In response to Aug. 29th story

Travis Boissoneau

Letter to Editor,
Re: Men fined for fishing out of Treaty Area, Aug 29
I am one of the individuals who have been charged in one of the incidents mentioned in the article. My name is Travis Boissoneau and I am a member of the Robinson Huron Treaty. I basically want to provide a brief background of my approach to the case and personal insight about the historical context of our treaties.
I was faced with a harsh reality after pleading guilty to the charge of angling without a licence. As an Anishinabe, I was always taught about inherent and treaty rights and I was also encouraged to exercise those rights. I lobbied Chiefs and political organizations at regional, provincial and national levels. As an active member of youth councils at those levels, I was able to do so.
Every political dignitary I had spoken to supported the cause. The concept is there and it is heavily supported amongst members of our Nations; However, the law is not. There is no such law either stating we can inter-treaty harvest or stating we can not. Inherently, we have that right, but we are lacking in our approach to ensuring our members can inter-treaty harvest while utilizing our own protocols. Different treaty areas are taking different approaches to this right. Upon signing the treaties, we did not give up the right to maintain our oral treaties / wampum treaties and unwritten laws between us as nations prior to signing. Therefore, treaty areas did not exist but occupied territories did and historically we had our arrangements in place.
Prior to pleading guilty, I had spoken to a few contacts which were lawyers. All stated that this would be a constitutional challenge. Therefore, in order to succeed on that you would have to provide historical, archeological evidence that your ancestors traditionally and habitually fished in that area. A case like this would cost over $100,000 dollars in legal fees and even if the case was won, it would only set precedents for my community members to hunt/fish in that specific area, that’s just the way the law works.
I didn’t purchase a fishing license out of principal, even though I have the $29 to do so. In addition, like many others, I did not grow up in my treaty area and I have blood lines in the current treaty I reside in. In the end, I still maintain that we have that right to not only inter-treaty harvest, but to develop our own protocols and conserve our own resources in our traditional territories. I am a member of the Council of Three Fires, which predates European contact, we governed ourselves then, we can govern ourselves today.
I encourage all of those who read this and are a member of a nation to lobby your Chiefs to move on this issue. We need recognition and respect in order to build that foundation for the next seven generations. We can’t wait another 156 years to practice our traditional ways of life with out interruption.
Letter to Editor,
Re: Men fined for fishing out of Treaty Area, Aug 29
I am one of the individuals who have been charged in one of the incidents mentioned in the article. My name is Travis Boissoneau and I am a member of the Robinson Huron Treaty. I basically want to provide a brief background of my approach to the case and personal insight about the historical context of our treaties.
I was faced with a harsh reality after pleading guilty to the charge of angling without a licence. As an Anishinabe, I was always taught about inherent and treaty rights and I was also encouraged to exercise those rights. I lobbied Chiefs and political organizations at regional, provincial and national levels. As an active member of youth councils at those levels, I was able to do so.
Every political dignitary I had spoken to supported the cause. The concept is there and it is heavily supported amongst members of our Nations; However, the law is not. There is no such law either stating we can inter-treaty harvest or stating we can not. Inherently, we have that right, but we are lacking in our approach to ensuring our members can inter-treaty harvest while utilizing our own protocols. Different treaty areas are taking different approaches to this right. Upon signing the treaties, we did not give up the right to maintain our oral treaties / wampum treaties and unwritten laws between us as nations prior to signing. Therefore, treaty areas did not exist but occupied territories did and historically we had our arrangements in place.
Prior to pleading guilty, I had spoken to a few contacts which were lawyers. All stated that this would be a constitutional challenge. Therefore, in order to succeed on that you would have to provide historical, archeological evidence that your ancestors traditionally and habitually fished in that area. A case like this would cost over $100,000 dollars in legal fees and even if the case was won, it would only set precedents for my community members to hunt/fish in that specific area, that’s just the way the law works.
I didn’t purchase a fishing license out of principal, even though I have the $29 to do so. In addition, like many others, I did not grow up in my treaty area and I have blood lines in the current treaty I reside in. In the end, I still maintain that we have that right to not only inter-treaty harvest, but to develop our own protocols and conserve our own resources in our traditional territories. I am a member of the Council of Three Fires, which predates European contact, we governed ourselves then, we can govern ourselves today.
I encourage all of those who read this and are a member of a nation to lobby your Chiefs to move on this issue. We need recognition and respect in order to build that foundation for the next seven generations. We can’t wait another 156 years to practice our traditional ways of life with out interruption.

–Travis Boissoneau
(Misko Nemki)
Thunder Bay, Ont.