Video Presentation 4: The Special Fishery License

This video explains the Special Fishery License of 1874 and how the Saugeen Band paid to use the area they are now claiming only 20 years after the signing of Treaty 72.

https://youtu.be/Wsq9WMIVpLk

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.

Mediation Horror

This posting has been Censored. I have been advised to not report on anything that happened or that was discussed at the mediation meetings of 2006.

It is against my wishes and I am truly sorry that I cannot give you this information. However, if I was the government and lawyers responsible for the mediation process in this case, I wouldn't want you to know about it either.

D. Dobson

An even more original map

In January of 2016, I found the map above in what I consider to be my first significant discovery of new evidence which does not support the Sauble Native claim since my Huff letter explanation in 2006 . The first significance of this find is that this map was created in January, 1855, just two months after the signing of Treaty 72 and ten months before the creation of the October, 1855 draft map which includes NE < Ind. Res. notation; the map that was referred to as the "original and final map" by Gary Penner, lawyer for INAC.

The map above is a drawing of Grey and Bruce counties by none other than Charles Rankin. The Bruce Peninsula has not yet been sectioned off in townships on this map, however, the Saugeen Reserve and Chief's Point are included. This is significant because there is a scale to this map which can be used to measure the distance between the tip of the northern boundary of the Saugeen Reserve and the mouth of the Sauble River. Like the 1855 draft map, this map is also found at the Toronto Reference Library, so I contacted them and asked them to measure the distance mentioned. When you supersize the section with the reserves, the northern boundary of the Saugeen reserve is very apparent.

Using the response from the TRL, I compared the distance between the northern boundary of the Saugeen Reserve to the Sauble River on the Grey Bruce map to the same distance shown on the official map submitted to Indian Affairs by Charles Rankin in 1856.

The results of the comparison are as follows:

Calculations for Rankin’s January 1855 Grey/Bruce map:

Scale: 200 chains = 1 inch   1 chain = 66 feet

Distance between river mouth and northern tip of Saugeen reserve = 7/8"

200 x 66 = 13200
13200 / 8 = 1650
1650 x 7 = 11550
11550 / 5280 = 2.187 miles

Calculations for Rankin’s Official 1856 Amabel Town Plan Survey

Scale: 40 chains = 1 inch    1 chain = 66 feet
Distance between river mouth and northern tip of Saugeen reserve = 4 3/8"
4 x 40 = 160
3/8 = 15/40
160 + 15 = 175

      175 x 66 = 11,550
      11550 /5280 = 2.187 miles


When I was doing this research I thought the results would be close. I never imagined that it would work out to the exact same distance. This tells me that Rankin was not only a very competent land surveyor, he was also consistent and knew the exact location of the northern boundary of the Saugeen Reserve long before he did the actual survey.

To me, the Grey Bruce map is as significant as any of the other maps observed in the submitted evidence. This is one more piece of evidence either overlooked or ignored by INAC. They found the October, 1855 draft map at the Toronto Reference Library, so how did they miss this one, created by Charles Rankin and stored in the very same library? I did a simple keyword search using "Charles Rankin" and the map came up in the results.

I don't believe I could be the only one to think to check the distances between the two maps and compare them. To me, this suggests that either INAC is totally incompetent in their research methods or they are knowingly withholding evidence that does not support the Saugeen claim. Either way, this adds up to a whole lot of trouble for the rest of Canada who are not Aboriginal.

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.

INAC "Fact sheet" Part 4

Ninth Line of Fact Sheet:

Correspondence between local landowners (e.g. Livingston Huff) and the Government of Canada has been exchanged over the years, but has not impacted the evidence upon which the federal position is based.

Why the qualification "but has not impacted the evidence upon which the federal position is based"?

Answer: With this qualifier, INAC just presents the Huff letter and doesn't tell you that other correspondence with the government took place from land owners looking for assurance that their property was not on Native boundaries. All inquires were answered that their properties were safe including a response letter sent to my Uncle Harold which was answered by then Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chretien in the 1960's.

I have read the Livingston Huff letter and I would admit at first glance it seems to support a reserve boundary, but on further analysis the letter is full of latent ambiguity.

So, from reading this letter, it would seem to leave no doubt that there is indeed reserve land between lots 26 to 31 at the water’s edge. However, the letter says that the white people were made to get off that strip from lot 26 to the Sauble River, not to lot 31. The Native’s themselves claim that in the working papers in Rankin’s notes, the post, supposedly indicating the Indian Reserve, is at lot 31. So why should white men have to get off all the way to the Sauble River?

