Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Ojibwa fishing grounds : a history of Ontario fisheries law, science, and the sportsmen’s challenge to… Thoms, J. Michael 2004

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2004-902803.pdf [ 40.81MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0091924.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091924-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091924-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091924-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091924-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091924-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091924-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Ojibwa Fishing Grounds: A history of Ontario fisheries law, science, and the sportsmen's challenge to Aboriginal treaty rights, 1650-1900. By J. Michael Thorns B A . University of Toronto, 1992 M . A . Trent University, 1996 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of History) Weaecept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January, 2604 ©J. Michael Thorns, 2004 11 Abstract This dissertation investigates the question: what happened to the Ojibwa right to fish in southern Ontario? The region is one of the oldest and most complex in Canada for Aboriginal and treaty rights negotiations and fisheries law. The study involves community-based case studies with four Mississauga and three Chippewa First Nations. It reconstructs their system and laws for the conservation of their valued ecosystem components prior to their first treaties with the British Crown in 1783. This forms the critical environmental context from which to interpret Ojibwa treaty strategies. The Crown made no records of the first treaties, but Ojibwa oral histories of the agreements hold that they reserved the regions' wetlands and fisheries for their exclusive use, agreeing only to cede arable uplands to the Crown for agricultural settlement. The dissertation corroborates the oral histories in British records. Further, the study demonstrates that the parliament of Upper Canada protected the Ojibwa treaty fishing rights in a series of Acts for the Preservation of Salmon (1807, 1810,1820,1823); settlers bore the burden of the first conservation laws. The dissertation then asks what happened to these treaty and legislative protections? It identifies a cabal of mid-19th century sportsmen who developed a series of enduring arguments against Aboriginal rights and infiltrated parliament to effect new legislation that criminalized Ojibwa fishing systems and entrenched their own methods. The final component applies methods from science and technology studies to demonstrate how sportsmen's associations influenced the early development of fisheries science research to make scientific truth statements that endorsed their social interests and recast the Aboriginal fishing systems as a serious threat to the conservation of stocks. The sportsmen's 19th scientific truth statements are critically studied for their roots in a colonial power struggle. They remain at the core of modern fisheries management principles and continue to obstruct the rehabilitation of Ojibwa fishing systems and treaty rights. Ul Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of tables iv List of maps v List of figures vi Acknowledgement vii Dedication ix Introduction. Sportsmen and Ojibwa fishers 1 Chapter 1 Nind Onakonige (I make laws): Ojibwa management of Southern Ontario's wetlands 33 Chapter 2. Lords and Fisheries: the coming of English game laws, exclusive fishing rights and the Royal Proclamation of1763 71 Chapter 3. Negotiating Treaties of Co-Existence: braking grounds for a post-Royal Proclamation society, 1763-1798 95 Chapter 4. Ojibwa Lords of the Fisheries: 1794-1821 127 Chapter 5. Shifting Grounds: Trespass and the combined discourse of conservation and morality, 1817-1856 161 Chapter 6. Sports Fishers Strike: the lobby and the science behind the 1857 Fishery Act 199 Chapter 7. Legal Grounds: fishing leases and the 1858 Fishery Act 226 Chapter 8. Making Modern Fisheries Science: 1865-1899 259 Conclusion. The Lordly Trout 281 Bibliography 290 Appendix 1 Family Hunting Ground Index 317 Appendix 2 Fur Trading Posts 320 iv List of Tables Table 2.1 English Salmon Preservation Statutes 73 Table 2.2 Contents of English Statutes 74 Table 4.1 English and British North American statutes 150 Table 4.3 Upper Canada acts and treaties 154 Table 5.1 Population of Upper Canada, 1812-60 161 Table 5.2 percentage of fish cured by location, 1856 195 V List of Maps Map A . l Traditional Mississauga and Chippewa territories 8 Map 1.1 Division of traditional territories 40 Map 1.2 Family hunting grounds 41 Map 1.3 Known dodem hunting grounds 42 Map 1.4 Mississauga fall fishing places 46 Map 1.5 Chippewa fall and spring fishing places 49 Map 1.6 Chief Big Canoe's travel route 54 Map 1.7 Rice Lake 58 Map 3.1 Supposed boundaries of first treaties 95 Map 3.2 Districts, 1789-92 111 Map 3.4 Simcoe's districts, 1792 118 Map 4.1 Mississauga and Chippewa treaties, 1805-1820 128 Map 4.2 Coverage of the 1807 Salmon Act 152 Map 4.3 Coverage of the 1821 Salmon Act 157 Map 7.1 Christian Island lease boundaries, 1859 234 Map 7.2 Mississauga and Chippewa waters for lease, 1876 253 Map 8.1 Location of angling sanctuaries 274 vi List of Figures Figure A . l "Hunting and Fishing Wars", Toronto Star 3 Figure 1.1 Ojibwa working a wetland, Caroline Daly, 1870s 44 Figure 1.2 Mississauga women Fishing, 1852 47 Figure 1.3 Chippewa trappers on Nottawasaga River 56 Figure 3.1 Land grant specimen 109 Figure 3.3 Survey of Mecklenburg, 1790 112 Figure 3.4 survey of Darlington township, 1791 Figure 3.5 Cootes Paradise, John Herbert Caddy, 1860 120 Figure 4.1 Crown survey of Moira River, 1816 135 Figure 4.2 Mississauga of the Credit River treaties, 1820 145 Figure 5.1 Coldwater Mission, 1832, Henry Martin 183 Figure 5.2 Hauling seine on Wellington Beach, 1842, R. Wallis Figure 6.1 Montmorency River, 1782, James Peachey 201 Figure 6.2 Sportsmen's social spectrum illustrated 217 Figure 7.1 Non-Native fishers'base island 235 Figure 7.2 Communal fishery at Wellington Bay, 1858 237 Figure 7.3 Fisheries surveillance of Rice Lake, 1897 248 Figure 8.1 Canadian Court at Fisheries Exhibit, 1883 267 V l l Acknowledgements Like all research, this one has a story filled with wonderful people and great advisors. I am grateful to them all. Art Beaver started this research many years ago when he suggested I do community-based historical research with a First Nation. This took me to the Red Rock Band, on the Nipigon River, where the late elder Dave Quackageesick gave me a research problem that I have tried to answer ever since: "explain how I became a poacher, I am good to the land, and I have that right." On the north shore of Lake Superior, one special piece of academic scholarship helped me interpret my data: Dianne Newell' Tangled Webs of History. After finishing my Nipigon project, I knew that there was more to Mr. Quackageesick's question that I had yet to answer. I then traveled to UBC to study with Professor Newell. Fisheries research is necessarily multidisciplinary and she promptly introduced me to a group of scholars who held the disciplinary knowledge that could shed interpretive light on my data. In ethnohistory, she introduced me to Professor Arthur Ray, the leading thinker on how to reconstruct and understand the aboriginal past from historical sources. In the faculty of law, she introduced me to Professor Wes Pue who taught me to explore the relationships between law and society. Here, I also had the fortune to meet Professor John Borrows, a leading aboriginal scholar who expressed interest in my questions. Within my classes, there was another student, Douglas Harris, who was asking many of the same questions about the relationship between aboriginal fishing cultures, law, and colonialism. He became a most trusted colleague without whom this story would have been lonelier and without him, my data and theory would have been much less mulled over. In the Fisheries Centre, Professor Newell introduced me to a dynamic group of people dedicated to understanding past and present issues in fisheries management. In the Department of Geography, she introduced Professor Cole Harris who enticed me with new ideas in post-colonial geographic thought. Through all my travels between disciplines, she kept on top of my explorations, kept my ideas grounded in the discipline of history, and pushed me to think harder about many aspects of the fisheries that she understands so well. She also introduced me to the literature on the history of science that opened another interpretive door. I am very grateful to Professor Newell who VIU understands the many forms of research taking place at UBC and linked me with some far corners of the campus that should not be working in isolation. When my classroom studies concluded, former Gimaa (chief) Rennie Goose and Paul Sandy invited me to their communities to discuss my research proposal. It amounted to a long community-based study with seven First Nations. I am grateful to Brian Beaver who accompanied me to my first meetings and educated me about his peoples' history along the way. I am also grateful to all the members of the communities who shared their oral histories with me, opened their private archives, and took the time to tell me about their culture. I am especially grateful to Mel Jacobs who oversaw my research relationship with the communities. Names that jump to mind include: Lisa Edgar-Menzies, Tim Monague, Kelly LaRocca, Valerie LaRocca, Tracy Gauthier, Wesley Marsden, Delma Foster, and Bev Cowie. My other home in this story was in the National Archives of Canada and the Ontario Archives. If it were not for archivists, the basic data on First Nations rights and their efforts to protect these rights would not be available to Canadians. I thank all archivists for preserving these crucial documents. In particular, I would like to thank Sarah Klotz at the National Archives for her kind and timely help. I am grateful to the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) for grants that made this research possible. My family was at the centre of this story at all times. Now that the story is over, I am glad that they are still with me! Thank you Regina, Poppy, and Oscar. You are my best friends. Finally, thanks again to the late elder Dave Quackageesick for the question that has occupied my life for many years. I regret that I will not be able to share my answers with you. For my grandfather, William John McCandless (1902-2002), a lumberjack, farmer, hunter, and fisher who never considered himself to be a sportsman. Introduction Sportsmen and Ojibwa fishers The persons making the bargain on behalf of the government, stated that their people were tillers of the ground, and noftj hunters, that they wanted the lands to till, and not to game and to fish [sic]; the game andfish should still be the property of the Indians.1 Chief Joseph Sawyer, 1844 (There was a] treaty that we should hunt on the creeks, but the land is not ours. The white man have the dry land, but we have the wet land} Chief Robert Paudash, 1923 Introduction Between 1784 and 1788, the southern Ojibwa and the British crown negotiated a series of treaties that opened the door to European settlement of Upper Canada (Ontario). British officials failed, however, to keep written records of the treaties. As a result, the agreements are a source of confusion to all historians who have sought to explain them.4 The Ojibwa, it appears, preserved more complete records of the agreements in their oral histories. They hold that they agreed to cede parcels of arable uplands to the British but reserved southern Ontario's wetlands with its fish and animal resources for their exclusive use. In essence, they claimed that they pursued a strategy for an ecological co-existence with the newcomers: they retained wetlands, the most productive habitats of fish and wildlife, and ceded dry lands to settlers for agriculture. The southern Ojibwa oral histories also contain an intriguing claim that runs contrary to our current understanding of the history of Ontario fisheries law. Most 1 National Archives of Canada [hereafter NAC], RG 10 (Indian Affairs), vol. 1011, Chiefs Joseph Sawyer and John Jones, petition to Governor General, dated Credit River, 5 December 1844. 2 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67.0171-4C, Bound volume of Testimony to a Commission, Chaired by A.S. Williams, investigating claims, by the Chippewas & Mississaugas of the Province of Ontario, to compensation for land not surrendered by the Robinson Treaty of 1850 (1923), testimony of Robert Paudash: 229. 3 Alexander Fraser, "Indian Lands", in Sixteenth Report of the Department of Archives for the Province of Ontario (Toronto: Clarkson W. James, 1921): 219. 4 Donald B. Smith, "Who are the Mississauga", Ontario History 67 (1975): 211-223; Donald B. Smith, "The Dispossession of the Mississauga Indians: A Missing Chapter in the Early History of Upper Canada", Ontario Historical Society 63.2 (June 1981): 67-87; Robert Surtees, Indian Land Surrenders in Ontario 1763-1867 (Indian and Northern Affairs, Research Branch, Corporate Policy, Canada: 1984): 37-46; Leo A. Johsnon, "The Mississauga - Lake Ontario Land Surrender of 1805", Ontario History 83.3 (September 1990): 233; Robert J. Surtees, "Land Cessions, 1763-1830", in Edward S. Rogers and Donald Smith (eds.), Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectives on the First Nations (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1994): 92-121. startling, they assert that the first fisheries laws passed in Upper Canada, Acts for the Preservation of Salmon (1807, 1810, 1821, 1823), were designed to preserve the fisheries for the themselves, pursuant to agreements made in each of their treaties, and that the legislation made non-natives bear the burden of the fish conservation measures.5 Today, provincial officials deny the existence of such arrangements and a reverse state of affairs exists. Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) restricts aboriginal commercial fishing to a few water lots in the deepest parts of the Great Lakes.6 In all other aquatic environments, it privileges and encourages sport fishing while it holds traditional aboriginal fishing seasons (i.e spawning times) and methods (i.e. spears and nets) to be illegal. If an Ojibwa person wishes to fish with traditional technologies at the season of his or her choosing, they must do so within a few meters of their Indian Reserve waterfront or risk charges under the Ontario Fisheries Act. If charged, they must defend themselves in costly court proceedings. This has been the case since the late 19 t h century.7 Most recently, in 1984 the M N R charged George Howard, an Ojibwa fisher from the Hiawatha First Nation, for fishing pickerel out of season for family food. He appealed his conviction, in the case that bore his name, to the Supreme Court of Canada, where he lost. In 1990, the Ontario government briefly reconsidered its fisheries allocation priorities when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Sparrow that a Musqueum fisher in British Columbia held an existing aboriginal right to fish in the manner, time, and place of his choosing and that only concerns about conservation and public safety could bear on 5 Provincial Archives of Ontario [hereafter PAO], A.E. Williams Papers, F 4337-1-0-13, G. Mills McClurg, memo to chiefs, "Re: Hunting and fishing rights reserved by the Indians, in their different surrenders of territory to the Crown from the earliest period, onward," dated Toronto, 5 September 1911. 6 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources [hereafter MNR], Lake Huron Management Unit, Status and Outlook for the Major Commercial Fish Species of Lake Huron, 1996 (Toronto: 1996): 4, 103. 7 Starting in 1892, the Department of Marine and Fisheries printed a "Report of Cases" in its annual report in the Canada Sessional Papers [hereafter CSP] identifying its fishing prosecutions. The lists contain the prosecutions of Ojibwa fishers in various treaty regions for a variety of offenses. See for example: CSP 1895 no 58: 34-39. In 1893, the Ontario Game and Fish Commission began to report cases of fish and game violations in its annual reports printed in the Ontario Sessional Papers [heraeafter OSP]. See for example: OSP 1893 no. 17: 36-39; OSP 1895 no. 33: 32-45; OSP 1896 no. 31: 33-51; OSP 1897 no. 30: 32-33; OSP 1899 no. 33: 42-53; OSP 1900 no. 68: 48-53; OSP 1901 no. 30: 26-32; OSP 1902 no.30: 30-33. For media reports on cases in the early 20th century, see: Anon., "The Appeal of an Indian", Toronto Globe, 9 May 1928; Anon., "Indians are fined for having a spear ready for lunge", Ottawa Citizen, 6 February 1938; Anon., "Indians claim right to fish and hunt not given up", Orillia Packet and Times, 16 June 1938. For a recent reported case, see Regina v. Taylor and Williams, 34 Ontario Reports (2d) (1982): 360. -3 -the exercise of his rights.9 The ruling had implications across Canada wherever aboriginal fishing rights had not been specifically surrendered in a treaty. In response, Ontario implemented an Interim Enforcement Policy on [the] Aboriginal Right to Hunt and Fish for Food that gave precedence to aboriginal fishing over non-native commercial and sport fishing, subject to sustainable yields determined by fishery biologists.10 A non-native backlash to the Sparrow decision began almost immediately. Sports fishers' were reported to be "furious" and lobbied against priority for native fishers as a type of 'reverse' racial discrimination. A writer with the Toronto Star reported that, "declarations that native people have special rights are fuelling anger and threats of violence in the great outdoors" and "outraged many non-natives who argue that they're being made the victims of discrimination". The reporter declared that a "war" between natives and sportsmen had erupted in Canada's outdoors (figure l ) . 1 1 The return to a rights-based fisheries allocation system concerned sportsmen who tried to reconfigure the issue as "racial". In the end, however, sportsmen chose to ground their defense in the supposed truths of western fisheries science and its primary tenets for the conservation of fish: 1) that fishing be limited to certain "seasons", and 2) that the realm of fishing technologies be restricted to angling. In an example of these arguments in action, a writer with The Chronicle-Journal/ The Times News of Thunder Bay argued 8 R. v. Howard, 2 Supreme Court of Canada Reports (1994): 299. 9 Regina v. Sparrow, Supreme Court of Canada Reports 1 (1990): 1075. 1 0 Ontario MNR, Interim Enforcement Policy on Aboriginal Right to Hunt and Fish for Food, pamphlet (Ontario 1991). 1 1 Peter Gorries, "Hunting and Fishing Wars: Can Prairie peace plan bring reason back to the woods?", Toronto Star, 4 August 1991. H U N T I N G A H O I I H ; M i: u r n D C if nii9 Om Prattt ftmt pim tnf mtmm h a r t * ihTw,>»li1 I t n Figure 1: Patrick Corrtgan, Toronto Star, 4 August 1991. that native hunting year round, without the restrictions set out in "closed-seasons", was a violation of "sound conservation principles". Ontario's largest sportsmen's lobby, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH), with 74,000-members, led the pressure on the Ontario government to revoke the Interim Enforcement measures. The OF A H placed scientific arguments at the centre its campaign.13 It argued, for example, that, "any fishing outside regular seasons will put the fisheries in danger."14 It also intervened in each step of Howard's appeal to the Supreme Court to oppose the recognition of his rights. In the courtroom, the OF A H president, a university professor of biology, marshaled the authority of fisheries science to argue that Sparrow was poorly reasoned and that Ojibwa fishing methods were not biologically justified because they did not respect "normal seasons... established for conservation purposes".15 Hence, the OF A H held that lifting restrictions on Ojibwa treaty rights was a threat to the sustainability of the fisheries. These arguments are not new. In this current study, I observed that between 1820 and 1870, sportsmen made claims to be practicing the only "scientific" methods of fishing.1 6 In my research on the colonial contest to control the Nipigon River fishery, I noted that in the late 19 th century, sportsmen and the Ontario government often made recourse to knowledge claims in the 1 "7 emerging ecological sciences to argue for restrictions on the Ojibwa treaty right to fish. These scientific or biological arguments for restricting aboriginal fishing rights obviously 1 2 Bryan Meadows, "MNR enforcement based on skin color is infuriating public", The Chronicle-Jounral/The Time-News, 4 May 1991: F l . 1 3 Dave Ankney, president, The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters [hereafter OFAH], and Rick Morgan, Executive Vice President, "OFAH challenge Indian leaders on conservation", printed in the Nipigon Gazette, 21 May 1991: 7; Anon., "Natives not charged over out of season kill", Angler & Hunter (March 1992); Anon., "Natives force delay of cull", Angler & Hunter (March 1992); Anon, "Natives kill wild turkeys", Angler & Hunter (March 1992); Anon., "Hunter returns licenses to protest native hunting", Angler & Hunter (March 1992); Gary Ball, "Non-Natives worried about self-government negotiations", Angler & Hunter (March 1992). OFAH, "Dear Mr. Rae...", postcard printed in Angler & Hunter (March 1992); Dave Ankney, "An idea for the First Nations Circle on the Constitution: Hunting, fishing spiritual for all", Angler & Hunter (March 1992): 41. 1 4 Anon., "OFAH seeks Scugog Council support to stop special rights for natives", The Scugog Citizen, 5 October 1994. 1 5 Supplementary Affidavit of C. Davison Ankney, in Supreme Court of Canada, court file no. 22999, George Henry Howard (Appellant) and Her Majesty the Queen (Respondent) and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the United Indian Councils (intervenors), para. 7. 1 6 These claims are documented in chapter 6 of this study. 