Upholding Aboriginal Rights and Values in BC’s Forestry Sector

Northern Gateway protest in Vancouver, BC (National Post, 2014)

While the implementation of the interventions described in my previous post would likely take years to integrate into BC’s forestry system, today’s foresters still have a significant responsibility to identify and uphold Indigenous values in their forestry practice. At the heart of this responsibility lies the duty to engage with Aboriginal communities in ways that demonstrate trust, goodwill, respect, commitment, and transparency, as doing so contributes to the establishment of positive relationships between foresters and Indigenous peoples (Province of BC, n.d.). In order to build beneficial, long-term relationships, foresters must understand First Nations’ deep connection to the land, and honor this connection by addressing its manifestation in Aboriginal claims, proven rights, and treaty rights, as well as in Indigenous traditional, cultural, and spiritual practices (Province of BC, n.d.). Foresters must also recognize the obstacles that Indigenous communities may face in fully engaging in the consultation process: limited financial resources, lack of technical or business-related knowledge, time constraints, and geographic barriers, among other factors, may hinder First Nations ability to participate and make their voices heard (Province of BC, n.d.). To mitigate these potential challenges, foresters should maintain open communication with the Indigenous communities they engage with, strive to accommodate their needs and limitations in the consultation process, and, whenever possible, provide communities with the support and resources they need to achieve desired levels of participation (Province of BC, n.d.). In addition, foresters should build capacity within their organizations to recognize First Nations histories, cultures, governance, values, and interests (Province of BC, n.d.). Such capacity building must incorporate the promotion of progressive practices and values, and may include:

• placing emphasis on personal, social, and moral responsibility
• increasing awareness of cross-cultural differences and promoting their acceptance
• developing nuanced communication and collaboration skills
• acting with honor, openness, transparency and respect
• developing policies for engagement, employment, environment, and social responsibility with respect to First Nations groups

(adapted from Province of BC, n.d.)

Adoption of these practices will pave the way for more positive forester-Indigenous relationships in the future, in which Indigenous rights, values, and visions for the future are respected and upheld. While identifying and upholding Indigenous rights is a legal obligation of the forestry sector, it also “makes good business sense,” as it allows for increased certainty in strategic planning and financial investment, fosters increased Indigenous support for forestry operations, and leads to positive synergies through enhanced collaboration between foresters and Indigenous communities (Province of BC, n.d.). Thus, it can be see that the integration of Indigenous values and notions of sustainability into land and resource management is integral to the continued growth and vitality of BC’s forestry sector, and can be achieved through targeted changes in institutional models of forestry education, cross-cultural communication, and organizational ethics.

References for this series of posts:

Alfred, T. (2009). Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. New York: Oxford University Press.

Association of BC Forestry Professionals. (2006). Regulating the Profession: Practicing in BC. Retrieved from http://www.abcfp.ca/regulating_the_profession/practicing_in_bc.asp

BC Treaty Commission. (2009). Aboriginal Rights. Retrieved from http://www.bctreaty.net/files/issues_rights.php

Booth, A.L. & Skelton, N.W. (2011). “There’s a Conflict Right There”: Integrating Indigenous Community Values into Commercial Forestry in the Tl’azt’en First Nation. Society & Natural Resources, 24(4), 368-383. doi:0.1080/08941920902755390

British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Mines, and Lands [BCMFML]. (2010). The State of British Columbia’s Forests (Third Edition). Retrieved from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/sof/2010/SOF_2010_Web.pdf

CBC News. (2013, January 8). 6 Landmark Rulings on Native Rights. CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/6-landmark-rulings-on-native-rights-1.1316961

Council of the Haida Nation. (2005). Haida Land Use Vision. Retrieved from http://www.haidanation.ca/Pages/documents/pdfs/land/HLUV.lo_rez.pdf

Hanson, E. ( 2009). Indigenous Foundations: Constitution Act, 1982 Section 35. Retrieved from http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/constitution-act-1982-section-35.html

Indigenous Foundations. (2009a). Aboriginal Rights. Retrieved from http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/land-rights/aboriginal-rights.html

