I finally got a chance to look at the Maa-Nulth Treaty lands. The news is about as bad as you can imagine for kayakers.

For anyone who has ever camped at Spring Island in the Mission Group, here's a bit of info you might not like to hear: all of the Mission Group Islands have been lost as public recreation land. Yep, the new owners are the Maa-Nulth First Nations, along with hundreds of kms of other Vancouver Island shoreline that kayakers have previously taken for granted.

Here are some other casualties:

In the Deer Group:

* Seppings Island, Taylor Islet and other Crown islets beteen Edward King and Diana Islands.

* Ohiat Islet and other nearby islets northwest of Diana Island.

* Wizard Islet.

* Nanat Island in Trevor Channel.

* All non-marina land around Poett Nook.

* All of Roquefeuil Bay plus Ellis Islet and Dixon Island.

* All Crown land surrounding Grappler Inlet near Bamfield.

* Congreve Island north of Numukamis Bay.

In Barkley Sound/The Broken Group region:

* Most of the shoreline surrounding Toquart Bay on the north and west sides. This excludes a postage-stamped size area I'm assuming is the private property north of the recreation site and boat launch. It appears that the boat launch and campground has been handed over (though I could be wrong; stay tuned). This is the main access to the Broken Group.

* The islands in north Toquart Bay.

* Hermit Islet and Shears Islands north of Mayne Bay.

* Refuge Island and the mouth of Lucky Creek (a pretty waterfall and trail).

* Bazett Island, Armentieres Rock, adjacent islands and adjacent coast.

* Larkin Island and St. Ines Ilsand west and south of the Stopper Islands , as well as all adjacent islets.

* Waterfront facing Maoah Passage plus Spilling Islet, Rowlands Islet, Ottaway Islet, David Island , Forbes Island and nearby islets, Bryant Island , Curwen Island , Page Island and Pinder Rock. This is essentially all Crown islands northwest of the federal park.

* Almost all the shoreline in Uchucklesit Inlet extending to Useless Inlet and including Snug Basin, plus substantial portions of the shoreline in adjacent Henderson Lake plus most of the length of lower Clemens Creek.

* Portions of upper Effingham Inlet.

* The headland at Outs Indian Reserve (pre-existing north of Alma Russell Islands including John Islet and surrounding islets excluding Harold Islet (that remains as far as I know Crown land).

In Checklakis Bay (Brooks Peninsula) region:

* The estuary and shoreline surrounding Amos Creek on outer Brooks Peninsula.

* The shoreline surrounding Battle Bay and remainder of Acous Peninsula not already reserve (potential campsites).

* The islands and shoreline at the east entrance to Ououkinsh Inlet.

* A parcel on the shore of Big Bunsby Island and the recreational island used for kayak camping south of Big Bunsby.

* Extensive shoreline on either side of Malksope Point east of the Bunsbys.

* The land surrounding the tidal rapids at Johnson Lagoon in Ououkinsh Inlet.

* The lands at the head of Ououkinsh Inlet.

* The lands at the head of Malksope Inlet.

In Kyuquot Sound:

* The lands at the head of Kushutl Inlet.

* The lands on the west shore of Easy Inlet, including the north shore of Jansen Inlet (I've camped there; apparently no more!)

* The shoreline surrounding Kauwinch River 's mouth, including the Island.

* The lands at the head of Tahsish Inlet (I thought this was part of Tahish-Kwois Provincial Park, and official government maps back this up. What gives? Nice beaches here.)

* The mouth of Artlish River. This is a key boat launch location for Kyuquot Sound; I'm not sure of the status of the launch and whether it is exempt. It will at least require passing through these lands to reach the launch.

* The shore south of Markdale Point and Fair Harbour adjacent to the existing Markale Reserve.

* The Fair Harbour shoreline; I'm assuming from the map this must commandeer the launch, wharf, store and campground. If true, this potentially hands over control of the only two established boat launches in Kyuquot Sound.

* The head of Amai Inlet at Amai Creek.

* The south shore of Cachalot Inlet (not sure if this includes the only whaling station ruins, which should be considered a historic site. I suspect it does because I recall the ruins being immediately east of Cachalot Creek, which is now First Nations land).

* The head of Cachalot Inlet.

In the Mission Group area:

* Most of the shoreline around Clanninick Cove.

* The land surrounding McKay Cove.