1 7 J. Michael Thorns, "An Ojibwa Community, American Sportsmen, and the Ontario Government in the Early Management of the Nipigon River Fishery", in Dianne Newell and Rosemary Ommer, eds., Fishing Places, Fishing People: Traditions and Issues in Canadian Small-Scale Fisheries (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999): 189-192. remain pervasive today. In fact, in 1996, O F A H achieved its objectives when it persuaded a newly elected Conservative provincial government to cancel the Interim Enforcement Policy. As a result, Ontario dispensed with the principles established in Sparrow and once again, Ojibwa peoples cannot practice their traditional fishing systems without the risk of prosecution. Therefore, the origin of sportsmen's scientific arguments and the source of its power to marginalize Ojibwa treaty fishing rights need investigation. OFAH's statement that closed seasons are "normal" do not clarify the science behind this conservation measure. In fact, the use of the word "normal" is a red flag to most historians who seek to answer how and why certain assumptions are normalized. One question for this research is how did this current fisheries management formula using restrictions on seasons become normal? In addition, I found it curious that both the Ojibwa and sportsmen established their cultural practices (i.e. spearing or angling) before the ecological and aquatic sciences emerged in the late 19 th century. While both cultures' methods predated this period, fisheries science developed tenets that opposed native systems but justified the traditional practices of sportsmen. How is it that western science advanced the sportsmen's practices and censured the other? I set out, therefore, to also investigate the historical social context in which these scientific truth statements were made about the contrary impacts of aboriginal over sport fishing systems. The O F A H also credits sportsmen with the origin of the conservation movement in Ontario.18 This perspective is consistent with a historiography promoted by Roderick Nash who posited that at the turn of the 20 t h century, sportsmen helped shift public values towards preservation ideals through enlightened intellectual leadership.19 Many popular histories of Ontario sportsmen's contribution to conservation programs were written in this vein and suggested that sportsmen's objectives were visionary and altruistic and that there was little public resistance to the new legal regime that privileged recreational The OFAH president credited "the organized conservation [that] movement began in the early 1900s" with the reduction of commercial fishing and hunts. He argued that non-native citizens became enlightened to the need for conservation at this time: "the non-native residents of Ontario willingly gave up their right to use fish and wildlife as a primary food source... Because they wished to preserve a more important right, the right to harvest fish and wildlife for spiritual, cultural, and ceremonial purposes." Dave Ankney, OFAH President, "An idea for the First Nations Circle on the Constitution: Hunting, fishing spiritual for all", Angler & Hunter (March 1992): 41. 1 9 Roderick Nash, Wilderness in the American Mind, 3rd edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983). fishery use. This historiography forms the premise to a new Ontario law, entitled, An Act to recognize Ontario's recreational hunting andfishing heritage and to establish the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission (2002). The Act purports to elevate the non-native privilege to hunt and fish to a "right" and places sportsmen at the centre of all resource management decisions in Ontario in appreciation of their "important contributions to the understanding, conservation, restoration and management of Ontario's fish and wildlife resources."21 Whether this historiography, which is very influential, is accurate, requires investigation. It is also needs to be determined how long sportsmen have opposed Ojibwa fishing rights and why? The research problem Many scholars are addressing a common research problem: what happened to the aboriginal right to fish in Canada? Most studies address the conflict between aboriginal and non-native commercial fishers;22 the conflict with sportsmen is understudied.23 G.C. Armstrong, "An Historical Review of the Management of the Sport Fishery in Ontario", Ontario Fish and Wildlife Review 6 (1967): 25-34; Richard Lambert, with Paul Pross, Renewing Nature's Wealth (Ontario: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, 1967); C A . Walkinshaw, "Early Organization of Hunting, Angling and Conservation Associations in Ontario", Ontario Fish and Wildife Review 6.3-4 (1967): 15-19; David H. Loftus, The Charter Boat Fishery for Lake Trout in Southern Georgian Bay: 1920-1955 (Ontario: Ministry of Natural Resource, Lake Huron Fisheries Assessment Unit, 1979). 2 1 Ontario Government, "preamble", Bill 135,2001. 2 2 Victor Lytwyn, "Ojibwa and Ottawa Fisheries around Manitoulin Island: Historical and Geographical Perspectives on Aboriginal and Treaty Fishing Rights", Native Studies Review 6.1 (1990): 1-30; John J. Van West, "Ojibwa Fisheries, Commercial Fisheries Development and Fisheries Administration, 1873-1915: An Examination of Conflicting Interest and the Collapse of the Sturgeon Fisheries of the Lake of the Woods", Native Studies Review 6.1 (1990); 31-64; Lise C. Hansen, "Treaty Rights and the Development of Fisheries Legislation in Ontario: A Primer", Native Studies Review 7.1 (1991): 5-6; Victor Lytwyn, "The Usurpation of Aboriginal Fishing Rights: A Study of the Saugeen Nation's Fishing Islands in Lake Huron", in Bruce W. Hodgins, Shawn Heard, John S. Milloy, eds. Co-Existence? Studies in Ontario—First Nations Relations (Peterborough, Frost Centre for Canadian Heritage and Development Studies, Trent University, 1992): 81-103; Dianne Newell, Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the Law in Canada's Pacific Coast Fisheries (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993); Roland Wright, "The Public Right of Fishing, Government Fishing Policy, and Indian Fishing Rights in Canada", Ontario History 86.4 (December 1994): 337-362; David T. McNab, "All in the Family: The Batchewana First Nation, Fishing and Land Rights, 1989-91", in David T. McNab, Circles of Time: Aboriginal Land Right and Resistance in Ontario (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press, 1998): 117-134; Arthur J. Ray, "Ould Betsy and Her Daughter': Fur Trade Fisheries in Northern Ontario", in Newell and Ommer, eds. 1999: 80-96; Douglas C. Harris, Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001); Kenneth Coates, The Marshall Decision and Native Rights (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000); William Craig Wicken, Mi'kmaq Treaties on Trial: history, land and Donald Marshall Junior (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002); Douglas C. Harris, "Indian Reserves, Aboriginal Fisheries and Anglo-Canadian Law, 1876-1882", in John McLaren, ed. Property Rights in the Colonial Imagination and Experience (in progress). Ontario is a significant focus for study because it represents one of the oldest and most complex areas in Canada for aboriginal treaty negotiations, fisheries regulations, and aboriginal and treaty rights issues. After beginning my project, I refined my research problem to several crucial questions: can the southern Ojibwa oral histories be corroborated? If so, how did southern Ojibwa treaty rights and the Salmon Preservation Acts get overturned? Did the Ojibwa manage their fisheries? How long have sportsmen been in conflict with Ojibwa fishing systems? Did sportsmen play an historic role in the transformation of Ojibwa fishing grounds into non-native angling places? What is the origin of scientific arguments against aboriginal fishing methods? Did sportsmen influence the scientific bodies that produced these "truths" which have negative implications for how and when the Ojibwa can fish while simultaneously privileging their sporting systems? Methodology I decided to address my research problem through a case study. Two rationales informed my decision. First, I determined to take a case study approach for ethical reasons. The recent Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1997) emphasized that research respecting First Nations should be conducted with the knowledge and input of the communities concerned.24 Case studies offer the most appropriate means to do this. I decided not to predetermine case study sites, but instead, in 1998,1 sent out a letter to several Ojibwa communities explaining my project and proposed a mutually beneficial arrangement in which I would receive community input into the refinement of my research questions, access community records, and speak with oral history holders in the collection of data for my independent analysis. In turn, I committed myself to conveying the relevant archival records I found and prepare briefs and memoranda on aspects of 2 3 Thorns 1999; Bill Parenteau, '"Care, Control and Supervision': Native People in the Canadian Atlantic Salmon Fishery, 1867-1900", The Canadian Historical Review 79.1 (March 1998): 1-35; Harris 2001; J. Michael Thorns, "A Place Called Pennask: fly-fishing and Colonialism on a BC Lake", BC Studies 133 (Spring 2002): 69-98. 2 4 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, "Sharing the Harvest: The Road to Self-Reliance, Report of the National Round Table on Aboriginal Economic Development and Resources", in Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (CD-ROM) (Ottawa: Libraxus, 1997). See also, First Nations House of Learning and the UBC Museum of Anthropology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver British Columbia, Canada, "Spirit of the Conference Statement", Protecting Knowledge: Traditional Resource Rights in the New Millennium, conference, 24-26 February 2000: their fishing histories. In this way, the research would then proceed from a case study of an Ontario fishery that a First Nation wanted undertaken. Several communities responded. In 1998,1 selected seven Ojibwa communities in south-central Ontario that are currently affiliated as the United Anishnaabeg Councils (UAC) as the focus of my study (see map A . l ) . 2 5 A note on terminology is important here. In the United States, the name "Chippewa" generally refers to the cultural group known in Canada as the "Ojibwa". In this case study, however, three communities self-identify as Chippewa (The Beausoleil Island, Georgiana Island, and Mnjikaning First Nations) and thus my references to Chippewa are to these Ontario communities. Four of the communities are part of the Mississauga culture (the Alderville, Curve Lake, In the spring of 1998,1 signed a research agreement with the UAC in which I made a series of commitments, including the development of an electronic database for the their internal archives, the organization of two workshops with community members about how to conduct archival research, and Hiawatha, and Scugog Island First Nations). These Chippewa and Mississauga peoples recognize themselves as members of the Ojibwa cultural group and prefer the name "Anishnaabeg" to "Ojibwa". 2 6 I decided to use the term "southern Ojibwa" when referring collectively to all seven communities due to its familiarity in the literature. Secondly, I chose a case study approach because I wanted to ground my research in the aquatic ecosystems in which the historical events occurred. The historical geographer, Arthur Ray, and the historian Dianne Newell, have demonstrated the critical importance of understanding aboriginal adaptations to and modification of very specific terrestrial and aquatic micro-environments.27 In terms of fisheries, it is important to document the fishing places that the Ojibwa socially produced. These places were at the intersections of where fish spawned, Ojibwa technologies could be used to capture them, and their culture informed their decisions. I draw this approach from Newell who found that Pacific Coast aboriginal fishing places were formed by the "coincidence" of fish ecology, people's fishing technologies, and their culture.28 For the Ojibwa, these places included river mouths, shoals around islands, shallow streams, and marshlands. The same interplay between culture, technology, and ecology is true for where sportsmen chose to fish. Their places included some of the same places the Ojibwa fished or were close to them and thus both groups assigned competing cultural meanings to the same small points in a river or lake's ecosystem. In The Organic Machine, the environmental historian, Richard White, demonstrated the importance of understanding the precise points in the Columbia River where different cultural groups placed competing meanings and property claims. He emphasized that the colonial contest to control the river was not a struggle for control of its entire length, but rather, a contest over a very few precise points along its course. White cautioned the historian that a failure to understand how instructional tours of the National Archives of Canada (Ottawa) and the United Church Archives of Canada (Toronto). 2 6 For an overview of cultural divisions within Algonquian-speaking peoples, see Charles Bishop, "Territorial Groups Before 1821: Cree and Ojibwa" in June Helm, ed., The Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 6: Subarctic (Washington: Smithsonian Institution 1981): 158-160. 2 7 Arthur J. Ray, Indians in the Fur Trade: their role as hunters, trappers and middlemen in the lands southwest of Hudson Bay 1660-1870 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974), revised with a new introduction, 1998; Arthur J. Ray, "Fur Trade History and the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en Comprehensive Claim: Men of Property and the Exercise of Aboriginal Title", in Kerry Abel and Jean Friesen, eds., Aboriginal Resource Use in Canada: Historical and Legal Aspects (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1991): 301-316; Newell 1993: 28; Ray 1999. 2 8 Newell 1993:28, 32. -10-precise points in an aquatic ecosystem are culturally demarcated, given meaning, and claimed, "can lead to basic mistakes."29 I decided that a case study grounded in the contours of specific ecosystems was the best means to draw-out the micro-environmental, technological, and cultural factors that shaped Ojibwa fishing places. Whether the settler society developed strategies to disrupt the Ojibwa's cultural and technological relationships with their local ecologies can then be studied.30 This level of detail would be impossible in a broad study of Ontario fishing history. The Mississauga and Chippewa's historical fisheries are suitable for such a micro-level study. In map A . l , I illustrate their division of south-central Ontario into discrete national territories around two major watersheds that divide in what is now the southeastern corner of Algonquin Park. The Chippewa controlled the watersheds that drain into the southeastern corner of Georgian Bay. The Mississauga claimed the Lake Ontario watershed between the Rouge and the Trent Rivers, which included the Trent's headwaters in the Haliburton region. The two territories represent major variations in Ontario's aquatic environments that range from the cooler waters of Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay to the warmer alluvial waters of Lake Simcoe and the Peterborough Lakes to the mixed cool and warm waters across the pre-Cambrian shield. The fact that the Mississauga and Chippewa's territories are defined by watershed boundaries makes the case study approach culturally and ecologically cohesive. The Mississauga and Chippewa's traditional territory is also an important region for study because settlers built some of their first commercial and sport fisheries within its limits. Finally, I noted that the OF A H challenged the fishing rights of the seven communities during the 1990s, especially when it intervened in George Howard's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. This case therefore offers an excellent opportunity to examine OFAH's arguments specific to these communities and their traditional environment. 2 9 Richard White, The Organic Machine (Hill and Wang: 1995): 39. 3 01 applied this approach in my analysis of the colonial struggle over the culturally and technologically determined productive ecological areas of a lake in the British Columbia interior: Thorns 2002. A Review of the Literature The historiography on Ojibwa fisheries Until the mid-1970s, most historians and anthropologists focused on the hunting and trapping attributes of Ojibwa culture and under-emphasized the importance of fishing.3 1 In 1972, one anthropologist even dismissed Ojibwa fishing as relatively unimportant during the fur trade.32 More recently, historians undertook case studies of extensive aboriginal fisheries around the Saugeen Peninsula,33 Manitoulin Island,34 the Sault Saint Mary rapids,35 Lake Superior,36 the Lake of the Woods, 3 7 and the central subarctic. In 1993,1 conducted my M . A . research on the Red Rock Band's fishery on the Nipigon River in northwestern Ontario.39 The studies reveal that fish were crucial to subarctic people's economies, especially the Ojibwa, and became even more central when terrestrial resources became scarce during the fur trade.40 Given the overwhelming evidence of the importance of the fisheries to the Ojibwa, some scholars recently pondered why this realization came so late. One school of thought is that because aboriginal women were the primary labourers in many native fisheries, the Ojibwa being no exception, that fur traders and other male observers neglected to describe these crucial 3 1 Edward S. Rogers, Ojibwa Fisheries in Northwestern Ontario (Department of Ethnology, Royal Ontario Museum, Ministry of Natural Resources, Commercial Fish and Fur Branch, Division of Fish and Wildlife, 1972); R.W. Dunning, Social and Economic Change among the Northern Ojibwa (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1959). 3 2 Rogers 1972; Edward S. Rogers "Cultural Adaptations: The Northern Ojibwa of the Boreal Forest 1670-1980", in Theodore Steegmann, Jr., ed. Boreal Forest Adaptations: The Northern Algonkians (New York: Plenum Press, 1983): 94. 3 3 Lytwyn 1992. 34Lytwyn 1990. 3 5 Graham A. MacDonald, "The Ancient fishery at Sault Ste. Marie", Canadian Geographical Journal 94.2 (April/May 1977): 54-58; Charles E. Clelland, "The Inland Shore Fishery of the Northern Great Lakes: Its Development and Importance in Prehistory", American Antiquity 47.4 (1982): 761-1784. 3 6 Erhard Rostlund, "Freshwater Fish and Fishing in Native North America," University of California publications in Geography 9 (1952): 1-313; McNab 1998. 3 7 Tim E. Holzkamm, Victor Lytwyn, and Leo G. Waisberg, "Rainy River Sturgeon: An Ojibwa Resource in the Fur Trade Economy", The Canadian Geographer 32.3 (1988): 194-205; Van West 1990. 3 8 Ray 1999. 3 9 J. Michael Thorns, "Illegal Conservation: Two case studies of conflict between indigenous and state natural resource management paradigms", M.A. Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough Ontario, 1995. 4 0 Charles A. Bishop, "The Emergence of the Hunting Territories Among the Northern Ojibwa", Ethnology 5.9 (January 1970): 1-15. -12-activities. The anthropologist, Charles Clelland, rejected this proposition with the observation that it is the rare primary record that does not contain a description of women's fisheries. Instead, he argued that his peers ignored Ojibwa fishing systems because of their "cultural predisposition to cast these fishermen in the roles of hunters, warriors, and fur traders."42 While some Ojibwa fisheries are now thoroughly documented, the Mississauga and Chippewa's traditional fisheries in south-central Ontario have not been purposely explored. This is a serious gap in the literature because their fishing grounds have been the subject of the oldest treaties and fishery laws in Upper Canada. Ojibwa Conservation In 1915, the anthropologist, Frank G. Speck, briefly conducted ethnographic research with the Temi-Augami Anishnaabe, a northern Ojibwa community. He found that these Ojibwa managed non-migratory animals through a system of family property claims over demarcated hunting grounds. Speck argued that the Ojibwa managed or conserved these animal resources because they had laws preventing trespass into another family's grounds and because each family had the ability and skill to perennially monitor their pressure on the local resources and adjust their use accordingly 4 3 Speck's findings generated considerable controversy. While many scholars later concurred that they found evidence of property institutions among other Algonquin communities, they differed over whether these institutions were aboriginal, inspired by European missionaries and fur traders, or a response to the collapse of big game herds at the outset of the fur trade.44 Brian J. Smith, "Historical and Archeological Evidence for the use of the fish as an alternative subsistence resource among Northern Plains bison hunters", in Kerry Abel and Jan Friesen, Aboriginal resource use in Canada: historical and legal aspects (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1991): 42; Elizabeth Vibert, "Real men hunt buffalo: masculinity, race and class in British fur trade narratives", in Joy Parr and Mark Rosenfield, eds., Gender and History in Canada (Toronto: Copp Clark Ltd., 1996): 50-67. 4 2 Clelland: 1982: 762, 764. 4 3 Frank G. Speck, "The Family Hunting Band as the Basis of Algonkian Social Organization," American Anthropologist 17 (1915): 5-6. 