The same court challenge that shut down mineral staking in the Ross River area is now being applied to hunting licences.

In a lawsuit filed with the Yukon Supreme Court last week, the Ross River Dena Council is claiming it is unlawful for the territorial government to issue licences for hunting big game in the Ross River area before consulting with the First Nation.

“The plaintiff pleads in point of law that its asserted aboriginal title in and to the Ross River Area includes the right to the exclusive use and occupation of that tract of land and, as well, that its aboriginal rights include the right to harvest big game animals in that tract of land,” says the court document.

“The issuance of aforementioned hunting licences and seals under the Wildlife Act and Regulation by the Government of Yukon might adversely affect the aboriginal title, rights and interests of the Ross River Dena Council’s members in and to the Ross River Area.”

Whitehorse lawyer Stephen Walsh, who represents Ross River, said Chief Brian Ladue directed the court action be filed because of the First Nation’s longstanding concern about increasing hunting pressure on big game in the area.

Environment Minister Currie Dixon said this morning this lawsuit is nowhere close to the case involving mineral claims.

The government will mount a full defence to protect the rights of Yukon hunters and Yukoners in general, and he expects hunting associations right across Canada will be watching, he said.

“Environment officials and Justice officials are meeting right now to assess the case for our defence.”

The minister was also critical of the timing, suggesting that filing the court action on July 31, the day before hunting season begins, was intentionally aimed at creating uncertainty among hunters.

The lawsuit, he emphasized, will not affect any hunting rights this year.

From Ross River’s point of view, the same legal argument that led to the withdrawal of staking mineral claims in the Ross River area applies to issuing hunting licences without consulting the Dena council, Walsh said.

He said he expects it will ultimately lead to the same resolution, that being a negotiated arrangement for hunting in the Ross River area.

Currently, Walsh explained, the First Nation and Yukon government are negotiating an agreement intended to allow mineral staking once again.

“Ross River has tabled fairly detailed documents describing the area that could be open to staking, no-go areas and areas that will require special management,” he said. “I would expect something similar to that.”

Walsh said the law involving aboriginal rights and title clearly establishes the aboriginal right to harvest big game.

And there’s nobody who can argue that issuing Yukon hunting licences isn’t affecting the Kaskas’ aboriginal right to harvest, he said, adding there is an increasing pressure by hunters from Whitehorse and elsewhere in the Yukon.

The Yukon government has 21 days from last Thursday to file its statement of defence.

A case management conference between the two parties is scheduled to go before a Supreme Court judge Aug. 12.

The Ross River Dena Council is one of three Yukon First Nations which have not signed modern day land claim treaties.

In December 2012, the Yukon Court of Appeal ruled the territorial government must consult the Ross River Dena Council before allowing any mineral staking in the Ross River area.

It also ruled it must consult the First Nation before allowing any exploration activity, even the lowest level of activity, such as collecting soil samples.

The Supreme Court of Canada turned down a request by the Yukon government to hear an appeal.

Not only has the Court of Appeal decision closed the Ross River area to staking until a resolution is negotiated, but it has also led to major amendments of the Yukon’s Quartz Mining Act and the Placer Mining Act.

Dixon said the system of managing mineral staking and exploration activity is quite different than managing the territory’s wildlife.

Wildlife, he insisted, is already being managed in a co-operative and collaborative manner, with the full participation of all Yukon First Nations.

If an issue of conservation is identified, methods to address the concern are discussed and implemented, co-operatively, he said.

“We reviewed the statement of claim,” Dixon said. “Obviously, we are surprised and deeply concerned about the claim.

“I did want to reassure hunters this will not affect this year’s hunting season, but, that being said, hunters and all Yukoners should be concerned about this claim.”

Having the claim filed on the eve of hunting season is unfortunate and disappointing, the minister added.

“But again, I want to assure hunters we are doing everything we can to stand up for Yukon hunters.”

Dixon said he expects this case could have implications for First Nations without treaties elsewhere in Canada, such as B.C., Alberta and Ontario.

Associations across the country which represent the interests of hunters will be watching this closely, he suggested, but didn’t offer an opinion whether they might even apply to get involved in the case.

The Yukon Chamber of Mines, for instance, applied and received permission to become an intervener in the case involving the staking of mineral claims.

“Whether they intervene or not intervene, I certainly expect they’ll be watching with a keen eye.”

Walsh expects the case will have implications across the Yukon as well, the same as the case involving the staking of mineral claims.

There are landmark cases, including last month’s decision involving the rights of the Tsilhqot’in First Nation of B.C., where aboriginal rights and title, and the need to consult First Nations are clearly described, he said.

“To put it in simplest form, Ross River is saying just as the recording of quartz mineral claims satisfied the Haida test for triggering the duty to consult, so does the issuing of hunting licences to harvest big game in the Ross River area.”