Time to put up a blockade and not let them into town.

Typical bull

Time to abolish the indian affairs industry and make everyone equal. The system, as it is will bankrupt the country. Duplication, misappropriation, fraud, mismanagement and greed runs wild and unchecked in this system.

Time for the RCMP do their job or perhaps citzens should take a little midnight action.

"First Nations" lets see some real proof that they are indeed the first peoples in BC, Canada, US, North America. I thought Adam and Eve would be 1st:)

The Sustat River and the lakes up there are just amazing. I learned to fly helicopter in that area.

The problem with the Takla leaders is that they don't understand mining can be safe and that the can of beans they are eating by the road block fire comes from revenue sharing from some other traditional territory mine.

The leaders rudimentory understanding of economics and mining seriously undermines the possibility that their demands are realistic. What further damages their status to make demands, is the fact they are wards of the state and are content to let the rest of us support their able bodied members. As wards of the state they forego the ability to make economic decisions.

Freebe Nation at it again.

Time we set our own roadblocks up and get business done once and for all.

qwaszxter on July 5 2008 10:05 AM wrote

"A little midnight action? Kind of like the KKK?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe Dogs is a shift worker and that's when he has time to protest that group?
Some of us do WORK shifts....

In your own words my friend and i quote"Put yourself in another persons shoes before you judge"

Kinda blows your lil argument now does'nt it!

qwaszxter, it's simply unbelievable that you would try to engage in rational debate here :)

"Okay guys, lets say that you and your extended family own a large piece of property.

The government sells all the assets of that property to commercial interests. For years, you are not allowed to do anything about it - you just have to stand by and watch your assets be pillaged.
"
I don't know if you are aware of this but anyone with a miners license can stake a claim on almost any property in BC. Even if it's on private property. That also gives them the right to work that land. Blockades won't stop that.

"First Nations" lets see some real proof that they are indeed the first peoples in BC, Canada, US, North America. I thought Adam and Eve would be 1st:)"

Don't be ridiculous. There's not a shred of evidence of any non-native turning up in this area until 1793, and not for some decades after that around Takla Lake.

The Takla leaders are perfectly well aware that mining CAN be done without environmental damage, but they aren't so naive as to believe that it will be. There's a long list of broken promises by mining companies to operate safely and without damage. The article mentions a good example, the defunct Bralorne mercury mine, which has not been properly cleaned up.

Its funny, the natives never paid a cent for that property. They just take it and claim it?
To block a road should be treated like
terrorizom. We should do whatever to open it. We all own the roads.
Its our tax dollars that finance the natives. They still call us white trash on top of it.
Wake up guys.

Posted by: NMG on July 5 2008 10:56 AM
qwaszxter, it's simply unbelievable that you would try to engage in rational debate here :)

Anytime someone stands up and questions your argument this is the typical response.

Why are you guys afraid of being questioned by us that feel this is all Crapola?

We all have the right to test anything that we feel to be, IMO not accurate. If I feel stern about a belief, I don’t back down, and I am always happy to debate or have some meaningful dialogue.

Let’s be honest here, this topic is a hot potato in this country and it needs to be discussed with those that want answers.

I have a right to know where my tax dollars are going and on what grounds.

Why don't you guys raise your own money and hold a forum with microphones and let everyone speak? You want to educate well book the civic center and let us ask questions.....again the olive branch is being offered.

As frustrating as this type of thing is, be assured that it is frustrating to everyone involved.

Promises, agreements, treaties which amounted to elusive rights and powers of each party and the meaning of this remains unclear to today.

When governments will not make the decisions necesary and delay the evolution of what this all means to everyone--it should be no surprise that misunderstandings grow to heated levels.

If you are promised something for a hundred years or more from the government which also made a treaty with you, are you wrong to stand up for what you believe is truely and rightfully yours?

When every federal government has ran away from making a clearly defined position and left it to the supreme court to decide what rights are and to what extent they could be applied--is it any wonder that we are in the mess we are in.

Add the media dynamics and spin a dispute such as this and empower one side of the conflict with a leverage tool which a publicly elected government cannot defend, at least not without being raked over the coals.

