Clear Full Forecast

Ministry Says Aboriginal Only Wildlife Discussion Not Race Based

By 250 News

Wednesday, April 25, 2007 03:53 AM

            

The Province is drafting a new wildlife act. 

Friday a media release outlined the meetings that will take place across the province including a workshop in Prince George on May 15th, 16th, and 17th. In Terrace the workshop will be held on June 24th, 25th, and 26th. In Ft. St. John June 12th, 13th, and 14th. And in Williams Lake May14th.

If you would like to attend and you’re not aboriginal, you’re not invited.

Bruce Holms, Spokesman for the Ministry said the workshops are on a government to government basis and that is the reason why the rank and file of the province who are not aboriginal are not invited. We asked are the workshops raced based. “Only first nations people who are registered to attend, or people from first nations who say they are coming are invited”, says Holms.

The general public will have their opportunity to put their thoughts forward at a later date sometime after the workshops have been held , whether those are informal meetings at which the general public can discuss the proposed act isn’t known.

Here is the letter outlining the Minister’s position on the matter as published in the ministry web site.

The Wildlife Act is the foundation for managing fish and wildlife in British Columbia.

The Government of British Columbia is drafting a new Wildlife Act for introduction to the Legislature in 2008. It is critical that the Province work with British Columbians to modernize this legislation.

This website provides information and updates on the project and includes links to key documents. All input received will be posted on the website to document and further the dialogue.

The 25 years since the last major amendments to the Act have seen the emergence of a number of new issues, including: alien and invasive species, wildlife diseases, and activities such as eco-tourism. Further, a new Act must support the New Relationship and agreements with First Nations.

The focus of this review is on the management and use of fish and wildlife populations. Separate but related work is underway regarding habitat protection and management, and species at risk. While this work is a critical component of wildlife management, it is not the focus of the review at this time, as the authority for habitat management is shared between various ministries. The regulations implementing previous amendments to the Wildlife Act regarding Species at Risk are being developed through a different process.

We invite you to work with us to develop an effective and modern Wildlife Act. Your insights and involvement are important.

Thank you.

Barry Penner

Minister of Environment

This is the outline of how the issue will be dealt with as outlined by the Ministry

2007

January – March

Finalize Discussion Paper

April – June

  • * Formal consultation with stakeholders
  • * Regional workshops with First Nations
  • * Public input on Discussion Paper
  • * Ongoing policy analysis

July – August

Finalize directions for revision of the Wildlife Act

September –

Drafting of legislation

Here is a portion of the media release sent out to the media on April 20-2007

VICTORIA - The Ministry of Environment is inviting First Nations to participate in a series of three-day workshops to discuss and make recommendations on possible revisions to the Wildlife Act and to the Ministry of Environment Draft Guidelines for Integrated Pest Management  proponents Conducting Consultation with First Nations (draft guidelines for engaging First Nations).

The first day of the workshop will focus on the Draft Guidelines, and will conclude with an informal dinner during which the Wildlife Act Review will be introduced. The second day will focus on the Wildlife Act, with further discussions following on the last day of the workshop.

Are the Non Aboriginal people of the province entitled to make a formal presentation during a workshop? We asked to interview Environment Minister Barry Penner, his staff are trying to arrange that interview.


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Race related?
Yes... it is...at least as it is worded..
Why not just say treaty related....

What a bunch of BULL..it...So my wife can GO...But me a a White person, Born in BC cannot....Are the Goverment people, Native also?????????. RACISM AT THE LIBERAL BEST...
"...the workshops are on a government to government basis..."

HeeHee! What phooy! Government to government eh, well let's declare war on this foreign unwelcome government.

Let's handle this at the Natives government level, not at our government level. Take some slaves and raid some villages. Why not? Who says the "other government" likes how our government handles things.

Too many governments having a party off the same tax payers, time to eliminate some excess government.
Easy Yama....
This is about as race related as we can get!Ranks right up there with the "All Native Basket Ball Tournament".
The government's ignorance is showing!
If a business opened and had "Caucasian" in the title I have no doubt that stuff would hit the fan.
So why are we inindated with "First Nation" or "Native" or "Aboriginal".
I am a "NATIVE" of Canada, for at least 5 generations. Just because my suntan is not as dark does not make me any less a native of this fair land.
I for one am geting a little tired of all this reverse discrimination. I have and will always continue to treat all people as I want to be treated.
Lets deal with things as a people issue!
WE the people are the Government, The sitting Government are the representatives of the people. (3.000.000) people voted The natives have Governments on their reserves, BUT the people of BC did not have a say on who was elected, ONLY NATIVES CAN VOTE. BUT... Even if they are elected they are the most corrupt, Backwards Governments there are...The Chiefs and councils live like Royalty the Rank and file are as poor as dirt....This not something Opinion 250 or myself can be Sued over it's the TRUTH, Just ask any Native that does not belong to the chief family or a member of a Council Family.THERE ARE A LOT MORE WHITE HUNTERS THEN NATIVES...1000 to 1 appox... SO WE SHOULD HAVE A SAY.
I think all wildlife harvesting should be managed and should not be based on race based privilege.

