DOCSLIB.ORG

History of the Gitga'at

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
History of the Gitga'at Bangarang February 2014 Backgrounder1 History of the Gitga’at (And Other First Nations) Eric Keen Abstract Historically, Europeans have dictated the nature of their relationship with the aboriginal peoples of North America. They first needed the First Nations for their own survival; they then needed the First Nations to fight for them; then to trade with them; then to convert and join their civilization; now they hope the First Nations will forgive them. Today First Nations in both Canada and the United States are still fighting for basic rights. The history of First Peoples on the Pacific Coast occurred largely separate from the rest of the continent, but the same themes pervaded there too. The Gitga’at First Nation, with whom and for whom the Bangarang Project is being conducted, is now faced with overcoming the challenges of the past while facing some major obstacles in the future. Contents First Nations History Pre-Contact Colonial Era British Era Canadian Era Coastal First Nations Pre-Contact After-Contact Gitga’at First Nation History Culture Today Tomorrow The Partnership 1 Bangarang Backgrounders are imperfect but rigorous reviews – written in haste, not peer-reviewed – in an effort to organize and memorize the key information for every aspect of the project. They will be updated regularly as new learnin’ is incorporated. First Nations History Pre-Contact Humans were established on the North American coast more than 10,000 years ago2. As the continent was populated, Canada’s First Nations settled into six geographical groups3: 1. Woodland (boreal forest in northeastern Canada) 2. Iroquoian (southernmost area, fertile land) 3. Plains (grasslands of the Prairies) 4. Plateau (from semi-desert in the south to high montane forest to north) 5. Pacific Coast (access to abundant sea life and the huge red-cedar) 6. Mackenzie and Yukon Rivers (hard environment, dark forests, muskeg). The societies in each area shared some similarities born of the same landscape features and challenges. Colonial Era Norse explorers first arrived on the eastern shores in the 11th century4, but colonies were not established until the British and French explorers arrived in the 15th century. The Colonial Era lasted from then until the France’s forfeit of its colonies in 17635. As settlers attempted to establish in North America, they forged uneasy alliances with First Nations to get assistance in finding food and entering into their traditional fur trade6. French and British colonialists moved inland via the fur trade routes7, building posts and forts as trading hubs as they went8. The French Hudson Bay Company (HBC, or “Company of Adventurers” 9) became increasingly dominant in the fur trade, and increasingly possessive of trapping lands further west10. Fur trade was so profitable that European and First Nations began to clash, sometimes in all-out warfare. French and British fought among themselves too. These conflicts took tolls on lives and economies both in the colonies and back in Europe. The British came to realize that success in the colonies depended on stable relations with First Nations people11. In strategic response, they formed military alliance with the Iroquois who in turn set out to disrupt the (French) HBC12. The Iroquois raided HBC posts and outputs persistently until 1701, when a treaty known as the Great Peace was signed between France, First Nations and their allies. Decades of intermarriage between traders with First Nation women created a new and distinct aboriginal group, the Metis, who merged and adopted European and First Nations customs. These people were centered at the junction of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers. 13 Despite tense but predominately stable relations with the First Nations, the British and the French still vied amongst themselves for control of the colonies. In 1760, Britain’s storming of Montreal (France’s last stronghold in the colonies) caused the French to abandon their colonial efforts. In the Treaty of Paris 1763, France ceded its colonies. This ensconced Great Britain as the administer of North American civilization and its fur trade. 2 Raincoast, year unknown. 3 AANDC 2013a. 4 AANDC 2013a. 5 AANDC 2013b. 6 AANDC 2013a. 7 AANDC 2013a. 8 AANDC 2013a. 9 AANDC 2013a. 10 AANDC 2013a. 11 AANDC 2013b. 12 AANDC 2013b. 13 AANDC 2013a. 2 British Era After French ceded its colonies in 1764, the British thought of themselves as administers of the Canadian colonies until the 1860s14. But relations with the First Nations were still volatile. In the same year as the Treaty of Paris, Britain attempted to diffuse tensions in fur trade lands using the Royal Proclomation of 1763, which established a firm western boundary for the colonies and recognize lands to west of it as Indian Territory15. This proclamation also established an Indian Department in the British Government, a primary point of contact between First Nations and the colonies, and was the first formal public recognition First Nations rights to land and title16. In the years following 1776, Britain had to abandon its colonies in southeast North America. The war of independence forced 