The general public sees what they believe as an injustice to economic development and equality--but very few realise what has been granted/promised to and understood by the first nation involved.

Very few people realise what the government of Canada has pledged to native people of this country and whether we like it or not they have special rights to many things, including provincially controlled natural resources.

There remains more grey area than black and white clarity to these rights and hence the never ending disputes which follow.

As the old political/beuracratic explanation goes " as long as everyone is equally unhappy we must be doing a good job". This explains perfectly the attitude towards the mandate of the department of indian and northern affairs program all accross Canada.

Everyone pays a huge price for this bungling department and have done so for longer than anyone wants to remember.

Until the fundamentals of this relationship have definitive lines drawn in the sand and provincial governments abide by whatever federal changes are necesary, this problem will continue unresolved.

If anyone made me wait for a hundred years I would have got on with my life. We live in a welfare state with no incentive to improve oneself. Holding ones hand out saying "gimme gimme" does not teach self reliance etc. Why didn't they stake the claims for themselves. If they had we would not having this discussion now. They get free education and enough incentives provided by the "people" to have easily being able to figure out how to stake a claim by now. Lazy is what lazy does. Sit on your ass by the side of the road.

That is an interesting point about claims.

The natives say they claimed N. America according to the law of "nobody was there".

The miners are saying they claim some rocks as allowed by the laws that govern N. America today. If we recognize the indians claim, then the miners claim is also valid. A claim is a claim, and both cultures recognize that fact.

Back 100 years ago the locals (white & etc) agreed that the stone age indians were in need of social assistance, and agreed to keep them fed forever and let them keep the right to shoot all the wildlife they saw. This was a great agreement to the indians of 100 years ago as the "white man" guns and nylon nets took all the effort out of hunting.

The indians thought they had a great deal. But paradise has a way of changing people.

With no need to work, and no game left to shoot, has ruined the indians today. They have no self respect, and lost the respect of the whites today. But a deal is a deal until the whites and indians decide to change it. Live with it, the road block is illegal.

Here we go again with all the bigots crawling out of the woodwork. Mention any First Nations issue and its sure to happen. Its the one certainty in Opinion 250 life.

To Acrider54, according to the book of Genesis Adam and Eve lived in what is now Afghanistan, probably in the area now controlled by the Taliban.

Amerinds were the first to settle North America, and their descendants are the First Nations of today.

To RUEZ, the ability to stake a claim on anyone's property may not sapply to First Nations land. That has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The reason is that First Nations own land in Aboriginal Title not Title in Fee Simple. Since Crown Lands were taken from First Nations by simple transfer of ownership without any agreement, i.e. a signed treaty, they may well still have mineral rights since the original transfer appears to have been done in a manner which violated the express instructions of the Crown at the time. In other words, the law allowing the claiming of mineral rights on First Nations land, if it does do that, is probably unconstitutional.

To Yama, I claim your snowmobiles. They don't belong to you any more. They are now my property. I claim your home as well. Give me the title. I claim any business you own. Give me the profits immediately.

Posted by: qwaszxter on July 5 2008 12:44 PM

"Lastly, I haven't heard any natives calling names on this forum. But a lot of derogatory, untrue things are being said about natives."

Posted by: ammonra on July 5 2008 1:44 PM

"Here we go again with all the bigots crawling out of the woodwork. Mention any First Nations issue and its sure to happen. Its the one certainty in Opinion 250 life."

Any questions?

ammonra,
Takla Band may claim to have aboriginal title but I doubt they've proved it in court. Just because a tribe hunts and fishes on a given land doesn't mean they have every right associated with that land. It's a shame these issues can't be resolved more amicably. As an investor I am now avoiding any further investment in BC as these lingering title issues have created too high a risk.
haynz79

Are you saying I am native, getajob? I am not.

I am of mixed European hybrid ancestry with Anglo Saxon, Briton, Flemish, Spanish and probably Jewish and/or Moorish genes.