(Warning! Reading the following information may cause sensitive kayakers to cry!)

* The entire north portion of Spring Island , all surrounding previous Crown Islands (probably about 100) including islands that formed the south extension (semi-connected) to Spring Island (one of my favourite camping areas).

* Lookout Island and surrounding islets (nice beach on Lookout).
This includes all the scenic, sandy camping islets off Spring Island.
This essentially hands over the Mission Group to private interests.

* Amos Island and all surrounding islets.

* The land on the west side of Union Island in the cove previously home to Slam Bang Lodge.

* The Thornton Islands and all the surrounding islets (this is a seabird nesting colony and a natural for a future ecological reserve, not private ownership).

This inventory does not include inland portions.

I don't want to pass judgment on the process or the need to resolve the treaty issue. However, I have been railing for years now at how kayakers have voluntarily left themselves out of the coastal land use planning process (yachters did not make the same mistake). I urge you to read my rant at http://www.thewildcoast.ca/MarineTrail.htm It goes back a couple of years now, but as you can see things are getting worse, not better.

The biggest issue is the Maa-Nulth settlement is a small one. Can you imagine when the Nuu-chah-nulth settle?

There are currently NO “notice of interest” land act notations on any existing kayaking campsite beach anywhere in BC. This is the step necessary to protect lands for recreational use. The marine trail drive has GOT to get in gear IMMEDIATELY or else it may never be possible. Kayakers have been asleep at the wheel since Blackberry Point on Valdes Island was created. The coast is disappearing.

Please, wake up, folks. Let's get political and create the marine trail. Now!

- John Kimantas

Sorry, the link didn't work on the post, but it does work if you cut and paste it into the web browser's address bar. I'll also try again:

http://www.thewildcoast.ca/MarineTrail.htm

Thank you for this information John...now what do we do with it?!

I actually disagree with developing too many campsites, preferring to keep things pristine...but we have open grasslands and beaches with no tides here in the Okanagan! I can see the problem with needing increased access there on the coast - for safety reasons if nothing else! I had no idea that the government was handing over so much coastal land to native agreements, essentially making them private property! And you're right - this is just one agreement! I have a major problem with the government handing over land without consulting us anyway....it is not their land to be giving away! And us Canadians are going to strangle ourselves trying to appease every person that has been wronged in history!!

Best I don't go any further here though.

Essentially, it comes down to you being right that we need to establish a kayaking corridor before it's too late! I, probably like most people on here though, don't know where to start....

Kathy

Is there any chance that the tribe would allow someone to access theses areas if they asked permission? I know many tribes here in the US will allow light recreational use of some areas if permission is sought.

Why should I have to ask permission to stop (or camp, or dance, or enjoy lunch) on land that should belong to to me (and every other tax payer in this country)?

This really frosts my pumpkin -- as Kasey points out, our government should not be making deals where they're giving away land that belongs to the citizens of this country. I don't recall any government representative asking me if I thought it was OK to make deals like this.

Actually, come to think of it, representatives of Parks Canada did ask what I thought of the management of the Gulf Islands -- but they really don't seem to care what I think if it's different than what they've already made up their collective mind to do. They don't care what you think either.

I'm disappointed - put me down on the list to help make a difference.

John, thanks for posting this -- something needs to be done.

*****

i agree. We need to make some statements on this and other relevant upcoming decisions that will adversely affect our access to the waters in our area.

I have no doubt many First Nations will be cooperative and will allow recreational use. There are many examples of this - Diana Island in Barkley Sound, Tent Island in the Gulf Islands, Harwood Island on the Sunshine Coast. In most cases they want you to pay, and that's fine. But I also know of a group of female paddlers, for instance, escorted off reserve land next to Whitesand Cove in the middle of dinner. I'm sure most of these properties will also be vacant, making trespassing easy, for those who just want to ignore the problem. But here's the key: we can't rely on the charity of others to create a kayaking network. Consider that the capacity for resorts is almost full in Tofino and Ucluelet. You can't build on Crown forestry land, which is 99% of the rest of the coast. But there are no building restrictions on First Nations land. There can be condos, resorts, you name it. Expect places like Toquart Bay to be under incredible pressure now to be built up, just due to the shortage of developable land elsewhere on the coast (it has a good road, so it will be among the first to go). I think it will be hard for the First Nations to turn away developers holding out bags of cash. So there's nothing stopping most of Barkley Sound's waterfront from being built up. It won't happen quickly, but what about 20 years from now? 50?

