BC FN granted sole access to Hunt Japser National Park

Discussion in 'General Open Forum' started by IronNoggin, Oct 5, 2017.

  1. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Sorry Bud, the fellow who did the analysis sits on the Park Board, and is their relevant historian in such matters. I fully believe what he has to say in this matter.

    And it is not hard at all to determine the stance (anger) among the Alberta Crees who have a MUCH more substantial claim, and who are, in fact, citing the lack of Simpcw use / occupation of the related areas.

    I would believe those with a recognized claim to the areas over those who do not, regardless of multiple google citations to the contrary.

  2. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

  3. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    Free world, Nog. You are free to believe whatever some guy tells you if you want to..

    here's the exact quote from the article:
    "At least 25 First Nation groups, Metis and non-treaty groups have historic ties to Jasper National Park, including the Simpcw First Nation."

    If they had no claim - I don't see where Parks Canada would accommodate them. Here is a map of their asserted Territory:
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  4. ziggy

    ziggy Well-Known Member

    To be fair AA, not only most military bases and parks, but also all major cities, any mining site, all bodies of water, anywhere a pipeline may go and virtually well over 100% of BC.

    Also the deragatory term settler that seems to be used more and more often is inaccurate and should be avoided IMHO. I like most Canadians prefer selected immigrant, because,unlike the early settlers who apparently were given free land, my family jumped through all the hoops and never were given even a fistful of free land. Let's not forget as well, we are all immigrants if science is to be believed.
  5. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    Ya - except that the early history of the parks did dispossess settlers. Not all settlers got "free" land, neither. That term "settler" is historically accurate - not derogatory, IMHO.
  6. ziggy

    ziggy Well-Known Member

    Historically accurate? Well there are a lot of "historically accurate" terms that are no longer used because they either didn't accurately describe, or are now considered deragatory .
  7. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    You make good points, ziggy - and thank you for your posts.

    For me - in my head - I see the period of late 1800s to early 1900s being the time where many of the parks were established - in areas w/o as much human density (hence the park attraction) - where settler families either still lived - or were just getting established (particularly out West) - as opposed to immigration largely to the cities where the immigrants weren't dispossessed of larger tracks of land. That to me is the differentiation between "settler" verses "immigrant" terms - land.
  8. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Some Guy? :rolleyes:

    The fellow who has the backing of 20+ other aboriginal bands and Parks Canada, combined with the assertions of the same 20 other bands who happen to have documented and recognized use and occupation claims in the exact same area?

    Over what the Simpcw themselves claim on their own website? Nope, no possibility of any self interest going on there... :confused:

    Of course aboriginal bands and others were forced out of the National Park areas.
    Absolutely there were.
    And a great many whose actual homes were there suffered to a great degree.
    But the case can NOT be made for this particular band.
    Because, the case does not exist.
    Despite what you may read to the contrary.
    Sometimes Real Life has a different interpretation of "the facts" than online searches do.

    As for the why Parks "accommodated them", I've already provided that answer.

    Above and beyond the reflection on just who is on first should be the consideration of the greater implications of this case overall.
    They are significant, and more than a little long lasting...

    fishin solo likes this.
  9. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    Thanks for your response, Nog. There is (as you pointed-out) a difference with the Simpcw themselves - they are NON TREATY MEMBERS - so both treaty rights and infringement of treaty rights does not apply. That is the failure I see in your experts rationalism as you quoted it: "Most claims of 'forced removal' stem from the extinguishing of treaty title - clearly this was not the case with the Simpcw.".

    He is right - it is "not the case" - and nothing about treaty applies here - including using treaty title extinguishment to prove the term "forced removal".

    They still may have aboriginal rights to harvest - whether they were forcibly removed from a settlement or not. The park boundary did remove the right to access foodstuffs by harvest - if their claim to Traditional Territory holds.
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  10. Whitebuck

    Whitebuck Active Member

    2017...why is their different laws for ppl in this day and age?
    Nog...with you 100 %
    trophywife likes this.
  11. BCRingo

    BCRingo Active Member

    Or maybe this is the way that the FNs should be kept forever.... or at least until the big corps and their feds buddies milk our natural resources.
    Whatever the heck it is, I don't see them "reconciling" by harvesting animals in national parks.
  12. california

    california Well-Known Member

    Hmmm, seems this forum was full of people complaining about how horrible the conservatives were, that all was going to be fixed once the Liberals came in and started spreading borrowed money everywhere. What have you got in animal and fisheries management now? FN can do whatever they want, and now they are being given rights they did not win in the courts, its just the Liberals giving away natural resource rights to one specific group, and it is going to spread to other parks. Sport fisherman are in the FN sights, and guess which way the Liberals will go on that? Western Canada is not a priority for them, its once again all about Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada as it was under PET. Why do you think KM pipeline was approved, while the Canada East one (which makes far more sense if you have to choose one over the other) was not? : Quebec.
  13. terrin

