snfu73, actually after reading your post i think we are more in agreement with one another than in disagreement. I don't like scare tactics and confrontation because it ussually brings the possibility of violence and escalation, but the governments record of negotiation is simply horrid!!!! That is why i suggest any negotiators that take part be respected individuals who have earned that respect of all represented parties. And they be given a clear mandate of facts only, with all decisions final. Many of the claims are well documented and although the terms seem silly by today's standards. They are cut and dry, with time lines and agreed upon exchanges for use of the land. The time we are seeing wasted on the issue is as David Peterson claims quite deliberate and a direct result of innefiecient over paid beaurocrats getting rich of the havoc they are creating. The simplest solution is to return land that has been taken against the treaties signed by Native Nations and the Governing body of the time, buy out the home owners who are on the land. And if public infrastructure is on the land it is lost, as it should never have been built there in the first place. But the problem is that in some areas entire cities reside on the land in question, i know i live in one. So when talking 90 000 people in one city alone that is on the land in question, the seriousness and scope of the issue changes dramatically. I don't believe that time has run out, rather the kettle has reached a boil due to the constant stalling and underhanded politics by the government. There are many ways to fix the overall issue one and my favourite is to adopt the native system of land ownership, which is they don't own the land they tend it. I lean towards this philosophy because the land was here before any of us, we can tend it, shape it, use it, and it will be here long after we have become a part of it. Owning it is an idea that isn't well thought out.
