Evidence on the Adequacy of First Nations Consultation - BC Hydro ...

Janet L. Fraser 

Director, Regulatory Affairs 

Phone: 604 699‐7318 

Fax: 604 699‐7229 

E‐mail: janet.fraser@bctc.com 

7 May 2010 

Ms. Erica Hamilton 

Commission Secretary 

British Columbia Utilities Commission 

900 Howe Street, Sixth Floor 

Vancouver BC, V6Z 2N3 

Dear Ms. Hamilton: 

Re: British Columbia Transmission Corporation (BCTC) 

Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) 

for the Columbia Valley Transmission (CVT) Project – Project 3698591 

<strong>Evidence</strong> on Adequacy of First Nations Consultation 

Pursuant to the revised regulatory timetable in Commission Order G‐71‐10 ordering BCTC to file 

evidence on adequacy of consultation by 7 May 2010, BCTC herein files its <strong>Evidence</strong> on 

Adequacy of First Nations Consultation for the CVT Project CPCN Application. 

Sincerely, 

Original signed by 

Janet L. Fraser 

Director, Regulatory Affairs 

Suite 1100, Four Bentall Centre, 1055 Dunsmuir Street 

PO Box 49260, Vancouver, BC V7X 1V5 

www.bctc.com

<strong>Evidence</strong> of Adequacy on 

First Nations Consultation 

COLUMBIA VALLEY TRANSMISSION 

PROJECT 

7 May 2010

Table of Contents 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................2 

2.0 Consultation Activities Since 11 March 2010 ...........................................................3 

2.1 Ktunaxa Nation Council (KNC) .......................................................................... 3 

2.2 Shuswap Indian Band (SIB) ............................................................................... 5 

2.3 Shuswap Nation Tribal Council (SNTC) ............................................................. 6 

2.4 Shuswap‐Arrow Lakes Division (SALD).............................................................. 7 

2.5 Specific Environmental Consultation and Accommodation ............................. 8 

2.6 Archaeological Consultation and Accommodation .......................................... 9 

2.7 Access Management Consultation and Accommodation................................. 9 

2.8 Commitments to Further Consultation and Accommodation........................ 10 

3.0 Consultation Assessment ......................................................................................12 

3.1 Strength of Claim Analysis .............................................................................. 12 

3.1.1 KNC...................................................................................................... 12 

3.1.2 SIB ....................................................................................................... 13 

3.1.3 Other SNTC.......................................................................................... 13 

3.1.4 SALD .................................................................................................... 13 

3.1.5 Metis ................................................................................................... 14 

3.2 Project Impacts ............................................................................................... 14 

3.3 Other Factors .................................................................................................. 15 

3.4 Haida Spectrum .............................................................................................. 16 

3.4.1 KNC...................................................................................................... 16 

3.4.2 SIB ....................................................................................................... 16 

3.4.3 Other SNTC Members ......................................................................... 17 

3.4.4 SALD .................................................................................................... 17 

3.5 Adequacy of Consultation............................................................................... 17 

3.5.1 KNC...................................................................................................... 17 

3.5.2 SIB ....................................................................................................... 19 

3.5.3 Other SNTC Members ......................................................................... 19 

3.5.4 SALD .................................................................................................... 19 

31 

32 

Appendix A. Consultation Materials 

APPENDICES 

BCTC Columbia Valley Transmission Project – <strong>Evidence</strong> on Adequacy of First Nations Consultation 1 

7 May 2010

1 – Introduction 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this document is to supplement the evidence of consultation with First 

Nations filed in this proceeding. 

<strong>Evidence</strong> of consultation with identified First Nations between November 13, 2008 and 

December 30, 2009 can be found in BCTC’s application for a Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity (Application) at pages 139‐177 [Exhibit B‐1]. 

Further evidence of the consultation between December 13, 2009 and March 11, 2010 

with identified First Nations can be found in BCTC’s response to BCUC IR 1.51.1 filed on 

March 15, 2010 [Exhibit B‐3]. 

This document describes (i) the consultation activities with First Nations between March 

12 to May 6, 2010 and (ii) BC Hydro’s assessment regarding the consultation with 

identified First Nations as of May 7, 2010. 


7 May 2010

2 – Consultation Activities Since 11 March 2010 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

2.0 CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES SINCE 11 MARCH 2010 

2.1 Ktunaxa Nation Council (KNC) 

Since March 12, 2010, BC Hydro and the KNC have participated in a series of meetings, 

negotiations and other discussions (in person, written and electronic). During this 

period, the consultation has focused on further Project and process information sharing, 

benefits, impact management, and procurement opportunities. Drafts of agreements 

have been exchanged, as well as proposals and counter‐proposals. The KNC has 

designated its wholly owned development company, Nupqu Development Corporation 

(NDC), as the entity to receive procurement opportunities related to the Project. 

On March 12, 2010, the KNC provided BC Hydro with a copy of the KNC’s letter to the 

Commission applying for Intervenor status on the Project. 

On April 1, 2010, BC Hydro provided the KNC and its member Bands with a letter 

enclosing a copy of BCUC Commission Order G‐54‐10 which laid out the regulatory 

timetable for the Project, and highlighted the fact that there was to be a community 

input session on April 15, 2010 in Invermere. A copy of that letter and order was also 

faxed to the KNC and each of its member First Nations that same day. 

On April 8, 2010, BC Hydro met with the KNC and NDC in Cranbrook to further discuss 

procurement opportunities, the Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA) and other 

archaeology issues. The KNC informed BC Hydro that they would be requesting an 

extension on providing their written evidence. 

On April 9, 2010, BC Hydro provided a revised copy of the terms of reference for the AIA 

work, and on April 15, 2010, the KNC advised BC Hydro that the KNC was satisfied with 

those terms of reference. 

Also on April 9, 2010, the KNC provided BC Hydro with an invoice for services related to 

the CVT Project. On April 20, 2010, BC Hydro paid that invoice and also provided an 

additional nominal advance for future work related to the Project. 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Further information sharing by email and by telephone between the KNC and BC Hydro 

occurred between April 15 and April 21, 2010. This included the sharing of updated 

maps, and discussions around Project benefits, impact management and procurement 

opportunities. 

On April 21, 2010, BC Hydro sent a letter to the KNC and its member First Nations and 

enclosed a copy of BCTC’s Toby Creek Diversion Supplement that had been filed with 

the BCUC on April 20, 2010. The KNC had underlined the importance of avoidance of the 

goat habitat at Toby Creek as a very significant environmental issue related to the 

Project. 

Also on April 21, 2010, by email, BC Hydro provided to the KNC written responses to the 

concerns that the KNC had raised with regard to the Environmental Overview 

Assessment (EOA). KNC’s concerns are expressed in documents dated January 5, January 

12 and January 20, 2010 in BCTC’s response to BCUC IR 1.51.1. Three additional 

individual concerns which were provided by email on or before April 29, 2010. A copy of 

BC Hydro’s responses (three documents) can be found in Appendix A to this 

Supplement. BC Hydro understands that KNC is reviewing the responses and BC Hydro 

expects further discussions with KNC on some of the issues. 

On April 30, 2010, the KNC provided BC Hydro/BCTC with the first of three reports 

regarding their Aboriginal Use and Interest Study (Robertson, 2010) (the AUIS) for the 

Project area. No new Project specific issues were raised in this report. A copy of the 

Robertson report is attached. The KNC indicated that they had hoped to provide all 

three of their AUIS reports to BC Hydro in advance of this supplemental filing for BC 

Hydro’s consideration but they were only able to deliver the one report. BC Hydro 

understands that the other two reports will be filed by the KNC as part of its proposed 

evidentiary filing in this proceeding. 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

On May 3, 2010, BC Hydro met with the KNC in Cranbrook to continue consultation and 

negotiations regarding benefits, impact management and procurement and the related 

agreements. 