4 4 In particular, see the work of Eleanor Leacock, "The Montagnais 'Hunting Territory' and the Fur Trade", Memoirs of the American Anthropological Associations 78 (1954): 1-71; Dunning 1959; H. Hickerson, "Land Tenure of the Rainy Lake Chippewa at the Beginning of the 19* Century", Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology (Washington: Smithsonian Institute, 1967); Bishop 1970: 1-15; Adrian Tanner, "The New Hunting Territory Debate: An Introduction to Some Unresolved Issues", Anthropologica 28.1-2 (1986): 19-36; Shepard Krech III, The Ecological Indian Myth and History (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999):179-80, 182,193, 195. -13-My research benefits from a tremendous set of data on Mississauga and Chippewa family hunting properties, their locations, their history, and their supporting laws that a law firm, Hunter & Hunter, collected with the Mississauga and Chippewa in 1903. The data predate Speck's work and thus contribute new information to the debate.45 Recently, in The Ecological Indian: myth and history, the anthropologist, Shepard Krech, challenged the body of academic research and popular ideas that hold that natives sustainably managed natural resources. He asked how faithfully the modern concept of "conservation" reflects native cultural beliefs and harvesting practices over all time?4 6 His book is controversial47 and because it covers some of the same ground I intend to explore, requires some comment. At the core of his research, as I read him, Krech concluded that in the early 20 t h century, many aboriginal people borrowed or infused the concept of "conservation" with their current cultural identity to gain political advantage. In other cases, non-natives ascribed this identity to some to native groups.48 In my M A thesis, I agreed that Europeans have replaced their romantic conception of natives as "noble savages" with the idea of the "sustainable savage" as a new allegory against which to critique western society.49 Krech's caution to represent aboriginal cultures faithfully, free from an agenda to critique western values, is well received. The "conservationist" banner, however, must also been seen in its historical and political context. The environmental history literature that I review below is clear that, over time, different social interest groups, especially sportsmen, claimed to be the "true" conservationist in order to control or appropriate a resource from another user.50 It is therefore necessary to PAO, F 4337, A.E Williams - United Indian Bands of the Chippewas and the Mississaugas collection. 4 6 Krech 1999: 16. 4 7 Colin G. Calloway, "Indians, Animals, and Other Beings", Natural History 108.8 (October 1999): 64-6; Kirkpatrick Sale, "Again, The Savage Indian", Ecologist 30.4 (June 2000): 52; Richard White, "Review of The Ecological Indian and Jefferson and the Indians," New Republic 222.4 (January 2000): 44-9; Eric Alden Smith and Mark Wishnie, "Conservation and Subsistence in Small-Scale Societies", Annual Review of Anthropology 29.1 (October 2000): 493-524; Adrian Tanner, "Review of Shepard Krech III. The Ecological Indian. Myth and History", H-Amlndian, H-Net Reviews, April 2001. Url: Andre C. Isenberg, "Review of Shepard Krech III. The Ecological Indian", American Historical Review 106.2 (April 2001): 526-35; Dan Flores, "Review of Shepard Krech III. The Ecological Indian", The Journal of American History HA (June 2001): 177-8; 4 8 Krech 1999: 195-6,206. 4 9 Thorns 1995:26-28. 5 0 T.L. Altherr, "The American Hunter-Naturalist and the Development of the Code of Sportsmanship", Journal of Sports History 5 (Spring 1978): 7-22; J.F. Reiger, American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986), revised and expanded in 2000; N.S. Forkney, "Anglers, Fishers, and the St. Croix River: Conflict in a Canadian-American Borderland, 1867-- 14-situate the history of group identification as "conservationists" within the context of a power struggle. I believe that the important question is not whether the western definition of conservation actually describes Ojibwa resource use patterns over time, but rather, when and why did the Ojibwa feel they had to engage in this western discourse? The work of the post-colonial theorist, Mary Louise Pratt, is useful here. She coined the term 'auto-ethnography" to describe situations in which colonized subjects appropriated the colonizer's idioms, metaphors, and language in order to define and protect themselves.51 Is it possible that the Ojibwa appropriated the sportsmen's concept of conservation to engage the colonizer in a powerful debate that had resource appropriation at its heart? In terms of the Ojibwa's property institutions that Speck first identified, Krech concurred with its existence and potential to conserve non-migratory animals. He also examined its history and argued that a Jesuit missionary inspired the systems. His finding is that Ojibwa property institutions, and hence the ability to conserve certain resources, deserve some European credit. Krech also reviewed a variety of aboriginal beliefs and harvesting practices to determine i f they contained sustainable resource management concepts. In particular, he gave a significant amount of attention to aboriginal spiritual beliefs such as reincarnation or metaphysical ideas about animal biology.5 3 As I read him, he scrutinized these beliefs against current knowledge in the ecological sciences and found that many native customs for wildlife use were unsound or based more in superstition than ecological knowledge.54 In the case of Cherokee's metaphysical thinking about the biology of white tailed deer, he wrote, "but their knowledge - their science - was cultural".55 While Krech examined the changes in native concepts of their relationship with nature, he does not historicize the western ecological sciences that he holds as a counter-point of objective knowledge, In short, he 1900", Forest and Conservation History 37 (October 1993): 179-87; K.H. Jacoby, "Class and Environmental History: Lessons from the 'War in the Adirondacks'", Environmental History 2 (July 1997): 324-42; L.S. Warren, The Hunter's Game: Poachers and Conservationists in Twentieth-Century America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997); Joseph E. Taylor III, Making Salmon: An Environmental History of the Northwest Fisheries Crisis (Seattle, University of Washington Press: 1999). 5 1 Mary Louise Pratt, Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (New York: Routledge, 1992): 7. 5 2 Krech 1999: 179-182. 5 3 Tanner 2001. 5 4 Krech 1999: 22,117,170-1, 204. 5 5 Krech 1999: 167. -15 -did not approach modern western science as another cultural product. As I will explain below, the western ecological sciences, especially where they involve the management of sport fisheries, also need to have their basis in superstitions, cultural assumptions, myths, and metaphors exposed. The questions need to be asked: is modern ecological science an objective value-free source of knowledge against which to test aboriginal management systems? Or, did it evolve in a colonial negation of aboriginal systems and is thus inherently opposed to native practices? So far, the literature on Ojibwa property institutions has been limited to terrestrial resources. In my study of the Nipigon River, I learned that the local Ojibwa community subdivided the length of the river into a series of family properties that enabled communities to control the allocation of the resource and monitor their pressure.56 A n important literature on Pacific slope aboriginal fishing cultures documents the existence and operation of aboriginal fishing properties there,57 but whether family claims to fishing places were more universal among the Ojibwa needs to be tested. Dianne Newell's argument in Tangled Webs of History that Northwest Coast aboriginal societies' adaptation to aquatic resources "was as crucial as adaptation to land" and that in many cases when these people pinpointed the predictable location offish, they organized their terrestrial harvesting strategies around their fishing, may also be tested for the Ojibwa. 5 8 The historiography of southern Ojibwa treaties It is well known that between 1784 and 1788, the Mississauga and Chippewa agreed to a number of treaties involving the surrender of narrow strips of land along the shore of Lake Ontario from Kingston to Niagara. The substance of these first treaties is largely unknown because British officials failed to produce copies of them and then later proffered conflicting reports about their contents. The absence of this crucial information came to light almost immediately. In 1794, when Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe assumed his duty to settle the colony, he was astounded to learn that no reliable 5 6 Thorns 1999. 5 7 Arthur F. McEvoy, The Fisherman's Problem: Ecology and the Law in the California Fisheries, 1850-1980 (Cambridge University Press, 1986); White 1995; Keith T. Carlson, "History Wars; Considering Contemporary Fishing Sites Disputes," Keith T. Carlson, ed. A Stol:Id-Coast Salish Historical Atlas (Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre, 2001): 58-9; Thorns 2002. 5 8 Newell 1993:40. -16-treaty records were made. More recently, in 1920, the chief archivist of Ontario confirmed that few records exist for the first Upper Canada treaties. He blamed the Indian Department, a branch of the military, that unlike the Crown Lands Department, kept few records: "scarcely a record or account book was used, the Deputy Paymaster was the only public accountant for monies, and there was not even a permanent clerk for correspondence."60 In the 1980s, the historian Robert Surtees produced the first and only survey of the treaties that occurred in Upper Canada.61 He too had little to say about the first treaties made in the 1780s. In 1990, the historian, Leo Johnson, wrote that the pre-1805 treaty records are "fragmentary", "shrouded in obscurity", and "difficult to analyse accurately".62 Due to this absence of records, most historians, including Fraser, Surtees, Johnson, and Donald Smith, started their treaty researches with the 1805 Toronto Purchase and the 1806 purchase of the Burlington tract, for which there are more complete sets of colonial records.63 It has not escaped the above historians' attention that by 1820, the Mississaugas were deprived of the vast majority of their lands in southern Ontario. Despite the absence of records, some historians have suggested possible explanations. Donald Smith articulated the explanation that the Mississauga's misfortune was caused by a lack of knowledge of the value of land.6 4 The historical evidence, however, does not support this argument.65 Alternatively, Johnson argued that British officials intoxicated the Mississauga to induce them to sign the treaties.66 Neither argument attributes any agency to the Mississauga and Chippewa. Part of the problem is that none of these historians considered the recorded Ojibwa oral histories to be found in a variety of archival NAC, RG 10, vol. 8, Major E.B. Litterhales to Sir John Johnson, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, requesting that all records of the Toronto Purchase be sent to Lieutenant Governor Simcoe: pp. 8744-5. 6 0 Fraser 1921: 219. 6 1 Surtees 1984, 1994. 6 2 Johnson 1990: 233. 6 3 Fraser 1921; Surtees 1980; Smith 1981; Johnson 1990. 6 4 Smith 1981:67-87. 6 5 In one example, in 1797, Justice William Dummer Powell expressed great irritation at the price the Mississauga demanded for their land. The Crown expected to buy the lands for less than their market value. William Dummer Powell, "Memoir", 1 November 1796, in E.A. Cruikshank, ed., The Correspondence of the Honourable Peter Russell with Allied Documents Relating to his Administration of the Government of Upper Canada during the Official Terms of Lieut-Governor J.G. Simcoe while on leave of absence, vol. 2 (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1935): 21. 6 6 Johnson 1990: 233. - 17-sources. I do not leave these recorded oral traditions to stand on their own, but scrutinize them against crown records and other sources that bear on their historical context. Together, the crown's records and the Ojibwa's oral traditions form a robust source of data that indicate the Ojibwa were tactful negotiators and had a sophisticated plan for their co-existence with the newcomers. What happened to the Ojibwa's negotiated plans becomes the ensuing question? The historiography of Fisheries legislation/regulation The history of western fishery laws, particularly their shifting objectives and the shifting grounds on which they were premised, are central to this study. Legislative authority over the Great Lakes and inland waters is relatively straightforward. The legislature of Upper Canada passed the first Acts for the Preservation of Salmon between 1807 and 1839, after which the colonial legislature of Canada (province) passed fishery laws until Confederation. Most significantly, in 1857, the colony passed the first comprehensive Fisheries Act and formed a Fisheries Branch ("Fisheries") under the Department of Crown Lands for the enforcement of the Act.69, After Confederation, Canada controlled Ontario's Great Lakes and inland fisheries and formed the federal Department of Marine and Fisheries ("Fisheries"). In 1868, it passed a Fisheries Act based on the colonial Act of 1857.69 Thus, Upper Canada's legislative history and struggle with Ojibwa treaty rights contributed directly to the first Canadian Fisheries Act and has implications for the study of fisheries law across the country. Canada retained control over the Great Lakes and its watersheds until 1898, after which Ontario acquired control at the conclusion of a protracted court battle.70 Compared to the study of other staple products in Ontario's history (i.e. fur, timber, and minerals), there have been a limited number of studies on the province's 6 7 Aside from the PAO's recent purchase of the Hunter & Hunter records (PAO F 4337), the NAC holds microfilmed copies of Mississauga council meeting minutes from 1825 to 1849 in which many oral histories are recorded fNAC, RG 10, vol. 1011, Chief George Paudash papers). In another example, the NAC holds the sworn oral statements of 73 elders before the 1923 Williams Commission (NAC, RG 10 volume 2332 file 67,0171-4C, Bound volume of Testimony to a Commission, Chaired by A.S. Williams, investigating claims, by the Chippewas & Mississaugas of the Province of Ontario, to compensation for land not surrendered by the Robinson Treaty of 1850, 1923). 6 8 Canada (province), The Fishery Act. 20 Vict. (1857) c. 21. 6 9 Canada. Fisheries Act. 32 Vict. (1868) c. 20. 7 0 "Re. Provincial Fisheries," Supreme Court of Canada Reports 26 (1896): 526. -18-fisheries. It is likely that the destruction of Fisheries pre-1892 records in the West Block fire of that year is a significant contributing factor to the underdevelopment of the field. Within the research that has been done, scholars have not critically studied the earliest period of Upper Canada's fisheries management. Historians who have commented on the Acts for the Preservation of Salmon regarded them as rudimentary but enlightened steps towards the conservation of fish that formed the groundwork for the comprehensive Fisheries Act of 1857.71 These historians all approached their analysis from an environmental perspective: they tried to decipher how the Acts served to protect the fish. For example, R.W. Dunfield, in The Atlantic Salmon in the History of North America, found that the Salmon Acts were of little merit because spear fishing was sanctioned, revisions to the acts were sometimes contradictory, and the acts did not extend geographically to cover all the salmon spawning grounds in Upper Canada. Historians have not approached their analysis of the Acts from the question: for whom were the salmon protected? This approach opens up new insights into the social purpose of the first fishery laws in Upper Canada. This perspective is also consistent with the intent of English game and fish laws passed between 1671 and 1831 that 'preserved' game for a specific group, usually the landed gentry. In fact, the precedents for Upper Canada's Salmon Acts are found in 18 th century England where identically styled laws were on the books to preserve the salmon for the elite. No historian, however, has examined the 18 th century English fishery laws to locate the legal and social assumptions that informed Upper Canada's Acts for the Preservation of Salmon. It is well known that 18 th century English game laws protected game and fish for the landed gentry and were oppressive, often making it penal for a peasant to kill a hare in his own fields. A high quality scholarship starting with E.P. Thompson's classic work, Whigs and Hunters, Douglas Hay's, "Poaching and Game Laws in Cannock Chase", Richard H. Thomas', The Politics of Hunting, and P.B. Munsche's Gentlemen and Poachers reveal the social and ideological origins of the laws. They showed that the laws 71 Katherine MacFarlane Lizars, The Valley of the Humber: 1615-1913 (Toronto: William Briggs, 1913): 115; Edwin C. Guillet, Early Life in Upper Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1933): 267; Lambert 1967: 150-51; MeCullough 1989: 19; Hansen 1991: 5-6; Wright 1994: 344; Margaret Beattie Bogue, Fishing the Great Lakes: An Environmental History, 1783-1933 (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2001): 179. -19-were as much, i f not more, about enforcing England's rigid social order as they were about the conservation of fish and game. They explained why the landed gentry argued that its game laws were in the best interest of English society and how they girded their laws with ideological justifications. On one hand, the gentry developed the argument that we now call the 'tragedy of the commons' to justify their exclusive property in game and fish to protect it from "ruin". While this argument had a relationship to conservation, others justifications were solely concerned with the preservation of the English social order. Munsche explained, for example, that the statutory regime produced a blueprint of the desired social geography of rural England. The laws spelt out the appropriate vocations of each class and stratified England's ecological niches along class lines with peasants confined to their village commons and the elite accorded various degrees of exclusive rights over game and fish based on their wealth and social status. To bolster the laws, the elite argued that hunting and fishing was a vice that, i f not restricted, could lead peasant farmers into sloth and immorality, thus causing them to neglect their proper calling and industrious labour.74 In the words of one early 18 th century English authority, fishing was "the mother of all vices". 7 5 These English laws and their social and moral assumption were not restricted to England. The Upper Canadian records are replete with colonial concerns about the moral effects of fishing on a settler society. While historians of Upper Canada all agree that British officials attempted to construct the colony into a stratified social geography based on the English model, they have not considered whether Upper Canada's first fishery laws were part of this strategy. Similarly, environmental historians have not considered how moral concerns (and the perceived need for restraint) shaped the development of the R.W. Dunfield, The Atlantic Salmon in the History of North America (Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1985): 75, 107. 7 3 Blackstone, Sir William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765-69): c. 27:412. 7 4 P.B. Munsche, Gentlemen and Poachers: The English Game Laws 1671-1831 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981): 7. 7 5 Anon., The Game Laws or a Collection of the Laws and Statutes made for the preservation ofgame in this Kingdom, 6* edition (London: Nutt, 1722): vii. 7 6 Gilbert C. Paterson, "Land Settlement in Upper Canada", in Ontario Bureau of Archives, Report (Toronto: 1921); J.M. Bliss, "Governor Simcoe's plans for Upper Canada", in J.M. Bliss, ed., Canadian History in Documents, 1763-1966 (Toronto: Ryerson Press, 1966): 34; Lillian F. Gates, Land Policies of Upper Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968); Leo A. Johnson, "Land Policy, Population Growth, and Social Structure", Ontario History 52.1 (1972). -20-Great Lakes fisheries. Finally, historians of aboriginal rights have not considered how English fishery laws could have been used to protect exclusive Ojibwa fishing rights and improve their social standing in the settler society. A question I address throughout my research is: did the Acts for the Preservation of Salmon recognize the Ojibwa as the equivalent of English lords over the fisheries? The English game law literature makes two other important contributions to the analysis of Ojibwa treaties and what happened to their fishing rights. First, the literature is clear that the concept of property in natural resources was different in 18 th century England. At this time, many people could claim properties within a single plot of land: somebody might own the fruit trees, another the rushes, and another the fish in a pond. th Only after parliament passed the "enclosure" acts in the late 18 century did all the possessable property within an area of soil become bundled as the property of one owner. The former concept of property in natural resources is the one to consider when interpreting the Royal Proclamation of1763 and the first treaties in Upper Canada. Secondly, the literature also makes it clear that English peasants resisted the landed gentry's game laws. In particular, E.P. Thompson demonstrated that peasants hired lawyers and founded a legal tradition of articulating their own "alternative definitions of property rights" to rebuke elite efforts to usurp their communal resources.78 The significance for other English law jurisdictions is that these resistors made room in the common law for alternative definitions of communal property in natural resources. To understand how settlers and even some aboriginal communities in the British North American colonies resisted the Crown's attempts to assert control over their fisheries, it is important to understand the realm of legal defenses that English peasants developed to protect their local control from state appropriation. Historiography on Canada's (province) 1858 Fishery Acts There is a growing debate on the history and intent of Canada's (province) Fishery Acts of 1857 and 1858. In 1857, the Canadian parliament (provincial) passed the 7 7 McCullough 1989; Bogue 2001. 