Is it a strange coincidence that the area Livingston Huff is describing matches exactly the area described in the Special Fishery License? Could it be that the Natives told the white people to move off that strip because of the fishing license? It does say in the license that the Native’s will “neither sublet nor enter into partnership with white men.” Could members of the Band have mistakenly interpreted the license as ownership of the shoreline?

Huff’s letter says “the white people were made to get off that strip right to the Sauble River.” This is not consistent with the intention of Mr. Plummer’s proposed 66 foot reserve allowance I mentioned in the previous posting. It said that the allowance would not deny free access to the settlers to the water. This raises the question of where Livingston Huff received his information.

One last anomaly about INAC’s interpretation of the Huff letter: Livingston Huff’s letter states that there is 10 acres in front of his lot that is Indian Reserve from Lot 26 right to the Sauble River. If you approximate the distance from the Sauble Welcome Sign at the division line of lots 25/26 to the Sauble River at 2.2 miles, the strip Mr. Huff is describing is 37.5 feet wide. This establishes a similarity to the proposed 66 foot allowance, but it does not support the area the Saugeen Band is claiming. In fact, it establishes that if the Saugeen Band has any right to the shoreline from lot 26 to lot 31 it is to land and cure fish and that is all; it is not a reserve of ownership. It also adds to the confusion as to how wide an allowance was agreed to if an allowance had been established.

Calculations:
10 Acres = 435,600 sq feet
Lot 26 to River = 2.2 miles
5280 * 2.2 = 11,616
435,600/11,616 = 37.5 feet

INAC is supporting a claim of the entire beachfront from lot 26 to 31; at times as wide as 200 feet.
In 1932 the most substantive reference to where lots 26 to 31 end are in Rankin’s official survey for the plan of Amabel Township which show the lots as going all the way to the water’s edge and the description of the northern half of lot 31 by the Wiarton Indian Agent who also has the boundary at the water’s edge. So, who told Huff that “the white people were made move off that strip right to the Sauble River”? It certainly wasn’t the government of Canada or its branch at Indian Affairs as can be examined in the following response to Mr. Huff's letter:

Guess what! At the presentation meetings of 2014, INAC didn't even acknowledge that there was a response to Livingston Huff's letter.

If you find it hard to read the content of the above letter, it reads as follows:

                                                         Ottawa, September 14th, 1932

Sir,

                         I desire to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo with reference to Lot 26, Con. "D" in the Township of Amabel, and advise that the Departmental records show that 130 acres, more or less, covering this lot, were patented to John Wenley (Wesley) Huff early in 1896. As the Department disposed of its interest in this lot by Crown Grant many years ago it is precluded from taking any action at this date.

                         Any normal accretion to this lot would, of course, go to the purchaser or his assignee, and the Department, therefore, has no further interest in the land which you are desirous of securing.

                                                                     Your obedient servant

                                                                                  J.C. Caldwell,

                                                     Director, Indian Lands and Timber

What does this say about Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada as a department representing Canada? Why would INAC keep this response letter from the residents of South Bruce Peninsula other than to manipulate evidence? This response doesn't only support the fact that the lots from 26 to 31 go to the waters edge, it also supports the fact that if there is accretion at the shoreline, the purchaser or his assignee is entitled to ownership of that accretion. Meaning the lots will always go to the waters edge.


Tenth Line of Fact Sheet:

The law is clear that an Indian interest in reserve land cannot be lost or extinguished without a formal surrender of the land to the Crown by the First Nation. Such a formal surrender has never happened.

This is not true as can be seen in the decision made in Sarnia in the case of The Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. A.G. of Canada et al. and also in the case of the Papachase Band of Edmonton in Canada (Attorney General) v. Lameman. The following is a summation of the Sarnia decision:

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in the case of The Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. A.G. of Canada et al., on December 21, 2000, in which the defendants in the action included a large group of representative landowners (the Sarnia Landowners). The five-judge panel concluded that entitlement to the land in question rests with the Sarnia Landowners.