On May 6, 2010, BC Hydro and BCTC met with the KNC and the Ministry of Environment 

(MoE) in Fairmont Hot Springs to discuss the KNC’s concerns regarding access 

management on the proposed CVT project right‐of‐way. 

BC Hydro, BCTC and KNC will continue to discuss benefit, impact management and 

procurement opportunities and are working towards appropriate agreements as soon as 

reasonably possible. The next meeting between BC Hydro, BCTC and the KNC is 

scheduled for May 14, 2010 to continue those discussions and to continue to share AUIS 

and other Project information. 

BC Hydro and NDC continue discussions regarding the specialty forestry work which is 

scheduled to begin in the summer of 2010, and the clearing and road access work. 

Copies of the various letters and other materials sent to and received from the KNC are 

included in Appendix A. 

2.2 Shuswap Indian Band (SIB) 

On March 16, 2010, BC Hydro delivered signed copies of the Benefits Agreement and 

the Contracting Agreement to the SIB. These agreements were previously filed in 

confidence with the BCUC. 

On April 1, 2010, BC Hydro provided the SIB with a letter and enclosed a copy of BCUC 

Commission Order G‐54‐10 which laid out the regulatory timetable for the Project, and 

highlighted the fact that there was to be a community input session on April 15, 2010 in 

Invermere. A copy of that letter and order was also faxed to the SIB that same day. 

On April 21, 2010, BC Hydro sent a letter to the SIB and enclosed a copy of BCTC’s Toby 

Creek Diversion Supplement that was filed with the BCUC on April 20, 2010. 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

On May 4, 2010, the SIB provided BC Hydro with a letter dated April 21, 2010 signed by 

the Chief of the SIB. In the letter, the SIB reaffirms its position that the Project was 

deemed to be exclusively within the asserted traditional interests of the SIB. On May 6, 

2010, the SIB provided six letters of confirmation of support to BC Hydro signed by the 

Chiefs of the Kamloops (Chief Shane Gottfriedson), Little Shuswap (Chief Felix Arnouse), 

Simpcw (Chief Keith Matthew), Skeetchestn (Chief Albert Deneault), Splatsin (Chief 

Wayne Christian) and Whispering Pines First Nations (Chief Michael LeBourdais). Copies 

of these letters can be found in Appendix A. 

BC Hydro and the SIB continue discussions on the upcoming work packages related to 

the Contracting Agreement. 

The SIB has not raised any concerns following the signing of the Benefits Agreement and 

the Contracting Agreement on March 11, 2010. 

Copies of the various letters and other materials sent to and received from the SIB are 


2.3 Shuswap Nation Tribal Council (SNTC) 

On April 1, 2010, BC Hydro provided the SNTC and its member bands with a letter and 

enclosed a copy of BCUC Commission Order G‐54‐10 which laid out the regulatory 



faxed to the SNTC and its member bands that same day. 

On April 21, 2010, BC Hydro provided the SNTC and its member bands with a letter and 

enclosed a copy of BCTC’s Toby Creek Diversion Supplement that was filed with the 

BCUC on April 20, 2010. 

The SNTC has not raised any further concerns about the Project. 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

As noted above, the Chiefs of the Kamloops, Little Shuswap, Simpcw, Skeetchestn, 

Splatsin (a SALD member), and Whispering Pines First Nations each have provided a 

letter of confirmation of support to the SIB regarding the SIB’s relationship to the 

Project. 

Copies of the various letters and other materials sent to and received from the SNTC are 


2.4 Shuswap‐Arrow Lakes Division (SALD) 

On March 19, 2010, as a follow up to the Application Procedural Conference, BC Hydro 

sent a letter to Chief Nelson Leon and provided copies to all of the SALD Chiefs and the 

SALD technical coordinator. The letter stated that BC Hydro was surprised to hear at the 

BCUC Procedural Conference that the SALD felt that they had not been properly 

consulted as the SALD’s most recent letter to BC Hydro (December 10, 2009) indicated 

their full support for the SIB. The March 19, 2010 letter also indicated that BC Hydro 

remained open to having discussions with the SALD regarding the Project. 

On April 1, 2010, BC Hydro provided the SALD and its member bands with a letter and 

enclosed a copy of BCUC Commission Order G‐54‐10 which laid out the regulatory 



faxed to the SALD and its member bands that same day. 

On April 14, 2010, the Technical Coordinator of the SALD sent an email to BC Hydro 

indicating that they had been unable to make as much progress as hoped with the SIB 

and due to the apparent lack of a government‐to‐government process, the SALD was 

concerned about the impacts of the Project and wanted to discuss how to get involved 

with the Project and the BCUC process. BC Hydro spoke with the Technical Coordinator 

of the SALD on April 15, 2010, and was informed that the SALD had received an 

extension for applying for a participant cost award for the Project, noting that they 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

would be filing on April 20, 2010. BC Hydro has not seen a copy of the SALD’s funding 

request to the BCUC. 

On April 21, 2010, BC Hydro responded to the April 14, 2010 SALD email. In its e‐mail, BC 

Hydro set out the consultation efforts that BC Hydro has undertaken with the SALD and 

its member Bands on the Project since December 15, 2008. BC Hydro offered to meet 

with SALD to discuss their concerns at the SALD’s convenience. 

On this same date, April 21, 2010, BC Hydro sent a letter to the SALD and its member 

bands and enclosed a copy of BCTC’s Toby Creek Diversion Supplement that was filed 

with the BCUC on April 20, 2010. 

On April 22, 2010, BC Hydro left a phone message with the Technical Coordinator of the 

SALD indicating that BC Hydro would like to discuss dates for a potential meeting and 

asked the SALD to return the call. On April 26th, the SALD emailed BC Hydro to ask if 

they could attend a meeting with the SALD on April 29th. On April 27th, BC Hydro 

confirmed that they would be able to attend, but the SALD asked for the meeting to be 

rescheduled for the following week. Communications between the parties continue, but 

as of May 6, 2010, no date has been set for this meeting. 

On May 6, 2010, the SIB provided to BC Hydro a copy of a letter signed by the Chief of 

Splatsin (a member of SALD) confirming support of the SIB and the SIB’s relationship to 

the Project. 

Copies of the various letters and other materials sent to and received from the SALD are 


2.5 Specific Environmental Consultation and Accommodation 

In addition to other consultation and accommodation measures identified in the 

Application, the responses to information requests, and in this document, BCTC and BC 

Hydro have: 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

(a) 

agreed to propose to move the transmission line (the Toby Creek Diversion, to 

avoid goat habitat); 

3 

(b) 

committed to avoiding riparian areas to the extent reasonably possible; and 

4 

5 

(c) 

agreed to provide the KNC and the SIB with the construction Environmental 

Management Plan (EMP) for their review and comment. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

2.6 Archaeological Consultation and Accommodation 

The KNC and the SIB provided input into the Terms of Reference for the Archaeological 

Impact Assessment (AIA) work, a copy of which is attached in Appendix A. 

BC Hydro is in discussion with Eagle Vision (a Ktunaxa owned company) for a direct 

award for the AIA work. 

Both the KNC and the SIB will be offered the opportunity to be involved in ‘walking the 

line’ with BC Hydro and BCTC and reviewing reports and other information. 

The AIA will be an input into the construction EMP. 