7 8 E.P. Thompson, Whigs and Hunters: The Origin of the Black Act (New York: Penguin Books, 1975): 264-9. -21 -first comprehensive Fisheries Act. In 1858, it revised the Act to contain clauses for the division of the Great Lakes and inland waters into a series of "fishing stations" to be leased to the highest bidder.80 The Act gave the lessees the exclusive right over their fishing stations. The historical geographer, Victor Lytwynn, argued that Fisheries then re-allocated the better part of many Ojibwa communities' fisheries to non-native commercial fishers. The Ontario legal historian, Roland Wright, concurred with this consequence, but argued that it was unintended. Instead, he argued that the 1858 Fisheries Act represented the first real time the Ojibwa had a legal opportunity to acquire exclusive control over a fishing ground.81 Wright's arguments are a reification of the reasoning of a colonial solicitor general who, in 1866, held that under the terms of Magna Carta (1215), nobody could hold an exclusive right of fisheries in navigable waters unless expressly sanctioned by parliament. Both Wright and the solicitor general therefore argued that any crown "grant" of an exclusive Ojibwa fishing right in a treaty, without parliamentary sanction, was incompatible with English law. Wright's argument has been persuasive in recent Canadian jurisprudence,83 but is the subject of growing debate in the legal history literature.84 I address the many failures of the solicitor general's crucial justification for the re-allocation Ojibwa fisheries, and its recent scholarly revival, throughout my research. The historiography on sport fishing lobbies A growing literature provides important guidance on the role of sportsmen in the history of North American environmental politics. In 1981, James Tober, in Who Owns the Wildlife, challenged Nash's altruistic interpretation of sportsmen's contributions to the history of conservation with evidence that sportsmen were a powerful class of people who lobbied for restrictions on access to wildlife to benefit themselves, other elite social w Canada (province), The Fishery Act. 20 Vict. (1857) c. 21. 8 0 Canada (province). The Fishery Act 22 Vict. (1858) c.86. 8 1 Wright 1994. 8 2 NAC, RG 10, vol. 711, James Cockburn, Solicitor General, Crown Law Department, 6 March 1866. 83 R. v. Nikal, Supreme Court Reports 1 (1996): 1013. 8 4 Lytwyn 1994: Peggy J. Blair, "Solemn Promises and Solum Rights: The Saugeen Ojibwa Fishing Grounds and R. v. Jones Nadjiwon", Ottawa Law Review 28.125 (1996-1997): 125; Mark D. Walters, "Aboriginal Rights, Magna Carta and Exclusive Rights to Fisheries in the Waters of Upper Canada", Queen's Law Journal22> (1998): 301; Harris 2001: 29-30. -22-interests, and the manufacturers of firearms. Numerous American studies followed in this vein. 8 6 Its influence is now noticeable in the Ontario literature.87 The historiography suggests that sportsmen entered environmental politics around the turn of the 20 t h century. In his study, American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation, J.F. Reiger argued that eastern American anglers first expressed concerns about declining fishing population in the mid-19the century but did not possess sufficient power to influence fishery management ideas until 1870.88 In Making Salmon, Joseph Taylor, argued that American west coast anglers seized control over the "the future" of pacific salmon fisheries management in 1908.89 In the Canadian literature, A . B . McCullough argued in, The Commercial Fisheries of the Great Lakes, that "competition between commercial and sport fishers on the Great Lakes did not become a serious problem until the twentieth century".90 In Fishing the Great Lakes, the historian Margaret Beattie Bogue pushed this date back to the time when sportsmen organized into powerful lobbies composed of prominent political and business elites who seized control of Ontario's first Game and Fish Commission in 1892.91 In both the American and Canadian literature, the consensus is that anglers represented a third and final epoch in the history of fisheries politics. Joseph Taylor, in Making Salmon, illustrated this standard organizational trope. He organized his text into the three conventional epochs. In the first epoch, aboriginal nations managed the northwest Pacific salmon fisheries then commercial fishers took control in the middle part of the nineteenth century, only to be ousted by sport fishers in the final epoch. Taylor reasoned that the anglers' success in the early 20 t h century lay within the new dynamics of urbanization with its rapid social, cultural, and political change, where sportsmen consolidated sufficient power to James A. Tober, Who Owns the Wildlife: The Political Economy of Conservation in Nineteenth-Century America (Contributions in Economics and Economic History, Number 37, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1981): 49. 8 6 Reiger 1986; K.H. Jacoby, "Class and Environmental History: Lessons from the 'War in the Adirondacks'", Environmental History 2 (July 1997): 324-42; P. Johnson, "Fish Free or Die: The Marlboro South Pond Case of 1896", Vermont History News 43 (fall 1992): 43-46; Warren 1997. 8 7 Frank Tough, "The Criminalization of Indian Hunting in Ontario, ca. 1892-1930", a paper presented to the Commonwealth Geographical Bureau Land Rights Workshop, Wellington / Christchurch, New Zealand, February 2-8,1992; Forkney 1993; Parenteau 1998. 8 8 Reiger 1986: 105-125. 8 9 Taylor III 1999: 188. 9 0 McCullough 1989: 106. 9 1 Bogue 2001:297-8. -23 -appropriate the "conservationist banner" and accord priority to recreational use of the fisheries over food fisheries.92 Curiously though, Taylor noted that in the mid-19 t h century, the first proponents of fish hatchery programs, including the Canadian Samuel Wilmot and the American George Perkins Marsh, major subjects of his study, were anglers. The implications of their angling perspectives on the development of early fisheries management ideas go unexamined. While Reiger recently defended his conclusion that sportsmen were not an effective lobby group in the United States until 1870,93 the possibility that Anglo-Canadian sportsmen have a different history and affected management ideas much earlier, requires investigation. The history of fisheries science A scholarly literature is showing that the years between 1860 and 1880 were the formative period for the development of fisheries science research in western countries, including Ontario's Great Lakes. Tim Smith, in Scaling Fisheries, argued that in the 1860s, scientists began to establish the basic life histories of various commercial fishes to answer questions about abundance and fluctuations that affected commercial yields. 9 4 Stephen Bocking, a historian of aquatic ecology, considered the mid-1880s to be another period of significant change when scientists applied the concept of ecology to study the problems in Great Lakes fisheries management.95 Various Canadian fisheries scientists have also contributed histories of their careers with a discussion of the shifts in knowledge that shaped the development of their field. 9 6 Science is often perceived as the quest for objective knowledge about nature and reality. In recent times, historians have joined others in questioning scientific authority. In the 1970s, the philosopher-historian, Michel Foucault, famously critiqued the 9 2 Taylor III 1999: 188. 9 3 Reiger, Third edition, revised and expanded 2000:1-44. 9 4 Tim. D. Smith, Scaling Fisheries: the science of measuring the effects offishing, 1855-1955 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). 9 5 Stephen, Bocking, "Stephen Forbes, Jacob Reighard, and the Emergence of Aquatic Ecology in the Great Lakes Region," Journal of History of Biology 23 (1990): 461-98; Stephen, Bocking "Visions of Nature and Society: A History of the Ecosystem Concept", Alternatives 20 (1994): 12-18; Stephen, Bocking Ecologists and Environmental Politics: A History of Contemporary Ecology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). 9 6 J.R. Dymond, "Zoology in Canada", in Frank Dawson Adams, ed., A History of Science in Canada (Toronto: The Ryerson Press 1939): 41-57; Kenneth Johnstone, The Aquatic Explorers: A History of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977). -24-emergence of science as a supposedly neutral and value-free authority and argued that 07 science was not value-free but contained social control implications and links to power. Foucault's work inspired the new fields of the sociology of knowledge and science and technology studies that examine the history of various sciences to understand the production of its knowledge base, its context, influences, and goals, and its relationship to power. In this endeavor, the sociologist of science, John Law, argued for the treatment of scientific knowledge "as culture like any other form of knowledge" and that the project is to see how science is "directed by social interests with corresponding social control implications". According to Law, case studies of the production of even the most "esoteric" forms of scientific knowledge "revealed that social interest may operate in arenas seemingly far from areas of class or political conflict".98 Law's findings are in line with other contemporary science studies, including the guiding work of Bruno Latour in Science in Action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society?9 Latour's main thesis is that scientific knowledge is socially produced, not discovered.100 A feminist critique of science is equally i f not more powerful, such as Donna Haraway's work in Primate Visions, where she argued that male primatologists approached their research on primate gender behaviour with patriarchal assumptions drawn from their own social milieu. Instead of creating new knowledge about ape behaviour, Haraway argued that these male primatologists affirmed their paternalistic cultural assumptions, which in turn, as a "science", gave greater authority to the same assumptions in the public debate about inherent gender differences in the human population.101 The critique of scientists' social assumptions has entered the study of the history of environmental sciences, including the history of fisheries science. In 1987, Elizabeth Ann Bird, in "The Social Construction of Nature", called to environmental historians to treat science "as any other aspect of social production" and encouraged "histories of 9 7 Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: The Archeology of the Human Science (New York: Pantheon, 1970). See also, Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writing, 1972-1977 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980). 9 8 John Law, ed., Power, Action and Belief, A new sociology of knowledge (London: Routledge, 1986): 2. 9 9 Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society (Miton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987). 1 0 0 Bruno Latour, Laboratory Life: Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979). 1 0 1 Donna Haraway, Primate Visions: gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science (New York: Routledge, 1989). -25-environmental problems that examine the social relations, structural conditions, cultural myths, metaphors and ethical presuppositions that constitute the social negotiations with nature and contribute to those problems".102 In the history of fishery science, Michel Callon contributed an important study on the role of "experts" in ideas for the social organization of French scallop fishers.103 In "Science, Culture, and Politics", Arthur McEvoy incisively articulated the interaction between culture, ecology, production, and the law in his study of the California government's management of coastal fisheries. He challenged the common assumption about 'lawmakers' and 'science': We tend to assume, first, that lawmaking goes on in isolation from that struggle for resources in the market place. And second, we frequently assume that the scientific information on which we base our regulation comes to us as "objective" truth, free of political charge either in its generation or in the way it gets used in lawmaking. Both of those assumptions belie the interactive nature of ecology, production, and regulation.104 Dianne Newell's Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the law in Canada's Pacific Coast Fisheries shows how fishery regulations in British Columbia were similarly manipulated to make aboriginal coastal communities bear the brunt of the state's conservation objectives.105 McEvoy's caution about treating fishery science as objective truth and free of political charge or social struggle underpinned the approach to my research. Bird's advice to examine cultural myths, metaphors, and ethical presuppositions that may have influenced the development of fisheries science also guided my approach. Whether the emergent 19 t h century fisheries science was value-free or influenced by the colonial struggle to control indigenous fishing needs study. I particularly explore the origins of the scientific arguments regarding fishing seasons, methods, and places, to determine i f social interests such as sportsmen influenced the development of knowledge about what constituted correct times, methods, and places of fishing. If this science still contains 1 0 2 Elizabeth Ann Bird, "The Social Construction of Nature: Theoretical Approaches to the History of Environmental Problems", Environmental History 11.4 (winter 1987): 262. 1 0 3 Michel Callon, "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay", The Sociological Review Monograph 32 (1986): 196-233. 1 0 4 Arthur F. McEvoy, "Science, Culture, and Politics in U.S. Natural Resources Management", Journal of the History of Biology, vol. 25.3 (fall 1992): 478. -26-unexposed assumptions, myths, and ethical presuppositions developed in a colonial struggle over the fisheries, it may help explain why these scientific arguments continue to have the power to marginalize aboriginal fishing practices. There is also a post-colonial critique of science that investigates how western scientists appropriated indigenous knowledge without acknowledgement and then denigrated and suppressed it as a non-science.106 I draw on this field to determine how the colonizer may have appropriated Ojibwa knowledge of fish types, behaviour, classifications, and life histories, and then possibly denounced the legitimacy of indigenous knowledge when scientists and experts assumed the authority over the fisheries. I ask, do elements of indigenous fishery knowledge, nomenclature, or life histories still survive in the modern study of fisheries? The historiography on "space" It may be said that when Fisheries divided the Great Lakes and inland waters into a series of fishing stations and assigned a fisher to each one, it drew these environments into a series of "spaces". It appears, therefore, instructive to consider what the new post-colonial literature about "space" contributes to an analysis of this management strategy. There are two important theoretical contributors to the recognition of the idea of space: Henri Lefebvre and Michel Foucault. Henri Lefebvre argued that spaces are never empty, but always filled with ideology and politics. 1 0 7 The geographers, Nick Blomley and David Harvey, argued that cadastral maps such as the one that Fisheries drew across the Great Lakes, "opened up a way to look upon space as open to appropriation and private uses."108 In Post-Modem Wetlands, Rod Gibblet conducted a major study of the colonization of the world's wetlands and argued that the drawing of a gridded space over 1 U 5 Newell 1993. 1 0 6 Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology and Ideologies of Western Dominance (Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1989); Deepak Kumar, Science and Empire (Delhi: Animika Prakashan, 1991); Sandra Harding, Is Science Multi-Cultural! (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998). 1 0 7 Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1991): 31. Originally published as La production de I'espace (Paris: Editions Anthropos, 1974). 1 0 8 David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change (Cambridge: Blackwell, 1990): 228. - 2 7 -a wetland was the primary "instrument of colonization". In effect, the grid turned water into a set of private spaces from which private wealth could be developed. Fishing stations were not the first "spaces" drawn in Upper Canada, but complemented a series of spaces that crown officials earlier surveyed on land that included settler land grants, Crown timber reserves, mineral reserves, clergy reserves, and Indian Reserves. It therefore appears that over time, the crown divided Ojibwa lands and waters into grids that re-conceptualized Ojibwa places as possessable and open for private appropriation and private uses. I do not leave this observation at a theoretical level, but ask how conscious crown officials were that it could use "space" to re-organize the Ojibwa's lands and waterscapes. On another level, many postmodern theorists argued that "space" had implications for social control. Foucault, for example, argued that certain spaces were designed as tools for the social engineering and surveillance of peoples, which he called "disciplinary spaces".110 Crown records are clear that they felt their control over space was the means to build a hierarchal, stable, and moral settler society. Fisheries' records are equally clear that they felt that space could be used to transform idle fishers into moral and industrious fishers. I ask how conscious Canadian authorities were about the potential of "space" to engineer certain forms of social behaviour and discipline transgressors. I then ask i f these forms of social control still lie within Ontario's modern system for the management of the fisheries. Outline of the chapters I considered the reconstruction of the traditional cultural ecology of the seven Chippewa and Mississauga communities to be a crucial first step in my study. Recent scholarship has developed the concept of "communal property regimes" (CPR) to demonstrate that a natural resource can be sustained if: 1) it is used by a well defined group, which has 2) a form of exclusivity over the resource, and 3) the user group has a set of rules for the use, distribution, and protection of the resource which all members of 1 0 9 Rodney James Giblett, Postmodern Wetlands: Culture, History, Ecology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996): 71. -28-the user group share and respect.111 Peter Usher and Fikret Berkes applied the idea in Canada.1 1 2 McEvoy, White, and Hodgins have used parallel models to illustrate the sustainable effects of aboriginal resource harvesting in some environments across North America. In chapter 1,1 identify an excellent range of archival sources that document the Mississauga and Chippewa's traditional organization of their territories into a set of family properties. The data also describe the Ojibwa's laws of use and access over their natural resources. I therefore apply the CPR model to determine if the southern Ojibwa's system contained the components necessary for sustainable resource management. My objective in this first chapter is to reconstruct how the southern Ojibwa organized their territory into a demarcated and regulated landscape before British settlement of Ontario. This is the landscape of resource use and traditional laws that the Ojibwa sought to protect in their treaties and newcomers sought to replace with their systems. In chapter 2,1 review the game and fish law doctrines prevalent in 18th century England. The purpose is to identify the construction of English salmon preservation laws, the social ideologies and assumptions that girded them, and the forms of resistance peasants took to these laws. It is well known that game, fish, and their habitats were the private property of a lord and I focus my analysis on these articles in the 18th century English Acts for the Preservation of Salmon that became the blueprint for the first fishery laws in Upper Canada. I then trace the introduction of English fishery law doctrines into the British colony of New York. My first rationale for starting this component of my study in New York is that this colony was an early contact zone between English and Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books, 1979). Originally published as Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la prison (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1975). 1 1 1 Denis Stanley, "Communal Forest Management: The Honduran resin tappers," Development and Change 22 (1991): 757-79. 1 1 2 F. Berkes, "The Common Property Resource Problem and the Creation of Limited Property", Human Ecology 13.2 (1985): 187-208; Berkes, "Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development (London: Bellhaven Press, 1989); Peter J. Usher, "Property as the Basis of Inuit Hunting Rights", in Terry L. Anderson, ed. Property Rights and Indian Economies: The Political Economy Forum. Boston: Rowman and Littlefield, 1992: 45-66. 