INAC "Fact Sheet" Part 3

Seventh Line of Fact Sheet:

• At the time Lot 26 was issued in 1896, a strip of Indian Reserve was recognized as existing between the patented lots located north of Lot 25 (north of Main Street) and the Lake Huron shoreline. Evidence suggests that the Saugeen fished from the sand beaches on this strip of land, using nets dragged along the shallow waters of Lake Huron.
  
  Wow! is that vague. I can tell you what I know about this, however.
  
  At the time lot 26 was issued, the settlers who were buying up the lots from lot 26 to the Sauble River were making their presence known. As early as 1874, the Saugeen band was told to move off those lots by settlers who had purchased them. This was a problem for the band since they were used to using this portion of the beach without opposition. In order to bring a solution to the matter the government issued a Special Fishery License to the Saugeen band which they paid ten dollars annually to acquire. Yes, they paid to use this portion of the beach to land and cure fish. This license was issued only 20 years from the signing of Treaty 72. Do you mean to tell me that if the reserve extended beyond the dividing line of lot 25/26 as INAC claims, there wasn't one band member in 1874 to oppose paying for the license if they already own the portion from lot 26 to 31?
  
  One of the problems people have today is they can't picture what the past looked like. The shoreline of Sauble Beach was a barren wasteland; nobody from that time ever dreamed it would become a world famous tourist destination. In the 1800's, to the Saugeen band, it was business as usual. They never envisioned that surrendering this portion of the beach would ever cause interruption to their lifestyle. However, it did interrupt their lifestyle and to remedy the situation the fishing license was issued and observed from what archive records reveal to be between at least 1874 until 1884.
  
  In the late 1870's the band council were still receiving opposition to their fishing from the lots even with the license in place and made a resolution to have their Indian Agent, a Mr. Creighton to try and get this portion of land back for them, As a result, Mr. Creighton contacted a Mr. Plummer who made a suggestion in the following letter:
  
  Indian Office
                                                                Toronto                         March 1^st, 1882
  
  
  Referring to my letter of this date relative to the Saugeen Indian Fishery. I have the honor to report that my attention has been called to the fact that some of the lots between lots 24 and 34 in Concession D. in the Township of Amabel have been sold for actual settlement and that some of the purchasers there of have interfered with the Indians in their fishing operations. The Indians fishing ground is in front of these lots and they cannot carry on their work without trespassing there on.
  
  
  I would beg to suggest that the Department would re purchase ownership averaging about one chain wide across these (ien) lots, as to those already sold, and any yet unsold should be disposed of with this reservation. The object would be not to prevent the settler free access to the water, but to secure the right to the Indians to land and cure their fish.
  
  
  The land is (valueless?) along the shore for farming purposes as it is altogether a bank of sand, but unless (on streinre?) the right of our Indians to the free use thereof I fear someday they will be prevented carrying on their fishing operations when which their very existence so much depends.
                                  I have the honor to be
                                                  sir;
                                  Your obed. Sevt.
                                                  (N Plummer?)
                                                  (Dept of TOINS?)
  
  The archives contains some rather ambiguous correspondence following this letter, but there is nothing to suggest that this proposal was ever followed through. By the wording of the Crown Patent of lot 26, evidence would suggest that it never was put in place since such an allowance made would need to be mentioned in the Patent. In any case, the proposal was not to grant more reserve land to the Saugeen band, it was to allow them to land and cure fish and allow the settlers free access to the water. This letter is also further proof that the lots did, in fact, go to the waters edge.
  
  There are two very detailed descriptions at Library and Archives Canada: one of the sale of lot 26 and one of the sale of lot 31. Pages and pages are produced of how field agents were sent out to give detailed descriptions of the lots and other documents detail the actual background history of the lots. Not one page is dedicated to a 66 foot reserve allowance being created at the shoreline for either of these lots.
  It is important to note that none of this information is hard to find in Library and Archives Canada, so why INAC has kept this information from the public is puzzling. Although their primary concern is the Aboriginal people of Canada, they still have a responsibility to the rest of Canada as well.
  
  

Eighth Line of Fact Sheet:

• Since the 1890s, the Saugeen First Nation has continued to assert its claim to this portion of the beach on the basis that it is reserve land.
  
  The 1890's marked the passing of at least 36 years since the signing of Treaty 72 and at least six years of the last known renewal of the Special Fishery License. I would suggest that the Saugeen band viewed the Special Fishery License, as more time passed, as their right to the shoreline between lot 26 and the Sauble River. We know that Charles Rankin did not extend the boundary of the Saugeen Reserve north of lot 25/26 in his survey. The only other evidence to suggest any privileges to the area north of lot 25/26 is the Special Fishery License; a license that they had to acquire and pay for.
  

I invite your comments or arguments, but please, let's be respectful of one another. I understand that this is a heated debate, but derogatory remarks toward anyone are not welcome

Thank you.