Since Time Immemorial, by Bob Hooton

I already did, Nog. No need to be scared of the internet or being informed. Obviously you know how to use a computer on the internet - you ended-up on this forum. I believe that you have the skills to educate yourself Nog...
 
... I believe that you have the skills to educate yourself Nog...

LOL! Something I do share with Hooton is the fact I am an educated Biologist, with decades of hands on experience in the real world.
I'll leave the internet armchair quarterbacking to the likes of those who think that supersedes all.

Cheers,
Nog - No Fear
 
The British North America Act (BNAA) of 1867-1975 was updated and replaced by the current Canadian Constitution Act of 1982. The current and evolving FN rights are based upon the Constitution Act and the Supreme Court case decisions. I think it is reasonable to say that there will be more changes coming in regards to FN rights and reconciliation. While it is possible to change the constitution - it is not a quick and easy thing to do for obvious reasons and usually requires a fair bit of comprise to get the required amount of agreement to actually make any changes. The future will be interesting to say the least.

Precisely! There no longer is a British North America Act which was an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, not Canada. While the BNA act was amended many times most of these had to do with the Federal role. In that period from 1867 to 1982 there were no amendments that had to do with FN rights etc.
 
And I am the Wizard of Oz - "common knowledge", of course...
 
LOL! Something I do share with Hooton is the fact I am an educated Biologist, with decades of hands on experience in the real world.
I'll leave the internet armchair quarterbacking to the likes of those who think that supersedes all.

Cheers,
Nog - No Fear
cf7.jpg
 
I think eric1s post was on-the-mark - and i'd like to see what references/data Nog has to challenge his post. But not holding my breath on Nog providing references tho...
As usual Nog has convinced himself and the other like-minded inDUHviduals on here that he knows it all with no need to offer any REAL proof. I offered no real proof, but only submitted something as a possibility, not a fact. These other inDUHviduals are easy to spot; they throw rocks at the data presented by others but offer none of their own - that would take too much time & effort.

FYI I have been stepping foot in these areas since 1977 but cannot tell you what existed as far as Chinook populations 1000 years ago or what the Tseshaht nation considered their fishing territory.
 
As usual Nog has convinced himself and the other like-minded inDUHviduals on here that he knows it all with no need to offer any REAL proof. I offered no real proof, but only submitted something as a possibility, not a fact. These other inDUHviduals are easy to spot; they throw rocks at the data presented by others but offer none of their own - that would take too much time & effort.

FYI I have been stepping foot in these areas since 1977 but cannot tell you what existed as far as Chinook populations 1000 years ago or what the Tseshaht nation considered their fishing territory.


I'll stand by a guy who knows of the local situations and doesn't resort to calling people dumb because he doesnt agree with another view. Typical and sad that we see all to often these days.
 
Ya for sure, eric1 - That's the at least the cheap entertainment part of this forum, anyways.

Tseshaht Traditional Territory extends from the Somass Watershed out to Barkley Sound through Alberni Canal area. There are other Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations (Ditidaht, Huu-ay-aht, Hupačasath, and Uchucklesaht) that have claimed territory on the edges of this area and sometimes overlap in certain places - such as the Hupačasath within the Somass watershed. The Tseshaht [c̓išaaʔatḥ] were a loose assortment of various "houses" - some of which were whalers from the Broken Group. No treaties were signed during the colonization period in this area; altho recently the Maa-nulth Final Agreement was signed in 2009 on behalf of the Ucluelet First Nation, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Toquaht Nation, Ka:’yu:’k’t’h’/Che:k’tles7et’h’ First Nations, and Uchucklesaht Tribe, whose territories also include Kyuquot Sound, and can be found at: https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DAM-INTER-BC/STAGING/texte-text/ovrvw_1100100022624_eng.pdf

There hasn't been any estimate of historic Chinook numbers that I am aware of - or can find. Having said that - in other parts of the province - the Skeena in particular - it was found that the river’s 13 major wild sockeye salmon populations plummeting by 56% to 99% over the period from 1913 to 2014, largely because of overfishing: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...meared-notebooks-reveal-past-bounty-fisheries
 
Last edited:
I see quite a bit of talk about people being highly educated in this thread and yet I feel like I am looking at a scene from an elementary school ground at recess. Guess it proves that you can be highly educated and never learn how to have a discussion in a respectful way. What's it going to be boys...a grown up conversation or a timeout?

Should have added that there will be no more tolerance of this nonsense. Deleting of off topic, personal content will be automatic and possible bans will follow.
 
Last edited:
I see quite a bit of talk about people being highly educated in this thread and yet I feel like I am looking at a scene from an elementary school ground at recess. Guess it proves that you can be highly educated and never learn how to have a discussion in a respectful way. What's it going to be boys...a grown up conversation or a timeout?
I am sorry for my bad behavior.
 
Back
Top