2.7 Access Management Consultation and Accommodation 

BC Hydro has indicated to the KNC that BCTC and/or BC Hydro do not have the authority 

to grant or deny access on a statutory right‐of‐way. Nonetheless, BCTC and BC Hydro 

have committed to: 

18 

19 

20 

(a) 

Planning and design of access (for construction) that will limit the amount of 

permanent access to the right‐of‐way for maintenance, and will take advantage of 

existing features of the land to reduce unwanted access to the right‐of‐way; 

21 

22 

(b) 

Working cooperatively under the direction of the appropriate ministries with 

regard to access management; 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

(c) 

Install access control gates and signage for areas of highest concern, where 

reasonable, and authorized and agreed by appropriate ministries; and 

3 

4 

5 

(d) 

Assist in the development of, and participate in, a local multi‐stakeholder group to 

look at methods to reduce unauthorized access to the right‐of‐way during the 

construction of the Project. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

2.8 Commitments to Further Consultation and Accommodation 

BC Hydro will continue to consult with the identified First Nations throughout the 

remainder of the definition and implementation phases of the Project. BC Hydro will 

continue to: 

10 

11 

(a) 

provide timely information and updates regarding the Project and the regulatory 

process; 

12 

13 

(b) 

provide timely responses to any questions and/or information requests regarding 

the Project; 

14 

15 

16 

(c) 

seek to understand any general concerns of First Nations respecting the Project 

and, where appropriate, consider such concerns in the Project’s final design and 

delivery; and 

17 

18 

19 

(d) 

engage in discussions to further identify means to avoid, mitigate or otherwise 

accommodate, if necessary, any potential impacts by the Project to aboriginal 

interests. 

20 

21 

22 

Specific to the KNC and its member First Nations, BC Hydro remains optimistic that the 

benefits, impact management and procurement agreements will be completed before 

Final Submissions are due for this Application. In any event, BC Hydro will: 

23 

24 

25 

(a) 

continue to look for ways of providing benefits during construction of the Project 

to the KNC and its member First Nations, including employment and procurement 

opportunities; 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

(b) 

continue to work towards avoiding or mitigating impacts to the extent reasonably 

possible; and, 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

(c) 

continue information sharing and dialogue with the KNC through studies such as 

the AIA and the AUIS, as well as the construction EMP in order to assist in the 

detailed design process and Project implementation. BC Hydro will fully examine 

the studies provided by the KNC to determine if any impacts have been identified, 

and will work with the KNC to avoid, mitigate, or otherwise accommodate those 

impacts as necessary. 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

With respect to the SALD, BC Hydro has clearly stated its willingness to further meet 

with the SALD as communicated by letter (March 19), email (April 21, May 4 and May 5), 

and phone (April 22) to discuss any Project specific concerns that the SALD may have 

about the Project. 

SALD has not raised any specific issues with BC Hydro or BCTC about the Project. 


7 May 2010

3 – Consultation Assessment 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

3.0 CONSULTATION ASSESSMENT 

In Haida, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Crown has a duty to consult if it 

contemplates conduct that may adversely affect asserted aboriginal rights and title and 

that the scope and extent of the duty is determined by (i) a preliminary assessment of 

the strength of the aboriginal rights or title asserted by the First Nation, and (ii) the 

potential impacts on the asserted aboriginal rights and title. 

3.1 Strength of Claim Analysis 

There are overlapping First Nation claims in the Project area. BC Hydro’s preliminary 

analysis, based on the information reviewed by BC Hydro as of May 7, 2010, is that the 

KNC and the SIB probably have reasonable claims but the asserted claims of the other 

identified First Nations are relatively weak. 

3.1.1 KNC 

The entire Project is located within the asserted traditional territory of the KNC. The 

four First Nations that are members of the KNC have chosen to consult with BC Hydro 

collectively on the Project through the KNC. BC Hydro has therefore not analyzed the 

strength of claim of each of the four First Nation members in any detail. 

The information BC Hydro considered suggests that the KNC has a reasonable aboriginal 

rights claim in the Project area. 

In September 2009, BC Hydro asked Bouchard and Kennedy Research Consultants to 

summarize and discuss the known and available evidence that may clarify potential First 

Nation’s claims of Aboriginal rights and title in the area of the proposed CVT Project. A 

copy of draft 2009 Bouchard and Kennedy report is attached. The report is in “draft” 

form only as of May 7, 2010. 

As previously noted, on April 30, 2010, the KNC provided to BC Hydro a copy of their 

first of three AUIS reports entitled “The Ktunaxa Nation and the Upper Columbia Valley: 

A Survey of Historical Documentation and Research Relating to Aboriginal Use and 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Interest” (B.D. Robertson). A copy of this report is included in Appendix A. The 

Robertson report is largely a detailed literature review. BC Hydro has not had sufficient 

time to review the report in detail and assess the merits of the opinions or findings in 

the report. However, BC Hydro has considered the report in its strength of claim 

analysis. 

The Robertson report supports BC Hydro’s preliminary assessment that the KNC 

probably has reasonable aboriginal rights claims in the Project area, particularly in terms 

of seasonal hunting and fishing activities. 

3.1.2 SIB 

The entire Project is located within the asserted traditional territory of the SIB, and a 

portion of the transmission will be in the proximity of the SIB reserve. BC Hydro and the 

SIB have signed a Benefits Agreement and a Contracting Agreement with the SIB, and 

the SIB acknowledges that it has been adequately consulted and accommodated. BC 

Hydro is therefore of the view that it is not necessary to engage in a detailed strength of 

claim analysis in respect of the SIB. BC Hydro is of the view that the SIB has a reasonable 

claim. 

3.1.3 Other SNTC 

BC Hydro acknowledges that other SNTC member First Nations have asserted interests 

in the area. However, BC Hydro is of the view that their claims are comparatively 

weaker. A number of these bands have provided letters of confirmation of support to 

the SIB regarding the SIB’s relationship with the Project. 

3.1.4 SALD 

In the specific context of SALD, BC Hydro is of the view the asserted claims are 

comparatively weaker. 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

3.1.5 Metis 

The Metis Nation of British Columbia (MNBC) registered as an intervenor in these 

proceedings by letter dated March 15, 2010 [Exhibit C9‐1]. In the letter, MNBC submits 

that the Crown must consult with MNBC in respect of the Project. BC Hydro is not aware 

of any assertion of Metis rights in the CVT Project area, other than the broad assertions 

made in the March 15, 2010 letter. The Province of B.C. has not acknowledged the 

existence of any section 35(1) Metis rights in British Columbia. BC Hydro does not agree 

with the MNBC’s statement that a broad assertion of Metis harvesting and traditional 

land use rights to the Province of British Columbia is sufficient to trigger a consultation 

obligation. The March 15, 2010 letter simply states that some Metis may reside in the 

Project area and they have done so for many years. There is no evidence of an historic 

distinct, cohesive Metis community nor of a contemporary Metis community with a real 

link to such an historic community. BC Hydro is of the view that there is no obligation to 

consult with Metis who may reside in the project area. 

3.2 Project Impacts 

The short‐term impacts of the Project, which primarily arise during the construction of 

the Project, will range from low at existing sites to medium, particularly along the 

transmission line route (vegetation clearing and construction of new transmission 

towers and related facilities). 

BC Hydro is of the view that the overall long‐term impacts of the Project are likely to be 

low to medium with appropriate mitigation measures. The impacts will be 

geographically limited in that they will largely occur within the physical footprint of the 

Project itself (cleared right of way areas, transmission towers, and substation sites), and 

will mainly relate to the transmission line and towers. The impacts will effectively be 

permanent in that it is probable that the transmission line will remain in use well into 

the reasonably foreseeable future. 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

BC Hydro acknowledges that First Nations have expressed important concerns about 

access based on the view that cleared right of ways may make it easier for the public 

(hunters, fishers, and recreational users) to access otherwise remote areas which may, 

in turn, affect the availability of important animal resources. Some of the proposed 

accommodation measures are described earlier in this supplemental filing. BC Hydro 

notes there is considerable existing development in the area (existing communities, 

business and industry, farms, ranches and homes) and infrastructure (transmission lines, 

substations and existing roads). BC Hydro has committed to working with the KNC and 

the appropriate government agencies to alleviate the KNC’s concerns in this regard to 

the extent possible. 