30,000 British and Iroquoian (who fought on the side of the British) refugees to flee into Canadian holdings. New land was needed to accommodate this deplaced and growing population. The influx of also meant that Britain was less dependent on First Nations men for a military. However, given the risk of further conflict with the newly independent United States, alliances with First Nations remained a British priority17. So Britain concluded several land surrender treaties with First Nations that established a new agricultural colony for the dispossessed from the south. These treaties ceded First Nations lands and rights to the Crown in exchange for reserves, annuities and First Nations’ continued right to hunt and fish on unoccupied Crown Lands18. Less than 50 years after these treaties, the European population grew to outnumber the First Nations population19. The pace of land surrender treaties increased. These FNs were relegated to small plots of land, tracts held by religious missions, or forced to squat on Crown Lands in an increasingly destitute lifestyle. 20 As the military role of First Nations men waned and the colonialist population boomed, British administrators reexamined their relationship with the First Nations. Missionary fervor and social Darwinism were sweeping Europe, an attitude that eventually spilled over into the colonies. It was the British Empire’s perceived duty to civilize (i.e., assimilate) everyone within their realm. This meant, foremost, Christianity and the abandonment of nomadic or agrarian life21. Assimilation efforts began in the 1820’s and remained a tenet of Indian policy for the next 150 years22. “Model villages” were built in an attempt to “civilize” First Nations People. The first such experiment occurred at Coldwater-Narrows in Upper Canada, but lack of funding, organization and moral sense quickly led to its dismal failure23. Despite such initial setbacks, however, assimilation was sought even more aggressively24. A vast network of 132 residential schools was established by churches throughout Canada (Catholic, United, Anglican and Presbyterian) in partnership with the federal government. More than 150,000 aboriginal children attended these schools between 1857 and 199625. The final residential school, located in Saskatchewan, closed in 199626. The first assimilation legislation was the Crown Lands Protection Act (1839), which defined the word Indian and proclaimed that the British government was the guardian of all Crown Lands, including those in Indian Reserves27. In 1860, the Management of Indian Lands and Property Act transferred authority for dealing with 14 AANDC 2013b. 15 AANDC 2013a. 16 AANDC 2013a. 17 AANDC 2013a. 18 AANDC 2013a. 19 AANDC 2013a. 20 AANDC 2013a. 21 AANDC 2013a. 22 AANDC 2013a. 23 AANDC 2013a. 24 AANDC. 2011. 25 AANDC 2013a. 26 AANDC 2013a. 27 AANDC 2013a. 3 Indian affairs to the colonies, thus dispensing of the Crown’s responsibility for First Nations welfare and rights28. This was soon followed by the formation of Canada as an independent state. Canadian Era When the Dominion of Canada was founded in 1867 (through the British North America Act), the new nation continued a centralized approach to managing Indian affairs29. Insecure in its newfound independence and threatened by its gun-slinging neighbor below the 49th parallel30, Canada was eager to establish secured and settled lands in its western territories. In 1869, after 200 years of control, the HBC sold the Rupert’s Land Charter to Canada (a move that was seen by First Nations and Metis as the unpermitted sale of their own lands)31. Meanwhile, First Nations continent-wide were facing disease, famine and poverty as the fur trade waned and the buffalo populations dwindled32. They were desperate for protection and support from the state. 33 In this insecure period from 1871 to 1921, Canada and central and eastern First Nations concluded a series of 11 treaties, the “Numbered Treaties”. In these treaties, the First Nations traded reserve lands, annuities and hunting rights for Aboriginal title. These treaties also included the provision of schools and teachers to educate (assimilate) First Nation children34. Canada concluded some of these treaties for the purposes of settlement in the south (agriculture and railways) and some for access to natural resources in the North35. Through the Numbered Treaties, Canada secured title to half of Canadian land mass.’ 36 On the whole, First Nations rejected the idea of assimilation into non-aboriginal society37. To advance this national objective, Canada’s federal government passed the Indian Act (1876), the most notorious and most- revised legislation regarding First Nations. It consolidated previous Indian regulations, gave greater authority to the federal department of Indian Affiars, and empowered the federal government to act as “guardian” of all aspects of First Nations life until they could be fully integrated into society38.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tourism Strategy 2009
