|
|
What is the BCWF Political Action Alliance (PAA) and is the PAA associated with the BC Wildlife Federation?
The BCWF Political Action Alliance (PAA) is a society registered under the Societies Act of BC and is not in any way directly associated with or part of the BC Wildlife Federation. It has its own constitution, its own directors and its own mandate as registered with the Registrar.
The BCWF Political Action Alliance currently has two funds in place.
One fund was created by Gary Mauser specifically to support the passing of Bill C-391 with a goal to promote the elimination of the long-gun registry.
The other, and more recent fund is the Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund (RAHPF).
What is the BCWF Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund?
The BC Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund is a voluntary fund created to actively protect, promote and enhance the interests of British Columbia resident hunters and anglers.
The BC Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund was formed by a group of BC Wildlife Federation members who were frustrated by the lack of progress in restoring resident priority in the provincial allocation policy and the continuing loss of resident angling and hunting opportunity in the province.
Is the Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund associated with the BCWF’s Legal Defence Fund?
The RAHPF was established with the intent of working for resident priority and is not associated with, nor does it have the same mandate as the BCWF’s Legal Defence Fund.
Does the British Columbia Wildlife Federation have any knowledge of the Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund (RAHPF)?
Yes, the RAHPF was discussed and endorsed by the BCWF members present at the 2009 AGM in Fernie. However, no endorsement by the BCWF was required to proceed with the creation of the fund. Individual members and club representatives made significant donations to the fund right on the floor of the convention.
Does the British Columbia Wildlife Federation have access to the funds in the Resident Angler and Hunter Preservation Fund?
No, the BCWF does not have access to the RAHPF monies. All of the funds used by the RAHPF are from donations made directly to the BCWF PAA for the purposes stated on its website (http://residentpriority.ca/) and none of the funds have come from the BC Wildlife Federation. Only the directors of the BCWF Political Action Alliance manage the fund.
Did the BC Wildlife Federation approve the advertisement that was placed by the BCWF Political Action Alliance?
The directors of the BCWF Political Action Alliance approved the advertisement placed in local papers around the province in late 2009. Neither the executive nor the board of directors of the BC Wildlife Federation had any knowledge or part in the approval of the ad prior to its publication.
How much money did the BC Wildlife Federation spend on this ad?
The BC Wildlife Federation spent no money on the ad that was run by the BCWF PAA.
Are the claims in the advertisement legitimate?
The Allocation Policy was agreed to in 2006 but since then the GOABC has requested the policy be delayed or re-opened. There was a transition period in the originally agreed to policy through 2012 that was to allow guide-outfitters to transition to the new policy. GOABC has requested that the Allocation Policy implementation be delayed until 2017 and has also requested the Allocation Policy be re-opened.
Since the new Allocation Policy took effect, in Region 7A guide-outfitters have lobbied to reduce or remove the calf general open season, reduce or eliminate cow harvest and eliminate or at the very least make the immature bull moose an allocated hunt all to increase quality of product. Prior to the Allocation Policy guide-outfitters in 7A harvested close to 1100 cow moose from 1980-2007, which is about 7% of the cow harvest. Through the new policy the guide-outfitter share was reduced to 2%. But probably because these hunts are becoming harder to sell, even with the reduced numbers available, there is now a push to reduce or completely eliminate the cow harvest which would greatly impact resident opportunity, but have little effect on the bottom line of commercial operators.
Also, by making immature bull moose an allocated hunt the total resident share of the bull harvest will be reduced from about 92% to 75% increasing guide-outfitter share from 8% to 25%. What this means to resident hunters is either the spike-fork season or the LEH hunt will be greatly reduced or eliminated.
GOABC has also requested all resident sheep hunting be placed on LEH or to have Guide-outfitters quota completely removed. This was the system in place until the 1970s and resulted in huge conservation concerns and in resident sheep hunters being placed on LEH in some areas despite only harvesting 15% of the sheep prior to that.