The dispute arose from an aboriginal land claim over a four square mile parcel of land near the City of Sarnia, which is presently occupied by over 2,000 businesses, organizations and individuals. In April, 1999, Ontario Superior Court Justice Archie Campbell ruled that an 1853 Crown patent purporting to transfer the lands from the Chippewas of Sarnia to a non-aboriginal party was invalid. He dismissed the Chippewas’ claim against the Sarnia Landowners, however, based on equitable grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld Justice Campbell’s decision, noting that although the Chippewa lands were never properly surrendered to the Crown, by virtue of their subsequent actions, the Chippewas effectively accepted the sale of their lands. In other words, the good faith purchaser for value defence should be applied in favour of the Sarnia Landowners. The Chippewas are left with their claim in damages against the Crown.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2008 in the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Lameman the following:

This Court emphasized in Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 245, 2002 SCC 79, that the rules on limitation periods apply to Aboriginal claims. - 10 - The policy behind limitation periods is to strike a balance between protecting the defendant’s entitlement, after a time, to organize his affairs without fearing a suit, and treating the plaintiff fairly with regard to his circumstances. This policy applies as much to Aboriginal claims as to other claims, as stated at para. 121 of Wewaykum:

Witnesses are no longer available, historical documents are lost and difficult to contextualize, and expectations of fair practices change. Evolving standards of conduct and new standards of liability eventually make it unfair to judge actions of the past by the standards of today.

The same defence was also used in the Sarnia case.

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.

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.

INAC "Fact Sheet" Part 2

Fifth and Sixth Line of Fact Sheet:

• The Crown patents to Lots 26 to 31 are the underlying basis for the property rights being asserted by the defendant landowners.
• While the Crown patents to Lots 26 to 31 identify the general location of the township lots, they do not include a metes and bounds description of the lots, nor do they establish that these lots extend to the Lake Huron shoreline.
  
  We have only looked at one map so far: the October, 1855 draft copy which is the primary piece of evidence used by INAC to support the Saugeen band's claim. It has been advertised by INAC as the "original and final map." This is a direct quote by Gary Penner printed in The Owen Sound Sun Times recorded from the presentations of 2014 to the residents of South Bruce Peninsula. I don't know how to describe this other than it is an outright lie. The map wasn't even submitted to Indian Affairs.
  
  The following is the final map; submitted to Indian Affairs in 1856 by Charles Rankin and accepted by the Superintendent of the department:

Official and Final Map 

On this map there is no notation at mid lot 31 and the north boundary of the Saugeen Reserve clearly terminates at the dividing line between lots 25 and 26. There is no extension line of the eastern boundary of the Saugeen Reserve. There are no angles or lines at Chief's Point other than the actual eastern boundary. The map is signed by Charles Rankin and is stamped number 862 by the department of Indian Affairs.

What is also unique is that the lots are shown as terminating at the waters edge. Rankin's official map never stipulated road allowances along the shore and if there was to be such stipulations they were required to be mentioned in the Crown Patents. I hold a certified copy of the Crown Patent for lot 26 and there is no mention of any encumbrances between the lot and the waters edge.

In this close-up, it is clear that the lot lines end at the waters edge. The wavy rippled lines represent the shore of Lake Huron. No one would suggest that the Saugeen Reserve doesn't go to the waters edge and it is shown in the same way as the lots.

If the lots didn't go to the waters edge, Indian Affairs was advertising that they did when they were selling them off. In the following 1910 letter from the Indian Agent in Wiarton, Ontario, he describes the northern half of lot 31 as almost worthless, but he goes on to say "It has its value from the fact that it abuts on Lake Huron and has a nice bathing beach in front thereof." The letter is addressed to Indian Affairs. This is another piece of evidence that I uncovered recently that INAC either overlooked or completely ignored.

You can see the sentence I am referring to in the 1st paragraph, last sentence. If the northern half of lot 31 abuts Lake Huron then all the rest of the lots do as well since they are all shown the same on the official map of 1856.

WEB LINK is on  page 34 of 50

There is further evidence that proves the lots go to the waters edge, but I would like to save this information for later as it relates to another issue presented by the "fact sheet."


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.

INAC's "Fact Sheet" Part 1

Fact or Fiction or a Little of Both?
Powerpoint Presentation of 2014 Meetings in Sauble and Wiarton

Sorry the link above has been removed. If I find a copy of the presentation, I will post it.

First Line of Fact Sheet:

• "Treaty 72 describes the north-east corner of the Saugeen reserve as a spot upon the coast located about nine and a half miles from where the western boundary of the reserve meets Lake Huron."
  