Indigenous Foundations. (2009b). Aboriginal Title. Retrieved from http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/land-rights/aboriginal-title.html

Law Commission of Canada (2006). Justice Within: Indigenous Legal Traditions [Discussion paper]. Retrieved from http://www.lcc.gc.ca

Lyall, A. (2015). Conservation 370 Second Assignment: Aboriginal Rights and Sustainability [Class handout]. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Retrieved from www.connect.ubc.ca

McCorkel, J., & Myers, K. (2003). What Difference Does Difference Make? Position and Privilege in the Field. Qualitative Sociology, 26(2), 199-231. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1022967012774.pdf

Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical Challenges for the “Outside” Researcher in Community-Based Participatory Research. Health Education and Behaviour, 31, 684-697. doi:10.1177/1090198104269566

National Center for Cultural Competence. (n.d.) Definitions of Cultural Competence. Retrieved from http://www.nccccurricula.info/culturalcompetence.html

Newman, D. (2014, May 6). Why the duty to consult may be harming aboriginal communities. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-the-duty-to-consult-may-be-harming-aboriginal-communities/article18482956/

O’Neil, J. (1989). The Cultural and Political Context of Patient Dissatisfaction in Cross-Cultural Clinical Encounters: A Canadian Inuit Study. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 3(4), 325-344. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0745-5194%28198912%292%3A3%3A4%3C325%3ATCAPCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

Parsons, R., & Prest, G. (2007). Aboriginal Forestry in Canada. The Forestry Chronicle, 79I(4), 779-784. Retrieved from https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=24177

Province of British Columbia. (2014). Guide to Involving Proponents When Consulting First Nations. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=8CF98F756A984198AFD80AEA0E472F05

Province of British Columbia. (2015). Consulting with First Nations. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=8CF98F756A984198AFD80AEA0E472F05

Province of British Columbia. (n.d.). Building Relationships with First Nations: Respecting Rights and Doing Good Business. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/DownloadAsset?assetId=C3995CFCF6FB431B9AE2AE22B0206B32&filename=building_relationships_with_first_nations__english.pdf

Provincial Health Services Authority BC. (n.d.). Indigenous Cultural Competency (ICC) Training. Retrieved from http://www.culturalcompetency.ca/training

Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs [SSCLCA]. (2007). Taking Section 35 Rights Seriously: Non-derogation Clauses relating to Aboriginal and treaty rights. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/392/lega/rep/rep05dec07-e.pdf

Sunseri, L. (2007). Indigenous Voice Matters: Claiming our Space Through Decolonising Research. Junctures, 9 (December 2007), 93-106. Retrieved from http://www.junctures.org/index.php/junctures/article/view/69/63

The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission. (1999). Aboriginal & Treaty Rights. In The Justice System and Aboriginal People. Retrieved from http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter5.html

Tindall, D.B., & Trosper, R.L. (2013b). The Social Context of Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Land Issues. In D.B. Tindall, R. Trosper, & P. Perreault (Eds.), Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada (3-15). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Retrieved from http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/2013/AboriginalPeoplesAndForestLandsInCanada.pdf

Tindall, D.B., & Trosper, R.L. (Eds.). (2013a). Aboriginal Peoples and Forest Lands in Canada. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Retrieved from http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/2013/AboriginalPeoplesAndForestLandsInCanada.pdf

Trosper, R. (2007). Now that Paiute forestry is respectable: Can traditional knowledge and science work together? (Working Paper). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia [Tsilhqot’in]. (2007). Supreme Court of British Columbia BCSC 1770. (portions)

Turning Point Initiative Coastal First Nations. (n.d.). EBM Fact Sheet 4: Conservation that Protects Our First Nations Values. Retrieved from http://www.coastalfirstnations.ca/sites/default/files/imce/Fact_Sheet_4.pdf

Wilson, K. & Henderson, J. (2014). First Peoples: A Guide for Newcomers. ­Vancouver, BC: City of Vancouver. Retrieved from http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/first-peoples-a-guide-for-newcomers.pdf

