Appellants factum - Woodward & Company

16records document numerous situations where non-Tsilhqot’in Aboriginal guides refusedto enter Tsilhqot’in territory, expressing fear of Tsilhqot’in people. 12559. The archival records show that “[t]o be safe” in Tsilhqot’in country, “one had to beaccompanied by Tsilhqot’in, paying what in effect was a ‘toll’ to enter and ‘rent’ if youwanted to stay and settle down”. 126 From the early explorers onwards, Europeansmade such payments for precisely this reason. 12760. The record demonstrates that “both Tsilhqot’in and non-Tsilhqot’in recognizedthe Claim Area as lying firmly within the much larger traditional Tsilhqot’in territory”. 128Reviewing the voluminous historical record, the Trial Judge found only two references topotential incursions into the Claim Area by other First Nations:a. Tsilhqot’in oral tradition recounts the killing of several Tsilhqot’in women byQaju (Homalco) people at Tsimol Ch’ed (Potato Mountain) in the WesternTrapline, before Tsilhqot’in warriors killed and drove off the Qaju. 129 Thisconflict, if anything, reinforces Tsilhqot’in control over the Claim Area. At anyrate, this skirmish predated sovereignty assertion. 130b. An anthropological study of the Tsilhqot’in posits a temporary andunsuccessful Homalco encampment at the lower part of Tsilhqox Biny (ChilkoLake). 131 This reference is unattributed and unsubstantiated by Tsilhqot’inwitnesses at trial. 132 There was no supporting archaeological or historical125 Trial Decision, para. 921.126 Trial Decision, para. 917, quoting from Exhibit 0391, Expert Report of Hamar Foster.127 Trial Decision, paras. 918-19.128 Trial Decision, para. 622, quoting from Exhibit 0240, Expert Report of Ken Brealey, at 20-21.129 Trial Decision, paras. 933, 935.130 Trial Decision, para. 933.131 Trial Decision, para. 932, 934. The Trial Judge noted that this area is inside the Claim Area, but outside theProven Title Area: para. 934.132 Trial Decision, para. 942.