  This is a manipulation of the facts. Look closely at how INAC adds the phrase "nine and a half miles from where the western boundary of the reserve meets Lake Huron." The actual wording is: “at the spot where it is entered by a ravine…to the shore of Lake Huron; on the south by the aforesaid northern limit of the lately surrendered strip; on the east by a line drawn from a spot upon the coast at a distance of about (9 ½ ) nine miles and a half from the western boundary aforesaid…”
  
  Do you see anything that mentions "from where the western boundary of the reserve meets Lake Huron" in reference to the 9 1/2 mile measurement? What they don't mention is the Copway Road Amendment. Nine and a half miles from where Copway Road meets Lake Huron is Lot 25/26 (Main Street); exactly where the NE corner of the Saugeen reserve is today.

Second Line of Fact Sheet:

• Charles Rankin, a Provincial Land Surveyor, was a witness to the signing of Treaty 72 in 1854 and undertook a survey of Amabel Township in the following year.
  
  If Charles Rankin was present as a witness at the signing of Treaty 72, why did he mark the division line of lot 25/26 as the northern boundary of the Saugeen reserve on every map he produced if it should have been at midpoint lot 31? How does INAC/Saugeen Band see Charles Rankin's presence at the signing of the treaty as an advantage to their claim?

Third Line of Fact Sheet:

• Rankin's original 1855 survey map shows a point on the coast in the middle of Lot 31 (approximately 6th Street) that is identified as the northeast angle of the Indian reserve. A more detailed map prepared the following year by an engineering firm shows a post in the middle of Lot 31 marked "North East Angle of Saugeen Reserve according to Treaty Boundary running south". This post is located approximately nine and a half miles from where the western boundary of the reserve meets Lake Huron, as set out in the terms of the Treaty.
  
  INAC is deceiving people by referring to the October 12th, 1855 draft map as the "original 1855 survey map." As if it holds some official importance. It was no more than a working draft to Rankin which he didn't even submit to Indian Affairs. INAC fails to mention that while there is a notation at midpoint Lot 31, the actual NE boundary is shown to be at Lot 25/26 (Main Street) on the draft map.
  
  INAC is assuming that the notation marks the final "spot on the coast" as set out in the treaty, but they have totally dismissed the reality that the Treaty instructions are mathematically impossible. It is impossible to have a 9 1/2 mile measurement from the original NW boundary of the Saugeen Reserve and an eastern boundary that runs parallel to the western boundary. If INAC had given more attention to the Copway Road amendment, they would have realized that it is possible to have a 9 1/2 mile measurement from the amended NW boundary at Copway Road and an eastern boundary that is parallel to the western boundary. All evidence suggests that this is exactly what happened.
  
  As for the engineering firm:
  
  
  Once the western boundary dispute was resolved, Rankin began surveying the eastern boundary of the Saugeen Reserve. It is likely that Rankin marked midpoint Lot 31 with a post as a reference marker only. This makes sense since Rankin began surveying the True North line at lot 31 rather than traversing 9 1/2 miles from Copway Road.  It would be easier to use midpoint Lot 31 as the first reference point to establish the line before leaving the shore where True North meets at the edge of the lake to establish the "spot on the coast" at Lot 25/26.
  
  
  On this same point we are aware that Rankin noted on the actual physical “post” found at midpoint lot 31: “NE angle of Saugeen Reserve according to Treaty Boundary running south” as attested to by a Hydrographic survey team in 1856. Expert surveyors from today say that no such elaborate notation would ever be put on a post in Rankin’s time. Under normal circumstances this seems reasonable but since we know that Rankin did not consider the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve to be at midpoint Lot 31, he was making it clear that this location was initially the NE angle by the Treaty boundary, and is NOT the location by the amended boundary. To verify this, we only need look at how Rankin identified a known boundary location such as the eastern boundary of Chief’s Point located ½ mile east of the mouth of the Sauble River. He marks it simply as “POST” without any notation whatsoever. Further evidence to support this is by Rankin’s notations in relation to the amended Copway Road western boundary. On sample drawings of the amended boundary, Rankin notes the original NW boundary as “boundary by treaty” and at Copway Road he notes “boundary desired by Alexander.” (Pg. 41 BBR)
  