1 1 3 Usher 1992: 45-66; Peter J. Usher, "Aboriginal Property Systems in Land and Resources", In Garth Cant, John Overton, and Eric Pawson, eds., Indigenous Land Rights in Commonwealth Countries: Dispossession, Negotiations, and Community Action: Proceedings of a Commonwealth Geographical Bureau Workshop, Christchurch, February 1992 (Christchurch, New Zealand: Department of Geography, University of Cantebury and the Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board for the Commonwealth Geographical Bureau, 1993): 43-50; Peter J. Usher, "Estimating Historical Sturgeon Harvests on the Nelson River, -29-aboriginal concepts of laws and properties over fishing places. It was here that many aboriginal groups resisted and in some cases appropriated certain British legal tactics to protect their fisheries. These cases and conflicts informed the Royal Proclamation of 1763 that set down the law for the treaty making process that later followed in Upper Canada. After the American Revolution (1776-1783), many New York-based British officials moved to Upper Canada and were involved in the first treaties with the Ojibwa. For these reasons, 18 th century England and colonial New York are important places to locate the precedents that informed the southern Ojibwa's treaty negotiations. As stated, in chapter 1,1 reconstruct the social, cultural, and ecological landscape of the Ojibwa and in chapter 2,1 review how English game laws enforced the socially stratified landscape of rural Britain. In chapter 3,1 then examine how British officials planned to graft the landscape of rural England on top of the existing Ojibwa landscape. The two cultures negotiated this overlap in three treaties that opened the door to the settlement of the northern shores of Lake Ontario: The Crawford Purchase (1783), The Between-the-Lakes Treaty (1784), and the Gunshot Treaty (1788). The contents of these treaties, however, are largely unknown because the crown failed to make deeds of the agreements, produce maps, or keep minutes of the negotiations. I therefore examine the contents of many recorded Ojibwa oral traditions about the three treaties which hold that they approached them with a common strategy: to reserve all wetlands, the productive habitats of game and fish, for their exclusive use, and surrender a strip of arable lands to settlers for agricultural purposes only. To determine if the claims can be corroborated, I cross-examine the oral data against surviving crown records (i.e. statements from: the administration, district land granting authorities, and crown surveyors). In addition to determining i f the oral claims are valid, I examine the records for evidence as to why the crown did not fulfill the alleged treaty promises. In chapter 4,1 analyze the Ojibwa's claim that the parliament of Upper Canada protected their treaty right to fish in legislative acts. I start with an examination of Mississauga and Chippewa oral histories regarding their negotiations of a series of treaties between 1805 and 1820. I examine how the Ojibwa made treaty arguments that Manitoba", in Dianne Newell and Rosmary Ommer, eds, 1999: 193-216; Berkes 1985: 187-208; Berkes 1989. - 3 0 -fish and game must be reserved not only for their use but also for their conservation through their traditional laws. With the exception of two treaties negotiated in 1805 and 1806, the texts of the treaties are either silent on the Ojibwa reservation of their fishing rights or state that the treaties were made "without reservation". Although the Ojibwa oral histories differ from the texts of the treaties on this key matter, the government's minutes of the treaty negotiations reveal that the crown did agree to these reservations. If the crown agreed to these reservations, but did not make them explicit in the text of the treaties, I ask what efforts did the crown take to fulfill these promise? I then show that a clear echo of these treaty promises turns up in Upper Canada's first fishery laws, Acts for the Preservation of Salmon, that the legislature passed after each Ojibwa treaty. In chapter 5,1 determine how the Acts for the Preservation of Salmon failed to protect the Ojibwa's fisheries from settler trespasses. I noted in chapter 4 that the Ojibwa negotiated their treaty rights based on their aboriginal rights and concerns about conservation. In this chapter I show that in the 1820s that parliament, Methodist missionaries, and settlers raised new rhetorical challenges to the right to fish based in English moral values. In essence, the first argument against Ojibwa treaty rights was not whether they managed their resources, but rather, whether they were morally fit to fish. I examine how the Ojibwa responded in the colonizers' own language and values with the counter-claim that they not only conserved the fisheries but used them morally. The role that moral ideology played in the development of the early Great Lakes commercial fisheries is critically studied. I examine how settlers used dominant moral ideologies to shape parliament's laws for public use of the fisheries. At the same time, while settlers shifted claims to fishing privileges from one based in rights to one based in moral virtues, I also examine how settlers appropriated more Ojibwa fishing and hunting grounds with impunity during this time. Finally, the year 1856 marked a crucial transition point in the history of the Great Lakes when parliament decided to encourage the development of a non-native commercial fishery when it passed the first comprehensive Fishery Act in 1857. It is generally held that the primary innovation of the 1857 Fisheries Act was to establish the regulations for the first commercial fisheries in the Great Lakes. In chapter 6,1 reveal that the Act was written by a cabal of sportsmen who sought to control all -31 -forms of settler and commercial fishing, ban aboriginal use, and privilege sport fishing systems around the colony. In particular, the personal records of Richard Nettle, the first Superintendent of Fisheries for Lower Canada (province) are instrumental in revealing the circle of social interests that wrote the 1857 Fisheries Act, and revised it in 1858 to contain the private leaseholds article.1 1 4 His papers reveal the names of an elite sportsmen's lobby that included members of parliament, parliament's librarian, military officers, and other influential office holders who wrote the Acts with the explicit intention to eliminate aboriginal fishing rights and control the non-native commercial fishery. The names of these men pointed to a vast and untapped sport fishing trade literature, generated between 1820 and 1860, in which they revealed their arguments for restricting Ojibwa fishing rights and enacting new laws. 1 1 5 Of significance, this trade literature reveals how the sportsmen lobby constructed their moral beliefs and scientific assumptions upon a negation of aboriginal fishing systems and values. In chapter 7,1 explore why sportsmen revised the Fishery Act in 1858 to include the private leasehold clauses. I pay particular attention to how sportsmen and government intended the law as a measure for the social control and social engineering of fishers. I also demonstrate how the Department of Fisheries used the lease provisions to re-allocate Ojibwa fisheries to non-natives and push the Ojibwa to the margins of the commercial fisheries where they remain to this day. I also enter the debate between Victor Lytwyn and Roland Wright as to whether Fisheries deliberately intended to marginalize aboriginal fishing when it passed the 1858 Act.U6 In chapter 8,1 argue that the sportsmen's marginalization of Ojibwa fishing and control over the non-native commercial fishery was not a fait accompli with the implementation of the 1858 lease clauses. Both the Ojibwa and settlers resisted the usurpation of their communal resources. I argue that sportsmen solidified their designs for the moral and social control of fishers when they influenced the development of fisheries science in the Great Lakes between 1865 and 1898. In particular, I explore how 1 1 4 NAC, R2740-07-E, Richard Nettle fonds. "'Sources include: The American TurfRegister and Sporting Magaz/«e,l 829-1845; The New York Albion, 1839-1843; The Spirit of the Times & Life in New York, 1831-1843. 1 , 6 Lytwyn 1992; Wright 1994. -32-sportsmen influenced fisheries science in Ontario to validate their fishing methods and times and secure key fishing grounds for their social interests. I conclude that sportsmen's social, moral, and ideological interests as well as their racist beliefs and strategies for social control still lie within modern Ontario fisheries management science and law. It is for these reasons that Ontario's modern fisheries management science still has the power to marginalize Ojibwa fishing systems. -33-Chapter 1 Nind Onakonige (I make laws): Ojibwa management of southern Ontario's wetlands Each family had its own hunting grounds, marked out by certain natural divisions, such as rivers, lakes, mountains, or ridges; and all the game within these bounds is considered their property as much as the cattle andfowl owned by a farmer on his own land. It is at the peril of an intruder to trespass on the hunting grounds of another. 1861, Peter Jones' Introduction To understand the first Mississauga and Chippewa treaties, it is first necessary to reconstruct their society, laws, environmental relationships, and property institutions over fish and other resources. A variety of excellent archival data are available for this reconstruction. First, the Mississauga hereditary chief, George Paudash, kept records of Mississauga and Chippewa council meetings held between 1825 and 1842 that provide significant insights into their traditional and contemporaneous political organization and strategies to protect the integrity of their land use patterns.2 Between 1866 and 1923, the Mississauga and Chippewa generated a tremendous amount of data on their traditional land use patterns when they articulated their claim to unsurrendered rights in the Muskoka and Haliburton regions.3 In 1903, J.W. Kerr, a lawyer, obtained sworn declarations from three Mississauga elders about their traditional territorial boundaries.4 Also in 1903, the law firm, Hunter & Hunter, collected a number of elders' statements about the existence and locations of their family hunting territories along with their laws of use and access.5 In 1911, another barrister, A . K . Goodman, obtained eight land use 1 Peter Jones, History of the Ojebway Indians: with Especial Reference to Their Conversion to Christianity (London: 1861): 71. 2 NAC, RG 10, vol. 1011, Chief George Paudash Papers. 3 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329, file 67,071 part 1, Correspondence & Reports regarding claims by the Chippewas & Mississauga of the Province of Ontario, to compensation for land not surrendered by the Robinson Treaty of 1850, 1869-1904. 4 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329, fiel 67,071 pt. IB, Frank Pedley, barrister with J.W. Kerr, submission of statutory declarations of George Blaker, Thomas Marsden, and Peter Crow, to the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 19 May 1903. 5 PAO, F 4337, A.E Williams - United Indian Bands of the Chippewas and the Mississaugas collection, "statements by elderly First Nations people collected by G. Mills McClurg". -34-affidavits from Chippewa elders.6 In 1923, the governments of Canada and Ontario invoked a commission to investigate the southern Ojibwa's claims and took evidence under oath from 73 aboriginal witnesses on the location of their family hunting grounds and harvesting traditions.7 Together, these files hold southern Ojibwa memories that date back to the late 18th century and before. In addition to the archival data, three prominent Ojibwa oral history holders from these communities published auto-ethnohistories of their people, starting with George Copway's Traditional History and Characteristic Sketches of the Ojibway Nation (1850), Peter Jones's History of the Ojebway Indians (1861), and Robert Paudash's "The Coming of the Mississaugas" published in the Ontario Historical Society's Papers and Records (1905).8 As well, in the 1880s, Alexander Chamberlain, a student of the famous anthropologist, Franz Boas, conducted ethnohistorical and linguistic research on the Mississauga.9 Finally, many early missionaries, European explorers, and settlers left descriptions of Mississauga and Chippewa cultural practices. The data allow one to reconstruct the Chippewa and Mississauga's organization of southern Ontario into a system of marked and regulated territories at the time of contact with British settlers. The data also contribute new information to a number of debates in the Algonquin land use literature such as the origins of Ojibwa property institutions, whether it contributed to sustainable resources use, the role of dodems (clans or totems) in their society, and the place of fish in their economies. I start with a brief historical overview of the Mississauga and Chippewa's settlement of southern Ontario 6 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329, file 67,071 part 2, Correspondence & Reports regarding claims by the Chippewas & Mississauga of the Province of Ontario, to compensation for land not surrendered by the Robinson Treaty of 1850, 1904-1925. 7 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67.0171-4C, Bound volume of Testimony to a Commission, Chaired by A.S. Williams, investigating claims, by the Chippewas & Mississaugas of the Province of Ontario, to compensation for land not surrendered by the Robinson Treaty of 1850, 1923. 8 George Copway, The Traditional History and Characteristics Sketches of the Ojibway Nation (London: Gilpin, 1850); Jones 1861; Robert Paudash, "The Coming of the Mississaugas", Ontario History 6 (Toronto: Ontario Historical Society, 1905): 7-11. 9 Alexander F. Chamberlain, "Notes on the History, Customs, and Beliefs of the Mississagua Indians", Journal of American Folklore 1 (1888): 150-60; Alexander F. Chamberlain, "Algonkin Onomatology, with some comparison with Basque", in Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, vol. 28 (1889): 351-2; Alexander F. Chamberlain, "Tales of the Mississaguas", Journal of American Folklore 2 (1889): 141-7; Alexander F. Chamberlain, The Language of the Mississaga Indians of Skiigog: A Contribution to the Linguistics of the Algonkian Tribes of Canada (Philadelphia: MacCalla & Company, 1892). -35 -from which they became firmly entrenched before British settlement and the crown recognized them as the aboriginal owners of the lands. The southern Ojibwa's development of regulated territories in Ontario There is no consensus in the literature on the origins of Ojibwa settlement of southern Ontario. Some Mississauga and Chippewa oral history holders that I have spoken to claim that their ancestors came from the east - that they migrated from the Atlantic seaboard to central Ontario sometime before contact with Europeans.10 Alternatively, George Copway and Robert Paudash recounted that their families emigrated from the west - that they came from the southwestern shores of Lake Superior to their present location around 1650.11 When these stories are analyzed in conjunction with early Jesuit and French explorer records, the detailed historical mapping of the geographer Conrad Heidenreich, and the more extended migration history of William Warren in his History of the Ojibway People (1852) (first published in 1885), a cohesive picture of their settlement emerges. Warren, the son of a Fond du Lac Ojibwa woman, listened attentively to oral history holders around Lake Superior and recorded their histories in 1852. Warren wrote that "when the earth was new", all Algonquin peoples originated on the Atlantic seaboard.12 During these earliest times, he asserted that the people were not divided into "tribes" but that the "principal division, and certainly the most ancient" was the division into dodems.n Warren listed 21 dodems, each signified by an animal, through which people traced their descent through the male line. Marriage within dodems was forbidden.14 Warren held that over time, after the dodems migrated west and certain groups became isolated or quarreled, the separation into "tribes" occurred. Nicolas J. Michael Thorns, informal interviews with Mississauga and Chippewa oral history holders, 2001-2002. 1 1 Copway: 76; Paudash: 7-11. 1 2 William W. Warren, History of the Ojibway People (St. Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press, 1984): 41. First published in 1885 by the Minnesota Historical Society as Vol. 5 of the Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society. 1 3 Warren 1984: 34. 1 4 Warren 1984: 44-5; Copway described the Ojibwa dodem system in note #14 of his poem, "Ojibwa Conquest" (New York: 1850), reprinted in Edwin C. Guillet, The Valley of the Trent (Toronto: The Champlain Society for the Government of Ontario, 1967): 450. -36-Perrot, a mid-17 century Jesuit missionary recorded the same history. Despite Henry Schoolcraft and other early ethno-historians' focus on "tribes" (a trend that continues to this day), Warren considered, "the Totemic division as more important and worthy of consideration than has generally been accorded to it". 1 6 The Ojibwa law professor, John Borrows, informed me that an appreciation of the role of the dodems is fundamental to an understanding of Ojibwa social organization and their worldview. This knowledge also forms a critical standpoint from which to interpret the first Ontario treaties.17 For these reasons, wherever possible, I attempt to include evidence of the Mississauga and Chippewa dodems that may bring more light into their history. Warren recounted that around 1410 A D , the dodems departed the Atlantic seaboard and migrated up the St. Lawrence to their ultimate destination at the western end of Lake Superior.18 Over the course of this migration, various dodems separated and settled along the route. Warren described their choice of settlement environments as the mouths of clear water rivers where whitefish and trout were found and in close proximity to marshy or "muddy-bottomed lakes" where warmer water fish, small animals, and wild rice grew or could be sowed.19 Ideal shorelines included mixed hardwood forests with maples. Many families that now compose the Mississauga and Chippewa appear to descend from the dodems that stopped and settled in these habitats in southern Ontario during this historic migration.21 I draw this conclusion from Warren's list of dodems that did not complete the migration to western Lake Superior, which included the Reindeer (Addick), Beaver (Amik), Goose (Ne-kah), Whitefish (Atimek), and Eagle (Me-gizzee).22 A variety of archival records reveal that the Mississauga and Chippewa of southern Ontario are composed of these dodems (except the Whitefish dodem who settled at Nicolas Perrot, Memoire sur les Mooeurs, Coustumes et Religion des Sauvages de L 'Amerique Septentrionale par Nicolas Perrot, R.P.J. Tailhan, ed. (Paris: Librairies A. Franck, 1864): 6-8. 1 6 Warren 1984:43. 1 7 Pers. com. March 2003. 1 8 Warren 1984: 76-94. 1 9 Warren 1984: 39, 87, 88, 97, 139, 156. 175, 186. 2 0 Warren 1984: 39, 87, 88, 97, 139, 156. 175,186. 2 1 Warren's history (1984) of the Ojibwa is primarily about the Ojibwa of western Lake Superior. He listed a number of dodems which "are not known to the tribe in general" because they did not make the full migration to the western Lake Superior, 2 2 Warren 1984:41-53. -37-Manitoulin Island). In addition, the southern Ojibwa are made up of the Pike (Ouasce souanari), Otter (Niguic couasquidzi), Snake (Che-she-gwd), and White Oak (Missigomidzi) dodems for whom Warren offers no history.24 It is well known that the Iroquois invaded southern Ontario around 1600 and expelled the Huron in 1649 during an intensive fur trade rivalry. 2 5 It appears that before this time, some Mississauga dodems had settled among the many river mouths and wetlands along the Trent waterway. Thomas Need, an early settler, recorded an Ojibwa oral history that some dodems lived here before the Iroquois invasion: "the lake country of the district belonged of ancient right to the Chippewas but some time since a portion of it was invaded and apparently conquered by the Mohawks. The Chippewa then retired further back into the forest."26 It appears that the dodems temporarily retired north to the lands between Lakes Simcoe and Nipissing. The first European sources are consistent with this account. The records of Jesuits priests written in the early 1600s confirm that a number of Algonquian groups wintered in the same lands as the Huron around the southeastern shores of Lake Huron. 2 7 In 1613 and 1615, Champlain described a number of Algonquian communities along the southeastern shores and islands of the Georgian Bay. He assigned them a confusing array of names that may prove to be his translations of their dodem names, but deciphering them is beyond the scope of this research. 2 3 Chamberlain 1888: 152; NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,0171-4C, sworn statement of John Bigwin (Reindeer dodem), 20 September 1923: 87; sworn statement of Mrs. Isaac Johnson (Otter dodem), 24 September 1923: 165; Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders, vol. 1 (Ottawa: Chamberlain 1891), "Treaty #20": 48; NAC, RG 10, vol. 662, Mississauga surrender of Islands in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario... 19 June 1856; NAC, RG 10, vol. 662, Mississauga surrender of Islands in Rice Lake and all the Islands and mainland in Newcastle and Coborne Districts except the Reservations on the Shores of Rice, Mud and Skugog Lake, 24 June 1856. 2 4 Chamberlain 1888: 152. 2 5 Bruce Trigger, "The French Presence in Huronia: The Structure of Franco-Huron Relations in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century", Canadian Historical Review 49 (1968): 107-141; Bruce Trigger, The Children of Aataentsic: A History of the Huron People to 1660 (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1976); Conrad Heindenreich, Huronia: A History and Geography of the Huron Indians 1600-1650 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976). 2 6 Thomas Need, Six Years in the Bush (London: Simpkins, Marshall, & Co., 1838): 94. 2 7 Anon., "Of the Mission called the 'Holy Ghost,' to the Nipissiriniens," in Reubeu Gold Thwaites, ed., The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610-1791 (Cleveland: Burrows, 1896-1901), vol. 21, c. 7: 238. 