    QuickTime™ and a decompressor are needed to see this picture. TOURISM STRATEGY 2009 Prepared for: Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation Klemtu, BC Prepared by: Sean Kerrigan EcoPeak Consulting Courtenay, BC [email protected] Disclaimer This report was commissioned by the Ecosystem-Based Management Working Group (EBM WG) to provide information to support full implementation of EBM. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are exclusively the authors’, and may not reflect the values and opinions of EBM WG members. Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation Tourism Strategy 2 Final Draft - March 2009 Table of Contents Acknowledgements Introduction Executive Summary 1.1 Document Background 1.2 Philosophical Statements and Principles 1.3 Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation Business Structure 1.4 Land and Marine Use Plans and Environmental Protocol 1.5 Opportunities 1.6 Challenges 1.7 Tourism Structure 1.7.1 Spirit Bear Adventures Ltd 1.7.2 Tourism Management 1.8 Potential Tourism Development 1.8.1 Development Matrix – Spirit Bear Adventures 1.8.2 Development Matrix – Tourism Management Values and Objectives 2. Philosophical Statements and Principles 2.1 Values 2.2 Goals 2.3 Objectives 2.4 Strategy Background 3. Inventory of Existing Conditions 3.1 Social Inventory 3.2 Potential Threats to Community Values 3.3 Kitasoo/Xai’xais Economy 3.4 Environmental Inventory 3.4.1 Common Forest Inventory 3.4.2 Wildlife Habitat 3.4.2.1 Critical wildlife map 3.4.2.2 Wildlife inventories 3.4.3 Critical tourism areas 3.4.3.1 Maps of Operating Areas 3.5 Baseline of Resource Development 3.5.1 Forestry 3.5.2 Tourism Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation Tourism Strategy 3 Final Draft - March 2009 3.5.3 Mining 3.5.4 Aqua Culture 3.6 Existing Tourism Products 3.6.1 Attractions (Table) 3.6.2 Tours and Activities 3.6.3 Tourism Facilities and Infrastructure 3.6.4 Tourism Related Transportation 3.6.5 Tour Operators That Currently Utilize the Area 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    MEMORIES AND MOMENTS Conversations and Re-Collections* MARGARET SEQUIN ANDERSON AND TAMMY ANDERSON BLUMHAGEN BACKGROUND THIS ARTICLE is THE product of a collaboration between two women whose lives have intersected in several ways. Tammy Anderson Blumhagen was born in i960 and grew up in the small Tsimshian community of Hartley Bay, British Columbia; her mother was the youngest daughter of a large family, and her father was the only child of his parents who survived to adulthood. Tammy was an only child who grew up living with her mother and father in the house of her maternal grandparents; her paternal grandparents also lived in this household with her widowed maternal grandmother after the death of Tammy's mother in 1977; during the summers, one of her maternal aunts and her family were also usually in residence; and frequently several cousins were there as well. Tammy's childhood was spent in daily close interaction with literally hundreds of relatives — at school, church, recreation activities, and in the course of daily chores she dealt with close or distant relatives. In terms of Tsimshian kinship her maternal aunts are especially close to her, and their children are her brothers and sisters, as are the other members of the Eagle clan into which she was born.1 * We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, which supported the research for this article through a contract to Tammy Blumhagen (Number 263-2B13). We also acknowledge the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, both of which provided research support for earlier w^*-k by Mar­ garet Seguin (Anderson), selections of which have been incorporated into this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Ferry Schedule Prince Rupert to Hartley Bay
    Ferry Schedule Prince Rupert To Hartley Bay Uncrumpling and undespairing Tybalt meanes his Irene segregates oinks forrader. Unclimbed Jessee always hurtles his inquisitors if Wendell is acquisitive or pride splenetically. Unsaved Ollie windsurf, his diabolism execute convulsed smartly. Stakeholder meetings and prince rupert ferry to schedule hartley bay together a fortune for What a smear for hand receipt return the meat and ginger. The procedure will be double with holes of poor small sizes up to reading large diameters. Herman relies on tail to generate all the his for defence research facility. Covid jabs by the disguise of MARCH: Vaccine age bands will be widened in next phase of the. You would then be made off course at any dinner two when entering canada. All are accounted for except the missing two. Tasting a month delay ahead. The tender near the ferries to prince rupert prior to the tight and marine transport at. Port hardy maintains an invoice by two receipt lot of service review report seeing wolf pack a schedule information on some passengers to? This thing as ridley terminals a straight line from prince rupert middle school and grizzly viewing with data recorders in prince rupert. As well as with particulars on graham clarke was crab traps, hartley bay ferry to schedule prince rupert. Ferries does he had been out your position you need improving service was first come out of prince rupert is calling for wild and best place. Sunset from behind quiet Bottleneck Bay. Additional pedestrian improvements are planned, including remaking the sun through Cow Bay with curbless streets and planted trees separating the road from our sidewalk.