Ongoing vegetation clearing and maintenance may affect First Nation interests, 

although these activities will occur within the right‐of‐ways and therefore will be of 

limited geographical scope. 

Facilities maintenance (towers, line, and substations) will likely have low long‐term 

impacts. 

3.3 Other Factors 

Other factors that have informed the consultation analysis in the context of this 

Application include: 

19 

20 

(a) 

The transmission line component of the Project is a greenfield project (as opposed 

to the expansion or reinforcement of an existing facility); 

21 

22 

(b) 

There will be a material change in the use of Crown land along the transmission 

line right of way in particular; 

23 

(c) 

The Project will not traverse any existing First Nation communities or reserves; 

24 

(d) 

There are existing transmission lines and substations in the upper Columbia Valley; 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

(e) 

The Project will not undergo either a BC Environmental Assessment Act review nor 

a Canadian Environmental Assessment Act review; 

3 

4 

5 

(f) 

The CPCN is the major regulatory approval required to proceed with the Project 

and if granted, and subject to securing necessary land tenures and licenses, would 

allow BCTC to proceed with construction of the Project; 

6 

7 

8 

9 

(g) 

The Project will require a Crown Land License of Occupation from the Integrated 

Land Management Bureau (ILMB) for the transmission line right‐of‐way over the 

Crown lands in the Project area. The application for this license will be referred to 

the potentially affected First Nations; and 

10 

11 

(h) 

All Project assets will be owned and operated by BC Hydro and BCTC, provincial 

Crown Corporations regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

3.4 Haida Spectrum 

3.4.1 KNC 

BC Hydro is of the view that the level of consultation in respect of the KNC and its 

members is probably in the medium to high range of the Haida spectrum. BC Hydro’s 

view is based on its preliminary assessment that (1) the claims of the KNC member First 

Nations are reasonable and (2) the Project impacts on asserted Aboriginal rights are 

likely to be, on balance, low to medium. 

3.4.2 SIB 

BC Hydro is of the view that the level of consultation in respect of the SIB is probably in 

the medium to high range of the Haida spectrum based on BC Hydro’s preliminary 

assessment that (1) the claims of the SIB are reasonable and (2) the Project impacts on 

asserted Aboriginal rights are likely to be, on balance, low to medium. 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

3.4.3 Other SNTC Members 

In respect of the other First Nations who are members of the SNTC, BC Hydro is of the 

view that the level of consultation is, at the most, at the low end of the Haida spectrum. 

This view is informed by BC Hydro’s preliminary assessment that the Project area is 

located a significant distance from many of these First Nations. In addition, many of the 

members of the SNTC have deferred to the SIB in consultation with BC Hydro in respect 

of the Project, which supports BC Hydro’s view that these First Nations have much less 

interest in the Project area than the SIB. 

3.4.4 SALD 

In the specific context of SALD, BC Hydro is of the view that the consultation obligation 

is at the low of the spectrum. SALD has claimed a very large area and, until very 

recently, had deferred to the SIB’s leadership role in consultation. The information BC 

Hydro has reviewed indicates that the SIB has a much stronger claim to the Project area. 

3.5 Adequacy of Consultation 

All First Nations identified by BC Hydro have received notice of the Project and other 

Project information, access to funding, a copy of the Application and related materials, 

and information regarding the BCUC Application hearing process. 

3.5.1 KNC 

BC Hydro has engaged in extensive consultation in good faith with the KNC and is 

continuing to do so. BC Hydro acknowledges that the KNC has also engaged in the 

consultation in good faith, has raised issues of importance to the KNC and its member 

First Nations, and has participated in good faith negotiations regarding benefits, impact 

management and procurement opportunities. 

In specific response to the KNC’s concerns, BCTC has changed the transmission line 

route (Toby Creek diversion) and has committed to avoid riparian habitat as much as 

possible. BC Hydro and BCTC have also committed to receiving and considering input on 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

the proposed EMP from the KNC. Also, the KNC will have an extensive role in the AIA, 

directly and via its company, who is expected to be carrying out the AIA work. In 

addition, the results of the AIA will inform the EMP, along with the AUIS information 

provided by the KNC. BC Hydro has also described in this supplemental filing the 

commitment to address access issues. 

As noted above, BC Hydro is committed to continued consultation with the KNC and its 

member First Nations during Project design and implementation. 

BC Hydro and the KNC have participated in productive negotiations regarding the 

provision of benefits. As of May 6, 2010, these negotiations were not, however, 

complete. BC Hydro remains optimistic that the negotiations will result in benefits, 

impact management and procurement agreements. If the KNC and BC Hydro conclude 

agreements before the conclusion of these proceedings, BC Hydro and BCTC will 

promptly notify the BCUC and intervenors. 

BC Hydro understands that the KNC does not oppose the Project, provided their 

concerns are addressed. BC Hydro is of the view that most, if not all, of the material 

concerns have been largely addressed, subject to agreeing on the details of the 

proposed arrangements and appropriate review and approval by the KNC and the 

member First Nations. 

In view of BC Hydro’s extensive consultation to date, the transmission line route 

changes and other commitments that have been made, the negotiations with the KNC 

regarding benefits, impact management, and procurement opportunities, and BC 

Hydro’s commitment to on‐going consultation during Project design and 

implementation, BC Hydro is of the view that consultation with the KNC to this stage of 

the Project have been reasonable and adequate. 


7 May 2010


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

3.5.2 SIB 

BC Hydro has extensively consulted with the SIB and has entered into a Benefits 

Agreement and a Contracting Agreement. In the Benefits Agreement, the SIB 

acknowledges, among other things, that it has been adequately consulted and 

accommodated with respect to its Aboriginal rights and title in respect of the Project. 

3.5.3 Other SNTC Members 

BC Hydro is of the view that the level of consultation required for these First Nations is, 

at the most, at the low end of the spectrum. All have received notice, access to funding, 

and other information and were provided copies of the Application, information about 

participating in the regulatory process, and information developed as part of the 

Application proceedings. All were made aware of their ability to participate in the 

Application proceedings. In view of the fact that the obligation to consult is at the low 

end of the Haida spectrum, BC Hydro is of the view that consultation to this stage of the 

Project have been reasonable and adequate. 

3.5.4 SALD 

The SALD similarly received notice of the Project, a copy of this Application, funding, 

Project information, and information about the Application proceedings. The SALD was 

aware of its opportunity to participate in the Application proceedings and in fact 

intervened. Until very recently, the SALD clearly deferred to the leadership of SIB in 

consultation with BC Hydro, but has since changed their position. At least one of the 

member bands of SALD, Splatsin, provided a letter to SIB confirming support of the SIB 

and its relationship to the Project. BC Hydro is willing to meet with the SALD to discuss 

any concerns they may have about the project. Given that the obligation to consult is at 

the low end of the Haida spectrum, BC Hydro is of the view that consultation with the 

SALD have been reasonable and adequate to this stage of the Project. 


