Elsipogtog Warriors told Indian Country Today Media Network that they have put out a worldwide call for Sacred Fires to begin, and blockades were set to run all over the country.
Title to the land does not usually include mineral rights.
The fact that the RCMP are attempting to remove an illegal road block, should be an indication that the blockade is in fact illegal.
Should Joe Public be allowed to disrupt commerce because he suspects that the environment isn't being protected?
I would argue that better results would have been had for all had they used legal means to express their concerns.
Aboriginal title to land is a different matter. It can't be sold or exchanged to other hands. I'm not an expert on this, but surely the aboriginal title goes further than having control of the land until the feds decide they want to mine on it.
I'd be very interested to see the court decision that allowed resource extraction of any kind on unceeded reserve land...assuming this is in fact unceeded reserve and. If this court decision does exist, it's clearly outside basic agreements between aboriginal peoples and the government. The aboriginal right to land is based on the idea that it needs to be preserved through generations. The aboriginals, themselves, do not have an unfettered right to mine on it.
But what about Jessica Ernst and her poisoned water well that was drilled into coal seams that the oil companies went back in time 75 million years ago and planted the gas into.
Yeah, I actually changed it after to "little or no", to try and appease the sticklers. But really, any drilling activity poses some small risk to contaminating ground water. Done competently, the risk is minuscule.
Aboriginal title to land is a different matter. It can't be sold or exchanged to other hands. I'm not an expert on this, but surely the aboriginal title goes further than having control of the land until the feds decide they want to mine on it.
I'd be very interested to see the court decision that allowed resource extraction of any kind on unceeded reserve land...assuming this is in fact unceeded reserve and. If this court decision does exist, it's clearly outside basic agreements between aboriginal peoples and the government. The aboriginal right to land is based on the idea that it needs to be preserved through generations. The aboriginals, themselves, do not have an unfettered right to mine on it.
Not entirely sure myself, was trying to find some information.
In the little reading I did, it appears the majority of Canada's reserves have forfeited their mineral rights, in exchange for royalties. I can't find a definitive list of which reserves have and haven't. How any regulatory oversight, or band approval works, no idea.
If the negotiations occurred that were outlined in the framework I posted earlier, then resource rights (renewable and non-renewable) have already been determined. Again I couldn't find those results readily available.
Not entirely sure myself, was trying to find some information.
In the little reading I did, it appears the majority of Canada's reserves have forfeited their mineral rights, in exchange for royalties. I can't find a definitive list of which reserves have and haven't. How any regulatory oversight, or band approval works, no idea.
If the negotiations occurred that were outlined in the framework I posted earlier, then resource rights (renewable and non-renewable) have already been determined. Again I couldn't find those results readily available.
If what you are saying is true, my guess is that the issue came down to how destructive fracking is.
If what you are saying is true, my guess is that the issue came down to how destructive fracking is.
Yeah, it shatters those poor rocks into tiny pieces. Finally someone stands up for the innocent rocks, and won't stand by while they suffer an unprovoked high pressure fluid attack!
If what you are saying is true, my guess is that the issue came down to how destructive fracking is.
In an attempt to stop a private company from exploratory drilling, they blockade a public highway. That isn't going to win any public favour! It is the tactics that bother me more than anything.
Yeah, it shatters those poor rocks into tiny pieces. Finally someone stands up for the innocent rocks, and won't stand by while they suffer an unprovoked high pressure fluid attack!
Oh the rock-manity!
Won't someone think of the pebbles!
The Following User Says Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
Yeah, it shatters those poor rocks into tiny pieces. Finally someone stands up for the innocent rocks, and won't stand by while they suffer an unprovoked high pressure fluid attack!
C'mon.
You don't have to be an environmentalist to see there is some risk of ecological damage with fracking.
Wouldn't we have seen something in the past 100 years we have been fraccing? That being said some very simple legislation needs to be in place to stop some stupid ass companies, have to assume NB has that.
From what I've heard Irving Oil owns New Brunswick, so they can put whatever laws they want in.
Its always a possibility that there were Police provacateurs at this protest. It was done before at a demonstration in Montebello Quebec. The police later admitted it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebec...otest-1.656171
To think that the police would never do this is simply not true, especially if the goal is to defame a group of people. Park a few cop cars in a intersection, incite violence, attract all the camera crews, and voila.
I don't know much about fracking, but it seems it is 'bad' enough to gain a lot of environmentalists' interests.
Here is a documentary on this that I keep meaning to watch (I think they are coming out with #2).
There will always be people on both sides of the argument. Both will accuse either side of lying and making up their own facts to support their arguments.
We live in Canada and sometimes smugly look down on our American neighbors and see how things there can often be 'bought' by lobbyists for pushing what the big corporations want to do. However, it also does happen here in Canada. Canada also has a track record of putting the $$$ in front of not only the environment, but also the health of its' people.
I remember watching a documentary years ago on the oilsands up north, about a Native population that live along the Athabasca river. That community had something like 400 or 500x the rate of cancer - young people started dying from cancer. They blamed the oil companies, and the government sent out their environmental scientist. He measured a number of things (including the Athabasca) and concluded everything was at safe levels. Tribe didn't buy it, and hired their own environmental scientist. He said: "Don't drink the water, don't eat the fish." Turned out it was highly toxic.
What side do you believe? People need to protest things at times, as it is the only way to at least get their voices heard.