2 8 Perrot (1864: 6) recorded that Ojibwa villages were dodem-based and known by their animal totem among the French in the 17* century. The ethno-historian, Harold Hickerson, also suggested that explorers recorded the names of Ojibwa dodems hence their dissimilarity to the current names of bands. Harold Hickerson, The Chippewa and their Neighbors: A Study in Ethnohistory, Brown, Jennifer S.H. and Laura L. Peers, eds,. revised and expanded editions (Prospect Heights Illinois: Waveland Press, 1988): 37-50. -38-Champlain reported that they lived in environments similar to the ones Warren described as choice locations, principally around river mouths and wetlands and that they subsisted on fishing, small game hunting, gardening, and berry harvesting.29 In a detailed plate in the Historical Atlas of Canada, Conrad Heidenreich demonstrated Algonquin occupation around the margins of the Huron settlement between 1600 and 1648.30 In terms of the lakes and rivers of the Trent waterway, Champlain confirmed Needs' account of earlier Ojibwa occupation and dispersal: "all these tracts were in former times inhabited by savages, who were subsequently compelled to abandon them from fear of their enemies."31 The above evidence indicates that that the Ojibwa dodems who settled along the Trent waterway temporarily abandoned their villages around 1600 and moved to the region between Lakes Simcoe and Nipississing. In their histories, Copway, and Paudash recorded that about the same time, some Ojibwa dodems who had migrated to western Lake Superior retraced their steps back to the eastern shores of Lake Huron and Lake Nipissing to engage French traders at the start of the French fur trade. In his history, Warren recounted that these dodems met up with the dodems who had earlier settled the region during their historic migration.33 These re-united dodems then attacked and dispersed the Iroquois from southern Ontario.34 The historian, Peter Schalmz, documented this (re-)invasion at length in The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario?5 No doubt, for some Ojibwa dodems, it was a re-invasion of lands they had earlier occupied. For others families and dodems, the invasion likely brought them into a new territory. The Paudash family, who are Cranes (Passinassi), are likely among those who came from the west and united with the original dodems as Robert Paudash traced his ancestry to Samuel de Champlain, "Fourth Voyage of Sieur de Champlain made in the year 1613", and "Vovage of Sieur de Champlain to New France, made in the Year 1615", in W.L. Grant, ed. Voyages of Samuel de Champlain, 1604-1618, (New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1907): 237, 239,238, 239,242, 243, 247. 279. 280, 281,282,283. 3 0 Conrad E. Heidenreich, "The Great Lakes Basin, 1600-1653", in R. Cole Harris, ed., The Historical Atlas of Canada: From the Beginning to 1800 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987): plate #35. 3 1 Champlain 1615: 288. 3 2 Copway 1850: 76; Paudash 1905: 7. 3 3 Warren 1984: 124. 3 4 Copway 1850: 68-94; Paudash 1905. 3 5 Peter S. Schmalz, The Ojibwa of Southern Ontario (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991). 3 6 Need 1838:94. -39-western Lake Superior and Warren accounted for Cranes in both the west and southern Ontario. The battles between the Ojibwa and the Iroquois ended at Mississauga Point in the Bay of Quinte around 1655 when the two groups agreed to a peace treaty. They recorded the contents of this treaty in a wampum belt that depicted four wigwams and two dishes with spoons arranged along a central white row. Much later, in 1840, the Chippewa and Mississauga invited the Six Nations to a council meeting to renew the treaty. The Chippewa hereditary chief, Yellowhead, produced the wampum and "explained the talk within it." He elucidated that the two dishes with spoons symbolized the division of hunting territories and rights between the two nations: "that the right of hunting on the north side of the Lake [Ontario] was secured to the Ojebways, and that the Six Nations were not to hunt here." In turn, the Iroquois agreed to withdraw their hunting to the south side of the lake. A n Iroquois chief concurred with Yellowhead's reading of the wampum.37 This chief then explained that the four wigwams symbolized the major Ojibwa dodems that had defeated his ancestors and that the wampum identified where they settled: the Whitefish on Manitoulin Island, the Beaver on the islands off Penetanguishene, the Reindeer around Lake Simcoe, and the Eagle at the River Credit and western shores of Lake Ontario (see map 1.3). After 1655, the Ojibwa dodems became the sole occupants of south central Ontario. Mississauga and Chippewa oral history holders recounted that their leaders then organized the region into a system of well-demarcated territories and applied a systems of laws for their use. I will first describe the locations and organization of these territories. Mississauga and Chippewa property institutions South central Ontario has three watersheds that divide at the southwestern corner of present day Algonquin Park with waters flowing to the Georgian Bay, the Ottawa River, and Lake Ontario. It was along the heights of land separating these watersheds that the Chippewa, Mississauga, and their Algonquin neighbours divided the region into three national territories. The Mississauga claimed ownership of the Lake Ontario 3 7 NAC, RG 10, vol. 1011, minutes of a general Mississauga and Chippewa council meeting with chiefs of the Six Nations, 22 January 1840. 3 8 N A C RG 10 vol. 1011, minutes ofageneral... council meeting..., 22 January 1840. -40-watershed; the Chippewa occupied the Georgian Bay watershed, while the Algonquin occupied the Ottawa River watershed (map 1.1). The nations marked these boundaries with blazes on trees. For example, Solomon Mark Kewatin stated that at the height of lands between the Credit and Nottawasaga Rivers, a blazed tree marked the boundary between the Mississaugas of the Credit River and the Chippewas of Beausoleil Island.39 Similarly, Chief Charles Big Canoe described a very large pine tree at the source of the Muskoka River system "which was blazed denoting the boundary there."40 Within the Mississauga and Chippewa's national territories, various dodems or what became "bands" claimed specific areas of the national watershed as their territory. For example, the Mississauga of the Bay of Quinte and Kingston (later known as the Alderville First Nation) occupied the watershed draining into Lake Ontario between the Ganonoque and Moira Rivers. 4 1 The dodems that formed the Rama and Georgiana Island bands claimed the Muskoka and Lakes Simcoe watershed, both of which drained into the southeastern corner of Lake Huron 4 2 The Mississauga of the Credit River claimed the Lake Ontario watershed between the Rouge and Niagara Rivers as well as the Grand River Basin. 4 3 The next division of the Chippewa and Mississauga's territories occurred at the level of the family. Families within each band claimed a watershed basin inside the 3 9 NAC, RG 10 vol. 2329, file 67,071-2, affidavit of Solomon Mark Kewatin, 25 August 1911. 4 0 NAC, RG 10 vol. 2329, file 67,071-2, affidavit of Chief Charles Bigcanoe, 20 October 1911. 4 1 NAC, RG 10 vol. 2332, file 67,071-4c, sworn testimonies to the Williams Commission, 27 September 1923: John Comego: 259; John Lake: 68; Jack Smoke: 270; NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329, file 67,071 pt. IB, Frank Pedley, barrister, submission of statutory declarations of George Blaker, Thomas Marsden, and Peter Crow, to the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 19 May 1903. 4 2 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,071-4c, sworn testimony of Sam Snake to the Williams Commission, 21 September 1923: 115. - 4 1 -band's territory as their exclusive hunting ground. They generally identified family hunting grounds as a "limit" centred on a lake or section of a river and defined its boundaries using natural landscape features such as watercourses. They also blazed trees to define the boundaries of their family's hunting ground. In map 1.2,1 mapped the approximate location and range of family hunting grounds from the above data sources Map 1.2 Family Hunting Grounds (see appendix 1 for a list of the data). Because the data were primarily generated to document Mississauga and Chippewa use and occupation of the Haliburton and Muskoka regions, data on family hunting grounds to the south of this region were rarely collected. I filled some of this gap with data from other historical sources (see appendix 1). 4 3 NAC, RG 10, vol. 1011, description of the Mississauga of the Credit's traditional territory, n.d., n.p. - 4 2 -The evidence reveals that the Mississauga and Chippewa implemented this land use system after their expulsion of the Iroquois when stability returned to the region. For example, Peter Monague explained: these boundaries for their hunting ground were fixed after the Chippewa Tribe chase[d] out all the Mohawk Tribes in Canada and all the hunting grounds was fixed to each family - after their children in their coming generation. This tribe of Chippewa made among themselves these boundaries for their hunting grounds between different bands.44 Elders provided some evidence as to how their ancestors allocated family hunting grounds. Several elders credited the Ojibwa chief, Me-nah-do-nah-be (his dates are unknown), with implementing the first hunting ground boundaries.45 John Bigwin explained that nine other chiefs (York, Kenice, Big Canoe, Young, Bigwin, Yellowhead, Wesley, Goose, and Nanishkung) assisted Me-nah-do-nab-be with the allocation of lands.46 John Bigwin suggested that these chiefs allocated family hunting grounds on the basis of dodems and that the Reideer took up the watershed around the Lake of Bays and that the White Oak held the Black River to Ka-gah-sob-a-a-ge-wing Lake 4 7 This seems likely. I attempted to illustrate the spatial arrangement of family dodems in map 1.3. To produce the map, I cross-referenced male family names 4 4 PAO, F 4337-6-0-3, A.E. Williams Papers, statement of Peter Monague, ca. 1903. 4 5 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,0171-4C, sworn statements of Thomas Port, Sampson Ingersoll, David Simcoe, and Johnson Paudash to Williams Commission, 1923: 26, 102, 131, 253-4. 4 6 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,0171-4C, sworn statement of John Bigwin to Williams Commission, 20 September 1923:90. 4 7 NAC, RG 10 vol. 2332, file 67,0171-4C, sworn statement of John Bigwin... 20 September 1923: 94-5. -43-with data on dodems from a variety of sources. Unfortunately, I was only able to determine 48% of the families' dodems so the map is incomplete, but it does illustrate some clustering of dodemic grounds that families may have subdivided over time while it also shows that most dodems are evenly represented across each major watershed. It also shows that several dodems' grounds crossed over the watershed boundary between the Mississauga and Chippewa. This partial evidence suggests that the Mississauga and Chippewa dodems claimed hunting grounds first and that bands formed later from the dodems that were located together in specific watershed basins. Because the hereditary chiefs of each dodem, not a leader of the "band", negotiated each of the early 19 th century treaties with the British crown, this data will be used in chapter 4 for what it contributes to an understanding of these negotiations. On a final note, scholars have debated whether Jesuits or European fur traders inspired Algonquin groups to devise a property-based land use system.49 In this case, there is no evidence that Jesuits or fur traders provided the encouragement for this system. Rather, the evidence is that the Chippewa and Mississauga identified and allocated their valued ecosystem components among themselves. Or, as they said, "made it among themselves, these boundaries for their hunting grounds between different bands".50 In effect, it appears that the Mississauga and Chippewa made their own strategic decisions about the environments they wanted to settle and organized them along lines consistent with their cultural worldview and environmental needs. It is now important to describe how the Ojibwa property-institutions operated and determine how fishing figured into this system. 4 8 Chamberlain 1888: 152; NAC, RG 10 vol. 2332 file 67,0171-4C, sworn statement of John Bigwin (Reindeer dodem), 20 September 1923: 87; sworn statement of Mrs. Isaac Johnson (Otter dodem), 24 September 1923: 165; Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders, "Treaty #20", vol. 1 (Ottawa: Chamberlain 1891): 48; NAC, RG 10, vol. 662, Mississauga surrender of Islands in the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario... 19 June 1856; NAC, RG 10, vol. 662, Mississauga surrender of Islands in Rice Lake and all the Islands and mainland in Newcastle and Coborne Districts except the Reservations on the Shores of Rice, Mud and Skugog Lake, 24 June 1856. 4 9 Leacock 1954: 1-71; Dunning 1959; Hickerson 1967; Bishop 1970: 1-15,1974; Tanner 1986; Krech 1999: 173-209. 5 0 PAO, F 4337-6-0-3, A.E. Williams Papers, statement of Peter Monague, ca. 1903. -44-How it functioned — Seasonal rounds In pre-industrial Ontario, animal life was most abundant in the myriad wetlands and riparian zones of its mixed forest environment. These complex and narrow ecological corridors reached across Ontario in an intricate watershed network that was well known and organized by the Mississauga and Chippewa. I will show that islands, points of land, and river mouths were particularly important environments. In the words of one Chippewa man raised in the early 19 th century, "we were brought up in the midst of marshes, where there were vast numbers of muskrats and catfish, sturgeon, beavers and otters, and lived on those animals."51 Not all natural resources, however, were available or harvestable at all times or the same places during the year. For example, berries only ripened during specific parts of the year at forest-edges and on exposed soils, rice was only yielded in the fall at certain lakes, and certain spawning fish (i.e. Atlantic salmon, trout, whitefish) could only be effectively caught at certain predictable times and places during the year. The result was that Mississauga and Chippewa families developed a schedule of seasonal travel to specific resource sites throughout the year based on their knowledge of animal distribution, abundance, and their ease of capture at certain times. The Mississauga and Chippewa families were therefore multi-modal: they moved between defined resources sites throughout the year. I will continue to show how they claimed these sites as their property and managed their productivity. In my analysis, I pay attention to the Ojibwa language for what it reveals about how the Ojibwa organized their knowledge and relationships with their environment. For example, where experience taught the Ojibwa that certain fish could be expected at certain times of the year, they preserved this knowledge in the word pagidawewin. The figure 1.1 Ojibwa working a wetland by Carotane Daly, ca. 1870s. source: NAC W97 5 1 Quoted in, Henry Baldwin, recorder, Minutes of the General Council of Indian Chiefs and Principal Men Held at Orillia, Lake Simcoe Narrows, 30-31 July 1846 (Montreal: Canada Gazette Office, 1846): 18 -45-word did not merely signify a fishing space, but included the temporal knowledge of when fish would be there. In large part, I rely on Chamberlain's dictionary (1892) of the Mississauga language for this analysis. Fall fisheries The historic fish complexes of Ontario have been completely altered through commercial fishing, the removal of "coarse" fishes, the introduction of exotic game fishes, pollution, and significant environmental change. In particular, the erection of milldams destroyed species that once ran rivers, of which the Atlantic salmon, once native to Lake Ontario, is particularly noteworthy. I therefore rely on the naturalist John Richardson's detailed documentation of fish species and life histories in Upper Canada in his famous Fauna Boreali-Americana or the Zoology of the Northern Parts of British America: Part Third The Fish (1836) for baseline data. Richardson's work is particularly reliable because he drew fish specimens and information from fur traders in the Mississauga and Chippewa's traditional territories at Penetanguishene, Toronto, and the Severn River. 5 3 Ojibwa fishers likely caught some of Richardson's specimens and he was careful to include the aboriginal names and other forms of indigenous knowledge about his specimens. His work therefore represented a form of indigenous accreditation that later disappeared in the work of fisheries scientists. Three fall spawning species, the Atlantic salmon, lake trout, and whitefish were critical to the southern Ojibwa. I will examine each in the order that it spawned because this sequence of events helped shape the communities' organization of their fisheries. The Mississaugas were once a salmon fishing people. They knew the salmon as the azaouamce, while European taxonomists knew it as the Salmo Salar. Richardson recorded that it ran up rivers and creeks on the north shore of Lake Ontario from August to November, with the greatest runs occurring in September.54 Mississauga families moved to these river mouths at this time to prosecute the salmon fishery. In the fall of 1779, a British officer, Walter Butler, observed Mississauga camps at most major river 3 2 Chamberlain 1892. 5 3 John Richardson, Fauna Boreali-Americana or the Zoology of the Northern Parts of British America, Part Third: The Fish (London: Richard Bentley, 1836): x. 5 4 Richardson 1836: 146. -46-mouths when he traveled the length of the Lake's shoreline.55 In particular, members of the Mississauga of the Bay of Quinte arranged themselves along the Moira River. The Mississauga of Rice Lake fished the Saugechewigewonk (Trent) River, the dodems associated with Curve Lake fished the Pemistiscutiank (Ganaraska) River, while the Credit River Mississauga families fished at Burlington Bay, the 12 Mile (Ashquasing) and 16 Mile Creeks (theahzahgenwagy), and Credit River (Mungenahegasebe) (map principal source: Butler (1797); Dunfield (1985) Women were the primary fishers and principally captured the runs by spearing at night under torchlight.57 Richardson recorded that they also set nets in the mouths of rivers.58 A gender bias in the primary sources, however, often obscures women's contributions to the economy. For example, a mid-19 th century historian, William Canniff, recorded that in the fall, men departed for their family hunting grounds and that "the women and children [stayed] in wigwams upon the plains near its mouth."5 9 The 5 5 Walter Butler, "Walter Butler's Journal of an Expedition Along the North Shore of Lake Ontario", Notes and Documents, Canadian Historical Review 1.4 (1920): 381-391. 5 6 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,0171-4C, sworn statement of Joseph Whetung to Williams Commission, 25 September 1923: 191; Enemikeese, The Indian Chief: An account of the labours, losses, suffereings and oppressions of Ke-Zig-Koo-E-Ne-Ne (David Sawyer), a chief of the Ojibbeway Indians in Canada West (London: Patterson Row, 1867): 24; NAC, RG 10, vol. 1011, petition of the Mississauga of the Credit to the Upper Canada House of Assembly, 31 January 1829. 5 7 Chamberlain 1888: 154. 5 8 Richardson 1836: 146. 5 9 William Canniff, History of the settlement of Upper Canada: with special reference to the Bay Quinte. (Toronto: Dudley & Burns, Printers, 1869): 495. -47-women stayed, of course, to continue the fall fishery. One early colonial sketch captured this Mississauga women fishery (figure 1.2). Women preserved the fish as a vital winter food supply for their families. The historian, Dianne Newell, stressed that fish preservation techniques were a crucial technological development of Pacific aboriginal cultures as it enabled them to manage the short gluts and allow for periods of scarcity of the resource. This activity also yielded a product for trade.60 Similarly, the Ojibwa of Ontario managed fish gluts with various preservation technologies. During the fall fishery, women smoked most of their catch over a fire and then stored them in birch-bark containers, or pounded the dried fish into a powder to be eaten with berries.61 Fish caught at the end of the fishing season could be frozen in the snow and stored in caches.62 Drying racks are omnipresent in 19' century paintings and sketches of Ojibwa fall camps. They testify to the importance of fish preservation and storage. It also tells us that harvesting was not geared solely to immediate need. Mississauga bands and families claimed ownership over specific river mouths where they also built gardens, burial grounds, and managed maple sugar groves.64 These modifications made river mouths permanent and important food and spiritual locations. As I will show in a later chapter, when British officials proposed that the Mississauga surrender the Lake Ontario shoreline, the women were thoroughly involved in the negotiations for the protection of their valued ecosystem components. 6 0 Newell 1993:38-40. 6 1 Alexander Henry, Travels and Adventures in Canada and the Indian Territories Between the Years 1760 and 1770 (New York: I. Riley, 1809): 59. 6 2 Henry 1809: 62; Thorns 1999: 177. 6 3 See for example, the paintings of William Armstrong: NAC C-011747, C-040293, C-010512, C-010505, and 011745. See also Martin Mower: NAC W213. Figure 1.2: "The Mississauga in the early nineteenth century depended heavily on their fisheries on the north shore of Lake Ontario", original caption. Sketch by Seth Eastman reproduced in Henry Schoolcraft (1852): 56 -48-The next important fall spawning fish was the lake trout. No stocks of river running lake trout are known to exist in Lake Ontario today, but Richardson described a species that started to run up rivers around 10 October and spawned for three weeks.65 It is likely that the erection of milldams extinguished these river-running stocks. The surviving stocks spawned on shoals around islands and points of land. For the Mississauga, these fish arrived after the major runs of salmon subsided. In places where they ran up rivers, families could have fished them when the salmon runs tapered off. In the eastern end of Lake Ontario, the evidence indicates that some families moved to islands and points of land around the Bay of Quinte to capture trout spawning on shoals (map 1.4).66 Turning now to the Chippewa, lake trout represented their first major fall fishery because there were no Atlantic salmon in their territories. As Richardson stated, the runs began around 10 October and lasted for three weeks 6 7 In late October 1837, an Indian agent confirmed this timing when he wrote that the Chippewa "are on the eve of their departure for the bleak shores of the Lake when the fish are coming in shoals to find them and where they while probably remain until the face of the earth becomes white."6 8 Because the runs were of short duration (as compared to salmon) and its timing and yield fluctuated due to weather, water temperature, storms, and other natural occurrences, the Chippewa needed to precisely anticipate their start. Several Ojibwa traditional knowledge holders explained in interviews with me that they observed changes in the local flora for signals of changing water temperatures. A Chippewa fisher from the Beausoleil First Nation, for example, informed me that the ripening of certain berries or changes in the colour of specific leaves signaled the start of certain fish runs 6 9 When interviewed at his home in Michipicoten, a northern Ojibwa elder once informed me about the ecological knowledge he learnt from his mother. He pointed out his window at a meter tall plant with white floral strands and explained, "when that white stuff starts 6 4 Butler 1779: 381-391; Canniff 1869:495; Chamberlain 1888:154. "Richardson 1836: 180. 