These are but a few of the issues that are being pushed behind closed doors without your knowledge.
The GOABC has also produced an economic viability paper that they have used to lobby government to make changes to hunting regulations that will support their industry at the expense of resident hunter opportunity. All the contents of the ad you have mentioned, directly reference statements contained in this viability paper.
February 11, 2010
It has been brought to the attention of BC Wildlife Federation that a number of Coastal First Nation Bands have formed a consortium going by the name of “Coastal First Nations”. See www.coastalfirstnations.ca for more information. Does this Coastal First Nations group represent all First Nations members along the entire Coast? Ordinarily we would not get involved in the business of First Nations people or their relationship with the BC Government; however in this case an effort is being made by the consortium to virtually eliminate residents’ long and established cultural right to hunt.
It is troubling to us that after speaking to numerous First Nations people living in Prince Rupert, no one was aware of the consortium or their efforts to end bear hunting on the North and Central Coast. In addition, none of the First Nations people we spoke with were opposed to bear hunting if it is done in a sustainable manner. In fact, some of the people we spoke with either hunted bears or had a family member who hunted bears.
The intent of this letter is to encourage you to ask a number of questions.
Have you been properly consulted by those who claim to represent your interest? It is our belief that First Nations people living on the North and Central Coast hunted bears traditionally for food, clothing and tool-making material. What right do those who claim to represent you have to restrict future generations of First Nations people from hunting bear?
Residents in British Columbia and Canada have a long history of hunting and trapping for fur and for meat. It is a part of our heritage and our culture stemming back to the early days of the Hudson’s Bay Company and before.
For the benefit of those that don’t know, we wish to explain how the Ministry of Environment establishes the annual allowable harvest of bears and how the hunts are managed.
The Ministry of Environment conducts random surveys along with identifying the different types of habitats available for bears. A population is established for each bear population area. There is a harvest percentage provided for each population unit. Hunting only occurs where the population can sustain a harvest over time. Hunting for bears can occur in either the spring or fall. Black bears are estimated at 120,000 to 160,000 animals in the province. White or blue coloured phases of black bears are not hunted.
Grizzly bears, because of their population numbers (approximately 16,000), are only hunted through Limited Entry Hunting for residents or quota system for non-residents. The current licensed harvest rate is approximately 2% of the population. Natural population recruitment is typically 6% – 8%.
There is a scientific, peer reviewed, Grizzly Bear Harvest Management Policy that guides all grizzly bear hunting opportunity. This strategy was developed by independent scientists not working for the Ministry. It has many special safeguards including vast no hunting areas to ensure that grizzly bears will not be over hunted as conservation is always the first priority.
It has been expressed by the “Coastal First Nations” consortium that they have an interest in pursuing commercialized bear viewing. Members of BC Wildlife Federation have concerns about this unregulated activity. We believe that all wild animals should remain wild and not become habituated or dependant on humans to live. Habituation means that an animal loses its instinct to avoid humans and no longer acts in a natural way or looses its ability to forage naturally. We have always commented that commercial bear viewing can occur but should not cause the habituation of any animals. The habituation of bears leads to their inevitable demise. For example, a habituated bear who wanders into a schoolyard because it has become accustomed to human interaction, or looks for easy food, becomes a public safety issue and will be destroyed and disposed of at the expense of the taxpayers of this province.
BCWF looks for positive solutions where there is a tolerance for each other’s views and opportunities. All hunters need to respect each other’s needs and continue to promote sustainable hunting. Commercial bear viewing needs to be properly regulated to avoid habituation and conflict with others. Those who choose not to hunt need to respect the cultural and traditional importance to those who do.