Wyatt, S. (2008). First Nations, forest lands, and “Aboriginal forestry” in Canada: from exclusion to comanagement and beyond. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 38, 171-180. doi:10.1139/X07-214

Building Capacity to Sustain Indigenous Values in Forestry
In the current context of BC’s forestry sector, not enough is being done to incorporate Aboriginal visions of sustainability into policy and practice, a fact that has a direct and negative impact on Aboriginal people’s ability to exercise their rights (Wyatt, 2008). While the historical marginalization, disenfranchisement, and oppression of Aboriginal communities in Canada cannot be simply overcome by changes at the policy level, making Indigenous voices heard is an essential component of the reconciliation process, and is integral to the realization of “Indigenous resurgence” (Alfred, 2009). In order to mainstream Aboriginal rights and values in forestry, several steps must be taken to visiblize the connection between Indigenous culture and nature, bridge the ontological gaps between Western-Scientific and Indigenous paradigms, and clearly communicate Indigenous perspectives on sustainable land management. In the section that follows, this paper proposes three potential interventions that contribute to these aims: cultural competency training, inclusion of cross-cultural interpreters in the consultation process, and development of a guide to Aboriginal values in forestry authored by Indigenous peoples. 

Lil’wat Nation traditional uses of Western Red Cedar (Whistler Insider, n.d.)

Cultural Competency Training

Cultural competence can be conceptualized as the ability to understand and respect values, attitudes, and practices that differ across cultures, and to consider and respond appropriately to them in interpersonal- and institutional-level interactions (National Center for Cultural Competence, n.d.). Improving foresters’ cultural competence through compulsory cultural competency training would increase their awareness of the interconnected nature of Aborignal culture, rights, and values, and would equip them with the skills necessary to approach cross-cultural differences in respectful and productive ways. Cultural competency training programs have already been established in BC – for example, the Provincial Health Services Authority offers an “Indigenous Cultural Competency Training Program” that aims to “strengthen the skills of those who work both directly and indirectly with Aboriginal people […] and promote positive partnerships” (Provincial Health Services Authority BC, n.d.). While this training is available online and is open to those in non-health related fields, a training program tailored to the specific needs of forestry professionals should be developed. If such a training program were established, the Association of BC Forest Professionals (ABCFP) would be a suitable body to oversee its implementation within the province, as all foresters who wish to practice in BC must be ABCFP members (ABCFP, 2006). Since the ABCFP has the power to dictate its criteria for membership, it is in a position to enforce cultural competency training as a mandatory component of foresters’ professional education. As the mandate of the ABCFP is to “ensure the competence, […] professional conduct and integrity of [it’s] members,” the establishment of a cultural competency program for BC foresters falls well within its range of institutional objectives (ABCFP, 2006). Ideally, all aspiring foresters would be required to complete the program in order to qualify for membership as Registered Professional Foresters (RPF’s), and all existing ABCFP members would need to complete the training in order to maintain their RPF designation.

Inclusion of Cross-cultural Interpreters in the Consultation Process

The consultation process is rife with misunderstandings, which often harm Aboriginal communities and prevent their voices from truly being heard (Newman, 2014). These misunderstandings often arise from differences between Western-Scientific and Indigenous ways of knowing and being, which are grounded in taken-for-granted assumptions about how the world works and how knowledge is created (Trosper, 2007). In order for development in forestry to respect the rights of Indigenous people, forestry professionals must have a clear understanding of Indigenous peoples needs, values, and visions of sustainability; however, these understandings may be obscured by fundamental differences in foresters and indigenous communities’ ontological and epistemological assumptions. For example, Booth and Skelton (2011) found that significant tension exists between traditional First Nations values and the values of commercial foresters working in the Tl’azt’en community, and that failing to reconcile these differences leads to inter-cultural conflict. The challenges of reconciling Indigenous and Western-Scientific worldviews are summarized by one Elder from the Tl’azt’en Nation: “Our cultural values are so important and we keep saying that it is so important. So you bring somebody in that is not aware of our true cultural values and they think of it in a totally different aspect, and they come in not understanding us and that’s where this conflict starts” (Booth & Skelton, 2011, p. 377).

