“Indigenous Title” vs. “Aboriginal Title” – Louison v. Ochapowace Indian Band #71

In Louison v. Ochapowace Indian Band #71 , William Louison tried to sue the Ochapowace Indian Band #71, its corporation (312050 Saskatchewan Ltd.) and the province of Saskatchewan – not only in his personal capacity but also “in a representative capacity on behalf of all Indigenous Peoples of Saskatchewan.”

Mr. Louison was living on a certain tract of land which the Ochapowace Band held the only legally recognizable right to and which it was attempting to remove him from.  Louison claimed that he was a “North American Indigenous Person” and that the subject lands were settled by his ancestors. He also claimed that the land in question was traditional “Indigenous Peoples lands” and that he had the right to use the land by way of Indigenous Title.   Therefore, he refused to give up possession of the land.

Continue reading

Stagg Put Out To Pasture

In R. v. Stagg, an Aboriginal man in Manitoba was convicted of fishing contrary to section 78 of The Fisheries Act, R.S., c. F-14, s.1.  He didn’t deny it, but based his right to do so on his tribe being a signatory to Treaty #5.  The Manitoba Provincial Court didn’t buy Mr. Stagg’s argument and convicted him because he could not prove that commercial fishing was an aboriginal right. 

Pulling out the old, classic Van der Peet one-two punch (To constitute an Aboriginal right, an activity must be “an element of a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal group claiming the right”) the court held that Stagg did not have an aboriginal right to commercially fish because he could not prove that his tribe engaged in commercial fishing prior to contact with Europeans. 

Since the commission of the offences is not in question, the first step in this judgment is to determine whether Mr. Stagg has proven a prima facie infringement of an Aboriginal or Treaty right to sell fish commercially. The jurisprudence as established by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) states that once such onus is met, the onus will then shift to the Crown to show that the prima facie infringement is justified by a valid legislative objective that is consistent with the special trust relationship that exists between the Crown and aboriginal peoples. (R. v. Sparrow, (1999) 1 S.C.R. 1075 at 112).

In R. v. Van der Peet (1996) 2 S.C.R. 507 at paragraphs 44-46, the Supreme Court of Canada defined the scope of Aboriginal rights. To constitute an Aboriginal right, an activity must be “an element of a practice, custom or tradition integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal group claiming the right”. In addition, because Aboriginal rights aim to protect the distinctive aspects of Aboriginal cultures, they must be shown to have originated in the practices, customs or traditions of an Aboriginal group in existence prior to European contact.

Because Mr. Stagg was engaged in commercial-scale fishing activity, evidence of traditional practices that amounted to commercial scale fishing have to be proved. Yet Mr. Stagg led no evidence of any sort with respect to this subject matter. There is thus no basis for concluding that commercial-scale fishing qualified as an integral part of the culture of Dauphin River First Nation prior to contact with Europeans.

UNM Natural Resources Journal Symposium Issue

The long list of articles from the symposium, titled “‘As If Equity Mattered’ in Natural Resources,” is here.

A few articles in particular would appear to be of particular interest:

The Virtual Reservation: Land Distribution, Natural Resource Access, and Equity on the Yurok Forest 341
Lynn Huntsinger & Lucy Diekmann

Tribal Justice and Property Rights: The Evolution of Winters v. United States 471
A. Dan Tarlock

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Treaty-Based Challenge to Major Crimes Act Prosecution

Here are the materials so far in United States v. Jacobs:

Jacobs Opening Brief

US Brief in Jacobs

Jacobs Reply Brief

Cherokee District Court Holds 2007 Tribal Constitutional Amendment Disenrolling Freedmen VOID

Here is the order:

Nash v Cherokee Nation Registrar

The Cherokee Nation’s entry into the hereinbefore mentioned Treaty of 1866 was an agreement which, to this date, has not been modified or abrogated by any action heretofore taken either through Constitutional change or Amendment thereto and the Nation is still bound by such provisions. The Cherokee Constitutional Amendment of March 3, 2007, by virtue of the provisions of the Treaty of 1866 and subsequent actions taken in furtherance thereof, are hereby determined to be void as a matter of law.

OP/Ed on Asian Carp Debacle

An excerpt from the Traverse City Record Eagle:

It has become abundantly clear that until some kid with a fishing pole can stand on a breakwater in Frankfort and haul in a 100-pound Asian carp (or maybe get hauled in himself) the federal government will continue to deny the big fish have gotten into Lake Michigan.

That may be a bit of an exaggeration — they might cede the claim if some guy in a rowboat off Chicago hauls one in first — but the point is the same: Money trumps everything, including common sense, appeals to protect the environment, expert opinion and, of course, science.

 

Federal Court Recognizes State Authority to Regulate Off-Rez Treaty Rights for “Public Safety” Concerns

Here are some of the materials in Colville Confederated Tribes v. Anderson (E.D. Wash.) (not all of the state briefs were available):

DCT Order on Summary Judgment – Colville v Anderson

Colville Motion

State Motion

Colville Opposition

Tribal Amicus Brief

Seneca Materials on FERC Notice for Kinzua Hydro License

Seneca Nation of Indians Kinzua Press Release

Background Materials

Timeline

Update: President Porter Speech on Hydroelectric License [thanks to A.E.]

An excerpt from the press release:

The Seneca Nation ofIndians applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to operate the Seneca Pumped Storage Project at the Kinzua Dam site, President Robert Odawi Porter announced today.

The pumped storage hydropower project generates 450 megawatts of electricity, which corporate interests have sold and profited from for 40 years without compensating the Nation.The hydropower project relies on and every day uses Seneca Nation land and water.

“Filing for the license to operate the Seneca Pumped Storage Project is an especially profound opportunity and a significant moment in time for the Seneca Nation, given the historic injustice that was imposed on our people with the building of the Kinzua Dam,” said PresidentPorter. “The flooding of our lands more than 45 years ago resulted in large-scale, forcible removal of families, destruction of homes and loss of significant lands to which we were spiritually tied. For these reasons, we are entitled to obtain the license because of the historic injustice committed against us,” he said.

Federal and Tribal Responses to AG Cox Objections to Saginaw Chippewa Settlement

Here:

USA Response to Cox Objections

SCIT Response to Cox Objections

According to this news article (via Pechanga), Judge Ludington could issue an order today.

Washington State Trial Court Rules Against Swinomish Tribe on Instream Flow Issues

Here’s the letter opinion: <a href="Thurston County Court decison“> The Swinomish Tribe and the City of Anacortes were fighting to keep water in the stream for salmon. The Department of Ecology had repeatedly amended the instream flow rule to the detriment of salmon in order to allow for more development, and the Tribe and City had challenged the latest amendment.