7 May 2010

Appendix A 

Consultation Materials

Page 1 of 200

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Scope and Objectives .......................................................................... 1 

2.0 POTENTIAL ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND TITLE INTERESTS IN 

THE COLUMBIA VALLEY TRANSMISSION PROJECT STUDY AREA.. 3 

2.1 Historical Observations of Aboriginal Occupation............................. 3 

2.1.1 Visitors to Fur Trade Posts East of the Rocky Mountains........... 3 

2.1.2 Aboriginal People Encountered in the Columbia Valley and 

Environs ..................................................................................................... 6 

2.2 The Kinbasket Migration .................................................................. 25 

2.2.1 The Contemporary View of the Kinbasket Migration As Provided 

by the Shuswap Indian Band and the Ktunaxa Nation ................................ 25 

2.2.3 Ethnographic and Historical Data Relating to the Kinbasket 

Migration.................................................................................................. 39 

2.2.4 A Possible Earlier Occupation................................................... 46 

2.3 Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Data for the Columbia Valley 

Project Area ................................................................................................. 48 

2.3.1 Occupation by Ktunaxa Bands................................................... 48 

2.3.2 Fishing........................................................................................ 53 

2.3.3 Hunting ...................................................................................... 54 

2.3.4 Gathering.................................................................................... 55 

3.0 FIRST NATIONS WHO MAY CLAIMS RIGHTS AND TITLE 

INTERESTS .................................................................................................... 56 

3.1 Political Representation of Ktunaxa or Kutenai-speaking claimants 56 

3.2 Political Representation of the Secwepemc-speaking Claimants ..... 58 

4.0 LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS OF THE 

CLAIMANT GROUPS.................................................................................... 59 

4.1 Ktunaxa Linguistic and Ethnic Affiliations ...................................... 59 

4.1.1 Upper Kutenai/Ktunaxa Territory as Delineated in the 

Ethnographic and Historical Literature.................................................... 62 


DRAFT REPORT: Rights and Title Interests in the Columbia Valley Transmission 

Project Area 

4.1.2 Kutenai Territory as Asserted by Ktunaxa Nation Council....... 63 

4.1.3 KNC Relations with the Kinbasket Shuswap ............................ 65 

4.2 Secwepemc (Shuswap) Speaking Claimants.................................... 66 

4.2.1 Divisions or “Bands” Comprising the Secwepemc ................... 66 

4.2.2 Shuswap Lake Division ............................................................. 72 

4.2.2 The “Snare Indians”................................................................... 78 

5.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................... 82 

Bouchard & Kennedy Research Consultants 

Page ii 


DRAFT REPORT: Rights and Title Interests in the Columbia Valley Transmission Project Area 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

In September 2009, Lawson Lundell on behalf of BC Hydro asked Bouchard & Kennedy 

Research Consultants to summarize and discuss the known and available evidence that may 

clarify potential First Nations’ claims of Aboriginal rights and title in the area of the proposed 

Columbia Valley Transmission Project. The present report presents the findings of this research. 

1.1 Scope and Objectives 

The purpose of this review is to assist BC Hydro legal counsel to make an assessment of the 

relative strengths of First Nations’ claims of Aboriginal rights and title to the Columbia Valley 

Project area. This Project comprises two proposed routes for a transmission line: 1) a line 

connecting the existing Invermere Substation with a proposed new substation to be built near 

Golden, and; 2) a proposed route that will connect the new substation with the existing Golden 

Substation. As such, this report addresses the following issues: 

1. The identity of the First Nations historically in the study area and the 

contemporary First Nations to which their descendants belong today; 

2. Areas currently claimed by the contemporary First Nations, in the treaty process 

or otherwise, and the basis for their claims; 

3. Nature of the traditional use and occupancy of the study area by First Nations that would 

indicate a potential high impact on a group, including: 

a) Permanency of use and occupation of the area or site, over time and to date, including: 

 

 

consistency of occupation, and migration in and out of the study area by the First 

Nation(s); 

intensity and exclusivity of use and occupation of the study area by a First Nation, 

including any “shared” areas and conflicts with other First Nations. 

This review and assessment is based on archival and library research, in addition to a review of 

previously-compiled known and available ethnographic, ethnohistoric and linguistic materials. 

No new interviews with First Nation members have been undertaken. This review includes a 

discussion of the availability and reliability of the ethnographic and historical record, and known 

conflicts between this record and contemporary First Nation claims. 

BC Hydro provided a map showing the location of the project area. In addition, maps or links to 

maps showing the areas claimed by the pertinent First Nations have been included in this report. 

Bouchard & Kennedy Research Consultants Page 1 



While most of the documentary materials were already on file with Bouchard & Kennedy 

Research Consultants, a limited amount of additional research was undertaken, including 

research at the University of Victoria library and the BC Archives, in addition to a review of 

microfilms of the Claude Schaeffer collection held by the Glenbow Museum and Archives in 

Calgary. 1 Materials obtained online during the preparation of this report have been noted. These 

searches have been made available the Shuswap Indian Band’s 2008 report entitled, Re 

Tsqwátstens-kucw ne Csalíken’ (Traditional Land Use Study), 2 as well as an April 2009 report 

prepared by Fish Lake Consulting for the Shuswap Indian Band in connection with the proposed 

Glacier Howser Hydroelectric project. 3 A report prepared on behalf of the Ktunaxa Nation in 

2007 for this same hydroelectric development was also found online and is cited herein. 4 As 

well, a July 2009 report prepared for the Lakes Division of the Secwepemc was found online; it, 

too, is cited. 5 Interviews with Shuswap Indian Band members conducted in 1964 were also 

accessed online and are cited herein. 

1 Claude Schaeffer was an American anthropologist and ethnohistorian whose research and writing, 

undertaken between 1934-1969, included many years of work with the Kutenai, both in the United States and 

Canada. Schaeffer’s doctoral dissertation discussed the Kutenai subsistence quest (Schaeffer 1940); as well, he was 

the author of several publications concerning the Kutenai. See Claude Schaeffer (1934-1969). Claude Everett 

Schaeffer Papers [including Kutenai fieldnotes and manuscripts]. Accession No. 2464. Glenbow Museum and 

Archives, Calgary, Alberta. See also Claude Schaeffer (1940). The Subsistence Quest of the Kutenai, A Study of the 

Interaction of Culture and Environment. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation in Anthropology. University of 

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 

2 Available online: 

http://www.shuswapband.net/_pdfs/Shuswap_LandUseStudy.pdf; accessed October 7, 2009. 


http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/epic/documents/p282/d30019/1243973494408_2a1586e8d579998eae738cd87064fab 

12176cfc051ed407d456a922c101567f0.pdf; accessed 1 November 2009. 




5 Sunny LeBourdais (2009). Tult, Transformation of Energy Into Matter. Report prepared for Sexqéltkemc: 

the Lakes Division of the Secwepemc Nation. 




2.0 POTENTIAL ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND TITLE INTERESTS IN 

THE COLUMBIA VALLEY TRANSMISSION PROJECT STUDY AREA 

2.1 Historical Observations of Aboriginal Occupation 

It is of interest to this present study where fur traders met Aboriginal people identified as either 

Ktunaxa or Secwepemc and whether these people or any other First Nations were encountered in 

the Columbia Valley Project area. Hence, the following sections review evidence concerning: the 

identity of Aboriginal peoples from west of the Rocky Mountains who visited fur trade posts in 

what is now Alberta (2.1.1); and, the identity of Aboriginal peoples met by the traders once they 

had crossed over the Rockies into the Columbia Valley (2.1.2). 

2.1.1 Visitors to Fur Trade Posts East of the Rocky Mountains 

In the late 18 th century, Aboriginal people from the west side of the Rocky Mountains made 

attempts to travel east of the mountains to trade with the North West Company’s (“NWC”) Fort 

George—and likely the Hudson’s Bay Company’s (“HBC”) Buckingham House—both located 

on the North Saskatchewan River near the present Elk Point, Alberta, and both built in 1792. At 

times, travel depended upon having arranged for safe passage through enemy lands, specifically 

the area occupied by the Peigan (Blackfoot). The Piegans are a member of the Blackfoot 

Confederacy 6 and by at least the 1790s inhabited southern Alberta and northern Montana. 

