Nog.

[HappyJack]

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?