John

In your communications with the bands has there been any indication of how they are going to communicate their public access management plan? I gather public access will be allowed but where and under what conditions is not apparent at all. Will we have to call 5 different nations and sort through 5 different answers in order to plan trips?

Ken wrote:


This is all so new to the bands they don't even know themselves. I think you're pretty safe with the status quo for the next few years at least. In talking with Anne Morgan at the Toquaht band we agreed that information on the Maa-Nulth website would be ideal. Expect 'cross-cultural communication' to take place at some future point, probably starting at the Maa-Nulth website. At least I do not get the impression that the attitude will be anywhere near confrontational. Quite the opposite.

So I would like to reiterate my feeling that the larger issue is not the Maa-Nulth treaty or future treaties but the lack of protected kayaking sites on the BC coast, as sites can be lost to fish farms, log booms, shellfish licences, resorts, commercial tenures and other development as well as treaties.

ref Diana Island

Chapter 7 F section F2 part 1 of the appendices.
Diana Island is a potential addition by Huu-ay-aht band.
It's under discussion.
See also section 6.4.16 of the final agreement.

i think that all this energy being directed towards frettng over first nations treaties is seriously mis-guided at best. collaboration will be the key, not confrontation or zealousness.

it's one thing to have an open dialogue regqarding the issues at hand, but to a casual visitor to this site the tone of some posts in this thread could certainly be considered a tad disconcerting.

i think that JK hit the nail on the head in his last post, and i think it would behoove some people on here to think before they type, and not think it is their god given right to have access to all land on the coast for free.

this is simmply not realistic thinking in this day and age.

not meaning to flame anyone with this post, but i really needed to get that one off my chest. i've lived through some pretty nasty first nations dust-ups personally from back home, and i would absolutely abhor to witness such a thing happen again if folks get too obstinant or militant about land access issues as relates to the thing i love to do most of all in this world, which is paddling.

perhaps a utopic point of view, but trust me, everyone loses when intolerance and obstinence play key factors in determining outcomes. it will only take 1 cook to spoil the proverbial soup.

I think it has to do with logging, the huu ay aht is logging the last settings of old growth forest near bamfield that is not in the treaty land, next they will start to log the treaty land, including the bamfield commnuity forest . diana island is rich in herritage, both white and indian, if there is to much for them to log, then it may stay out of the treaty.

Is there currently or could there be a centralized website where updates on access for these areas could be posted? Changes might occur faster than regularly published materials can keep up with and a regularly maintained website seems like the most efficient alternative.

Thanks, Lisa J.

We could set something up here.

*****

The ohait may not get diana because of the herritage sites, but it did not stop them from building a cabin on the herritage site.

This must be something they did this fall?

they are building 5, some in dodgers, 1 so far at kirby and 1 on the herritage site at helby.

Any clue what the intent is? Tourism? "Presence?"

Where are the caretakers in all of this (Doreen and husband)?

Presence, basicaly , "stay of my land".
ah, my good friends Lorie and dorine, saw them today, they are staying up grapler. when i told them about the cabins , i told them to go move into one of the cabins and why not, technicaly art gave dorine the reserve at dodgers , .

I would like to add , its a real shame we are going to loes these historical sites, the site at helby will be a real drag to lose, and after it is turned over to the tribe say good by to this important historical site.

This is a link to Bill 45.

Its probably the best source for access information right now. The maps in the appendix are probably the most accurate as to who owns what.

http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th3rd/1st_read/g ... .htm?toc=1

Basically you can think of the land as having three zoning regulations:
-Private access Maa Nulth lands shown at annex H. For some reason it doesn't show Huu ay aht lands. It's probably a good assumption that all former Indian Reserve lands have this status.
-Public access Maa Nulth land as per chapter 5.4.0. So far there is no indication how the access will be managed.
-Public access Maa Nulth land that cannot be changed to Private access Maa Nulth land without consent from BC government as per chapter 5.2.6 . These include the former recreation sites at Toquart Bay, Fair Harbour and Spring Island as shown at annex I.

Maps of Maa Nulth lands are shown at Annex A, B, and C.