In 1792, Hudson’s Bay Company servant, surveyor and map maker Peter Fidler made what is 

generally regarded as the first contact with the Ktunaxa when he made a reconnaissance of the 

area between the HBC’s Buckingham House and the Rocky Mountains in the vicinity of the Old 

Man River. While among the Peigans near what is now called Crowsnest Pass in the Rocky 

Mountain foothills of southern Alberta, Fidler wrote in his journal of 30 December 1792 that 

some “Cottonahew” [Ktunaxa] were visiting the Old Man River to trade their horses: 

a few Tents of Cottonahew Indians are at the Naw pew ooch e tay cots 

river (Old Man), wishing our Indians to visit them with Goods, to barter 

for Horses. 7 

6 Comprised of the Kainai (or Blood), Peigan, Siksika. The first two groups resided along the Old Man 

River at the time of Treaties. 

7 Bruce Haig, editor (1991). A Look at Peter Fidler’s Journal: Journal of a Journey Overland from 

Buckingham House to the Rocky Mountains in 1792 &3. An Historical Research Centre Limited Edition. HRC: 




Fidler soon met the Ktunaxa at Old Man River and discovered during his conversations with 

them that their travels through the Rockies from “their homelands” some 40 miles to the 

southwest took only five days. 8 

Historians report that the Blackfeet possession of guns in the 1790s either allowed them to 

control the trade with the Ktunaxa, or have military supremacy over their enemies. 9 <strong>Evidence</strong> 

supporting this proposition is provided by fur trader Duncan McGillivray who wrote in 1795 

from Fort George that “The Coutonées [Ktunaxa] have already made several attempts to visit us, 

but they have been always obstructed by their enemies.” 10 Fidler had noted that “the Muddy 

river, Blood, Black Feet & Southern Indians always prevent them, they wishing to monopolize 

all their Skins to themselves...”. 11 

As anthropologist Claude Schaeffer has discussed, the Ktunaxa had, for nearly 75 years prior to 

about 1800, “increasingly come under the influence of two innovations of European origin,” 

specifically firearms and horses. 12 Yet by the 1790s, some Ktunaxa had acquired shaky peaceful 

relations with at least the Peigans of the Old Man River area. Fidler mentioned in November 

1792 that “the Snake [Shoshoni] & Cottonahou Indians had sent proper people to make peace 

with the Muddy river Indians…”. 13 

Schaeffer noted that it was difficult for the Ktunaxa and their Salishan-speaking neighbours to 

“hold their own against Blackfeet aggression, especially during their seasonal excursions to the 

buffalo plains.” 14 Authors of the 2008 Shuswap Indian Band’s “Traditional Use Study” entitled 

Re Tsqwátstens-kucw ne Csalíken’ cite Schaeffer and seemingly interpret his reference to 

“Salishan-speaking neighbours” as being “Shuswap.” However, it is more probable that these 

Lethbridge, Alberta. Page 42. See also J.G. MacGregor (1966). Peter Fidler: Canada’s Forgotten Surveyor 1769- 

1822. McClelland and Stewart: Toronto. Page 74. 

8 Mac Gregor 1966:76. See also Haig 1991, page 46. 

9 Hugh Dempsey (1998). Indians of the Rocky Mountain Parks. Fifth House, Ltd.: Calgary. See also David 

Chance (1981). The Kootenay Fur Trade and Its Establishments 1795-1871. US Army Corps of Engineers Report, 

Seattle District. Page 28. 

10 Arthur S. Morton (1929). The journal of Duncan M’Gillivray of the Northwest Company at Fort George 

on the Saskatchewan, 1794-5. MacMillan Company: Toronto. Pp. 55-56. Cited in Chance 1981, page 28. 

11 MacGregor 1966, pp 78-79. 

12 Claude Schaeffer (1966). Le Blanc and La Gasse: Predecessors of David Thompson in the Columbian 

Plateau. Studies in Plains Anthropology and History, Number 3, page 1. Published by the US Department of the 

Interior, Indian Arts and Crafts Board. Pp.1-2. 

13 Haig 1991, pp. 16, 20. 

14 Schaeffer 1966, pp. 1-2. 




Salish neighbours were the Ktunaxa’s and Blackfeet’s southern neighbours, the Flathead, 15 

whose name for themselves is “séliš”, a term later anglicized as “Salish” and applied to an entire 

Language Family that includes the Shuswap. It is stated in the Handbook of North American 

Indians that the term “Salish” is not used in the Handbook to identify the Flathead people “to 

avoid confusion with the widespread use of Salish for the whole Salishan family.” 16 Indeed, half 

the languages of the Plateau Culture Area belong to the Salishan Language Family. 17 

The Flathead people, as well as the Ktunaxa, had documented hostile relations with the 

Blackfeet. 18 They are mentioned in fur trader David Thompson’s journal of 22 November 1800. 

Writing about a meeting with “Sac o tow wow, the Principal Chief of the Pekenows” [Peigans] 

who paid him a visit while camped on the Bow River, Thompson reports that the Chief “spoke 

to us upon several Subjects—about the Kootanaes &c &c; he complained of our having armed 

them by which means the Flat Heads would also acquire Arms to their great Hurt.” 19 

In 1798, two Ktunaxa in the company of the Piegans visited Edmonton House 20 and advised the 

traders of the quantity of furs available in their homeland. The House journal reports: “Beaver 

are said to be numerous in the Country of the Cotta na ha’s and nothing will prevent the 

Canadians [North West Company] getting part of them.” 21 The term “Cotta na ha” is clearly the 

writer’s transcription of the term “Ktunaxa.” In that same year, 1798, according to historian and 

archaeologist David Chance’s review, the North West Company “made their move to get close to 

15 The term "Selish" (Salish) was originally applied by non-Indian fur traders to the Flathead, a group of 

people occupying the easternmost area of what is now Washington State. When early linguists discovered that the 

language spoken by these people was but one of a large number of related languages, they applied the name to the 

whole family of languages. For additional comment on the hostile relations between the Peigans and the Flathead, 

see Barbara Belyea (1994). Columbia Journals: David Thompson. McGill-Queens’s University Press: Montreal. She 

refers to the “Salish who lived alone the Clark Fork and Kootenai rivers” (Belyea 1994, page 199). 

16 Carling Malouf (1998). Flathead and Pend d’Oreille. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, 

Plateau (ed. by Deward E. Walker Jr.). Smithsonian Institution: Washington D.C. Page 312. 

17 Dale Kinkade, Bill Elmendorf, Bruce Rigsby and Haruo Aoki (1998). Languages. Handbook of North 

American Indians, Vol. 12, Plateau (ed. by Deward E. Walker Jr.). Smithsonian Institution: Washington D.C. Page 

52. 

Montreal. P. 15. 

River. 

18 Malouf 1998, page 305. 

19 Barbara Belyea (1994). Columbia Journals: David Thompson. McGill-Queens’s University Press: 

20 Also known as Fort Edmonton and located where the Sturgeon River meets the North Saskatchewan 

21 Chance 1981 (page 29) here mentions the Edmonton House journal, as cited in Hugh Dempsey (1973). 

History of Rocky Mountain House. Canada Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History, No. 6. 

