Colville Aboriginal Aquitted for Cross Border Poaching

IronNoggin

IronNoggin

Well-Known Member
A Colville band member from Washington has been acquitted by a Provincial court judge for hunting in BC without a license, and being an unaccompanied non resident after he killed an elk in the East Kootenay's in 2010.

There is every possibility this will lead to open season on BC game & fish from natives from across the border.
disgust.png


Let's HOPE the Crown takes this up to the Supreme Court, and for once those "learned" fools get it right!!

CBC Spin: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...n-not-extinct-after-all-court-rules-1.4043184

North West News Spin: http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/acquittal-canadian-court-revives-tribe-strengthens-sovereignty

Houston - we have a rather Serious Problem!!
upset.png


Nog
 
This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. I now have less rights in my own country that a law breaking, gun smuggling, poaching Foreign national.
 
Sorry to have to tell you Nog, but that's the way the courts rule in a lot of these cases. Natives can hunt and fish in their traditional territories, and the border means jack squat for them.
 
My ancestors were living in New England 450 years ago. Can I now go down there with my firearms and shoot all the deer I want? ;-)
 
Give an inch, take a mile. This is what I am seeing.

This is nothing compared to what is being proposed down the pipe.
 
finaddict said:
My ancestors were living in New England 450 years ago. Can I now go down there with my firearms and shoot all the deer I want? ;-)
Click to expand...

No you can't, you aren't aboriginal, your ancestors from 450 years ago came from England. The decision is that aboriginals from this particular "extinct" band can hunt across the border, but I agree it sets a dangerous precedent and the article says it expects this to go to higher courts due to the possible effects on Canadian territory and even Canadian Indian bands who have also laid claim to the lands in question. This will be a long battle.
 
Funny how when convenient we have our roots traced back to Europe for example, yet pretend Aboriginals were always here? Clearly we all came from somewhere else, aboriginals included . We are all immigrants some more recent than others. Imagine if we based everyone's rights on when they immigrated? Time to figure out how to get along because no ones leaving.
 
ziggy said:
Funny how when convenient we have our roots traced back to Europe for example, yet pretend Aboriginals were always here? Clearly we all came from somewhere else, aboriginals included . We are all immigrants some more recent than others. Imagine if we based everyone's rights on when they immigrated? Time to figure out how to get along because no ones leaving.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone pretends they were always here, as that's obviously not true, all but the religious nut-bars are probably familiar with modern humans originating in Africa and migrating from there. I guess the difference which is significant is they were the first ones here, they didn't displace any people to to occupy the land as our European ancestors did across North America only a few hundred years ago. We are the indigenous peoples in the UK, Ireland and Europe so there are no such issues there.
 
california said:
I don't think anyone pretends they were always here, as that's obviously not true, all but the religious nut-bars are probably familiar with modern humans originating in Africa and migrating from there. I guess the difference which is significant is they were the first ones here, they didn't displace any people to to occupy the land as our European ancestors did across North America only a few hundred years ago. We are the indigenous peoples in the UK, Ireland and Europe so there are no such issues there.
Click to expand...
Not sure who the "we", are? Canada isn't just European nor is the USA? As for indiginous people of the UK, not sure what one would look like? Modern Europe, including the UK is a product of different waves of immigrants and conquest.
I think if you delve into the history of ,for example, the Apache and Navajo you'll see it happened in North America as well.
Anyway not the place for a history discussion.
 
In Canada - wrt legal issues, and reconciliation of the government and aboriginal Rights and Title in the courts - there are 2 basic considerations: s. 35 of the repatriated Constitution Act (1982), and the "Honour of the Crown" when either signing Treaties or dealing with aboriginals. The Constitution Act is where all the other laws in Canada receive their authority.

From 1982 onwards, there has been substantial case law developed (e.g the "Sparrow Decision, 1990") wrt recognizing Aboriginal Rights and Title (Title only very recently - basically from the "Tsilhqot'in Decision, 2014"). In the case law - the Aboriginal Appellant has to prove existing title and exclusion - and the Crown has to prove that it discharged it's fiduciary duty and consulted and accommodated the FN. Those rights are a communal - verses a personal right - and it does not depend on anyone "pretending they were always here". It is unfortunate that our country does not adequately teach either history, nor our legal structure in school, and many do not know how it works.

The borders we now recognize as Canada/US are but a political boundary on a map (not a cultural one) - and the history of the settling of the "West" and how both the southern and northern boundaries of what we now call BC was quite a unsettled time - and those boundaries could easily have ended-up elsewhere.

