Poaching Case In Court

IronNoggin

IronNoggin

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Location
Port Alberni, Vancouver Island
The defense lawyer for a Penticton Indian Band Councillor facing poaching charges is considering a constitutional defense revolving around the aboriginal right to hunt.

“Depending on how discussions go with the Crown, we may serve notice of constitutional question regarding the applicability of the statute as part of aboriginal rights to hunt,” she said.

The charges are related to two elk that were allegedly harvested on private land.

https://www.castanet.net/news/Penticton/240712/Poaching-case-in-court


I, for one, do not believe the constitutionally protected aboriginal hunting rights offer anything in the way of guaranteed access to private (deeded title) lands. It would appear this lawyer is prepping to challenge this.

Spooky! :(
Nog
 
IronNoggin said:
I, for one, do not believe the constitutionally protected aboriginal hunting rights offer anything in the way of guaranteed access to private (deeded title) lands. It would appear this lawyer is prepping to challenge this.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in Indian/Aboriginal/First Nation/Native/Indigenous/Whatever Term They Will Eventually Decide Is Racist In A Decade rights at all. But that's our country for you, making some groups more equal than others in the name of some misguided sense of virtue.
 
There is no private land...
It all belongs to the 1st nations...whitey only gets to use it by their good grace.
 
btabin said:
I don't believe in Indian/Aboriginal/First Nation/Native/Indigenous/Whatever Term They Will Eventually Decide Is Racist In A Decade rights at all. But that's our country for you, making some groups more equal than others in the name of some misguided sense of virtue.
Click to expand...

it's a great shield to hide behind
 
There's no offence if the land owner declines to press trespassing charges. Most land owners wouldn't be inclined to press trespassing charges for fear of having their barns and buildings burned down to the ground.
 
hawk-i said:
There is no private land...
It all belongs to the 1st nations...whitey only gets to use it by their good grace.
Click to expand...

Really ? I understand your position but statements like that are misinformed. This only adds to the current hype in regards to treaty land arguments.

With the borders established 200 years or so ago, which left Canada with around 10 million sq kilometres, who can even prove a fraction of that land was actually occupied or even used by anyone ??
Totally irrelevant when one argues who has an inherent right to any land and considering actual populations several hundreds of years ago ?

Just my pragmatic view of this situation.
 
Last edited:
The game warden stops in my butcher shop regularly and checks things out. Last year the bank manager brought in a deer for processing but his treaty doesn't allow him to hunt in this part of saskatchewan. He didn't know that but he warden did and he was charged and the carcass was surrendered to the crown. They can get in trouble
 
if the penticton indian band in question has a signed agreement in place with the BC government that defines thier territory for traditional uses like hunting, trapping, fishing ect...... and the land she harvested on is outside the bands territory..... she should be charged under the full weight of the wildlife act.
I'm Metis and am a supporter of aboriginal right and title but in a case like this , if she was not hunting in the boundaries of her nations territory, I can't see her winning this one. Her case is not the first of it's kind and in BC , things don't work like they do in other provinces as negotiating with BC's Indigenous folks has been dealt with in a completely different manner than the rest of the country, all the way back to before we were even a country. BC was "set aside" , it's right there in the notes from the Crown's emissary upon receiving the survey reports of what is now British Columbia.

My guess is she will lose this case so folks here shouldn't twist a nut over it.
But if she wins...... holy smokes is that going to open up a hornets nest across this province.
 
scott_r said:
Keepers of the land should be able to hunt wherever they wish.
Click to expand...

"back in the day" , indigenous people who strayed outside thier territory risked being captured and killed by other indigenous people who viewed them as trespassers. War was very common in BC native history all up and down the coast and into the interior lands. These folks had deep seeded traditions of respecting each others territory and paying the ultimate price for being caught on a neighboring groups land/territory. Originally treaties included land and harvesting rights within those lands. As part of the main condition of the treaty the bands members would cease foraging outside those lands and also cease raids on settlers in thier areas nor were they to interfere in settlers harvesting outside the treaty lands. Was a key part of the agreements.

If a band has signed a modern treaty that includes certain land boundaries they agree to harvest on , pretty sure the BC government and the federal court are going to refer to the treaty and this band member may be out of luck.
If Elk hunting the private land is/was part of traditional practice and is sanctioned by the band and perceived as part of thier treaty lands..... that's a whole nuther thing.

The problem will be , that if she wins this case and the land was not part of treaty lands, it opens the door for every indigenous person in BC to do exactly the same thing under S.35 and the Powley act...... but all of us BC metis folks already know that they will throw the hammer down on us for any wildlife violations. I've personally seen 2 Metis status hunters who harvested a moose in region 5-2 , lose thier hunting licenses for 5 years and got hit with siezure of a truck, trailer, rifles and atv and big fines to get thier stuff back. The crown did not go softly on them in 2012 , nor would they now. They also shot thier moose on private land in the upper houseman/buffalo creek area.
 
RangerPark said:
There's no offence if the land owner declines to press trespassing charges. Most land owners wouldn't be inclined to press trespassing charges for fear of having their barns and buildings burned down to the ground.
Click to expand...

The only reason this even went to court is that the landowner INSISTED upon charges.
Repeatedly.
The Crown was more than hesitant - Eventually they caved into pressure from the landowner, and neighbors thereof.

There have been a couple cases where intimidation has been employed that I am aware of, wherein the perps were not charged as a consequence.
More and more folks are standing up to that BS, and doing what they believe to be right.
I fully support their stance in this regard.

Cheers,
Nog
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom