The purpose of the BC Treaty Process is to negotiate or settle land claims with First Nations. An example is the Nisga'a agreement. This is a model that will be used in settling all future First Nations claims. If you look at a map, you see the Nisga'a have settled for approximately 1/10th of their territory: about the size of the Nuxalk's King Island. The government tells First Nations what areas can be included in any claim. This is to protect third party interests. (i.e. Interfor) In settling their claim, the Nisga'a had to follow a process to reach agreement. For example, interim measures or co – management agreements in areas like forestry (silviculture) or fisheries (Aboriginal Fishing Strategy). Interim measure agreements are short term. Co – management is by 50 percent First Nations and 50 percent non – aboriginal. They decide on how we are going to manage the resources. But during this process other rules are in effect such as no economic disruptions or blockading of any type. Take the example of King Island if we were in the treaty process. We could not defend ISTA, our Sacred Land, instead we would have to let Interfor log our territory. We would have to work cooperately with all third party interests. If it were in fishing or logging or with any government department. And this is only part of the Treaty Process. . . Other things we would have to do are in "social development," for instance in mapping out how to solve our issues such as drug and alcohol abuse, sexual abuse. We would have to start the healing process according to their dictates. These are examples of what is in the BC Treaty Process. Why do we need to negotiate away land and resources that we already own? Or enter into agreements when we already have rights to hunt and fish without government licenses? We must carefully consider the Nisga'a agreement. Do we want to settle the land question this way? Or do we want to keep what we already have?