I guess qwaszxter's comments are still vsalid.

haynz79, if they hunted and fished in pre-European times that does indeed mean they likely have aboriginal title. The problem is that it is not defined in the constitution as to what aboriginal title means completely.

I agree that this issue is one that will likely eventually have to be decided in a court, or hopefully, settled voluntarily by a treaty when the governments get their asses in gear and go to the table with an intent to actually make one.

Don't block the mailman. He has our cheques.

haynz79

We feel the same as you about this bs..Our home is up for sale and we will be enjoying the fair state of Texas soon...

I think i will go play my drums and see if the sky will shower me with some money....

When is this garbage going to end?
I'm getting sick and tired of all this "first nation" stuff.
It time they find a job and start working for a change instead of wasting their time away at road blocks.
The government should stop all these give-aways and treat every Canadian the same.

(Ammonra:-) "The reason is that First Nations own land in Aboriginal Title not Title in Fee Simple. Since Crown Lands were taken from First Nations by simple transfer of ownership without any agreement, i.e. a signed treaty, they may well still have mineral rights since the original transfer appears to have been done in a manner which violated the express instructions of the Crown at the time. In other words, the law allowing the claiming of mineral rights on First Nations land, if it does do that, is probably unconstitutional."
-------------------------------------------
(Socredible replies:- How could anyone sign a Treaty defining land ownership with a people whose culture had little or no concept of land ownership at that time?

There are two types of 'ownership'. Of anything. One is "beneficial", the other "administrative". The bringing of the territory that now comprises British Columbia under the "administrative" ownership of the Crown in 1858 did not necessarily deprive the Natives here then of the "beneficial" ownership of the lands their respective groups occupied or used.

Their rights to do the same things that they had done from time immemorial, i.e.,to hunt, fish, gather food and the other necessities needed for clothing, shelter, and survival in general, were certainly not impaired in any overall manner. And certainly not without many compensatory advantages, even after taking into account many of the detrimental ones their contact with the "white man" brought.

The FACT, that even without signed Treaties, the Crown reserved lands for the exclusive use of the Natives in their traditional hunting, gathering and fishing areas, in addition to the recognition of certain rights associated with their existing manner of living, showed that their "beneficial" ownership, as it existed in their culture at that time, was being respected.

They did not, "log", or "mine", or "drill for oil or natural gas", nor "farm" (to any extent), nor "ranch". But now we are supposed to turn over "administrative" title over all these activities on lands they ranged over because "they were here first"? Come on! Lets have equal opportunity (before the law) for all, and no more "special priviledges" based on race beyond those historic ones accorded to the Natives to allow them to continue the culture that they once had.

The Americans "conquered" their Indians. Us? We just moved in on ours. Big difference.

Socredible may use any kind of specious reasoning to arrive at self serving conclusions that he likes. It does not alter one iota the fact that the British Crown directed that land was not to be taken and ownership assumed without a treaty beign signed. The whole situation in BC, which differs from the rest of Canada, comes from that one decision to ignore the Crown's directive.

As to the First Nation's concept of ownership, well, they went to war with each other over territorial disputes, so how is their concept of land any different from any other nation's?

Yawn......sure odd that these people don't raise their Own money and NOT hand outs like free grants and open a few mines and sawmills and pulpmills ect....sure odd that they chirp about being a havenot group.....

I rather see this free money shelled out to say India..now they would turn this province around.....work hard get us all working together,,,,,


Time for a solution the bitchin is getting us no where and the Lawyers well lets just flush that along with the rest of this BS...

Amona says .. "To Yama, I claim your snowmobiles. They don't belong to you any more. They are now my property. I claim your home as well. Give me the title. I claim any business you own. Give me the profits immediately..."

Sorry Amona, neither of the two cultures recognizes theft. You have our country confused with the communists. Your beliefs in socialism and the communist ways make your mistake about the situation understandable. We forgive you, but no you can't have my stuff unless you pay for it.

lol...guess ammonra made the point quite well Yama! lol

I hope the Takla finally get to negotiate. But as we all know this government turns a deaf ear to its people, so I won't hold my breath. The Takla have my support in their endeavour. It is probably the only to have this issue settled once and for all.