-----------
As an aside. I have an uncle that lives next to an Indian reserve with his native wife. Recently he had a guy from the band come out who took a liking to his house and has tried to claim it for himself claiming it is much better then the housing in the city. My uncle has tried explaining to the guy his house is not on the reserve so get lost, but the guy doesn't get it and wants to move his whole family out there to camp out on his front lawn. It just goes to show the kind of mentality some of the people who allow their feeling of entitlement to include what is not theirs in the name of their hereditary rights based on their own views of the seniority system, or what ever justifies taking what they want for themselves. Had my uncle built on the reserve, he would be looking at losing his house because someone liked it better than the one they had, and it would all be justified legally on race. Anyone that says it is not a race based system and that current policy has respect for individual rights and responsibility is mistaken.
This is just another dunderhead government move that deepens the rift between two peoples. I don't really think they want a society where we are all equal. They segregate us from each other in almost every respect, and then hand out "anti-racism" brochures and stamp "anti-racism" slogans all over everything.

"Whites sit over here, and colored sit over there at the back. It has nothing to do with race, stamp out racism. Thank you."

This message brought to you by:

FishSafe
HuntSafe
MeetSafe
NativeSafe

Part of me wants to show up anyway, and let them physically remove me, while my lawyer videotapes the whole works for the lawsuit.
Until the White people are allowed to exclude the Indians from government (any) meetings then then this is wrong.
Anytime there is a statement made that is followed with "but" it is completeley neggated! e.g " I'm not racist BUT .....

The alarming part of all this is that this gov official actually believes what he is saying/doing is not even an issue.

Get your head outta your ass buddy!

Just my humble taxpaying, workin' for a livin' opinion.
"Only first nations people who are registered to attend, or people from first nations who say they are coming are invited”, says Holms."

Taking that by its strictest meaning, all those non First Nations consultants and staff who the First Nations hire to provide them with technical advice where they have not yet developed that capacity themselves would be excluded from the meetings.
"The 25 years since the last major amendments to the Act have seen the emergence of a number of new issues, including: alien and invasive species"

I wonder whether that would be referring to Homo Sapiens.
"Separate but related work is underway regarding habitat protection and management, and SPECIES AT RISK."

Again, I wonder whether that would be referring to Homo Sapiens, and even more specifically those from the First Nations.
So, the question is:

"Since non-First Nations are not invited, and not welcome, and possibly barred from attending the workshops with First Nations, will the converse be true as well? In other words does the word "public" in the phrase "Public input on Discussion Paper" eclude First Nations? Does the term "stakeholder in the phrase "Formal consultation with stakeholders" exclude First Nations?
"The Chiefs and councils live like Royalty"

I quite regularly visit the ostentatious seat of government at the Shelly Reserve.

Living like Royalty, eh? .... give me a break.
So will observers, such as the press be allowed in?

What have they got to hide????????

It is one thing to have a stakeholders meeting and schedule different days for different interest groups (some can even bring their stakes with them as long as they are not too pointed and heavey so that they can become weapons), including interest groups based on the various levels of government, it is another to have waht sounds like closed door sessions or in camera meetings.

So, if we have meetings between the province and regional districts and municipalities, will others be barred from such meetings? Why is it that others cannot come in and hear what everyone who has an interest in the issues has to say? Would that not make sense, so that there is a minimum amount of repetition?

Are people so sensitive or shy to bring issues forward that they need a private audience?
Can we find out who the communications consultant to the MoE is? I want to make sure I never recommend them to anyone.
It has been my experience that a "workshop" is a learning tool. It kind of sounds to me like this workshop is for the Native people, First Nations, Aboriginal, please - whatever you want to call them, but it is to educate them on the upcoming proposed new Wildlife Act?? So they can be "well informed"?? It states that the "general public" will have an oportunity "at a later date to put their thoughts forward".

This is discrimation. The workshop should be for everyone who feels they have a vested interest in the proposed new Wildlife Act. It should be for everyone who wants to learn more about what the changes will bring. If they want one meeting for whites and one meeting for natives, maybe they are presenting something different for each meeting?

hmmm...

So ...... I would love to hear the point of view of a First Nations person on this .... "separate but equal"? Apartheid?
Natives have no problems getting together to form a protest and / or picket a function, so why doesn't someone organize a protest by white people outside of the venue?
'Cause we're too busy watchin' hockey.

;-)
I suspect that the real reason they are making it "natives only" is to inform the native people of the concessions made for aboriginal rights in the new legislation, but they wish to avoid having a confrontation result from having non-native parties in attendance.

I understand the idea, but it has been very poorly executed.
I also think that it is "native only" because the new fish&wildlife regs.will not apply to natives for the most part.Native hunting and fishing rights are a whole different ball game.
Unfortunately, we already have enough concessions.The last thing our wildlife needs is a different set of rules for a select group but thats the way it is.
I have seen the results of theses "concessions' first hand.As in shooting moose in the middle of summer from a boat.
Very sporting.
So yes,it IS race based in spite of what the politicians call it.
I think a protest is a damn good idea too!
I agree with the protest idea. It should be based on managing the resource not special rights.
I agree with a protest....once hockey is over. Can we postpone the meetings until after the playoffs ? Or did they schedule the meetings for the time of the playoffs, knowing everybody would be too busy watching the game ?

:-)