4
scribed correctly as the need to satisfy native land claims.
Here I wish to stress is that having a doctorate in Canadian history, it is something that I have some familiarity
with. I have also been guided in this regards by the writings of an Oneida environmental protection advocate and
Niagara Falls resident, Karl Dockstader.
In his eloquent writings Dockstader has stressed the
environmental implications for our time of the two treaties
of Niagara and the earlier Nanfan Treaty of 1701. In all of
these treaties he finds that, “It was to be understood that
resources were to be shared. Nobody could drink the last
drop from the kettle without being sure that it could be
replenished. With so little forest cover surviving today in
Niagara, he finds that the proposed development “invalidates the developer’s ability to act within the responsibility and honour of the crown.”
In elaborating on Dockstader’s writings, I wish to stress
that native treaty rights should not be seen in a negative
right as an obstacle to development. If properly applied,
they should be seen as a mechanism by which the developer can be compensated by the federal and provincial
government purchasing the property as part of a settlement of native land claims. The land can then be transferred to a newly created First Nations Park. Its operations would both protect the environment and serve to
properly educate the public on the earth respecting values
of traditional native culture. If interested the developer
could then use the funds to construct the Paradise development on a more appropriate site without forest cover
within the urban boundaries of Niagara Falls. A Thundering Waters First Nations Park would truly be a tourist
asset to Niagara Falls, which would entice the millions of
people who visit this place to stay longer.
There are many excellent examples of native managed
national parks in our continent, which is known by na-