*the only way....

So some are saying that the First Nations are way off base when they want mining companies to respect their right ot use the land.

As someone posted, that has not hit the supreme court of Canada yet.

The interesting thing is that this whole notion of mineral claims is somewhat archaic as people that do not have the advantage of being aborignal are getting ticked off at their lack of rights to the reaonable use of their surface property without disturbance or compensation.

As more and more property has become utilized for surgface habitation and industry and as we are running short of minerals and oil/gas and we explore in regions that one would typically have avoided 100+ years ago, there are clashes and laws are strating to change form the looks of it.

After all, it is the reasoanble and equitable thing to do.

http://rockproducts.com/mag/rock_new_era_mineral

from the above, for those who do not like clicking through

New Era for Mineral rights -

"A man may be king of his castle, but when it comes to the property it sits on, he may be only a serf. The rising price of oil and natural gas, the growing need for aggregates, and shifting governmental interpretations of mineral leasing are redefining the very grounds of land ownership and control."

"Often mineral rights owners are not legally required to compensate landowners, even if their exploration and extraction process destroys a farmer's crop or a rancher's grazing area or disturbs a homeowner's peace of mind. In some cases, the mineral extractor is not even required to give the surface owner notification before beginning an operation. Also, mineral extraction is not sustainable like farming and ranching. So, once an operation is finished, there is little incentive for land reclamation."

"Several states have considered and are considering landowner-protection legislation. Wyoming passed a statute last March that requires the landowner and the mineral rights holder to reach an agreement when there is a conflict. However, the law also allows the mineral-rights holder to continue extracting the mineral resource if a bond is posted. Colorado, Montana, New Mexico and Utah also are considering property owner protection laws."

"Much of the legislative focus on surface rights versus mineral rights is driven by angry homeowners and “Not In My Back Yard” groups who are reacting to increasingly aggressive energy exploration. The price of natural gas and oil has spurred energy exploration and drilling to an all-time high, and it is driving operations into populated areas all across the country."

"One of the ironies of the split estate phenomena is that NIMBY groups have been the bane of many quarries. Yet, it is NIMBY groups who are getting the attention of legislators and demanding protections that, in the long run, could benefit the mining industry by stimulating legislation favoring surface rights over mineral leases."

-------------------------

laws change with the times .... some people simply do not change ... and some simply see red when aboriginals take a stand for their rights .... as ammonra has pointed out, this site draws a lot of such comments, that is why I did not even click to view this topic until now. It was rather obvious what I would find ....

Someone want to debate me about this whole nonsense, I will gladly do so. Name the time and place and a neutral adjudicator who will decide win, loose, or draw.

Also, in case people think this is only happening in the USA .. here is what the Ontario Mining commissioner has stated:

http://www.miningwatch.ca/index.php?/Indigenous_Issues/ECO_200607_report

Ontario should amend the Mining Act to provide for consultation with First Nations when granting mining claims and leases and stop treating public lands as freely open to mineral exploration, according to Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner, Gordon Miller.

“This century-old system continues to rely on principles that do not reflect modern land use planning nor does it adequately safeguard environmental values,” Miller states in his Annual Report for 2006-2007, released today.

The Report slams Ontario for its failure to protect the environment from the cumulative impacts of mineral exploration and development, and for its failure to respect the Constitutionally protected rights of First Nations in the Ontario Mining Act.

The natives standing up for their rights have my full support. Too bad the Alberta tar sands are not entirely on native land so they could have legally and otherwise taken action against what the international oil interests are doing now and what they are getting away with.

Some comments here are deplorable. Racism turns me off completely, more than any other issue, by the way.

I've had my share of generalized and stereotypical thoughts about First Nations in the past, however, big business does and continues to rape our land. Clear cutting, road building, mining, water contamination, erosion, expansion, etc has wiped out so much. The cost will be seen and felt for 1000's of years, if not forever. Our future generations will look back at resource management practices with shame and disbelief. First Nations have their problems and they've fallen into a pit of system dependence, but they're absolutely right about land damage and distrust of big business. Do they want a piece of the pie for little or no contribution? Sure they do. But western dominance, the reserve system and religion based genocide has made them who they are.