Diana Island appears at annex B. We can assume all of Kirby Point is private Maa Nulth Land as are all other former IR properties. Annex W shows the remainder of Diana Island as being under protection and planning negotiation but it does not indicate that the land is Maa Nulth land yet though it is under F-2; lands that might become Maa Nulth land.

There are other lands at annex F that might become Maa Nulth land.

Each Maa Nulth nations has the right to set up commercial tenure outside of their territory. That may affect us as well. 2.13.0

This is my read on it and I make no claim that my interpretation is correct.

On the maps you can see they extended the reserves too the edge of the water line.
kayakers have a bad name for entering burial caves .
making it , if you step of your boat,
you are on occupied land.
It Keeps the secret of the burial caves locked up, a secret.

For anyone interested... here is the 3rd reading of Bill 45 info, not sure how (even if) it differs from earlier versions mentioned before by others. (I suspect not)
As mentioned previously the maps in the appendices are useful & Chapter 5 gives information regarding access.
Just trying to keep this "current".

Here's the link I didn't post... (sorry don't know how to edit my previous post) perhaps admin can combine these Thanks
http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th3rd/3rd_read/gov45/gov45-3.htm

A few people from this site were interviewed last week by a Globe and Mail reporter regarding the Marine Trail. Here's the story:

Headed into choppy waters


*****

Also, at the link below, is the full article that was in the Globe and Mail newspaper, with the full excerpts from the online discussion and the part about Kayaking being a popularity explosion.

Seeking shelter from the storm

Hello paddlers.......I've only become aware of this discussion today after someone e-mailed me a link to the Globe and Mail story. I haven't read through all the posts but I have to say I was pretty shocked by some of the attitudes and assumptions on the first page, but feeling a lot better about where things ended up on the last page.

As a life long paddler and Band Manager of the Kyuquot/Checleseht First Nations (KCFN) for the past 4 or 5 years, I'd like to make a few points here:

1. The treaty is a result of the Provincial and Federal Governments recognizing KCFN's Aboriginal Title, and all three parties agreeing to modify and define that title and the rights that flow from it in the treaty. The treaty is signed, is constitutionally protected, and will be in effect in the near future. This is a reality that paddlers, and many other interest groups, will have to deal with. Modern treaties do serve the public interest with the stability and certainty that they bring, as the alternative is lengthy and costly court cases that put just about all of British Columbia's land into question. If paddlers feel put out by potentially losing access to camping sites, imagine how a KCFN member feels seeing a sport fishing lodge built on a village site.

2. As mentioned in one of the later posts, treaty selected lands can be zoned as "public access" and all I can tell you about this is that a land use plan will have to be completed by the effective date and that it will reflect the interests and needs of Band Members. As for the situation of West Coast Expeditions on Spring Island, they are good neighbours and good friends to the community and have been for many years, and whatever gets worked out between KCFN and WCE will remain between those two parties.

3. Public access at Fair Harbour and Artlish will be maintained, the roads are listed as crown corridors in the treaty and are not part of treaty settlement lands. The boat launch and government wharf in Fair Harbour are not part of the treaty either.

4. Those who contact the Band Office or visit the KCFN's web site (www.kyuquot.ca) quickly find out that visitors are most welcome, provided some basic guidelines are followed, and that KCFN actually has a business plan to build a marine trail from Fair Harbour to Brooks Peninsula. I think a lot of the fear mongering and assumptions in some of the posts could have been avoided by clearer communication.

5. I think the real question that should be asked is how can kayakers make themselves economically, culturally and socially relevant to communities like Kyuquot. This will ensure access - and the answer will depend more on good will and forging positive relationships than politics. My guess is that KCFN values and an eco-tourist's values are pretty similar and it's mostly a matter of how to develop and integrate these values into a sustainable and stable community economy.

Hope this helps......if anyone wants to know more, check out the Kyuquot web site or drop us a line.

Kevin

Hello Kevin, thank-you for this post and welcome to the site! Your contribution is very welcome.



I can't speak for everyone (and I don't claim to), but I think the majority of the reaction was gut-reflex and shock, and that resulted in the fear that one of the premier paddling areas and opportunities for a marine trail of paddling safe-havens were lost. Many of us were unaware of the pending treaty (in my case, sheer ignorance; I'm sure the information was out there), and as a result, a fear of the unknown. Premature concern, perhaps.



