The Jumbo Valley: Where Indigenous and Conservationist allegiances are formed

The Jumbo Glacier Resort is a planned 4-season ski resort that was first petitioned in 1991 by Oberto Oberti. The resort has been in legal battles for over 20 years due to the area’s cultural and environmental significance. At the center of the battle is the protection of the grizzly bear. For the Ktunaxa Nation, the grizzly bear is one of their most sacred spirits. In Ktunaxa culture, the grizzly bear allowed humans to live neighboring areas by migrating into the mountains of the Jumbo Valley. As an agreement between the two, the Ktunaxa people become the stewards of the land and must protect it. For conservationists, the valley, also known as the Cabinet-Purcell Mountain Corridors, is a priority area where grizzly bears and other wildlife are free to roam and migrate. The connectivity of this area is seen as critical for the maintenance and conservation of grizzly populations as well as other wildlife. The area also happens to be one of the few places that allow migration between the US and Canada.

The Ktunaxa and conservationists both have an interest of protecting grizzly populations and preventing the development of a ski resort in the area. The foundations for their beliefs are in different realms of reality. In their alliance they each have posed their own arguments in courtroom proceedings. The Ktunaxa delivered the Qat’muk Declaration to the BC legislature in 2010. It outlines the sacred spiritual significance of the area and presents an argument based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

“(a) manifest, practice, develop and teach our spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies and to maintain, protect,
and have access in privacy to our religious and cultural sites [Article 12]; and (b) maintain and strengthen our distinctive
spiritual relationship with our traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and other resources
and to uphold our responsibilities to future generations in this regard [Article 25];”

The Ktunaxa people appealed the BC government approval of the resort in 2016 based on this declaration and their religious freedoms. The Supreme Court heard the case but did not rule in a decision that recognizes indigenous religious rights and freedoms to land claims.

Concurrently, conservationists, the Ktunaxa, and Patagonia and Wildsight started a petition for protection of the Jumbo Valley. The petition was started in the film Jumbo Wild. The arguments presented in the documentary and coming from local MLA’s, conservationists, and backcountry enthusiasts span the range from wildlife conservation to the economic feasibility of a resort which will enter a market where existing ski resorts are already suffering financially. The documentary and the existing rulings suggest that it isn’t necessarily the case that Ktunaxa, conservationist, and other arguments aren’t being understood, but that they are simply being ignored for the sake of speculative real-estate profiteering translated into the unbridled political campaign donations.

It could be argued that every time the BC legislature or Supreme Court is problematised, it dissents from representing the common goals of the involved actors. As a form of mobilisation of the parties involved within the Jumbo Valley, it also fails to be representative. The conflict has been fought with constant ebbing and flowing translations over the past 20 years. How are the Ktunaxa and conservationists to structure their argument to have it be heard in ernest by the BC government? Could the new government open opportunity for Ktunaxa and conservationists to form an argument that will set a precedent for indigenous and conservationist land claims in Canada? Will the true arguments have to be hidden behind a veil of values that are actually considered in courtrooms? Will it have to be on the basis of something analogous to the ruling of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the bases of the Commerce Clause? How does this reflect on the inherent values of legal systems and the possibility for true representation of the populous?

 

Leave me a Comment