When I was a kid, my father had a business in the Queen Charlotte Islands (QCI's) that was dependant on forestry. The Haida started to blockade roads on Moresby Island (South Island) to prevent clear cutting. My family and I couldn't believe the "Indians" where doing this. Why wouldn't they just take high paying jobs with the big companies like Mac/Blo, Crown Zellerback, and Husby??? Well, at the time, we looked at it from an economic perspective. Years later I had the opportunity to live and work in the QCI's. I drove the back roads looking for Steelhead, Coho, and trout. The rivers had changed, the salmon and steelhead stocks were way down, there was rusty cable and other equipment left to leach heavy metal into the ground, the hill sides were eroded, the river colour was brown where it used to be clear, the bridges dripped black tar into the creeks, the place was a giant mess. Why did gov't allow this? Why do they still allow this? Well thank god for the Haida who worked, with environmentalists, to stop the crazy logging and turned, at least in part, the South Island into Gwaii Haanas National Park. The QCI's used to be and still is an "out of sight, out of mind" place for big business to take advantage of. The amount of resource revenue that came out of the QCI's and still does, is astronomical. The Haida, who acted to protect their ancient land got little to nothing of that money.
Today more subtle resource damage is being done. Salmon lodges, commercial net, troll, and drag fleets deplete fish stocks to the point of no "return". The "by-catch" in the drag net fishery is so overwhelming but no one really knows about it so no-one protests. The damage to the ocean floor is undetectable so the fleet continues to take advantage of it. Fish farms obviously result in huge impacts because the coincide with the huge depletion of the Pink Salmon returns to the Broughton Archipelago. Does gov't put a stop to it or study it? No, one lone scientist brought that to our attention. The Pollack fishery in the North Pacific has a by-catch of Chinook salmon in the thousands of pounds that gets thrown overboard because they don't have a salmon licence. The gill-net fleet in Prince Rupert and other coastal communities continues to fish just so they can go back on EI. What's the point of that? They're unable to make money because of fish value and fuel costs but they continue because they're the only seasonal workers in Canada who are eligible for EI. Why's that? Why would we tollerate that? First Nations are aware of the issues but powerless to stop it.
Chief Abraham's right in her quote. "This is our last viable salmon harvest, and mining in this area would threaten the headwaters of the Skeena River. Bear Lake has always provided us with salmon and will continue to do so if we protect these spawning grounds."
When do we sit back and take a look at the costs? When do we really get reflective about our impact. The tar sands will prove to be one of the greatest blunders in Canadian history. The First Nations know it right now. They know that the raping of resources will deplete who they are and instead of religious and ignorance based genocide, it'll be resource based genocide.

i think most people care about the future of this planet and it's not just one group that takes notice of the destruction...we are dealing with two topics here.
Where do we become as one? That has and will be my main question and is yet answered...

i think most people care about the future of this planet and it's not just one group that takes notice of the destruction...we are dealing with two topics here.
Where do we become as one? That has and will be my main question and is yet answered...

I've had my share of generalized and stereotypical thoughts about First Nations in the past, however, big business does and continues to rape our land. Clear cutting, road building, mining, water contamination, erosion, expansion, etc has wiped out so much. The cost will be seen and felt for 1000's of years, if not forever. Our future generations will look back at resource management practices with shame and disbelief. First Nations have their problems and they've fallen into a pit of system dependence, but they're absolutely right about land damage and distrust of big business. Do they want a piece of the pie for little or no contribution? Sure they do. But western dominance, the reserve system and religion based genocide has made them who they are.