For those who wish to educate and maybe even entertain themselves, I would recommend reviewing:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/609/1/document.do
http://www.tsilhqotin.ca/PDFs/TsilhqotinDecision_short_history.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Pig-War/
 
agentaqua said:
The borders we now recognize as Canada/US are but a political boundary on a map (not a cultural one) - and the history of the settling of the "West" and how both the southern and northern boundaries of what we now call BC was quite a unsettled time - and those boundaries could easily have ended-up elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Agent - you're a lot better at this stuff than I!
Could you see what you might be able to dig up regarding the "Jay Treaty of 1794" between Canada & the US?
Would be appreciated!!

TIA!
Nog
 
Last edited:
My own personal opinion is that if you want to claim aboriginal rights for hunting and fishing you should also have to use traditional methods of harvest. The courts do not share that view, so regrettably we have to live with their decisions. The courts often make decisions that are unpopular, in a democracy that is the price we pay for the rights we enjoy. Sometimes their decisions suck, but I don't care much for other forms of government either. No system is perfect, but I'll take ours over most other places in the world.
 
agentaqua said:
In Canada - wrt legal issues, and reconciliation of the government and aboriginal Rights and Title in the courts - there are 2 basic considerations: s. 35 of the repatriated Constitution Act (1982), and the "Honour of the Crown" when either signing Treaties or dealing with aboriginals. The Constitution Act is where all the other laws in Canada receive their authority.

From 1982 onwards, there has been substantial case law developed (e.g the "Sparrow Decision, 1990") wrt recognizing Aboriginal Rights and Title (Title only very recently - basically from the "Tsilhqot'in Decision, 2014"). In the case law - the Aboriginal Appellant has to prove existing title and exclusion - and the Crown has to prove that it discharged it's fiduciary duty and consulted and accommodated the FN. Those rights are a communal - verses a personal right - and it does not depend on anyone "pretending they were always here". It is unfortunate that our country does not adequately teach either history, nor our legal structure in school, and many do not know how it works.

The borders we now recognize as Canada/US are but a political boundary on a map (not a cultural one) - and the history of the settling of the "West" and how both the southern and northern boundaries of what we now call BC was quite a unsettled time - and those boundaries could easily have ended-up elsewhere.

For those who wish to educate and maybe even entertain themselves, I would recommend reviewing:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/609/1/document.do
http://www.tsilhqotin.ca/PDFs/TsilhqotinDecision_short_history.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Pig-War/
Click to expand...
Fortunately we have historical and legal scholars to guide our government. But you're right many are unaware where the info is and often fail to comprehend it when found. Part of the problem is laymen trying to interpret law and part of it is the sanitation of history. Never in our history have we had access to so much info, both accurate and poorly interpreted (both intentionally and unintentionally) or inaccurate.
Back to fishing.
 
IronNoggin said:
Agent - you're a lot better at this stuff than I! Could you see what you might be able to dig up regarding the "J Treaty" between Canada & the US? Would be appreciated!! TIA! Nog
Click to expand...
If you mean the "Joint Occupation Treaty" (AKA Article III of the Treaty of 1818) - it's buried in that Wikipedia link from above. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_1818
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Country
https://web.archive.org/web/2009041...xum.umontreal.ca/ca_us/en/cus.1818.15.en.html
 
ziggy said:
Fortunately we have historical and legal scholars to guide our government. But your right many are unaware where the info is and often fail to comprehend it when found. Part of the problem is laymen trying to interpret law and part of it is the sanitation of history. Never in our history have we had access to so much info, both accurate and poorly interpreted (both intentionally and unintentionally) or inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Well said, Ziggy! (especially the "the sanitation of history" part...)
 
The real motivation coming into light...


"Asked if the Sinixt will enter the land claims process in Canada, Marchand said, “We entered it a while ago, we have placeholder cases that we have not activated yet, but it has always been a long-term goal of ours.”

http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/417302973.html

Grass must look greener on the other side... :confused:
Nog
 
That may be the tribes long term goal, but fortunately their is no political mileage to be gained by our government acquiescing to an American tribes demands. I could be wrong, but I can't see any Canadian government caving in to US based tribal demands for land claims within Canada.
 
TheBigGuy said:
My own personal opinion is that if you want to claim aboriginal rights for hunting and fishing you should also have to use traditional methods of harvest. The courts do not share that view, so regrettably we have to live with their decisions. The courts often make decisions that are unpopular, in a democracy that is the price we pay for the rights we enjoy. Sometimes their decisions suck, but I don't care much for other forms of government either. No system is perfect, but I'll take ours over most other places in the world.
Click to expand...
So you are suggesting they use trained dogs to hunt and fish weirs to block off an entire river as opposed to more sporting and discriminatory methods like firearms and gill nets? Why should they not get to use the latest technology?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top