    [Show full text]
  • Kitasoo Spirit Bear Conservancy Management Plan
    Kitasoo Spirit Bear Conservancy Management Plan June 2015 Cover Page Photo Credit: Doug Neasloss Acknowledgements The Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation and BC Parks jointly prepared this management plan. The management planning process was coordinated by: BC Parks Planning Section Head: Volker Michelfelder Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation Representatives: Doug Neasloss, Grant Scott, David Scott and Evan Loveless. Kitasoo Spirit Bear Conservancy Management Plan i Plan Highlights Kitasoo Spirit Bear Conservancy is within the asserted territories of the Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation, Heiltsuk Nation, and Gitga’at First Nation. The conservancy is home to the uncommon Spirit Bear, and has high cultural and coastal marine values. The Kitasoo Spirit Bear Conservancy Management Plan identifies objectives and strategies that focus on: • protecting historical and current First Nation habitation, harvesting and hunting areas and activities, and associated cultural, economic and biological values; • providing for and promoting present and future First Nations access to those areas and activities; • maintaining the ecological integrity of the conservancy; • maintaining representative flora and fauna, and protecting at risk plant communities, ecosystems and wildlife species in both terrestrial and marine environments; and • protecting the wilderness values associated with key recreational activities and sites that, in turn, support opportunities for wildlife viewing, wilderness-based boating, kayaking and salt water angling. Kitasoo Spirit Bear Conservancy
    [Show full text]
  • LNG Canada Export Terminal Section 13 – Background on Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups October 2014
    PART C — ABORIGINAL GROUPS INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Environmental Assessment Certificate Application LNG Canada Export Terminal Section 13 – Background on Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups October 2014 The copyright of this document is vested in LNG Canada Development Inc. All rights reserved. LNG Canada Export Terminal Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 13: Background On Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups 13 BACKGROUND ON POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ABORIGINAL GROUPS As set out in the June 6, 2013, section 11 Order, the following Aboriginal Groups may be affected by the Project: . Schedule B (Facility and associated activities) Haisla Nation . Schedule C (Shipping activities) Haisla Nation Gitga’at First Nation Gitxaala Nation Kitselas First Nation Kitsumkalum First Nation Lax Kw’alaams First Nation, and Metlakatla First Nation. Schedule D (Notification) Métis Nation British Columbia As a Schedule D group, Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC) is included in this section of the Application. The section 13 Order issued by the EAO on August 7, 2013, amended Schedule D of the section 11 Order to clarify that the consultation activities (i.e., notification) with MNBC listed on Schedule D are to be conducted by BC on behalf of the Government of Canada, and is not an acknowledgement by BC that it owes a duty of consultation or accommodation to Métis in BC under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In accordance with the AIR, this section of the Application provides available background information for those
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Monitoring Project
    Coastal Monitoring Project Report for the 2008 Pilot Field Season February 2009 Prepared by: Aaron Hill – Raincoast Conservation Foundation, PO Box 2429, Sidney, BC, V8L 3Y3 Chris R. Picard – Gitga’at First Nation, 445 Hayimiisaxaa Way, Hartley Bay, BC, V0V 1A0 1 Summary The Raincoast-Gitga’at Coastal Monitoring Project (CMP) was launched in July 2008 with the assistance of the Headwaters Initiative Project in response to potential oil and condensate tanker traffic on BC’s North Coast,. Tanker traffic poses a great threat to this coastal ecosystem and the indigenous cultures and resource economies that it supports. The primary objectives of the CMP are: (1) to build on the current First Nation and ENGO presence in the portions of Gitga’at territory that would receive this tanker traffic, and (2) to collect baseline ecological data on components of the coastal ecosystem with high cultural and ecological value that would be most impacted by chronic oiling and catastrophic oil spills, or that would be good early indicators of hydrocarbon pollution. Field work began in August 2008 with an initial reconnaissance trip by the two project coordinators, and progressed in earnest starting on Sept. 1, when the 3-person field crew, including 2 technicians from Hartley Bay, set up the first camp in Cameron Cove on Princess Royal Island. A total of 23 field days were spent working from this site, another camp on the Anderson Islands, and from Hartley Bay. During this time, the field crew: • Inspected 24 small streams to record fish presence and habitat characteristics, finding adult and/or juvenile salmon in 10 streams; • Conducted 9 beached bird surveys at 6 individual beaches using the Bird Studies Canada survey method; • Conducted 3 intertidal diversity photo surveys with accompanying beach seines for marine fish presence and diversity; • Collected mussels along 7 transects throughout Gitga’at territory for baseline hydrocarbon toxicology and hydrocarbon ‘fingerprinting’ • Recorded 35 cetacean sightings using BC Cetacean Sightings Network criteria, and photo referencing.