6 6 NAC, RG 10, vol. 414, a list of the Islands and lands claimed by the Alnwick [a.k.a. Alderville] Band, 19 June 1856. 6 7 Richardson 1836: 180. 6 8 NAC, RG 10, vol. 124, T.G. Anderson, Indian Agent, Coldwater, to S.P. Jarvis, Chief Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 30 September 1837. -49-flying that's when you know the trout are ready." When we observed that some white 70 strands were beginning to fly, he added that, "the trout must be coming next week." A variety of sources reveal that the Chippewa women of Lake Simcoe made nets from willow branches and set them on shoals between Georgina, Thorah, and Snake Islands and along the western shore of Lake Simcoe (map 1.5). Chippewa women called the places where trout could be captured, namegossikan, meaning the place where there are trout.71 The women also speared trout from stations 79 on shore and in canoes. Other Chippewa families associated with the Rama and Christian Island bands fished a stock of river running trout that entered the Severn River and congregated at various rapids. In Sparrow Lake and the littoral of Georgian Bay, families fished from islands where trout spawned on shallow reefs. Methodists missionaries described these island fishing places: "at this season [the fall] the Indians come to these Islands and other places in canoes, more than one hundred miles, for the purpose of 1 8 Oral history interview conducted by J. Michael Thorns, with a male commercial fisher from the Beausoleil First Nation, coded interview #13. 7 0 Oral history Oral history interview conducted by J. Michael Thorns, with a male fisher from the Michipicoten First Nation, coded interview #6. 7 1 Frederic Baraga, A Dictionary of the Ojibwa Language, first published in 1852 (reprinted in 1992 by the Minnesota Historical Society). 7 2 George Head, Forest Scenes and Incidents in the Wilds of North America (London: John Murray, 1829): 262-3,267,316. -50-fishing, and spend several weeks in the employment." Richardson also noted that Chippewa families fished on the shallow shoals between islands.74 It is important to note how the Ojibwa classified their knowledge of trout. In particular, they recognized many different types of trout that varied by time and space. The Ojibwa word for the most common lake trout is namegoss, which Richardson preserved in the scientific name Salvelinus Namaycush in 1819.75 It is a rare example of an indigenous name making its way into the ichthyologist's nomenclature. The Ojibwa also recognized other types of trout, such as a lean lake trout that spawned inshore in September and October that they called majamegoss. Richardson held this trout to be a distinct species and gave it the name Salmo Hoodi after a British lieutenant. The Ojibwa called a variety of lake trout favoured for its fat content the siscowet, which literally means, "cooks itself'. 7 7 The siscowet spawns in deep water and is difficult to catch.78 Around the Pic River on Lake Superior, the Ojibwa knew a breed of fat lake trout they called Macqua and the local Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) factor called Salmo ursinus.19 Both words translate to "bear" in English but I can only speculate as to the nature of its association with bears. Nearby, the Ojibwa of the Nipigon River traveled each fall to the shores of Paysplatt to harvest a type of lake trout that only spawned there and that they called Pugwashooaneg.*0 Overall, the Ojibwa organized trout into a nomenclature based on the level of fat in their bodies and crucial differences in the time and place they could be caught. For example, the Ojibwa valued the fatter trout types as food for their dogs, differentiated trout that ran rivers from those that spawned on shoals, and held the time they spawned to be a key marker.81 The Ojibwa therefore had a culturally distinct set of criteria for classifying trout types. One key is that the Ojibwa 7 3 Richardson 1836: 180. 7 4 Richardson 1836: 180. 7 5 Richardson 1836: 179. 7 6 Richardson 1836: 173. "Copway 1850:41. 7 8 J.L Goodier, "Native Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) stocks in the Canadian waters of Lake Superior prior to 1955", Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 36.12 (December 1981): 1735; Frederick H. Wooding, Lake, River and Sea-Run Fishes of Canada (Madeira Park, Harbour Publishing, 1994): 116. 7 9 Goodier 1984: 347. 8 0 W. Thomson, "A Trout Trip to St. Ignace Island", in C F . Orvis and A.N. Cheney, eds, Fishing with the Fly: sketches by lovers of the art with illustrations of standardflies (Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Turtle, 1883): 114. -51 -developed and classified knowledge about trout during the times they spawned. Richardson also sampled spawning trout. For most of the 20 century, however, scientists sampled trout in deep water before they spawned, at a time and place where phenotypic differences are most subtle. This later generation of scientist thus decided that there were no variations in lake trout species, but merely a complex of discrete "stocks" separated by different spawning times and places.83 As a result, they revised Richardson's nomenclature and by 1948 eliminated the species that he and the Ojibwa observed and inflated the Ojibwa name Namaycush to describe all lake trout.84 Then, in 1970, scientists decided that the siscowet was a distinct species after all and gave it the name Salvelinus siscoet, restoring part of the range of trout types the Ojibwa originally observed and named.85 The third spawning species, and the one of greatest importance to the Chippewa, was the whitefish. Richardson noted that whitefish moved onto shallow island reefs, river mouths, and shallow bays around 25 October and returned to deeper waters on 10 November. He also noted a unique river-running stock of Whitefish that ran up the Severn River. 8 6 This run was of significance to the local Chippewa who speared and netted them along the river's rapids and in Sparrow Lake. Other families fished them from islands in the Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe (map 1.5). The whitefish's timing allowed the Chippewa to prosecute it at about the time the trout runs tapered off. In the Ojibwa language the word for whitefish is Attihawmeg which literally means "water caribou". The name reflects the great importance the Chippewa placed on these runs and offers an idea of its historic abundance. In 1735, Carl Linneas, the Swedish naturalist who founded the modern system of biological classification, gave it the western scientific name, Salmo Albus.87 It is significant that he classed it as a member of salmonoidae family, as did Richardson, for it then fell within the meaning of fish protected for the southern Ojibwa in Upper Canada's Acts for the Preservation of Salmon (1807-1845). Although the whitefish had a western name when Richardson 8 1 Thorns 1999: 187. 8 2 Richardson 1836: 122. 8 3 See Goodier 1981: 1724-1737. 8 4 Goodier 1981: 1724-1737; Wooding 1994: 112-116. 8 5 Wooding 1994: 116. 8 6 Richardson 1836: 197. -52-published, he made a point to refer to it by its indigenous name Attihawmeg throughout his scientific treatise. He also stressed that Attihawmeg were the "principal" food source of many Ojibwa groups around the Great lakes and a fundamental staple in the fur trade.88 Before departing their fishing islands, families burned them. The Ojibwa strategy was to make these Pre-Cambrian rock outcrops produce abundant berries in the fall when they returned and whitefish and lake trout again moved onto the adjacent shoals.89 Families also used their fishing islands as burial grounds.90 These seasonal fishing islands were therefore important food, socio-economic, and spiritual places for Chippewa families. Other families erected camps on points of land entering lakes or at the mouths of rivers. For example, the Kadegegwon family fished and built gardens on a point of land at present-day Collingwood 9 1 and the Blackbird family built a garden and burial ground at Grassy Point on the Holland River. 9 2 Thus islands, known as miniss, points of land, known as neidshi, and river mouths, known as sdgi, were crucial places among the southern Ojibwa (a point that becomes important later when I examine the southern Ojibwa's first treaty strategies with the British crown). It is necessary here to comment on the spear as it is a largely misunderstood fishing technology. In his immense study of aboriginal fishing, the geographer Erhard Rostlund incorrectly stated that, "nowhere does the environment especially invite the exclusive use of spears in fishing."9 3 On the contrary, spear fishing was an expert technology the Ojibwa developed to catch spawning salmon, trout, and whitefish on honeycombed shoals where nets could not be set. The fact that the Ojibwa, but not settlers, possessed a technology to capture trout and whitefish in these honeycombed environments would later became a major source of contention between the Ojibwa and newcomers. 8 7 Carl von Linne, Systema naturae (Lugduni Batavorum, apuo T. Haak, 1735). 8 8 Richardson 1836: 195. 8 9 J . Stinson, letter to the editor, Christian Guardian, 7 September 1836: 174; Norma Martin, Gore's Landing and the Rice Lake Plains (Bewdley, Ontario: Clay, 1995): chapter 1, n.p; Krech 1999: 106. 9 0 NAC, RG 10, vol. 122, Chief Yellowhead to Lord Cathcart, Governor General, n.d.: 6007. 9 1 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329, file 67,071-2 affidavit of Thomas Peter Kadegewon, 25 August 1911. 9 2 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,071-4C, sworn statement of ex-Chief Charles Bigcanoe to Williams Commissions, 14 September 1923. 9 3 Erhard Rostlund, "Freshwater Fish and Fishing in Native North America," University of California publications in Geography 9 (1952): 105. -53 -Because lake trout spawned at night and left their spawning grounds by morning, the Ojibwa developed a technique of fishing with a torchlight called wasswewin. The technique allowed the Ojibwa to see their prey and the light drew the fish to the surface where they could be more easily speared. Spearing technologies also allowed the Ojibwa to expand the range of time and places they could fish, such as through the ice, in small pools, and in shallow and swift rivers, all places where nets could not be effectively set. In 1860, the German ethnologist and writer, J.G. Kohl, enumerated many different spears that the Ojibwa designed for different fishing environments and stated that, "they all appeared to be very neatly made, and admirably adapted for the purpose."94 These were expert technologies that linked the Ojibwa's cultural knowledge with their environments. Later, settlers would attempt to criminalize this link between their culture and environment. Winter harvesting The evidence suggests that men departed the fall fisheries and paddled canoes to their family's hunting ground, located to the north of their fishing villages, between mid-September and mid-October, after their family had preserved a sufficient supply of fish for their travel.95 Women continued the fishing until the runs ended. Among the Mississaugas, after the autumn fisheries were complete, women moved to their spring fishing places around the Peterborough Lakes where many spent the winter with their children (map 1.7).96 Among the Chippewa, women, children, and elders remained on their fishing islands and points of land in Lake Simcoe, Georgian Bay, and Lake Couchiching (map 1.5). Some of the primary evidence, however, suggests some women and children joined the male hunters in December to participate in the winter hunt.97 It appears that families practiced both patterns depending on individual circumstances regarding available labour or other factors. J.G. Kohl, Kitchi-Gami: Wanderings Round Lake Superior (London: Chapman and Hall, 1860): 331. 9 5 NAC, RG 10, vol. 1011, Peter Jones to Col. J. Givens, Credit River, 22 October 1833; NAC, RG 10, vol. 1011, minutes of a Mississauga council held at the River Credit, 10 October 1836; Copway 1850: 114. 9 6 Chamberlain 1888: 155; NAC, RG 1.0, vol. 122, petition of the Chippewa of Snake Island to the Governor General, 22 October 1845. 9 7 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,071-4C, sworn statements of Thomas Port (page 29), Miss Mary Ann Young (page 80), and Sampson Fawn (page 209) to the Williams Commission, 14 to 21 September 1923. -54-Men's travel to winter hunting grounds can be illustrated with the example that Chief Big Canoe provided to his lawyers in 1903, when he was 68 years old. Big Canoe, explained that he learned from his father how to travel upstream for five days from Georgina Island to their family hunting ground around Canoe Lake in present-day Algonquin Park (map 1.6). The bands defined each family's hunting ground precisely. For example, Big Canoe stated: our hunting ground extend up the river this [Oxtougue] River till we Reach Kezbick kah sa ge go ning now called Island Lake. This Lake lieth about the Heights of land — we portage hear till we stroke the waters that runs to Ottawa the lake was we Hunted in those waters is called Kech se ge kah me gong our hunting ground do not go any further ~ this is the division line ~ the other Indians own the ground from this place.9 8 Family harvesting was systematic. Big Canoe explained: we put up a very large wigwam this is our station we meet hear every Saturday stayed over Sunday this is the place where we dry our skins or furs - we leave our station every Monday to our various places where we The families reported that they trapped beaver, otter, mink, muskrat, fisher, and marten principally along the shores of their hunting limits. Fishing was important here too as trappers used fish to bait their traps. After freeze-up, the principal method was to spear through a hole in the ice, often using bait or a lure on a string.1 0 1 Richardson stated that pike formed "an important resource to the PAO, F 4337-6-0-3, statement of Charles Big Canoe, dated 12 October 1903. 9 9 PAO, F 4337-6-0-3, statement of Charles Big Canoe, dated 12 October 1903. 1 0 0 See also Copway's (1850) chapter, "Their Wild Game": 25-41. 1 0 1 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,071-4C, sworn statements of Thomas Port: 29; J.B. Stinson: 100; Thomas Marsden: 274; Gilbert Williams: 147. -55-Indian hunter in the depth of winter" because it took bait under the ice more readily than other fish. 1 0 2 The Ojibwa knew the pike as ke-no-zhay, while Carl Linneas had earlier named his European samples Esox Lucius. Chamberlain recorded the ice fishing methods of the Mississauga: In the winter the Indian of Rice and Mud (or Chemong) lakes obtained fish in the following manner: with his tomahawk the Indian cut a hole in the ice, threw a blanket over him, and stood or knelt for hours beside the hole. In one hand he held his fish-spear, in the other a string, to which he attached a decoy-fish of wood serving to attract the prey. Their skill in this sort of fishing was remarkable, two hundred pounds offish being frequently the reward of a day's labour.103 This is another example of the spear as an expert technology. The "blanket" that men used to cover themselves and shield light from the hole was typically a buffalo robe traded from European fur traders.104 It is important to briefly comment on deer hunting as I will later touch on Upper Canada's Acts for the Preservation of Deer, which was intended to protect deer for the Ojibwa at the time they hunted. Before the freeze-up, men hunted deer from canoes using torch lights to draw deer to the littoral. 1 0 5 After the snow fell, the conditions for Ojibwa deer hunting were ideal as the animals had difficulty traveling in deep snow and thus trenched distinct trails and trampled out "yards" in clearings where they herded. Copway recorded that hunters set snares and spikes along deer trails. 1 0 6 Most importantly, hunters conducted a major hunt in the late spring after a brief thaw that formed a thin crust of ice on the snow that greatly impeded a deer's flight. At this time, hunters chased deer down and killed them with various objects.107 In the spring, the hunters prepared garden sites at their central campground to produce corn, beans, and pumpkins for harvest upon their return in the fall. These places 1 0 2 Richardson 1836: 124. 1 0 3 Chamberlain 1888: 154 1 0 4 Head 1829: 201-2; HBCA B.134/b.20, E.M. Hopkins, Montreal, to Robert Crawford, Lindsay, 9 December 1863: 41; HBA B.134/c/92, Robert Crawford, Lindsay, to Edward Hopkings, HBC office, Montreal, 21 December 1863: 439. 1 0 5 Copway 1850:25-41. 1 0 6 Copway 1850: 25-41. 1 0 7 Copway 1850: 26-7. -56-were often on islands and river mouths across the Muskoka-Haliburton region. 1 0 8 The same places were also used as family burial grounds. For example James Nanigishkung reported, "my people had a clearance at Trading Lake where we raised our corn, potatoes and pumpkins at this camp and some of our people died here and was [sic] buried at this point."1 0 9 The Bigwin family used Bigwin Island in the Lake of Bays as a garden and burial ground.110 Joe Cousin stated that his family buried their ancestors at a point of land on the east side of Keeh shah gah we gah mog Lake. 1 1 1 D.J. Assance identified his family burial grounds at the outlet of the Rousseau River. 1 1 2 Thus, within their northern hunting grounds, islands, points of land, and river mouths, were also crucial economic, social, and spiritual places among the Mississaugas and Chippewas. In the spring, families returned to their southern fishing environments, stopping at fur trade posts that Europeans erected along the Chippewa and Mississauga's travel routes. In their various statements, elders identified many of these traders byname. 1 1 3 My review of Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) archival material reveals that most of the men were independent traders and likely operated before the HBC moved into the region in the 1860s.114 One independent trader built a post at the outlet of the Figure 1.3. Chippewa trappers arriving at fur trade post at the mouth of the Nottawasaga River, 1825 source: NAC 002475 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329, file 67,071 pt. IB, Frank Pedley, barrister with J.W. Kerr, submission of statutory declarations of George Blaker, Thomas Marsden, and Peter Crow, to the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 19 May 1903. 1 0 9 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329, file 67,071-2, sworn affidavit of James B. Nanigishkung, 13 September 1911. 1 1 0 PAO, F 4337-6-03, anonymous description of Chippewa hunting grounds, ca. 1903; See also NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,071-4C, John Bigwin's sworn statement to the William Commission, 20 September 1923: 92; NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329, field 67,071 pt. 1B, Frank Pedley, barrister with J.W. Kerr, submission of statutory declarations of George Blaker, Thomas Marsden, and Peter Crow, to the Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 19 May 1903. 1 , 1 PAO, F 4337, A.E Williams - United Indian Bands of the Chippewas and the Mississaugas collection, "statements by elderly First Nations people collected by G. Mills McClurg". 1 1 2 PAO, F 4337, A.E Williams - United Indian Bands of the Chippewas and the Mississaugas collection, "statements by elderly First Nations people collected by G. Mills McClurg". 1 1 3 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329 file 67,071 part 2, sworn statements of Peter Kadegewon 1911; Solomon Mark 1911; Joe Cousin 1911, St. Germain 1911; Henry Simon 1911, Nanigishkung 1911, Yellowhead 1911. 1 1 4 Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Hudson's Bay Company Archives, B.134, Montreal, correspondence books, 1858-1861. -57-Oxtongue River on Muskoka Lake (today Bracebridge), where families passed during their descent of the Muskoka and Lake of Bays watersheds. It was a strategic location that reveals the trader's knowledge of where to integrate into the Chippewa's cultural geography. Another trader camped at the outlet of Gull Lake, where Mississauga trappers could stop on their descent from their hunting grounds. Other independent traders built similarly well-situated posts at river outlets and points of land on the Georgian Bay and around Lake Ontario (yellow dots in map 1.3, see appendix 2 for data) Spring and Summer fisheries The spring fisheries were more varied than those of the fall. Five spring spawning species, the pickerel, maskinonge, suckers, black bass, and sturgeon were critical to the southern Ojibwa. I will examine each in the order that it spawned. These fish arrived at a good time for the Ojibwa because the late winter and early spring was a period when food was most scarce and families generally relied on supplies they had preserved the previous fall, most notably dried fish, (wild) rice, and fish frozen in caches. Ojibwa families observed the passage of time through lunar cycles and each phase of the moon had a name that reflected the families' harvesting schedule. Among the southern Ojibwa, the moon of March was known as ziisbaakdoke-giizis, literally meaning the "sugaring moon". 