    terrin Well-Known Member

    Don't forget it is the First Nations with their Legal Rights and Entitlements that will hopefully save us from the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion. Just take a look at whats happening in Bristol Bay. Money talks and the Environment takes a hike. I'm hopefull that the FN Legal rights will overcome the Money and perhaps leave the Orcas, Recreational Fishers , First Nations and the environmental Eco systems a lasting chance.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160411-klamath-glen-canyon-dam-removal-video-anniversary/
  14. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    I will not step into the debate about whether or not the boundaries of the asserted Traditional Territory of the Simpcw that overlaps with the present day boundaries of Jasper Park can be verified and legitimized through a process like the courts, or another reconciliation process. Sometimes those claim boundaries are overextended - sometimes not. Sometimes those claims can be proven - sometimes not. But - I am assuming that Parks Canada felt there was enough of a claim to let them hunt - otherwise - they wouldn't have recognized their asserted territory claim.

    In addition, the fairly recent Tsilhqot’in Decision (courts being an integral part of our legal system) laid the foundations about proving land claims and hunting rights:

    Might be worth having a read for some - to understand the dynamics of First Nations land claims, and rights and title... especially this excerpt:

    "Aboriginal title flows from occupation in the sense of regular and exclusive use of land. To ground Aboriginal title “occupation” must be sufficient, continuous (where present occupation is relied on) and exclusive. In determining what constitutes sufficient occupation, which lies at the heart of this appeal, one looks to the Aboriginal culture and practices, and compares them in a culturally sensitive way with what was required at common law to establish title on the basis of occupation. Occupation sufficient to ground Aboriginal title is not confined to specific sites of settlement but extends to tracts of land that were regularly used for hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting resources and over which the group exercised effective control at the time of assertion of European sovereignty."

    and this one:

    "Prior to establishment of title, the Crown is required to consult in good faith with any Aboriginal groups asserting title to the land about proposed uses of the land and, if appropriate, accommodate the interests of such claimant groups. The level of consultation and accommodation required varies with the strength of the Aboriginal group’s claim to the land and the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect upon the interest claimed."
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
  15. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    You also understand that current claims of traditional territory encompass over 350 % of Canada's land mass right? Nope, no "overexertion" going on there eh?

    This group sat on the Aboriginal Forum for the Park. They were not happy that they weren't the center of attention, and could not control the program to their own desires. I previously posted an example of that provided by my source within Parks. They then decided they would be better of "negotiating" directly with the Trudeau government. And did so. This wasn't a Parks decision, this was fed to Parks directly from the Feds. If it had gone to a vote of the Aboriginal Forum, a direct Parks decision, or had included any public consultation, this group would have been pushed to the bottom of the consideration list. Where they belong. Period.

    And again, this consideration is quite tangential to the larger picture evolving here...

  16. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    Reconciliation is a Tier II process - solely between the feds and/or Province - and any FN Rights and Title holders. The "Aboriginal Forum" would not have authority to negotiate on behalf of the federal government.

    Any asserted Traditional territory claim is critical and central to the situation that this thread discusses - not tangential...
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
  17. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    The Aboriginal Forum speaks for the aboriginal concerns within the Park. They consist completely of Aboriginal people. They interface with Parks & the feds. And yes, they actually have a great deal of influence (when not being undercut by one of their own...).

  18. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    The aboriginal forum cannot make legal decisions nor negotiate on behalf of the federal government or the FN wrt land claim issues:

    Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation - Updated Guidelines for Federal Officials to Fulfill the Duty to Consult - March 2011
    Third Parties
    "However, the ultimate responsibility for consultation and accommodation rests with the Crown as the Honour of the Crown cannot be delegated."

    Two Paths One Direction: Parks Canada and Aboriginal Peoples Working Together
    Steve Langdon, Rob Prosper, and Nathalie Gagnon
    "However, we also recognize that there are still issues such as outstanding land claims, consultation and accommodation requirements, and treaty recognition that are often beyond the scope of Parks Canada’s mandate."

    “They could take you out for coffee and call it consultation!”: The colonial antipolitics of Indigenous consultation in Jasper National Park
    Megan Youdelis,
    First Published March 21, 2016

    Other National Parks operate using legal, signed co-management agreements to operate with FN (see link) - but NOT Jasper - they don't formally and legally acknowledge FN land claims, but instead use the non-legal ‘‘interest-based’’ Aboriginal Forum:

    https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/xml.../thesis electronic.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2017
  19. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    The only relevance in the greater picture is that this particular band's claims are FAR down the list of those with substantiated use & occupation claims. In fact, they would weigh in about 27 of the 25 represented on their own Forum. They pulled a sneaky on everyone, including their own. And Chief Flapping Lips bought it.

    The larger picture centers on the high degree of potential that this action will eventually reach ALL National Parks, and ALL Protected Areas in Canada. In that scope, the distance this band is down the proverbial totem pole is indeed, tangential.

  20. GLG

    GLG Well-Known Member

Share This Page