    [Show full text]
  • Sinking in Wright Sound March 22, 2006 Meteorologist David Jones Environment Canada
    ‘Queen of the North’ Sinking in Wright Sound March 22, 2006 Meteorologist David Jones Environment Canada According to the Globe & Mail… “The Queen of the North was sailing south to Port Hardy from Prince Rupert, a 450­kilometre trip along B.C.'s Inside Passage. The 125­metre­long vessel left Prince Rupert about 8 p.m. PST on Tuesday. B.C. Ferries said the incident took place around 12:43 a.m., and rescuers were reportedly at the scene by shortly after 1 a.m. The Coast Guard said it took about an hour for the ferry to sink, allowing time for passengers — some of whom were asleep at the time of the accident — and crew to make their way to safety. ” The Incident At roughly midnight, the Queen of the North sent out a distress call. The ship was listing. There were about 102 persons on board. The position was 1/2 mile north of Juan Point in Wright Sound just south of Hartley Bay. (See map below) The Meteorology Just prior to the sinking ­ around 12.43 am PST­ a cold front moved through the area. A gale warning was in effect for Hecate Strait, the closest and most representative marine area. There is no weather observing station near where the sinking occurred. In addition, southeast winds of 25 knots (45 km/h) with gusts to 35 knots (65 km/h) were reported briefly ­ for one or two hours ­ by the nearest weather observing stations when the front passed through. On scene, the wind speed was reported as 40 knots.
    [Show full text]
  • SSTOA and WTA Marine Debris Removal Initiative 2020 Coastal Environmental Protection, Employment, and Economic Recovery During the COVID-19 Pandemic
    SSTOA and WTA Marine Debris Removal Initiative 2020 Coastal Environmental Protection, Employment, and Economic Recovery During the COVID-19 Pandemic Funded by The Government of British Columbia’s Clean Coast, Clean Waters Initiative Fund (CCCW) Lead Author Russell Markel On behalf of the Small Ship Tour Operators Association of BC Project Co-Leads Russell Markel and Kevin Smith Contributing Editors and Participating Organizations Wilderness Tourism Association of BC (WTA) Small Ship Tour Operators Association of BC (SSTOA) Scott Benton, Executive Director, WTA Russell Markel, Outer Shores Expeditions & SSTOA Kevin Smith and Maureen Gordon, Maple Leaf Adventures & SSTOA Eric Boyum, Ocean Adventures Charter Co. Ltd. & SSTOA Ross Campbell, Mothership Adventures & SSTOA Randy Burke, Bluewater Adventures & SSTOA Kathy MacRae, Commercial Bear Viewing Association of BC (CVBA) Supporting and Participating First Nations Heiltsuk First Nation Kitasoo/Xai’xais First Nation Gitga’at First Nation Wuikinuxv First Nation Nuxalk First Nation Citation Please cite this report as: SSTOA (2020) Marine Debris Removal Initiative 2020 – Coastal Environmental Protection, Employment, and Economic Recovery During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Submission Date December 18th, 2020 OUTER SHORES adventures INC Gitga’at Nation Heiltsuk Nation Wuikinuxv Nation Nuxalk Nation Preface As the events of the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded in the spring and early summer of 2020, and domestic and international travel and tourism came to a halt, the Small Ship Tour Operators Association of BC (SSTOA) embarked upon seeking First Nations support and Federal and Provincial government funding to conduct a large-scale marine debris removal initiative on British Columbia’s Central and North Coast. If funded, this initiative would support the financial survival of BC’s iconic small ship-based expedition travel industry, re-employ more than 100 seasonal and full-time employees, and result in substantial benefits to coastal wildlife and marine ecosystem health.