In order to bridge Indigenous and Western-Scientific worldviews, cross-cultural interpreters (CCI’s) should play an active role in the consultation process. CCI’s would be present during all interactions between Aboriginal leaders and professional foresters, and would act as a liaison between the two parties. In this role, CCI’s would be responsible for explaining Indigenous perspectives and values to foresters working with Aboriginal communities, and for providing insight into the cultural and historical context surrounding these values in order to help foresters understand their significance. CCI’s would also help Indigenous communities understand foresters’ perspectives, the technical or legal terminology that they employ, and the rights and responsibilities of both commercial foresters and their own community. Therefore, CCI’s must be highly knowledgeable about both Indigenous and Western-Scientific worldviews, and would ideally be from the Indigenous community in which they work. This “positionality” would provide them with the “insider knowledge” necessary to mitigate insider-outsider tensions that frequently characterize consultation process (McKorkel & Myers, 2003; Minkler, 2004). Moreover, it would allow them to assume the role of “explicit advocates” for their communities, which would help neutralize the power imbalance that is often present in Indigenous-Settler relations (O’Neil, 1989).

Andrea Lyall, my Aboriginal Forestry professor and BC’s first female Aboriginal forester! (Vancouver Sun, 2010)

Development of a Guide to Aboriginal Values in Forestry

The Province of British Columbia has developed a series of online resources to guide proponents – such as commercial foresters – in engaging with Aboriginal communities during the consultation process (Province of BC, 2015). These resources include a Guide to Involving Proponents When Consulting First Nations; a Proponent: First Nations Engagement Communication Log; a document detailing Updated Procedures for Meeting Legal Obligations When Consulting First Nations; and, of particular interest, a fifteen-page report on Building Relationships with First Nations: Respecting Rights and Doing Good Business (Province of BC, 2015). While the Building Relationships report states several times that the land has cultural, social, spiritual, and economic importance to Indigenous peoples, and that the well-being of Indigenous communities is “intricately linked to the land,” it does not go further to explain how this significance relates to Aboriginal rights or how should be addressed in land management decisions (Province of BC, n.d.).This is due to the fact that the Building Relationships report is clearly written from a government-centric and industry-centric perspective; for example, it highlights the benefits to Industry from building relationships with First Nations (which include increased certainty, access to labor, services, and local knowledge, and support for government consultation), but fails to discuss the potential harms to First Nations communities from failing to engage with them in a respectful and meaningful way (Province of BC, n.d.).

These omissions should not be taken lightly, as the exclusion of Indigenous perspectives seriously detracts from the report’s potential to positively impact Indigenous-Proponent relations during the consultation process. Thus, either a separate guide to Indigenous values in forestry and land management should be developed, or such content should be incorporated into an amended version of the Building Relationships report. In both scenarios, the guide should be written by Indigenous authors, privilege Indigenous ways of sharing knowledge (such as story, myth, imagery, and metaphor), and explicitly link Aboriginal people’s ability to exercise their rights to their involvement in (and ideally sovereignty over) land management decisions. The widespread dissemination of such a guide to all foresters working with Aboriginal communities would provide a concrete and accurate point of reference for foresters engaged in the consultation process, reduce ambiguity surrounding the significance and manifestation of Indigenous rights and values, and provide a platform for Indigenous knowledge to be heard and honored by the forestry industry.

