TREATY NEGOTIATIONS RIELATED TO KOOTENAY NATIONAL PARK: AN OPPORTUNfTY FOR RECONCILING TEE INTERESTS OF THE KTUNAXAKINBAS~TTRI]BAE COUNCIL AND PARKS CANADA? Gabriel Lacombe B.Sc. Marine Biology, Honours Dalhousie University 1990 A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Nahiral Resources Management In the School of Resource and Environmental Management Report No.228 O Gabriel Lacombe 1998 SIMON mSERUNIVERSITY July 1998 AI1 nghts reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. Nationzl Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington OttawaON KlAON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distnbute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or eIectronic formats. la fome de microfichefnlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur fonnat électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts ffum it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. AB STRACT The study identifies and describes selected issues, interests, and options for the future management of national parks within the traditional temtory of the KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council (KKTC). It consists of three major components: a Literature review, informal discussions with government officiais, and semistructured interviews wïth KKTC and Park Canada representatives- Kootenay National Park was established in 1920 to promote economic development. Historically, park legislation prohibited hunting in national parks, with no explicit reference to Aboriginal hunting or other traditional uses. The intent of the legislation was to protect and develop national parks as recreational playgrounds. The regulatory scheme does not appear to have extinguished Aboriginal rights, nor does subsequent Iegislation. The use and occupation of the Kootenay Region by the Ktunaxa people is supported by ethnographie accounts, Ktunaxa oral history, historical agreements, linguistic studies, park visitor information, and recent archaeological evidence. Aithough there is currentiy insufficient evidence to substantiate or repudiate a daim to Aboriginal rights and title in Kootenay National Park, available evidence points to the historical existence of Abonginai activities in the park. Recently, Parks Canada has involved Aboriginal peoples in planning and management of new, but not established, national parks. The result is a national patchwork of management regimes dependent on the era in which the parks were established. As a consequence, KKTC is poorly integrated in the conservation efforts of nationd parks. Although the inferests of KKTC and Parks Canada appear contlicting, recent regulatory amendments establish that haditionai Abonginal activities are acceptable in national parks. The major obstacle to reconciling the interests of KKTC and those of Parks Canada remains an ideologicd difference to the conservation of naturd resources. A key federal objective in treaty negotiations is to develop a new relationship with First Nations based on mutual respect and understanding. To do so, Parks Canada and KKTC must initiate a dialogue to explore their respective interests and seek a rnutuaily acceptable solution to their differences and. other stakeholder groups. ACKNO WLEDGMENT 1would like to thank those people who helped supervise this research project: Dr. Parnela Wright, Dr. Chad Day and Dr. Peter Williams. In particular, 1wish to acknowledge my gratitude to Dr. Parnela Wright for providing guidance and direction in the early development of the project, and Dr. Chad Day for prwiding insightful comments on the multiple iteration of the paper. 1 owe a great deal thanks to Mike Sakamoto and Ken Warren of the Federal Treaty Negotiation Office in Vancouver who dlowed me to develop and pursue aspects of the study during a student work term at the treaty oEce. 1am also grateful to Bany Olsen of the Department of Canadian Kentage who provided me with the original archivai research into the establishment of Kootenay Nationai Park. 1also wish to express my appreciation to the members of the Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Councii who helped coordinate the interviews and focus group discussions with representatives of their community: Violet Birdstone, Denise Birdstone, Chris Sanchez. In addition, I am especially gratefbl to Jim and Gina Clarricoates who welcomed me into their home during my stay in the Kootenays. I wish to acknowledge the Ktunaxa people and park officids who agreed to be interviewed for this research, without their cooperation this research would not have been possible. Finaliy, 1 want to thank my parents Yolande and TreMé, whose unfaltering suppoa helped me to persevere and complete the writing of the paper-merci, je vous aime. LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: BNTISH COLUMBIA TREAN NEGOTIATION PROCESS ................................................. 4 TABLE 2: LIST OF INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS............................................................................. 16 TABLE 3: LIST OF FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS ................ ............ .......................................17 TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF NEREST BETWEEN PARKS CANADA -AND THE KKTC .......... i ...... 130 TPLBtE 5: COMPARISON OF NATIONAL PARK PROVISIONS IN CONCLUDED LAND CLAM SETTLEMENTS Di CANADA .....................~~.....~............................................................142 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: HISTONCAL MAP OF KTUNAXA NATION'S TRADITIONAL TERRITORY WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLtiMBIA ................................................................................ 9 FIGURE 2: KTUNAXA NATION'S TRADITIONAL TER~ITORYFOR THE PURPOSES OF TREATY NEGOTIATIONS IN BFUTISH COLUMBIA ........................................................................ 10 FIGURE 3: DELiNEATION OF THE KïUNAXA NATION'S TRADITIONAL TERRITORY WITHIN BRITISH COLUMBiA ...................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 4: VISUAL COMPARISON OF THE SlZE OF INDkW RESERVES IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA., .................................................................................................................... -43 FIGURE 5: HISTORiCAL, ACCOUNT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDIAN RESERVES IN THE KOOTENAY REGION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ....................................................... ,....44 FIGURE 6: KOOTENAY NATIONAL PARK: BACKCOUNTRY OPPORTUNITES AND FACILITES. .. -123 FIGURE 7: KOOTENAY NATIONAL PARK WITHIN REGIONAL CONTEXT OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAiN PARK BLOCK .............~............................................................................ 124 FIGURE 8: VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE COMANAGEMENTRARTICLPATION CONTINUUM138 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada are constitutionally recognized and protected. The nature of Aboriginal rights, however, is poorly understood and evolves with each new legal decision on the issue. To help clarify the scope and content of Aboriginal rights, the federal and provincial governments commenced beaty negotiations with Abonginal groups in British Columbia. The govemments' purpose in negotiating treaties is to define and deheate the rights and obligations of Aboriginal peoples in areas of the province where treaties were never previously negotiated (Canada, Department of hdian Affairs and Northem Development 1995: 8; Canada, Department of Indian Affairs and Northeni Development 1993; British Columbia, Ministry of Abonginal Affairs n-d.: 1). The federal govenunent has taken advantage of eeaty or land claim negotiations processes in other areas of Canada to establish new national parks and involve Aboriginal peoples in the management of these parks (Olsen and O'Do~ell1994: 1-6). In the Kootenay Region of British Columbia, national parks were established long before Aboriginal rights were ever affirmed in the Canadian Constitution. Siqe the creation of national pwks in the Canadian ' Rocky Mountains, Aboriginal people have been excluded fkom pursuing traditional practices within park boundaries. The KtunaxalKinbasket Tribal Council (KKTC) is presently engaged in the British Columbia treaty negotiation process. Kootenay, Yoho, Glacier, and Mount Revelstoke National Parksall lie within the British Columbia portion of KKTC's traditional temtory, as delineated in its statement of intent to negotiate a treaty with the federal and provincial govemments (KKTC 1993, figs. 1 and 2). KKTC has never been allowed to pursue traditional activities within these parks, nor has it been involved in the management of national parks within its traditional territory . 1.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to identiQ and describe selected issues, interests, and options for the future management of national parks withio the traditional temtory of KKTC. A secondary purpose of this study is to document self-identified interests of KKTC in national