    [Show full text]
  • Object Transformation at Port Simpson and Metlakatla, British Columbia in the Nineteenth Century
    FROM CEREMONIAL OBJECT TO CURIO: OBJECT TRANSFORMATION AT PORT SIMPSON AND METLAKATLA, BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY JOANNE MACDONALD R.R. #1 Cantley, Quebec J0X 1L0 ABSTRACT/RESUME This paper is an in-depth look at the collecting activities of the first two missionaries among the Coast Tsimshian, in the villages of Port Simpson and Metlakatla in the second half of the 19th century. Its primary focus is on the symbolic aspects of the cross cultural transaction by which Indian ceremonial objects were transformed into curios stored in museums in North America and Europe. L'article étudie en profondeur les activités d'accumulation des deux premiers missionnaires parmis les Tsimshian, dans les villages du Port-Simpson et de Metlakatla dans la seconde moitié du dix- neuvième siècle. L'article souligne les aspects symboliques de la transaction interculturelle par laquelle les objets rituels des Indiens ont été transformés en bibelots conservés dans les musées en Amérique du Nord et en Europe. 194 Joanne MacDonald INTRODUCTION This paper is an in depth look at the collecting activities of the first two missionaries among the Coast Tsimshian in the villages of Port Simpson and Metlakatla in the second half of the nineteenth century.1 It is also an examination of the possible motives of the Coast Tsimshian in giving up their ceremonial objects. The nineteenth century was a period when the growth of museums in North America and Europe validated the Euroamerican belief that Indians were vanishing. It was a period of active collecting on the Northwest Coast, a period for which the role of missionary as collector has hitherto been ignored.2 The starting point for this research was the museum catalogue data for two Tsimshian stone masks [Figure 1], one in the collection of the Canadian Museum of Civilization (V11-C-329) and the other in the Musee de l'Homme, Paris (81.22.1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Gitk'a'ata, Their History, and Their Territories Report Submitted to the Gitk'a'ata January 2012 by Susan Marsden
    (A39495) THE GITK’A’ATA, THEIR HISTORY, AND THEIR TERRITORIES REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE GITK’A’ATA JANUARY 2012 BY SUSAN MARSDEN 1 (A39495) PREAMBLE I have been asked by Peter Grant and Associates on behalf of Gitk’a’ata to undertake the following: “For purposes of providing evidence to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Panel of Gitga'at title and rights, we would like you to provide an expert report. Because we are operating under severe time contraints in regard to the submission of evidence to the Panel, and because we are thus forced to focus on only those portions of Gitga'at territory where Enbridge's tankers pose the most persistent and significant threats to the Gitga'at people, we ask you to limit the geographic scope of your report to the land/marine areas along Douglas Channel beginning at Kitkiata Inlet and Hawkesbury Island (across the Channel from Kitkiata Inlet), south to the islands at the mouth of the Channel out to and including Campania Island.” The structure of the report is as follows: § in the first section after the Introduction, section 2 (2.1-2.5), I address the Gitk’a’ata in the context of the Tsimshian and other Northwest coast nations and provide an overview of theTsimshian legal system as it concerns territorial ownership, and of the role of the adawx in this system and its relevance to this report. § in section 3 (3.1-3.5) I present a summary of the history of the founding peoples of Gitk’a’ata. It is the adawx, which are each owned, told, and perpetuated by the lineage leaders, that tell the history of their lineage and together these histories tell the history of the tribe, the region, the nation and other nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Douglas Channel
    Section 3.5 and 3.12: Route Analysis, Approach Characteristics and Navigability Survey TERMPOL Surveys and Studies ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT FINAL - REV. 0 Prepared for: Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. January 20, 2010 Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Section 3.5 and 3.12: Route Analysis, Approach Characteristics and Navigability Survey Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Objectives ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 TERMPOL Study 3.5 ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 TERMPOL Study 3.12 ...................................................................................... 1-1 2 Tanker Routing Options .................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 The North Route ............................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.1 Dixon Entrance .............................................................................................. 2-4 2.1.2 End of Sea Passage – Approaching the Pilot Station .................................... 2-4 2.1.3 Triple Island Pilot Boarding Grounds ............................................................. 2-5 2.1.4 The Northern Hecate Strait ............................................................................ 2-6 2.1.5 Browning Entrance ........................................................................................ 2-8 2.1.6 Principe Channel ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Eco-Cultural Tourism in Hartley Bay, British Columbia
    Community Perspectives on Bioeconomic Development: Eco-Cultural Tourism in Hartley Bay, British Columbia by Katherine L. Turner A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of The University of Manitoba in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Natural Resources Institute Clayton H. Riddell Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources University of Manitoba Winnipeg Copyright © 2010 by Katherine L. Turner Library and Archives Bibliothèque et Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l’édition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-70230-7 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-70230-7 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non- L’auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l’Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L’auteur conserve la propriété du droit d’auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation.
    [Show full text]