Legal Definition

From the political perspective of the judiciary system, Aboriginal rights refer to the practices, traditions, and customs that are integral to the culture of First Nation groups, and that were established prior to European contact (BC Treaty Commission, 2009; Province of BC, 2014). Aboriginal title refers to a type of Aboriginal right that includes a right to the land itself, and encompasses the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land for a variety of purposes (BC Treaty Commission, 2009; Tsilhqot’in, 2007). Aboriginal interests refer to a range of potential, claimed, or established aboriginal rights, including treaty rights and aboriginal title (Province of BC, 2014). Such definitions of Aboriginal rights originate from within the western Eurocentric paradigm of BC’s legal system. Established through federal law, case law, and the legislative process, these definitions reflect the views of those empowered within the judiciary system – namely, judges, attorneys, politicians, and the like – and are fairly nebulous and broad. While such broad conceptualizations provide for the expression of Aboriginal rights in myriad forms, their lack of specificity leaves First Nations peoples vulnerable to having their needs, hopes, and values ignored, and creates ambiguity for those working with First Nations. For this reason, it is increasingly recognized that Aboriginal peoples must be afforded an active role in defining their rights, and in the development of policy that may affect them (Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs [SSCLCA], 2007, p. 27).

Supreme Court of Canada (Wikipedia, 2015)

Cultural Definition

In order to honor and respect Aboriginal interests during the consultation process, it is imperative that both the Crown and forestry professionals understand the unique values, needs, culture, history, and lived experiences of the Aboriginal peoples with whom they work (Tsilhqot’in, 2007). As Aboriginal rights are culturally based, grounded in history, and reflect First Nations values, it is imperative that forestry professionals understand how each First Nations group they engage with conceptualizes and defines its own rights (Law Commission of Canada, 2006; Tindall & Trosper, 2013b). While each group may describe their rights differently – according to the cultural context, geographic factors, present-day circumstances, etc. – several elements are integral to Aboriginal people’s conceptualization of their rights. These elements include:

• the right to their identity as Aboriginal people
• the right to self-determination
• the right to their traditional, ancestral lands
• the right to continue their traditional practices while maintaining ecological, recreational, social, and cultural values

(The Aboriginal Justice Commission, 1999; Turning Point Initiative Coastal First Nations, n.d.)

In the context of BC’s forestry sector, respect for the land – expressed through “the respectful interaction between the forest and the Aboriginal people of today for the benefit of generations unborn” – reflects a crystallization of these rights, and can be considered one of the the most important guiding principles in Aboriginal forest management (Parsons & Prest, 2003, p.780). In order for Aboriginal rights to be ensured in perpetuity, the land base must managed in ecologically, culturally, and economically sustainable ways. This is due to the interconnectedness of culture, nature, identity, and livelihood in Aboriginal ontologies. For Aboriginal peoples, the land is a cultural reservoir, a source of knowledge, and an intrinsic part of personal and cultural identity (The Aboriginal Justice Implementation Commission, 1999). Since “time immemorial,” the land has provided Aboriginal peoples with both spiritual and material sustenance; thus, Aboriginal peoples view the entire land base as sacred (Indigenous Foundations, 2009b). As such, they believe they have a duty to use the land sustainably, which arises from their “relational accountability” to all living things, and their belief that humans are a part of – rather than separate from – the natural world (Sunseri, 2007). As an extension of this responsibility, Aboriginal peoples believe that sustainable land management must ensure that present and future generations are able to engage in traditional spiritual, cultural, and livelihood practices in ways that do not detract from the well-being and longevity of local ecosystems (Council of the Haida Nation, 2005). Since “any activity that irreparably damages the land irreparably damages First Nations culture,” and culture is intrinsically tied to Indigenous identity, sustainable management of trees, plants, and animals on traditional and ancestral lands is integral to the ability of Aboriginal people to fully enjoy their rights (Booth & Skelton, 2011, p.370). Thus, it can be seen that Aboriginal rights to land, culture, and identity converge in the realm of natural resource management, and that self-determination – expressed through the inclusion of Aboriginal values and visions of sustainability in forest management – is essential to the protection and realization of these rights (Law Commission of Canada, 2006).