1 1 5 As this moon began to rise, southern Ojibwa families began to return to their spring fishing and maple sugar camps where the women who wintered there began tapping sugar maple trees at sugaries known as sisibdkwatokdn. The sugaries were a women's exclusive property and trespass was prohibited.116 Many sugar bushes were intricately tied to the fisheries. For example, one elder reported that at his spring campground, "I use to live there and I use to farm there. I had a garden I planted potatoes and corn and I made sugar there in the spring." 1 1 7 When women finished the manufacture of sugar they then collected the inner bark of cedar and willows for later use in making nets, baskets, and mats as the bark could 1 1 5 Richard A. Rhodes, Eastern Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ottawa Dictionary (New York, Mouton Publishers, 1985). 1 1 6 Chamberlain 1888: 155. 1 1 7 PAO, F 4337-6-0-3, written statement of Louis Corbier, ca. 1903. -58-Mapl.7 Rice Lake only be harvested in the spring. They used women used the willow' inner strands to manufacture nets that that called sibiwasab (literally meaning a small net for a river or stream). Richardson stated that pickerel were the first species to run when the ice started to retreat. The Chippewa of Georgiana and Snake Islands moved to creek mouths in Cooks Bay and along the eastern shore of Lake Simcoe to set their sibiwasab for pickerel (map 1.5).119 The largest run of pickerel passed through the "narrows" between Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching where the Chippewa of Rama netted them (map 1.5). Other Chippewa families moved to the extensive wetlands around the Holland River. In Rice, Chemong, and Balsam Lakes, pickerel collected in the dense weed beds around the littoral and off the points on the lakes' many islands (maps 1.7). To prosecute this fishery, the four Mississauga bands on these lakes developed elongated village settlements composed of family camps on islands, points of land, and river mouths.120 It appears that the camps were close enough to allow families 171 • • to visit, socialize, and engage m games. These social opportunities were important as the nation's families were dispersed over the winter and communication was not practical.1 2 2 Legend 41 Mississauga Island marshland or ' rice beds urce: NAC RG. 23 vol.187 file 813, 29 March 1897 1 1 8 Richardson 1836: 10-11. 1 1 9 Chamberlain 1892:60. 1 2 0 Anon, "Rice Lake", Third Annual Report of the Canada Conference Missionary Society (York, printed by William Lyon Mackenzie, 1827): 8; Catherine Parr Traill, The Backwoods of Canada: Being Letters from the Wife of an Emigrant Officer, Illustrative of the Domestic Economy of British America (London: C. Knight, 1836): 162-3. 1 2 1 Copway 1850: 142. 1 2 2 Thorns 1999: 172. -59-In 1817, George Cuvier, a French comparative anatomist, named the pickerel Lucio-Perca Americana. The Mississauga called it oka. Richardson examined a sample of the Mississauga's oka and held out the possibility that it was a separate species and thus classified it under the name Okow. Scientists later placed the Okow under Cuvier's classification and thus the potential uniqueness of this fish was erased in favour of a more general global category. Maskinonge were the next species to spawn in the spring. Richardson's specimen collector informed him that the small streams that run into Lake Simcoe formed a major maskinonge fishery.124 Here, Chippewa families prosecuted this fishery after the pickerel runs tapered off (map 1.5). Similarly, the Mississauga fished the rivulets entering the Peterborough lakes. While the Algonquian name maskinonge (variously spelt) survives as the fish's common Canadian name, the French taxonomist Le Sueur named the fish Esox Estor125 Richardson studied a fish that he called the Grey-Sucking carp, fur traders called the Grey sucker, and the Algonquins called Namypeeth. It inhabited all the fresh waters of the fur trade country, particularly shallow grassy lakes with muddy bottoms. In the late spring, Richardson stated that it could be seen forcing its way up rocky streams to spawn in rocky rivulets. Several Mississauga women informed me that changes in terrestrial ecology, namely the blossoming of pussy willows, were one indictor of the time to fish suckers. "In the spring, when the pussy willows come out, start to bloom, that's when the elders say the mudcats start biting." 1 2 7 In addition, the moon of April was known as nmebin-giizis and referred to the period when suckers ran. The summer brought on another set of harvesting strategies. The southern Ojibwa referred to the moon in June as the "planting moon". The moon of July (miskwimini-gisiss) signaled the emergence of raspberries. Mid-summer was also the time to fish for what Cuvier termed Perca Nigricans, the Mississauga called dcigen, and settlers on Lake Huron named the black bass. Richardson referred to it as the "Huron". 1 2 8 Only the George Cuvier, Le Regne Animal distribue d'apres son Organisation (Paris: Fortin, Masson, 1817): 122. Richardson 1836: 127. Cuvier 1817: 282. Richardson 1836: 116. Informal oral history interview by J. Michael Thorns with three Mississauga women. Richardson 1836:4-5. -60-settlers' name survives today in common usage. The final summer fishery was for sturgeon. Richardson stated, "August is termed the sturgeon month by the Canadian Indians, on account of the productiveness of the fishery at that period". 1 2 9 The 130 Mississauga caught sturgeon with grapples around Lakes Ontario and Huron. In 1655, the Jesuit priests, fathers Chaumon and Claude Dablon, visited a Mississauga village on a river entering Lake Ontario near Fort Frontenac (Kingston). They succinctly described these Mississauga's knowledge and adaptation to the yearly cycle of spawning fish runs: [the river] flows through meadows, which fertilizes and cuts up into many islands, high and low, all suitable for raising grain. Such is the richness of this stream that • it yields at all seasons various kinds of fish. In the spring, as soon as the snow melts, it is full of gold -colored fish [pickerel known as dore among French Canadians]; next come carp [suckers], and finally the achigen [black bass]. The latter is a flat fish, half a foot long and of very fine flavor. Then comes brill; and at the end of May, when strawberries are ripe, sturgeon are killed with hatchets. A l l the of the rest of the year until winter, the salmon furnishes food to the Village of Onontae. We made our bed last night on the shore of a Lake where the natives, toward the end of winter, break the ice and catch fish, — or rather draw them up by the bucketful.131 In September, both northern and southern Ojibwa families began the seasonal harvest of natural (wild) rice. These rice fields were often located adjacent to their fisheries. One of the most celebrated Ojibwa rice fields in southern Ontario was that of Rice Lake (map 1.7).132 Throughout the Great Lakes region, the Ojibwa preserved their rice for winter consumption.133 Once the rice was harvested and preserved, the families moved to their fall fishing places and they continued their seasonal schedule anew. l z y Richardson 1836:285. 1 3 0 Richardson 1836: 285; Henry 1829: 35. 1 3 1 Joseph Chaumont and Claude Dablon, "Journey of Fathers Joseph Chaumont and Claude Dablon to Onontague a country of the Upper Iroquois", in JR 42: chapter III: 69-71. 1 3 2 Martin 1995: chapter 1, n.p. 1 3 3 See Anon, "Concerning the Mission to the Outaouax and the Saintly death of Father R6nard, as well as that of his companion", JR vol. 48 chapter VIII: 119-121; Jacques Marquette, "letter to the Reverend Father Superior of the Mission", JR vol. 54 chapter XI: 199. -61 -Final notes on the southern Ojibwa organization of fisheries knowledge In Tangled Webs of History, Dianne Newell argued that in the case of Northwest Coast aboriginal societies, their adaptation to aquatic resources "was as crucial as adaptation to land" and that in many cases when these people pinpointed the predictable location of fish, they organized their society, economy, and range of terrestrial harvesting strategies around their fishing. 1 3 4 The same appears to be true for the southern Ojibwa. Fishing places were the hubs of the Mississauga and Chippewa's seasonal rounds from which routes to all other resources sites flowed. It appears that the Ojibwa early identified reliable fishing sites in southern Ontario and from these bases preserved additional fish to enable a variety of terrestrial harvesting strategies for other periods of time in other places. The result of this adaptive strategy was a schedule of resource harvesting at a variety of known and community-allocated resource sites throughout the year, each of which the Ojibwa claimed as a form of property. Clearly, from all the evidence reviewed, the fisheries were of great social, cultural, and economic significance to the southern Ojibwa. In terms of the interface between the Ojibwa naming of fish and the work of early taxonomists who executed the project set by Linneas, the post-colonial theorist, Mary Louise Pratt, argued that the work of early taxonomists was to create a universal but limited set of categories for fauna that erased its indigenous organization, making all fauna known in a western system of knowledge.135 It appears that Richardson was on the cusp of a trend to move away from indigenous knowledge of fishes and replace them with western concepts. In some cases, Richardson valued indigenous insights and preserved Algonquian words for certain fish, in other cases, he disregarded the Algonquian names for certain species and honoured the names of imperial officers. Perhaps more serious, Pratt and other theorist argued that in Systems Naturae, Linneas introduced the concept that all fauna existed on a hierarchy of life forms and that part of the work of taxonomists who rode on the gunboats of British explorers was to identify new fauna and rank its place in a world of hierarchies controlled by the colonizer. It is here, some argue, that the origins of scientific racism may be found. As I will show in Newell 1993: 40. Pratt 1992: 15-37. -62-later chapters, many of the first fisheries "scientists" in Canada were also sport fishers and not only did they rank fish in terms of their cultural values, they ranked themselves and their fishing methods above Ojibwa methods with their western concepts of moral and intellectual superiority. Thus, as Europeans came to know the Ojibwa's fisheries, they approached it with a sense that it required order, and in their ordering they placed their preferred fish type, the salmonoidae at the top of a global fish hierarchy, and in an attempt to justify their control of these fisheries, enlisted the ideological apparatus of western science to argue that their intelligence, morals, and fishing methods ranked above the Ojibwa. Ojibwa management of their natural resources Recent scholarship has developed the concept of "communal property regimes" (CPR) to demonstrate that a natural resource can be sustained if: 1) it is used by a well defined group, which has 2) a form of exclusivity over the resource, and 3) the user group has a set of rules for the use, distribution, and protection of the resource which all members of the user group share and respect.136 Peter Usher and Fikret Berkes applied the idea in Canada.1 3 7 McEvoy, White, and Hodgins have used parallel models to illustrate the sustainable effects of aboriginal resource harvesting in some environments across North America. 1 3 8 The model is applied here to draw out the components necessary for sustainable resource management as found in the Ojibwa system. It is striking that in most cases when the Ojibwa described their resource use system, they almost always touched on what can be interpreted as parallels of the three tenets of the CPR model. For example, in 1850, Copway stated, "the hunting grounds of the Indians were secured by right, a law and custom among themselves. No one was allowed to hunt on another's land, without invitation or permission."139 The statement perfectly embodies the three criteria of CPR management: a specific group was recognized to use a defined resource area over which they held a form of exclusivity and the overall community shared a series of laws preventing unauthorized use. Note that in Stanley 1991: 757-79. Berkes 1985: 187-208,1989; Usher 1992: 45-66. McEvoy 1986; Hodgins and Benidickson 1989; White 1995. Copway 1850: 20. -63-his effort to represent his people's land use system in terms recognizable to colonists, Copway drew on the western word "law" to describe his cultural system. I will first describe the laws the Ojibwa developed to manage their resources. Many Europeans commented on the strength of Ojibwa legal codes. In 1867, a missionary explained Chippewa laws this way: They have no written laws. Custom handed down from generation to generation, have been the only laws to guide them. To act differently from custom brings the censure of the tribe. This fear of the tribe's censure is a mighty inducement binding all in a social compact.140 The laws against trespassing on another's hunting or fishing grounds were of particular importance. In 1850, Copway explained the Ojibwa sanctions imposed on trespassers. For a first offense, a trespasser could expect, "all the things were taken from him, except a hand full of shot, powder sufficient to serve him in going straight home, a gun, a tomahawak, and a knife; all the fur and other things were taken from him." For a second offense, "all his things were taken away from him, except food sufficient to subsist on while going home." For a third offense, "his nation, or tribe, are then informed of it, who takes up his case. If still he disobeys, he is banished from the tribe."1 4 1 Clearly, community censure operated as a powerful form of law enforcement. Charles Big Canoe provided an example of the operation of these laws, even between nations, when he told government commissioners: I remember, a long time ago, I was with the old chief and some others, and we were in our Hunting Ground. The old Chief, my father-in-law, and us - we were in his big canoe on Canoe Lake (that's call after me like I told you) and he see, long piece off, a little canoe and one man, not of our people, and we bring the big canoe 'long side the one-man canoe, and we see in the bottom of it three beaver taken from our Hunting Grounds, and the old Chief, he don't say nothing, he reach over and take the biggest one of all, and he put it in our canoe, and the Algonquin he say 'Take them all, for I have do very wrong to come to your Hunting Ground' and the old Chief he say 'No, I am honest I will take my due. You have killed these three beaver, two small and one big one, but I take only the big one because it is my right, for you have hunted on my Hunting Ground' and 1 4 0 Enemikeese 1867: 7-8. 1 4 1 Copway 1847: 19-20. -64-the Algonquin he go away and he hunt no more there, and he have admitted to the old Chief that the land was his. 1 4 2 The Ojibwa laws against trespass appear to have been well respected. In 1923, Gilbert Williams told the government commissioners, "My father told me not to go over the boundary, this west boundary, and I never went over it, I just went near there and come back into Lake Joseph and Rosseau Lake and Skeleton Lake." 1 4 3 In 1903, Chief Isaac Johnson reported an even more serious sanction against trespass: "Each family had a hunting ground and no body else could hunt there. I always heard them say that they could not go beyond the height of land for if any Indian found the Mississauga hunting on their grounds they would kil l them on the spot."144 In 1923, government commissioners were skeptical that that the Ojibwa and their aboriginal neighbours still respected these laws and hunting boundaries. John Bigwin insisted, "the other Indians, i f I go over their line will punish me, and they come, I punish them." The commissioner interjected, "oh not now - nothing would happen now", and Bigwin responded, "yes, sure it would. We make things happen."145 In spite of these measures, resources could plummet in a family's hunting grounds because of natural catastrophes. Elders and the secondary literature make it clear that when a family detected that the animals in their hunting grounds declined to unsustainable levels, they reduced their pressure by rotating their use to another area of the hunting ground, or they abandoned the grounds temporarily and sought permission to hunt on another family's grounds.146 In 1911, Henry Simon recalled a time when the Dokis family applied to use his father's hunting grounds, "paying my father so much per every season".147 The archival data that the southern Ojibwa and their lawyers generated as part of their claim to the Haliburton and Muskoka regions contains limited information on 1 4 2 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,071-4C, sworn statement of Charles Big Canoe to the Williams Commission, 1923: 33 1 4 3 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,071-4c, sworn statement of Gilbert Williams to the Williams Commission, 1923: 144. 1 4 4 PAO, A.E. F 4337-6-0-3, statement of Chief Isaac Johnson, Scugog, 19 October 1903. 1 4 5 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2332, file 67,071-4c, sworn statement of John Bigwin to the Williams Commission, 1923: 93. 1 4 6 Speck 1915: 5-6; Hodgins 1989: 140-5; Thorns 1995: 51. -65 -Mississauga and Chippewa property claims and laws covering fishing places. This gap is likely due to the male lawyers and government officials' bias to acquiring affidavits from male Ojibwa informants. Nevertheless, there is significant evidence in other sources to show that the southern Ojibwa applied the same property and legal principals to their fishing places. Prior to his death in 1832, Jack Cow claimed an exclusive right over fish as well as game in his hunting grounds around Jack Lake. In 1884, an early historian of Peterborough County, Pelham Mulvany, explained that the Lake was named after Cow, "who claimed all the streams and lands in this locality as his fishing and hunting grounds." Mulvany added that Cow, "was most tenacious of his rights, and would destroy all the traps of the white men he found on his streams." Cow did, however, when asked, grant permission to settlers to fish in his waters.148 Mulvany also recorded that the Taunchay family held the Clear Lake basin as their fishing grounds and that the Irons family asserted exclusive rights over the fishery in Massossaga and Kitcheoum Lake. 1 4 9 In the first part of the 19 th century, Mississauga leaders leased what they perceived as their exclusive fishing rights around islands in the Bay of Quinte to some settlers.150 In a series of events I describe in a later chapter, in the 1860s, the Chippewa of Beausoleil Island actively protected their fisheries from settler trespasses and seized non-native nets. Other Ojibwa on the Saugeen Peninsula and Manitoulin Island also asserted property rights over their fishing places and actively protected them from trespasses.151 These laws applied to both settlers and other aboriginal groups. For example, in 1867, a missionary reported that Chippewa families from Lake Simcoe had to apply to the Saugeen Chippewa to fish on their grounds.152 Most significantly, the federal Department of Fisheries ("Fisheries)" was aware of the Ojibwa laws and assertions of property over their fisheries. In 1863, the Commissioner of Fisheries reported: 1 4 7 NAC, RG 10, vol. 2329, file 67,071-2, sworn declaration of Henry Simon, Christian Island, 25 August 1911. 1 4 8 Pelham Mulvany et. al, History of the County of Peterborough (Toronto: 1884), reprinted in Guillet 1967: 23. 1 4 9 Mulvany 1884: 25. 1 5 0 NAC, RG 10, vol. 414, letter by Chiefs John Sunday, John Sampson, Captain Irons, 4 principal warriors, and 9 warriors, dated Alnwick 21 June 1847; NAC, RG 10, series 2, vol. 2: 444-5. 1 5 1 William Gibbard, "Report of William Gibbard, Esq., on the Fisheries of Lakes Huron and Superior", CSP no. 11 (Quebec 1862): n.p. 1 5 2 Enemikeese 1867: 95. -66-In all that is related to soil and fisheries they [Ojibwa] conceive themselves sovereign proprietors, and as much, not amenable to the laws and usages which govern subjects of the realm. They make and administer their own laws. Whosoever would occupy their lands, reside within their jurisdiction and use 'their fisheries' must conform to tribal orders and decrees.153 Ojibwa laws of inheritance of fishing and hunting grounds were critical to the maintenance of their property allocation system.154 A l l the Ojibwa sources emphasize this point. For example, Chief Thomas Peter Kadegegwon stated in 1911, "my father the late Mr. Peter Kadegegwon who had a hunting limit of his own and upon his death he gave the limit to his sons, viz, late William Peter Kadegegwon and myself'. 1 5 5 These laws assured the orderly and predictable passage of hunting and fishing grounds between generations. The evidence indicates that marriage was exogamous between dodems and that women moved to the man's band. "Law" was not the only term the southern Ojibwa borrowed from the English lexicon. In the mid-19 t h century, the words "conservation" and "management" were not yet used. Instead, it appears fur traders and others used the metaphors of "nursing" and "farming", drawing the analogies between agrarian animal husbandry and wildlife management.156 Some Ojibwa drew on these dominant metaphors to explain their people's conservation practices. For example, in 1861, Peter Jones used the analogy of "farming" to explain how his people husbanded their animal resources: "each family had its own hunting grounds, marked out by certain natural divisions, such as rivers, lakes, mountains, or ridges; and all the game within these bounds is considered their property as much as the cattle and fowl owned by a farmer on his own land.&qu