When I had heard of this land deal going through I expected a large parcel or two, some on the waterfront of course, but most forestry land - chunks much like a provincial park. I did not realize they could pick key waterfront parcels in small lots and tiny islands.

Recent events aren't helping. TimberWest was allowed to pull 78,000 hectares of land from its coastal TFL (tree forest licence), allowing the company to flip it for development. They've already sold the first 1,800 hectares along Juan de Fuca Strait, including the Jordan River forest recreation site and boat launch. If this disappears, then another key stop in a coastal trail is gone.

BTW, I found this on the Indian and Northern Affairs website:

"Treaties will provide for reasonable public access for hunting, fishing, hiking, canoeing and other recreational activities on treaty settlement lands. First Nations will be able to designate land use on treaty settlement lands, much as other local governments designate land use in their areas of jurisdiction."

It will be interesting to find out how "reasonable" access is in 50 years or so when other uses are found for these properties.

if this would have happend in france, the people there would have burned down paris by now!
I'm wondering how long it will take us here to go out and go against the government?

Petitions are a good start, but do you really think anyone cares about a piece of paper with a couple of hundered names on it?

Im involved with a grass roots movement regarding this situation.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19242966720


There is a meeting tonight in Victoria if anybody is interested.

Jordan River Steering Committee

Thursday, November 1, 2007
7:30pm - 9:30pm
SJ Willis School Auditorium
923 Topaz
Victoria, BC

"The newly formed Jordan River Steering Committee, made up of representatives from the Otter Point and Shirley Residents and Ratepayers Association, surfers, unions, environmental groups and First Nations, has organized a public meeting at S.J. Willis school auditorium, Thursday, Nov. 1, at 7.30 p.m.

The group is non-partisan, and anyone with an interest in the land sale or the issue of whether private land should be removed from tree-farm licences without the company paying compensation is welcome to attend,"

Malahat-Juan de Fuca New Democrat MLA John Horgan.

I'll do my best to be there, but already have plans for the evening so I may not make it.

I was half asleep when I posted the facebook link...
Im sure not all of you have an account there (and may not want one)
So I'll post some of the info here (I hope thats ok, if not just delete this post)


6 lots at Jordan River have been sold to developer Ender Ilkay International, Inc. for $65 million. Their info:
P.O. Box 93055
5331 Headland Drive
West Vancouver, BC V7W 1V8
Toll Free : 877-879-8137
Phone: 604-515-5600
Fax: 604-921-4682
support@enderilkay.com

If you're concerned about this issue it's time to take action!

Write to the Minister of Forests, Rich Coleman, as he signed the document allowing WFP to take the land out of the Tree Farm Licence without compensating the taxpayer or creating any protected areas. Gordon Campbell is also responsible for this gross error. The land put up for sale by WFP should be put back into the TFL (Tree Farm Licence)!!

See this link from the BC Surf Forum for the details:
http://bcsurfing.dyndns.org/viewtopic.p ... c&start=90


Write letters to the Times Colonist, Sooke News Mirror, the Westerly, SBC Magazine and show up at the next Committee meeting in Victoria in November. The CRD meetings are very important, because that's where the decisions are made.

There will be an important subcommittee meeting in Sooke pretty soon for the JDFEA Land Use (like next week). Citizens of JDFEA should make an application to speak at the meeting two days in advance and stand up to voice their concerns! Erik Lund is your local representative, the sole person making decisions for the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area!! He passes on his decisions to the CRD Committees, the CRD Board and afterwards the CRD staff. Unfortunately, Erik doesn't attend the Shirley meetings so we need to write to him to express our anger and concern.

The CRD Parks Committee members are:
Christopher Causton, Mayor of Oak Bay (Chair) email: mayor@oakbaybc.org
John Ranns (Vice Chair) - Metchosin Mayor
Mark Cardinal (or his alternate Michele Mahovlich) - Highlands Mayor (or Councillor)
Susan DeGryp - Director for Southern Gulf Islands Electoral Area
Vic Derman - Saanich Councillor
Erik Lund - Director for Juan de Fuca Electoral Area
Jack Mar - Central Saanich Mayor
Geoff Young - Victoria Councillor
Denise Blackwell - CRD Board Chair (Langford Councillor) http://www.crd.bc.ca/about/board/directors/index.htm


New Democrat - Official Opposition
http://www.bcndpcaucus.ca/en/jordan_river_petition
Thousands of hectares of land has been removed from a Tree Farm License on Vancouver Island for private development. The misguided decision will affect forestry jobs, reduce recreation opportunities and lead to runaway development on the rugged west coast.
Please sign the NDP Official Opposition Petition and send a message to Gordon Campbell and BC Liberal Government!