  
  The notation on the Lot 31 post implies that this location is no longer relevant since “according to Treaty Boundary” leads one to believe there is something else to consider such as the amendment. There would be no need for the phrase “according to Treaty Boundary” in the notation and the notation would more likely simply be “POST” as it is at Chief’s Point. This becomes even more apparent when we are conscious that Rankin, at the time of the “post” notation, is fully aware of the Copway Road amendment. Couple this with the way he notes the Copway Road Boundary (“desired by Alexander”) and the original western boundary (“by Treaty boundary”), the evidence is quite compelling. Rankin uses “boundary by Treaty” and "according to Treaty boundary" both when referencing the original western boundary and when referencing midpoint Lot 31.
• 
  The NE < Ind. Res. post is located "about" 9 1/2 miles from the original NW boundary if you follow the shoreline. Where the actual Saugeen NE boundary was located in 1855 and is located today is also "about" 9 1/2 miles from the amended NW boundary where Copway Road meets Lake Huron. Again, INAC makes the assumption the original NW boundary was supposed to be used for the measurement. In a later posting about the 9 1/2 mile measurement and the Copway Road amendment I make this more clear.

Fourth Line of Fact Sheet:

• In his survey field notes, Rankin describes laying out the road allowance between Lots 30 and 31. Rankin notes that he placed a post 10 chains, 66 links "south of the post of the Indian Reserve". This is consistent with the post that identifies the north-east corner of the Indian Reserve as being in the middle of Lot 31 (at 6th Street)
  
  To be clear, the field notes do not say "south of "the" post of "the" Indian Reserve", it says "S. of post of Ind. reserve." This may seem like a small detail, but adding "the" is manipulating the wording to indicate this wording is a direct identifier of the location of the Saugeen reserve. It says no such thing. It is identifying a post only, not "the" Indian Reserve. What the post is and what it was used for is not indicated in this particular section of the field notes. The post was used as a starting point to find the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve. For Gould to refer to it as post of Ind. Res. is not corroboration of the reserve location.
  
  Yes, there is a post at mid-point of lot 31 already identified on the map as NE < Ind. Res.; a starting point used to help determine the True North line to find the NE corner of the Indian Reserve at Lot 25/26. If it is the way INAC suggests why does Rankin place the north boundary of the Saugeen Reserve at lot 25/26 on the map instead of mid lot 31? Remember, he was at the signing of the treaty, he is the chief surveyor of the project, surely he knows where the northern boundary is supposed to be. More likely, the notation was marked on the map when Rankin did his initial traverse from the Saugeen River along the Lake Huron shore to the Sauble River. Early on, he would have believed that midpoint Lot 31 would be the location of the NE corner, but would soon come to realize that it was impossible.
  
  Below is the actual reproduction of the map INAC uses for its primary evidence as seen on their website "fact sheet". They have supersized it to allow you to see the NE < Ind. Res. notation and the lot number 31. It is most likely that Rankin used the original position "by Treaty boundary" of the NE corner of the Saugeen Reserve as a reference marker to aid in running the True North line from midpoint Lot 31 to the northern boundary of the recently surrendered strip. Referencing the post at lot 31 as post of Indian reserve is a general reference, since that point was used as a starting point to locate the actual position of the Saugeen eastern boundary at lot 25/26. We can also deduce it was a general reference since midpoint Lot 31 was initially considered the original NE corner "according to treaty" and not the final NE corner due to a mathematical impossibility. 

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.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada's Assumption Based Version

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada found the above map in the Baldwin Room of the Toronto Reference Library and became very excited. They thought that they had found conclusive evidence that the Saugeen Reserve's northern boundary should have been plotted at the mid point of lot 31.

Illustration A is a blown-up section of the map where the green dotted line ends at the arrows point. At this point there is a notation which reads NE < Ind. Res. and this is what caught the eye of INAC. They immediately assumed that it was a notation to mark the NE boundary position of the Saugeen Reserve.There is what appears to be a post marker right beside the notation and at first glance the assumption made by INAC seems reasonable.

Illustration B is the red dotted line which represents the area the Saugeen band is claiming.

• The red solid line with the arrow on the map represents the 9 1/2 mile measurement as seen on every map Rankin produced to show the northern boundary of the Saugeen Reserve. Even on this map! 

• The green dotted line with the arrow on the map represents the measurement that INAC claims Rankin should have made based on the notation at mid lot 31 (NE < Ind. Res.). 