Yours in conservation,
Mel Arnold, President
BC Wildlife Federation
Unit 101 – 3060 Norland Avenue
Burnaby, BC V5B 3A6
Telephone: 604-291-9990 Fax: 604-291-9933
Toll Free: 1-888-881 BCWF (2293)
officeinfo@bcwf.bc.ca www.bcwf.bc.ca
January 22, 2010
Coastal First Nations
The Turning Point Initiative
United Kingdom Building
1051 – 409 Granville Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 1T2
Attention: Mr. Art Sterritt, Executive Director
Dear Mr. Sterritt,
Re: Coastal First Nations Land Use & Wildlife Management Proposals
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and Gary Wouters over the past few weeks to discuss management proposals for the North and Central Coast / Great Bear Rainforest. As agreed at our meeting on January 15th, we are responding in a timely fashion to the proposal from Coastal First Nations regarding land use management and bear hunting on the North and Central Coasts / Great Bear Rainforest as presented by you and Gary Wouters.
BC Wildlife Federation’s Board of Directors has carefully considered the proposal. Unfortunately, without sufficient information on what areas would be affected by varying levels of protection or how access and opportunity may be affected, we cannot render an informed decision at this time. We will require further mapping and harvest data in order to form a position that would be in the best interests of our membership and the residents of BC. BC Wildlife Federation has requested further information from the provincial government on this matter but has not received it as of this time.
We very much appreciate the opportunity these discussions have brought us. We have a better understanding of the dynamics surrounding this issue, Coastal First Nations cultural values, government responsibilities, and the interests and culture of non-first nation residents. It is our sincere desire to work towards resolution of this challenging issue through mutual appreciation of each other’s values.
Again we thank you for the opportunity to meet and we encourage further discussions with you regarding land use planning and shared values.
Yours in conservation,
Mel Arnold, President
BC Wildlife Federation
cc: BCWF Board of Directors
BCWF Committee Chairs
VANCOUVER: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) today released a position paper which challenges the validity of the federal government’s policy of recognizing “inherent” aboriginal self-government.
The position paper, Is “Inherent Aboriginal Self-Government” constitutional?, is posted Here:
http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/files/24/Is%20Inherent%20Aboriginal%20Self-Government%20Constitutional%20-%20%2012-01-10.pdf
The legal position paper argues that a constitutionally valid form of aboriginal self-government may be created through federal legislation that delegates government powers and authority to an aboriginal community. This has been done successfully with the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, the Yukon First Nation Self-Government Act, and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The delegation of federal and provincial powers enables aboriginals to use municipal-style government to run their own affairs, exercise their aboriginal rights, and use aboriginal title lands.
“We are for aboriginal self-government, which can be achieved within Canada’s Constitution,” stated Jeffrey Rustand, author of the paper and in-house counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
“Aboriginal communities should govern their own affairs, and do so with a degree of autonomy comparable to municipal governments. That’s a lot more than what most Indian bands have right now under the Indian Act,” continued Rustand.
The CCF’s legal position paper explains that for more than a century, the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly and consistently declared that the Constitution distributes all legislative power between the federal and provincial governments. The only “inherent” government power in Canada is that which flows from Canadian sovereignty, referred to in law as Crown sovereignty. The federal and provincial orders of government are the only sovereign governments under the Constitution.
Since 1995, the federal government’s policy of recognizing “inherent” aboriginal self-government has resulted in the Nisga’a Final Agreement, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, all of which purport to create a “third order” of government that is outside of the Constitution, and not accountable to Canada’s federal or provincial orders of government.
This recognition of a “third order” of constitutionalized aboriginal government creates an uncertain legal environment for business, and for all citizens. Even if clear rules could be enacted for reconciling conflicting laws and authorities, the unwieldy complexity spells the end of functional government in Canada. The creation and imposition of new taxes and royalties on top of existing federal, provincial and municipal taxes will undoubtedly deter investment. Moreover, the federal and provincial capacity to enforce the law is necessarily reduced.