A few of the many TC articles.


http://www.dogwoodinitiative.org/newsst ... high-hopes

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolo ... 06&k=73641

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolo ... =36100&p=1

I'm going over the maps in a bit more detail, and the detail map of Spring Island shows the north cove and home for years now of West Coast Expeditions is definitely gone, though I expect WCE can probably arrange a tenancy much like Hanson Island in the Broughton Archipelago. The south campsite seems to have been retained, in part (if you land from the east, not the west). It seems split on the hill, so half the campsite would be in reserve land, half would be out. Not sure why they retained the parcel they did, but wasn't it an old radar station, ruins still there? It's probably still military land. My guess, anyway.

This photo is on Spring Island at the south campsite looking northwest, probably right on the border of what is now reserve land. I suspect the deal means this beach isn't Maa-Nulth land. but everything behind would be, as would be the rock offshore and the rock bluff to the left. The offshore rock (the one almost connected to the beach but not quite) is the one on the map (in the post above) just above the left corner of the inset box.

Thanks Darren! Upon contemplating this issue more, it is definitely quite complicated...we all want to be able to do what we want with the coastal lands - paddle, log, build condominiums. The fellow in the audience in that video of Darren's mostly made me realize that nobody's issue is more important than another's. We aren't going to stop development, or logging, or native land claims....and maybe even if I think we should, we don't have the right to. We just have to make sure that those developers, loggers, and politicians for native land claims and such don't go ahead without leaving access for paddlers as well. We tend to be a quiet peaceful bunch and if we don't let our issues be known (generally accesses and camping within reasonable paddling distances) then the other factions aren't even going to know that that is an issue for us!

I understand that (at least around this area) when developers develop large areas for condos and such that they now must designate a certain amount of land for public greenspace in order to get the permit to develop. On coastal land, we as kayakers, need to make sure that we are taken into account to maintain as much access as we can too - and this could be written into development permits, native land claims - essentially any land use plans. But we need to make our issues known and we have to do it now so it can be incorporated into new decisions!

In regards to trespassing on native land - a few of us wanted to hike a wilderness ridge near Keremeos on native land. I went into the band office in Keremeos and they said there would probably be no problem but that the procedure was to put your request into writing, designating where you wanted to go, what you want to do there, and the day (or a span such as "either April 14, 15, or 16th). They said your request would go to the next monthly band meeting for discussion. If you didn't have permission in your hand you risked getting escorted off by any member that found you trespassing and/or being charged with trespassing.

I don't know if this is/will be the case at the coast or not.
Kathy

I don't believe there is any requirement to provide green space in rural unincorporated Vancouver Island. The strategy being used in this area (east Vancouver Island) often by the developers is this: we'll provide you some parkland in exchange for higher density development. It hamstrings these unsophisticated local councils who figure it's better to retain some land as parkland than see the whole thing developed. Meanwhile, the best land for building is turned into urban subdivisions where no urban subdivision belongs while the cliffy, boggy or inaccessible parts are designated park. Wahoo! (Case in point: Lantzville Foothills.)

I suspect the developer Ilkay is savvy enough to know he has a huge bargaining chip in the Jordan River recreation site. People will fall over themselves to gain that, knowing we'll probably lose everything else anyway. But what are we going to give up in exchange? The sad part is this could have been easily taken care of in the deal to let TimberWest take the land out of the TFL. The province could have easily said fine, but we get Jordan River as a provincial park. Problem solved!

I'm attaching the map of the new-look Barkley Sound north waterfront. The arrow marks the Toquart Bay Recreation Site location. Anyone familiar with this area will already know what a travesty Salmon Beach is (high-density waterfront cabins, shacks and trailers with no building codes). Can't wait till the rest looks the same!

Just a furriner, here, and hesitant to chime in, although as a regular user of many of the paddling areas JK has detailed, I am very concerned. It affects my participation in the economy of British Columbia ... which may be a significant lever for efforts to restrict inappropriate development of areas like Barkley Sound.