Ottawa. Page 11. 




the Rockies so that the Kutenai could visit without the threat of their enemies.” 22 Thus, the NW 

Company established Rocky Mountain House in 1799. The HBC then set up nearby Acton 

House to compete for the same furs. 23 

It is the position of the Shuswap Indian Band’s study Re Tsqwátstens-kucw ne Csalíken’ that 

their people also traded furs at Rocky Mountain House. Citing the 1996 Shuswap History: a 

Century of Change, edited by Robert Matthew, a member of the Secwepemc Nation, the 

Traditional Use Study states: “The Shuswap Band was encouraged to trade at Rocky Mountain 

House, although due to the attacks by the Assiniboine, Iroquois and Métis, they preferred the 

Fort at Kamloops.” 24 Rocky Mountain House, established in 1799 was situated in west-central 

Alberta at the confluence of the Clearwater and North Saskatchewan Rivers. Fort Kamloops was 

initially established in 1812 at the confluence of the North and South Thompson rivers. 25 The 

former post, Rocky Mountain House, remained until the merger of the North West Company and 

the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1821, at which time the new company abandoned this House and 

the name was transferred to Acton House. It remained until 1835 when the HBC rebuilt the 

dilapidated structure. 26 Certainly, as discussed below, there is evidence in the journals of the 

North Thompson Shuswap trading both at Kamloops and Jasper, but evidence of the Shuswap 

Indian Band’s trade is less apparent. 

2.1.2 Aboriginal People Encountered in the Columbia Valley and Environs 

As noted in section 2.1.1, historical accounts are explicit that fur traders sent messages from 

Rocky Mountain House to the Ktunaxa requesting them to trade at the new House, but that their 

visit was delayed due to Piegan harassment. Eventually, the traders decided to find the camps of 

these Aboriginal people. 

It is a question of debate if David Thompson, Clerk of the NW Company’s Rocky Mountain 

House, crossed the Rocky Mountains in October 1800 and just what occurred in the summer of 

1802. There are gaps in his journals, yet statements attributed to Thompson and published in 

1846 claimed that he crossed the mountains in 1800 and explored south to the now-called 

Kootenay River. If so, Thompson had acquired considerable knowledge of the country before 

22 Chance 1981, page 29. 

23 Chance 1981, page 29. Both of these trading Houses were located at 115° W, near today's Rocky 

Mountain House, Alberta. 

24 Shuswap Indian Band 2008, page 34. 

25 Richard Mackie (1997). Trading Beyond the Mountains: The British Fur Trade on the Pacific, 1793- 

1843. University of British Columbia Press: Vancouver. Page 24. 

26 http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/lhn-nhs/ab/rockymountain/natcul/natcul2/03.aspx; accessed 30 October 2009. 




October 1800. Historian Hugh Dempsey presents a good, albeit now dated summary of the issue 

in his article “David Thompson Under Scrutiny.” 27 Gaps in Thompson’s journals leave the 

arguments undecided. More recently, however, historian Barbara Belyea has added comment to 

this debate and concluded that in later years Thompson confused alleged early trips with those he 

actually took in 1807 and 1811. 28 She points to a somewhat garbled postscipt to Peter Fidler’s 31 

December 1792 letter that describes how a three week expedition intended to cross the 

mountains was aborted when “the Guide refused to go any farther for fear of the Cottonahaws 

[Ktunaxa] killing him.” 29 

What we do know, however, is that David Thompson set out to find the Ktunaxa in October 

1800. The trip is described in Thompson’s journal, as well as David Thompson’s Narrative, 

edited by Richard Glover in 1962. Claude Schaeffer in his 1966 article, “Le Blanc and La 

Gasse” extracted the relevant passages of Thompson’s journal during his expedition west from 

Rocky Mountain House and back in the fall of 1800. Since publication of that article, however, 

historian Barbara Belyea edited Columbia Journals: David Thompson (1994), her selection of 

passages from Thompson’s journals “which describe each stage of his exploration of the 

Columbia, beginning with his first attempts to cross the divide and concluding with his ascent of 

the river from Astoria to Boat Encampment.” 30 This is the superior source of information on 

David Thompson’s journals, for Belyea has avoided any attempt to popularize or overly-interpret 

the journals, as was common in earlier editions. 31 

The journals compiled by Belyea describe how in October 1800 David Thompson accompanied 

by several North West Company men and two Aboriginal guides set out from Rocky Mountain 

House and headed southwest. They first met some Blood on their way to the Fort, then a couple 

of parties of “Pekenow” [Peigan], described as being “jealous of the Kootaneas coming in to 

Trade…”. 32 At one of the camps, two “Pekenow” [Piegan] men appeared who had stolen some 

27 See, for example, Hugh Dempsey (1964). David Thompson Under Scrutiny, Alberta Historical Review 

Vol. 12(1), pp. 22-28. Dempsey supports the opinion of historian Richard Glover that Thompson did not cross to the 

Columbia River in October 1800, as Thompson much later claimed. See Richard Glover , editor (1962). David 

Thompson’s Narrative, 1784-1812. Champlain Society: Toronto. A contrary view has been put forward by Arthur 

Morton (1936). The North West Company’s Columbian Enterprise and David Thompson. The Canadian Historical 

Review, Vol. XVII, pp.266-288. Morton claims that David Thompson, along with Duncan McGillivray, first 

crossed the Rockies through Athabaska Pass in 1801 and travelled south to the Kootenay River. 

28 Belyea 1994, page 207. 

29 Belyea 1994, page 207. 

30 Belyea 1994, page xx. 

31 The issue of interpretation of these journals is discussed by Belyea (1994, pp. IX-XXIV) in her 

Introduction to the Columbia Journals. 

32 Belyea 1994, page 5. 




horses from the Ktunaxa. They brought Thompson word that the Ktunaxa would “be on the 

Heights of the Mountain the Morrow.” 33 

Regardless of how far west Thompson, himself, travelled, the journals are explicit that the 

Aboriginal people that Thompson expected from the west side of the Rockies were Ktunaxa and 

that these were the people he encountered. A synopsis of Thompson’s journey to find the 

Ktunaxa and his return with them to Rocky Mountain House can be found in the 1966 Schaeffer 

article. 34 As noted, Thompson induced the small band to return with him to Rocky Mountain 

House. It was an arduous trip. The Piegans harassed the Ktunaxa and stole their horses, and at 

other times feasted and gambled with them. 35 Their relationship was obviously tense; old 

hostilities were in the background of every encounter. 

During these few days with the Ktunaxa in the fall of 1800, David Thompson inquired about 

their country west of the mountains. Although the Ktunaxa were eager to depart, they were 

asked by Thompson before leaving “to come again to guide him into their lands west of the 

continental divide.” 36 In the meanwhile, Thompson sent two of his NWC traders, Legacé (a.k.a. 

Legasse) and Leblanc to winter with the Ktunaxa in their country on the west side of the Rocky 

Mountains. 37 These two men were, unfortunately, illiterate. 

Legacé and Leblanc Stay With the “Kootaneas” 

It is of interest where the traders Legacé (a.k.a. Legasse) and Leblanc wintered with the Ktunaxa. 

David Chance opined that it is likely the two traders initially crossed the Rockies by way of 

Kicking Horse Pass, and lived with the Ktunaxa in the Rocky Mountain Trench somewhere north 

of Lake Windermere. 38 Chance says he is unsure of the precise location, but it should be noted 

that his interpretation of the data places the Ktunaxa in the Columbia Valley Transmission 

Project area in the winter of 1800. 