To properly understand their thinking let's refer to the wording in Treaty 72:

"For the benefit of the Saugeen Indians we reserve all that block of land bounded on the west by a straight line running due north from the River Saugeen, at the spot where it is entered by a ravine immediately to the west of the village, and over which a bridge has recently been constructed, to the shore of Lake Huron; on the south by the aforesaid northern limit of the lately surrendered strip; on the east by a line drawn from a spot upon the coast at a distance of about (9 ½ ) nine miles and a half from the western boundary aforesaid, and running parallel thereto until it touches the aforementioned northern limits of the recently surrendered strip; and we wish it to be clearly understood that w wish the Peninsula at the mouth of the Saugeen River to the west of the western boundary aforesaid to be laid out in understood that our surrender includes that parcel of land which is in continuation of the strip recently surrendered to the Saugeen River."

Perhaps we should investigate this map further to see what else it shows. Perhaps, rather than getting excited which leads to making assumptions we should make sure we fully grasp what the NE < Ind. Res. notation is referring to.


UPDATE NOTICE November 9/17: Originally it was thought that INAC was supporting the belief that the 9 1/2 mile measurement was taken in a straight line from the original NW boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation. There were some opposing views that the measurement was most likely taken in a straight line from the SW boundary to Lot 25/26 (Main Street). Both of these conclusions were unresearched speculation as to how the "about 9 1/2 mile" measurement was achieved. As my research continued, it became obvious that neither of these methods are correct, however the SW to Main Street measurement does measure to 9.12 miles; a reasonable contender, but very unlikely. All experts agree the measurement was taken along the shoreline.

Although the Treaty is somewhat ambiguous in its description, the measurement along the shoreline from the original NW boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation appears to be the original intention as INAC/Saugeen Band contend. However, there is a significant problem with this method of measuring the distance, particularly where it applies to the distance between Lot 25/26 (Main Street) to Lot 31. I discuss this problem in detail in four, more recent blog postings, that relate to the Copway Road Amendment. A substantial amount of evidence conclusively proves that the Copway Road Amendment was put in place to correct the problem created by the original 9 1/2 mile NW boundary to NE < Ind. Res. notation measurement.

INAC have concluded that since evidence suggests that the original description of the NW boundary from the treaty was 9 1/2 miles along the shoreline from the NE < Ind. Res. notation, this obviously marks the northern position of the Saugeen Reserve. An easy assumption to make, but further investigation proves that this assumption is wrong.

Please refer to the postings from November 2017 to December 2017 that relate to the Copway Road Amendment plus the postings that relate to the 9 1/2 mile measurement for an explanation.


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.

In the Beginning

1855 Draft Copy of Amabel Township used as Primary Evidence by INAC

The Sauble Land Claim. All because of the map you see above. It was found in the Baldwin Room of the Toronto Reference Library with Charles Rankin's field notes and other draft working maps of Amabel Township. Charles Rankin was the chief surveyor hired to draw up the plan for Amabel Township according to Treaty 72. This map is the primary evidence used by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) to support the Saugeen band's claim. To be clear, this is a draft working map, not the final, signed map submitted to Indian Affairs by Charles Rankin.

Using this map, I will tell you what you have not been told about the Sauble Beach Native claim. Now, you have to ask yourself: Will I see this for the facts that are presented or will I have my objectivity clouded because it does not agree with the position of the Saugeen band? Taking the opposite position of the Saugeen band does not denote racism. What all land claims should be about is finding the truth and that is what I believe I have done.

Area Represented by 1855 map

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada have supported the Native claim in Sauble Beach and in my opinion they have failed the Saugeen band because they base all of their findings on assumption. In fact, they are the ones who initiated the claim on behalf of the Saugeen band. In any case, it is the 1855 draft map above that got the ball rolling. Who discovered it and made the initial analysis of the map is unknown to me, but whoever it was, they jumped to many conclusions without proper examination and re-examination.

So, what's so special about this map? On the surface it seems quite ordinary, but this map tells quite a story, in fact two stories: a story based on assumption as told by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and a true story based on factual documentation and what the map actually reveals.

I call the INAC version the fictionalized version, but I believe in the beginning they actually believed what they presented to be the truth. However, over the years, a more factual and logical explanation has developed to explain why the Saugeen boundary is exactly how it should be, but they are unwilling to listen. It would mean that they would have to admit that they have wasted a lot of time and money which would be very embarrassing to the Canadian government.

To keep the facts in line let's begin the next posting with the INAC/Saugeen version.

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.