How does something like Salmon Beach exist, anyway? That is private land, yes? Do building codes not apply there? Or, are they simply not enforced?

Nobody needs to get bored with the tale of how native claims have been handled down here. My ironic scan is that the rise of casinos on native lands in the US is just a form or reparation for the mistreatment of native peoples in the 19th century. More seriously, the question of how to deal with in-the-distant-past inequities and/or disabuse of treaties is a thorny legal problem; the rights of some today will be trampled, as the rights of others were trampled 150 years ago. How it gets sorted out is for sure a political process.

If there is a way non-Canadians can help guide the decisions made to protect rights of paddlers, please let me know. I am sure there is substantial support available, in whatever way is appropriate within the Candian political system.

At the risk of sounding like Urban Planning 101, most of the private land on Vancouver Island's west coast likely goes back to the late 1800s when settlement was encouraged. So a few choice parcels were snapped up (but not many; why would they?), which is why you see sprawling resorts at a few odd locations, as well as occasional cabins or pocket developments. Many of these private properties sit dormant, and will likely be developed in the future. Salmon Beach also goes way back. Somehow it was zoned for recreational marine camping, allowing small cabins and trailers, but was rezoned in 2003 to allow larger structures (cabins up to 768 sq. ft.). So how does a developer convince a local council to rezone something that favors only his own bottom line? Good question! I'm open to suggestions on that one. As far as building codes, rural standards are quite lax, to say the least. If it's held in place, you can live in it. Anyway, if you're passing by, have a look. It is about the trashiest development on Vancouver Island.

We shall not stand for the likes of such attrocities as those comitted against our fair maidens at Whitesand cove.

I shall call upon our local indian agent, and henceforth go about in my kayak armed with pistols and cutlass to thwart any more subsequent attacks on our womenfolk by these squallid savages.

Regrettfully, had not the likes of father Brabant distributed more disease laden blankets, such unplaesant nessecities as these might have been avoided.

your humble servant,

Fester

Fort Victoria

I was out last night with some friends and explained over a beer what I felt was the problem with the treaty lands. Friend countered the First Nations are due their treaty, the land was theirs, tough luck for us, good for them, but it's deserved so deal with it. The word "redneck" was used to describe my reaction.

I'd hate to think you can't criticize the government giving away our land to private interests with no consultation without being considered racist. I personally thought we went through a rigorous coastal land use planning process for the last few years that designated appropriate use for various areas, including measures conservation. Particularly sensitive in these plans were the estuaries. You can see from the list above most of the major estuaries not protected are now passed on. Why would we throw away years of comprehensive study and consultation aimed at bringing reasoned and balanced development to the coast?

Beer friend said these lands are to help the First Nations gain an economic base. Fine, I suppose, if the treaties are viewed as a social cause as well as a historic right. What economic value, though, could there be in a variety of tiny islets? Why Thornton Islands, the seabird colony rocks, off Kyuquot? There's no reasonable answer except inappropriate exploitation. Or it sits idle as reserve land, which provides no economic basis for giving over this land that should be an ecological reserve.

I was hoping this discussion would give impetus for some groundswell of support for the much-needed marine trail (not quips about squallid savages). Kayakers must have guaranteed access to protected and suitable coastal areas within a reasonable distance (10-20 miles). We don't have this. We've taken the coast for granted and its disappearing.

My proposal is that kayaking groups such as Nanaimo Paddlers and PIKA each form a marine trail committee within their group, and together form an umbrella group to push the agenda. Use the Council of British Columbia Yacht Clubs "boat haven" document as a model for creating "kayak havens". Get the UREP NOI tag on these known locations immediately (see http://www.thewildcoast.ca/MarineTrail.htm if you're wondering about UREP NOIs). Work to get these kayak havens made into pocket parks like Sechelt Inlet. It should actually be quite easy. It'll unfortunately take 10-15 years, which we don't have. I can't emphasis this enough: expect most choice locations to be swallowed up in the treaty process. We had the opportunity when the BC Marine Trail Association formed 15 years. The group has been inactive for a critical 15 years and we're going to pay the price. Kayakers had the chance to take part in the coastal planning process. They didn't, and now we're going to have to try and get official acknowledgement after new plans for this land have already been filtered through a comprehensive consultation process.