When I was a kid, my father had a business in the Queen Charlotte Islands (QCI's) that was dependant on forestry. The Haida started to blockade roads on Moresby Island (South Island) to prevent clear cutting. My family and I couldn't believe the "Indians" where doing this. Why wouldn't they just take high paying jobs with the big companies like Mac/Blo, Crown Zellerback, and Husby??? Well, at the time, we looked at it from an economic perspective. Years later I had the opportunity to live and work in the QCI's. I drove the back roads looking for Steelhead, Coho, and trout. The rivers had changed, the salmon and steelhead stocks were way down, there was rusty cable and other equipment left to leach heavy metal into the ground, the hill sides were eroded, the river colour was brown where it used to be clear, the bridges dripped black tar into the creeks, the place was a giant mess. Why did gov't allow this? Why do they still allow this? Well thank god for the Haida who worked, with environmentalists, to stop the crazy logging and turned, at least in part, the South Island into Gwaii Haanas National Park. The QCI's used to be and still is an "out of sight, out of mind" place for big business to take advantage of. The amount of resource revenue that came out of the QCI's and still does, is astronomical. The Haida, who acted to protect their ancient land got little to nothing of that money.
Today more subtle resource damage is being done. Salmon lodges, commercial net, troll, and drag fleets deplete fish stocks to the point of no "return". The "by-catch" in the drag net fishery is so overwhelming but no one really knows about it so no-one protests. The damage to the ocean floor is undetectable so the fleet continues to take advantage of it. Fish farms obviously result in huge impacts because the coincide with the huge depletion of the Pink Salmon returns to the Broughton Archipelago. Does gov't put a stop to it or study it? No, one lone scientist brought that to our attention. The Pollack fishery in the North Pacific has a by-catch of Chinook salmon in the thousands of pounds that gets thrown overboard because they don't have a salmon licence. The gill-net fleet in Prince Rupert and other coastal communities continues to fish just so they can go back on EI. What's the point of that? They're unable to make money because of fish value and fuel costs but they continue because they're the only seasonal workers in Canada who are eligible for EI. Why's that? Why would we tollerate that? First Nations are aware of the issues but powerless to stop it.
Chief Abraham's right in her quote. "This is our last viable salmon harvest, and mining in this area would threaten the headwaters of the Skeena River. Bear Lake has always provided us with salmon and will continue to do so if we protect these spawning grounds."
When do we sit back and take a look at the costs? When do we really get reflective about our impact. The tar sands will prove to be one of the greatest blunders in Canadian history. The First Nations know it right now. They know that the raping of resources will deplete who they are and instead of religious and ignorance based genocide, it'll be resource based genocide.

Fair enough however, lets not jump on the racism bandwagon everytime there is a question raised! Granted it does happen at times but most of the above is sheer frustration.

IMO i feel that you should be striding to educate me rather than me seeking out to be educated.Why you ask? Because i see this as very onesided.

I'm most certain you can understand why.
Call it ploitics or what ever, we can't all share the same view on everything on this planet.

"qwaszxter"
I am not a racist and deplore the act of it. I have tried to understand the positions of native people and especially why this remains such an unresolved mess.

I have came to a few conclusions of which I touched on in my earlier post which refer to the issues to date, but what seems most important is where we go from here?.

One thing that I see in this debate which has not been answered is the realities of evolution on this land we all share. Evolution of the ways we all want to live.

It is fair to say that the modernisation of treaties and the definition of what legal rights and entitlements have become are far different than the original agreements were.

It is fair to state that what was originally agreed to has changed and it has changed because of the obvious changes in the ways which we all live.

These changes are required/requested/demanded by both natives and non natives for many reasons.

Governments have not dealt with the complicated legal issues and the reality is that it may be too late to actually fix this by continuance of the original concept of treaties and reserves.

Perhaps evolution has made the chances for harmony impossible with the seperation of two groups with different rights. This concept goes directly against the core of what a "Canadian" is or believes.