A “third order” of government hinders the federal and provincial governments’ ability to amend legislation for the purpose of accommodating changing circumstances and solving new problems which may arise. The legislation creating the “third order” of government found in the Nisga’a and Tsawwassen Agreements cannot be amended by Ottawa or Victoria like other legislation.
Most significantly, the recognition of “inherent” aboriginal government over Canadian territory constitutes withdrawal of Canadian government authority and law from that territory, an act known in constitutional law – and strictly prohibited by it – as abdication. The longer this federal policy remains in place, the more frequently Canadians will experience the violence and lawlessness which took place at Oka and Caledonia, and is currently taking place on Mohawk reserves along the border.
________________________________________
Canadian Constitution Foundation
1830 – 52 Street SE, Suite 240
Calgary, AB, T2B 1N1
Phone 403-313-1318
Fax 403-313-1380
Home Page: http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/index.php
By: Jeffrey Rustand
Canadian Constitution Foundation
http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/
Here is an extract from a letter by John J.L. Hunter, counsel for British Columbia, to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated March 4, 2009:
“The province of British Columbia has been involved in a dialogue with first nations’ leadership for some time regarding the resolution of longstanding barriers to the reconciliation process . . .
Our client feels that it cannot continue with its productive discussions with first nations while it is at the same time taking a strictly legal position regarding the test for aboriginal title in this case.
As such, we are instructed that the province has determined it can take no position in upcoming closing arguments in the Ahousaht litigation.”
In other words, the government abandoned the case and declined to defend the claim for aboriginal title by the Ahousaht Indian Band and other plaintiffs to the seabed off Vancouver Island and to the marine resources in, on and above that seabed. In the result, the court did not address the claim for aboriginal title but only because it found that the plaintiffs had the aboriginal right to fish and sell fish (commercial fishing rights), and there was therefore no need to consider the aboriginal title claim.
This was risky conduct by Premier Gordon Campbell and his attorney-general. Typically, when a defendant fails to defend a claim in litigation the plaintiff gets what it claims. The plaintiffs claimed the seabed to a distance of 100 nautical miles from the shoreline of Vancouver Island along about two-thirds of its length. Such a judgment, on its own and as a precedent, could have thrown the commercial and recreational fisheries into turmoil all along the B.C. coast. Yet Campbell and the attorney-general, Michael de Jong, walked away from the trial without arguing a defense. It was left to Canada as the sole defendant still standing to carry the defense. The judgment came down on Nov. 3, 2009. Canada, but not British Columbia, has appealed.
Earlier in the year the premier sought to deem virtually all land in British Columbia to be aboriginal title land, meaning that “indigenous nations” would have been treated by the government as if they had proprietary title, meaning right of possession and ownership of resources, to almost all land in British Columbia. This initiative was the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act. This was so extreme that even the quiescent business community roused itself to protest. So extravagant and weird was the proposal that in the end even most aboriginal groups objected, thinking it was a trick. Fortunately, the initiative was stillborn because of these objections.
Has the premier found a new way to give away British Columbia? Aboriginal groups claim approximately 110 per cent of the province. Campbell may have hit upon a strategy to give the province away by simply letting the courts give it away piecemeal, on a case-by-case basis.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the test for aboriginal title is continuous and exclusive control over the claimed land by the aboriginal claimant, from when the Crown acquired sovereignty in British Columbia in 1846 through to the present. This is a rigorous test, and for good reason, since aboriginal title gives exclusive ownership over the land, including surface and subsurface resources. Applied in British Columbia, with appropriate defense evidence, the test would recognize aboriginal title to only a small percentage of the provincial land base. A very generous estimate would be about five per cent.
Yet the premier seems intent on giving far more than that away, up to the entire province, without legal basis. The premier and his attorney-general owe it to the people of this province to explain this new strategy of non-defense, and how refusing to defend the legal rights and economic interests of British Columbians is a rational and responsible course of conduct.
Jeffrey Rustand is in-house counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation
Vancouver Sun, December 23, 2009
|
|