In other words we're already too late, so what we do now is remedial damage (for instance, we will have to take the remainders after the First Nations get dibs on prime land in the treaty process). But this should at least provide impetus to act. Anyway, talk to your paddling clubs, make this an agenda item. Get each club to nominate suitable "kayak haven" locations. Have a provincial meeting to formalize the list. Present it as a public policy document to government agencies like CBCYC did. Even U.S. clubs should be involved in building the list of kayak havens and formalizing it.

Oh, and the BC Marine Trail Association should be disolved and the fundraising it has accumulated over the last 15 years should be passed on to the new association (which should be considerable now). Reviving the marine trail ass. may seem more appropriate, but I don't even see the dead horse left to flog. Let's get some new energy behind this. There will be power behind a document supported by BC, Canadian and U.S. paddling clubs.

Anyway, there's the framework. It's simple. Piece of cake really. Or we can do nothing, and see where that gets us. Take your pick, but make it quick.

This thread is not against natives or whether or not they are due their land claims, and it's not against developers or loggers selling to developers. As developer Ilkay said...he was just buying property that was offered up for sale. This thread is against our government giving away coastal lands into private hands that will curtail recreational use of that land....but it's also about kayakers not doing anything about it - I'm sure there probably were meetings open to the public that we could have been at and we weren't - so there's probably no one to blame but ourselves! We were out paddling when we should have been looking to the future! And as John says, if we want to have a say in further land use, we'd better get organized and have our say now! I am on a neighborhood association here that has been instrumental in ensuring that the regional district and developers plan for and build walkways/pathways through and between large developments as permits are handed out and they are all quite happy to do this. There were only 3 active members when I joined and they were still making a difference! There is no reason not to ask that the same be done at the coast - it benefits everyone and hurts no one!
Kathy

Speaking from a distance as I must, I agree with Kathy: dispense with the past and deal with the situation as it is now, and attempt to forestall further losses.

Please let US paddlers know how we can help, as non-Canadian citizens.

Examining the partitioning of Barkley Sound which John posted, seems plain there was an effort to avoid moving federal lands into the native sector, but instead provincial lands were moved. Is this because this was a process between the provincial government and the First Nations interests? Or, am I off base, here?

I too, would like to help out in any way I can.

Okay, in the last few hours there have been 2 postings of offers to help from regular posters. I'm new to this site, but I'm learning quickly there are a few key posters and a whole bunch of lurkers who may be regulars or may be passing through. Anyway, anyone who is thinking of making the same offer, be you lurkers or active posters, please consider the following:

1. If you are not a member of a paddling group, join immediately.

2. Get the group to form a marine trail committee immediately (even in the U.S. the help would be welcome in drawing upon knowledge to compile the kayak haven list).

3. Have the committee elect or otherwise choose a local chairperson to act as a liase for a yet-to-be-formed umbrella group.

4. Have each local committee/kayaking organization put together a "wishlist" of possible kayak havens.

5. Have the various local paddling groups liase and form an umbrella committee with an overall chairperson and executive to lead the process.

6. Have that chairperson and/or committee assemble the list of possible kayak havens from the various chapters and research which ones are or are not feasible. Pass the shortlist to tourism, forestry and Intregrated Land Management Bureau bureaucrats for comment. Let these gov't agencies know what is being done and what the expected end result will be so no organization is blindsided.

7. Finalize the list of proposed kayak havens. Submit it to the government agencies for approval.

8. Seek a policy statement from the provincial government in support of the marine trail concept and more specifically the document.

9. Have Notice of Interest for Use, Recreation and Enjoyment of the Public (UREP NOI) notations placed on land title at the kayak haven locations.

10. Pursue these sites for recognition as formal recreation sites or better yet pocket provincial parks.

11. Pursue tourism funding to convert these kayak havens to useable campsites.

12. Do all this within 2 years (with #11 an ongoing project, of course).

This is not rocket science, but it has to be grassroots. If every kayak group has this on the agenda for the next meeting, the umbrella group could be formed early in the new year, the wishlist could be compiled by spring and the summer could be spent getting gov't feedback. It could be finalized and subitted to the gov't next fall, with land act notations to follow. The diificult part will be getting the gov't to sign off on anything in the face of land claim negotiations, but let's cross that hurdle when we get there.

So there you go. If you're wondering how to help out, there's the roadmap. Good luck.

Lighten up Francis