You are right; there are two sides to every issue. Whether or not someone agrees with the agreement or not, it is exactly that: an agreement. Time to move on to the next chapter; developing (or strengthening, as it were) the relationship with the owners and caretakers of that land and coastline. I think some of us thought the treaty meant a missed opportunity (for a marine trail), whereas perhaps it is actually quite the opposite. The same would have been thought if the land had been sold to a private developer (probably with a less-desireable end result!).



While obviously the land use zoning will "reflect the interests and needs of Band Members", I would hope that there will be some consideration of paddlers and what we would like to see and/or need. There is an opportunity for the KCFN to provide services and goods to kayakers and expand upon the eco-tourism industry.

I believe the important result is a means for Band Members to provide for their economic well-being now and in the future. Obviously, they have a right to take care of themselves and generations to come. I only hope the plan is economically-viable for many years, not a short-term quick fix (i.e. massive development). However, you don't need me to tell you that; I'm sure the right decision will be made. Maybe there are no plans for massive development, and there is no reason to worry (again, fear of the unknown). As you mentioned, clear communication would clear up many, if not all concerns. Let's keep up the open communication.



Thanks for the info.



That is very good news.



You are absolutely correct: ignorance and fear go hand-in-hand sometimes. I hope that the assumptions and un-flattering comments (not only here, but in some of the public's minds) have not resulted in an uncooperative and unwilling environment (on the account of all parties).

If anything I wrote previously stung you or was ignorant, I apologize.



Again, you are correct. I am now feeling a little more reassured that my previous hope for welcomed access and cooperation is there.



Thanks again for your post. I will definitely check out the website for updates, and I look forward to paddling with you one day!

James (Jurfie)

kevin,

I am a US citizen. As such, I have no political stake or right of participation in this issue. I am simply a user of Canadian lands, as a guest of peoples who live in Canada. I have at times been a guest of First Nations, on lands administered and/or owned by natives. Most of that time has been in Gwaii Haanas, in the Charlottes.

However this shakes out amongst Canadians, it might be worthwhile to consider the impact of changes on the realities and the perception of those realities by visitors. Visitors are guests. Canadians might choose to encourage or to discourage them. If it is important (for economic reasons, perhaps) to encourage visitors to your lands, it might be well to direct some of the good information you seem to have to groups who formerly visited your lands.

The changes in "ownership" of launch sites and camping locations traditionally used by sea kayakers have raised huge uncertainties amongst sea kayakers down here. Many of my paddling buddies are very hesitant to return to areas now administered in ways unknown to them. They are very loath to invest hundreds of miles of gasoline expenses to find they can not paddle or camp where they used to. If it is made clear what the "new" rules are, and where paddlers are welcome (and not welcome), it will ease any short term economic dislocations caused by these changes.

With the fall of the US dollar (long overdue, in my personal view), leaving the US for recreational opportunities has a much diminished attraction. If anybody wants that tourism to remain as it was, it would be good to get the word out ASAP. If anybody wants that sort of tourism to fall sharply, they only have to sit and watch, or, squabble amongst themselves and ignore prospective visitors.

I have always felt welcome in Canada, to a very high degree. I hope that feeling continues.

kevin, i spoke to the guy who built the cabins, he told me he watched a helicopter land on a small island south of hains island, he said later 2 kyacks landed on the same island. this is not reserve yet, but he said he spoke to a rcmp officer and asked if he could shoot at them. the cop just smiled. the guy took it as ok. i take it seriously and now avoid reserve lands. do you think its ok to build the cabins on the herritage sites on kirby and helby befor the land is handed over to the bands?. the history of these sites is not native, but early white settlers, they cultivated and homesteaded the land till the barkly sound massicures happened.

Sorry, Kevin, I guess some of that was my fault. I'd just like to reiterate for the record that the concern expressed was never against the Maa-Nulth or the treaty process. It was just the extent of the change, the potential to affect our access and the lack of information we had (at the time) to be complacent about it. I think it's morphed pretty much into positive energy, though, as kayakers move forward on the marine trail concept. Thanks for the input.

New here & ive been trying to catch up on this.
I'll just start by saying i will do what i can to get other people invovled so we all can start to smooth out this situation Cheers