The first question I would ask any native of this country is : how can the native culture sustain itself if it is embodied in the notions of lifestyles lived long before--but cannot be lived now?
Should treaties be modernised knowing that the original intentions by both parties have drastically been changed?.
While most natives will agree that tradition is very important to their culture, the second question is does this do any good for its people?
The next question is whether assimilation will actually provide for a better life for these people than continuation of reserve settlements and self segregated and therefore state dependant communities?
If the answer is thought to be that reserves can and should continue--consider this: With the fastest growth in population of any sector of Canadian society--where--what--and how will this continue? It cannot and will not sustain itself and will undoubtably cause even more harm to its people while becoming a huge burden on Canadian society. The "burden" as people see it has already become more than what they feel is justified. Being seen as a burden is not conducive to the spirit and wellbeing of anyone and perhaps native leaders need to encourage/empower their people to embrace the opportunities which they have as individuals rather than as band members.
The fact is that in pre European times, a indian tribe or band was a truly socialist culture and personal property was not the same as it is now. Property was owned by the band and not the individual. Many other cultures of the world used to work in the same manner. The modern native indian is no different in that they have evolved into individual consumers rather than self sufficent providers of their lifestyle as a group.
The tribal leaders attempt to sustain the group by "taxing" the economic activities which occur upon the "traditional territory lands" which USED to directly sustain the group.The provincial and federal government also tax the economic development in order to provide for its responsibilities to support the requirements of the indian band and its members. If the band had enough economic wealth generated upon its traditional lands to sustain itself today, how long could this last knowing that non renewable resources will be soon gone and populations will increase? Can traditional lands simply continue to be increased?

There is an impossible contradiction when a culture based on comunal tribe like interdependancy is meshed with the will and aspirations of the modern individual.
The tribal system does not work anymore and yet the individual is expected to live within what cannot provide for what the individual wants or needs.

Well i must say that is a good write..Honestly i am not sure what is the correct path that is required to solve this issue.

I know that, it will probably never truly be settled in my lifetime.
Very frustrating for all of us.....

The answer is that the continuance of this approach of segregated groups on segregated lands cannot work and is doomed for many reasons.
What native leaders are persuing is actually a deadend for their people and what amounts to a very destructive and repressive way of life, in the name of culture.
The short sighted concepts of segregation that existed when most treaties were agreed to have had to change and will continue to need to be changed--because everything will continue to change.

Picture the endless expanse of lands and resources/wildlife with very small populations of indians or non native settlers when these treaties were made. The realities of that day were far different than what they are today as were most of what each group wanted from these treaties. The notion of subsistance hunting and gathering is now both impossible and undesirable by most native individuals. It is a band government which leads its people towards this antiquated goal of perservering the impossible dream of traditional culture.
The elements of the treaties were as primative as the cultures of both parties were in that era and we can blame our predessessors of all cultures for not having the crystal ball necesary to fully envision what would take place over the next hundred years or so.
No such endless expanse of land exists nor does the ample supply of natural resources and therefore the sustainabilty of what was envisioned is clearly impossible now.
What were the greatest of intentions by peacefull coexistance with respect to the needs of sustaining a small population of natives living off the land is not practically possible--NOR DESIRED by the people themselves.
Like the inevitable end of socialism all around the world, the will and aspirations of the individuals prevail over the entrenched traditions of the leadership wanting to control the group for the purposes of continuing its power structure. No longer are people isolated from the world and their understandings lead to an unstoppable desire and expectation to have or live the best they can.
The department of indian and northern affairs cannot manage the affairs of hundreds of these small villages and hence most of them are far deficent of what band members expect. This deficency combined with the evolution of who owns and manages this property is a difficult transition of which leaves them in the predicament they are in.
Add to this the fact that many of these remote communities do not have an economic base sufficent to support what new era individuals want or expect and you have the impossible situation which most native communities have. Is it any wonder why these groups have such desparity and health and social problems?
Anyone raised in this environment has a difficult mold to break as the band directs its continuance as does our federal government when it really cannot do any good for the people involved.

"It is fair to state that what was originally agreed to has changed and it has changed because of the obvious changes in the ways which we all live."

This statement is actually factually incorrect. There was no agreement with First Nations in BC. The land was simply taken over without treaty. That is the root cause of BC's problems with this issue now. As society has progressed, so has the political acumen of First Nations leaders progressed, and now First Nations want their due rather than what others want to fob them off with.