Vancouver Island First Nation man in mask. (HelloBC, 2015)

This blog post is the first in a four-part installment exploring the current context of Aboriginal rights in British Columbia’s forestry sector. As I’ve become more aware of the current land use and ownership context in British Columbia, and the largely unceded nature of our land base, I’ve felt the need to delve more deeply into the social and historical background of our current land use practices. As I have a strong interest in forestry as a field of praxis and study, and many of BC’s landmark Aboriginal rights and title cases have resulted from forestry disputes, I chose to frame my inquiry through the lens of BC’s forest industry. In the first installment of this post, I will discuss the significance of Indigenous rights to BC’s forestry sector. In the second installment, I will define Aboriginal rights from both legal and Indigenous/cultural perspectives. In the third installment, I will propose three ways in which BC’s current forest management system can build capacity to sustain Aboriginal rights and values. In the final installment, I will make several recommendations towards enhancing foresters’ ability to identify and uphold Aboriginal rights in forestry practice. I understand that considering my lack of experience in the field, this piece represents my limited knowledge and personal opinion only, and is not intended to reflect those of either Aboriginal communities or the forest industry. I would be interested to hear what you think about this issue – please comment and share your thoughts!

Canadian Context of Aboriginal Rights

Aboriginal rights and title have been highly contested in both theory and practice throughout Canadian history. In 1982, the Canadian Constitution was amended to recognize and affirm Aboriginal rights; however, these rights were not clearly defined (Hanson, 2009; Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia [Tsilhqot’in], 2007). Subsequently, several court cases – including Guerin 1984, Sparrow 1990, Delgamuukw 1997, Marshall 1999, Haida 2004, and Tsilhqot’in 2007 – have challenged the Canadian justice system’s interpretation of Aboriginal rights (CBC News, 2013). These cases have called into question the way in which the Crown exercises its legal duty to consult with and/or accommodate First Nations prior to incurring on their asserted or established rights (Province of British Columbia [Province of BC], 2014). They have also called into question the role of natural resource managers – such as forestry professionals – in the consultation and accommodation process.

An example of BC’s beautiful forests (Canadian Press, 2013)

British Columbian Context of Aboriginal Rights

Aboriginal rights and title are a salient issue within the current context of British Columbia’s Forestry sector (Indigenous Foundations, 2009a; Tindall & Trosper, 2013b). In British Columbia, ninety-five percent of the land base is recognized to be unceded, ancestral territory of local indigenous peoples (Wilson & Henderson, 2014). However, many First Nations in BC have unresolved rights and title issues that prevent them from exercising sovereignty over these lands (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Mines, and Lands [BCMFML], 2010). As close to sixty percent of BC’s land base is forested – and almost eighty percent of Canadian First Nations are located within forested areas – Indigenous peoples’ struggle for recognition of their rights and title often takes place over forest lands (BCMFML, 2010; Booth & Skelton, 2011). Over the past several decades, Aboriginal people in BC have employed a variety of strategies to gain control over their forest lands, including staging protests, establishing logging blockades, and seeking recourse through the judiciary system (Tindall & Trosper, 2013b). While not all of these strategies have been successful, they have collectively led to the enshrinement of mandatory consent, consultation, and accommodation protocol in BC’s legal code (Province of BC, 2014; Tsilhqot’in, 2007).

Assembly of British Columbia First Nations Crest (British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, 2010)

Significance of Aboriginal Rights to BC’s Forestry Sector

While it is ultimately the Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations and accommodate their interests, non-governmental parties (“proponents”) are often included in this process (Province of BC, 2014). As such, forestry professionals are frequently required to consult with First Nations communities about activities that may affect Aboriginal Interests (Province of BC, 2014). In general, forestry professionals’ are expected to provide First Nations groups with information about their proposed project, engage with First Nations to determine how Aboriginal Interests will be impacted, and discuss possible mitigation strategies to address these impacts (Province of BC, 2014). Depending on the strength of the case supporting the Aboriginal right or title, and the seriousness of the “potentially adverse effect” upon the right or title claimed, forestry professionals may be required to alter their plans to accommodate Aboriginal Interests (Tsilhqot’in, 2007, p. 25). Thus, in order to effectively mitigate the potential impacts of forestry activities on Aboriginal Interests, forestry professionals must seek to understand Aboriginal rights not only from a Canadian legal perspective, but also from the perspective of the First Nations groups with which they work (Tsilhqot’in, 2007).