I would suggest that the rise of traditional culture among First Nations is not, in fact, to restore an ancient way of life, but to reinvigorate a culture very badly damaged by an oppressive racist regime of invaders in the near past: the Europeans, predominantly British and French. The benefit of pow wows, traditional spirituality and medicine, and other traditional activities is not to hold onto nor to bring back the past but to develop a strong and vibrant community today, based on memories and traditions of the past. The purpose is to restore self esteem and self respect among a group in which both have been largely destroyed by mistreatment by the dominant culture who didn't consider aboriginal people to be valuable, but just something to sweep out of the way. The focus on traditional matters is to bring cultural pride back. I say, "More power to them". I hope they succeed beyond their wildest dreams.

Non First Nations make many assumptions about First Nations, one being that a subsistence hunter-gatherer life is the desired intent. I do not believe it is. None of the First Nations people I have been acquainted or friends with wanted that. They did want to take part in traditional hunter-gatherer activities as part of their lives, but worked at regular jobs otherwise, wanting to be respected as people, not put down as "just an Indian". In much the same way, in addition to my work I did flower gardening as part of my traditional English lifestyle, and others go hunting and fishing as part of theirs. The difference, I would suggest, is that with First Nations the intent of it is, among other purposes, also to develop and restore cultural pride rather than just to express it as I and other Europeans do.

I look forward to the day when First Nations are fully respected for what they are - an integral part of Canadian society who can help mold this Country into what it should be.

"Like the inevitable end of socialism all around the world"

Interestingly, the vast majority of Eastern block countries that used to be communist governed are now socialist. Socialism has increased in popularity concomitant with the decrease in communism. I suspect that socialism is still the way of the future, even Steven Harper supports some socialist ideas, health care, for instance.

Sick...Keep in mind i havent read the past comments. The Takla band has gotten millions of dollars payed out by canfor for their ops in lovell cove and minarette. Also an anual pay out from Kemess. If kemess north had the go ahead they would get an aditional 1.5 million per year. God knows what other hands outs are being dumped into that band. The govt (tax payer) pays to grade the road access in the winter from fort st james. Takla blockades the road from hunters and rec users then uses the forest roads at their free will which are being maintained by tax dollars now that canfor is done up there. They bitch about the old bralorne mine when infact the water doesnt even dump into the takla watershed. And any mercury contamination in that area is natural due to the cinnabar sulphide geology of the area.
Now their prime source of income jobs (canfor) has pulled out expect more blockades and begging for $$ to come.

Typical example of the ignorant bigotry endemic on this site.

Thanks for the absurd critiques ammoronra.
It would be nice to stick to relevant topic such as nothing to do with east block communism or that type of socialism.
The second point is that with very few exceptions and Nisga being one that comes to mind--allmost everywhere else some form of treaty was entered into and it was what was believed to be the bands representing the areas of which these treaties applied.
Yes they made mistakes in who represented what areas and yes bands have argued between themselves of which band had rights on each area. Yes I give you that it was not day one of the first white toe that touched this continent-but not that long after white settlement spread to areas of the northwest, treaties were in fact made.
If you have read a treaty which exists and you obviously haven't because you don't think they exist--you will soon realise that items such as blankets and medicine were a commodoty worth signing an X on a treaty for. As absurd as this seems today --if your people are freezing to death a blanket would be worth more than a hundred pounds of gold on a cold night.

Regarding treaties in BC go to http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/info/trn_e.html

It is a fact sheet from Northern and Indian Affairs Canada, and it says, in part:

"However, the last of the historical treaties was signed in 1923. At that time, the federal government made it a criminal offence for a First Nation to hire a lawyer to pursue land claims settlements.

Consequently, treaties were never concluded with First Nations in some parts of Canada, including most of B.C. The only treaties to be completed in the province were the Douglas Treaties on Vancouver Island, and Treaty 8 in the northeast corner of B.C."

Perhaps you could take your own inferred advice and actually learn a bit about the subject.

As to the comments about socialism, I was responding to your comment, "Like the inevitable end of socialism all around the world." If you consider your own comments to be an irrelevant topic why would you make it in the first place? In any case, common ownership of property is not necessarily socialist. Otherwise all stratas and owner occupied apartments would be so.