34 Schaeffer 1966, pp. 3-6. 

35 Schaeffer 1966; Belyea 1994, pp. 8-10. 

36 Chance 1981, page 29; Schaeffer 1966, page 5. 

37 Belyea 1994, pp. 10-11. 

38 Chance in his 1981 study “The Kootenay Fur Trade and Its Establishments 1795-1871” discussed the 

connection between the fur traders and the Ktunaxa, as well as these Aboriginal people’s relations with 

neighbouring First Nations. Drawing upon fur trade accounts, and upon other researchers’ analysis of these same 

records, including the work of Claude Schaeffer and Hugh Dempsey, Chance examined the Ktunaxa’s participation 

in the first century of trade. See Chance 1981, page 30. 




The primary statement on the traders’ stay is contained in a brief note authored by Peter Fidler of 

the HBC. Fidler did not accompany the two men of the North West Company, but subsequently 

met with NW Company trader Duncan McGillivray in the summer of 1801 and wrote in his own 

diary an account of the traders’ eight month sojourn. Historians have commented on the curious 

date of the post-script, 1792, that refers to the winter of 1800 and suggest that Fidler added 

details in later years when transcribing his journal. 39 

Additional information on Legacé and Leblanc is contained in Ktunaxa oral history recorded by 

Claude Schaeffer and included in his 1966 article account of these White traders’ stay among the 

Ktunaxa. Schaeffer recorded the story in the spring of 1965 from a Ktunaxa man named 

Ambrose Gravelle who was at that time Chief at Tobacco Plains; he was assisted by Joe Dennis, 

described as an “aged uncle” of Ambrose Gravelle’s wife. 40 While the narrative is not clear on 

the length of time the two traders spent residing with the Ktunaxa, it specifies that one of the 

traders married the daughter of the Tobacco Plains 41 Ktunaxa chief. With his Ktunaxa family, the 

trader is said to have trapped at least one season in the White Swan Lake country, situated about 

60 km southeast of Columbia Lake. The oral history account of Mr Gravelle and Mr Dennsi 

states that the Ktunaxa Chief warned the traders not to use the White River trail due to the 

aggressive Stony Assiniboine; instead they should use more southern routes. These included the 

Rocky trail, running from modern Elko (in the extreme southeast corner of BC) up the north fork 

of the Flathead River, crossing over by Pincher Creek to Old Man River on the present Alberta 

side.” 42 Thus, according to this Ktunaxa oral history, their Chief advised the traders to use a route 

considerably southeast of the Columbia Valley. From the Ktunaxa camp at what appears to be 

the Tobacco Plains area, the traders accompanied hunters on a fourteen day trip across the 

Rockies to hunt buffalo. According to this same Ktunaxa oral account, one of the traders may 

have been killed by the Ktunaxa, although Schaeffer was unable to verify this statement. 43 Fidler 

reported that both traders returned and that the trip back to Rocky Mountain House was a journey 

of some 17 nights. 44 

Schaeffer concluded that while difficult to locate the Ktunaxa camp where Legacé and Leblanc 

wintered, the Gravelle/Dennis oral history account—as well as Peter Fidler’s earlier use of the 

39 Dempsey 1964, page 25. 

40 Schaeffer 1966, page 6. In Schaeffer’s fieldnotes, Joe Dennis is said to have been 85 years old in 1965 

(i.e. born in 1880) and was described as being the “older brother of Mrs. Ambrose Gravelle.” See Schaeffer 1934- 

1969, Reel 2. The fieldnotes of Schaeffer that have been reviewed to date do not indicate the year that Ambrose 

Gravelle was born; presumably he was a generation younger than Joe Dennis, i.e. was likely born around 1900. 

41 Situated about 170 km south of Invermere. 

42 Schaeffer 1966, page 8. 


44 Haig 1991, page 50. 




names “Devil’s Head Mountain” and “Chief Mountain” along with his description of the 

mountain ranges—suggests that a Ktunaxa settlement was in the Tobacco Plains country. 45 

Fidler wrote of the country’s geography: 

Beyond the Mountain to the Westward in this Latitude & as far nearly as 

the Devils head, a fine open country & little wood, not a single buffalo on 

that side the Mountain, being so steep & wide, that it appears like a high 

perpendicular Wall across all these parts, which infallably presents these 

useful animals to the Indians, which affords them both Food & Clothing, 

from going there. 46 

This analysis complements the Ktunaxa oral history more closely than Chance’s interpretation, 

which as noted above, places the Ktunaxa winter camp in the Columbia Valley Transmission 

Project area. 47 

Historians have not uncovered much information to clarify this issue of just where the traders 

lived with the Ktunaxa during that first winter, but the brief mention included in HBC servant 

Peter Fidler’s diary provides some direction. 

The issue of the location of the mountain pass or passes used by the Ktunaxa—or any other First 

Nation residing on the west side of the Rocky Mountains—again emerged during historians’ 

examination of the David Thompson journals. Belyea included with Thompson’s Columbia 

Journals a section she calls “Notes” that provides a compilation of primary materials that address 

specific questions. Among those she considered was the meaning of the phrase “the Route the 

Kootanaes took,” mentioned in David Thompson’s entry for 23 October 1800. While Belyea 

characterizes the available information as “confused, “ she points to a passage in the postscript of 

Fidler’s 31 December 1792 letter in which Fidler comments on the route that the two NW 

Company traders took when they crossed over the mountains near the source of the 

Saskatchewan River: 

In going out they crossed over the Mountain near the Source of the 

Saskatchewan in an oblique direction. The latter place was more easy to 

pass than the former across the Mountain. Beyond the Mountain opposite 

to the head of the Saskatchewan & thick woody country, they passed 

thro’ it along an old Track formerly cut by the Cottonahaws [Ktunaxa], 

being the Northern most track they have; it was now very troublesome to 

45 Schaeffer 1966, page 9; Haig 1991. 

46 Haig 1991, page 47. 

47 Chance does not cite Dempsey’s 1964 article “David Thompson Under Scrutiny.” 




pass thro’ it on account of the long time they have not passed that way, 

being much encumbered with Wind fall wood, &c. 48 

Belyea pulled together Fidler’s communication along with other correspondence from that time, 

including letters of Thompson’s superior at Rocky Mountain House, John McDonald of Garth. 

During the winter, McDonald and a few men went up the river himself and “found the gap in the 

mountain not to be exactly as Mr Thompson represented it.” 49 

Belyea concludes from this examination that: 

The Kootenays appear to have returned west across the divide by Howse 

Pass. 50 Thompson attempted to trace their route in June 1801, and 

succeeded in June 1807.” 51 

Howse Pass leads to the Blaeberry River which empties into the Columbia north of Golden. It is 

clear from the extant historical record that the Aboriginal people known to live on the west side 

of the Rocky Mountains in the area of the Columbia Valley Transmission Project were Ktunaxa. 

David Thompson’s Visit to the Columbia Valley 

There appears to have been a hiatus in travel across the Rockies for several years after the time 

of Legacé (a.k.a. Legasse) and Leblanc’s stay among the Ktunaxa. The Ktunaxa didn’t arrive at 

Rocky Mountain House in 1802. The House closed this year for another four years until finally 

reopening in 1805. David Thompson spent a few years away from the House, but returned in the 

fall of 1806 and wintered there. 52 

In 1806, David Thompson sent Jaco Finlay to cut a trail from Kootenay Plains across to the 

Columbia by way of Howse Pass, clearing a path as he travelled, and to build and leave canoes 

ready at the Columbia River for David Thompson’s planned trip west. In May 1807, Thompson 

set out. Thompson documented his travels in a journal beginning May 1807. 

48 Fidler, cited in Belyea 1994:194; Fidler, edited by Haig 1991, page 50. 

49 Belyea 1994, page 194. 

50 Chance (1981, page 31) notes that historian Irene Spry, too, claimed that Thompson passed through 

Howse Pass. See Irene Spry (1968). The papers of the Palliser Expedition, 1857-1860. Champlain Society: Toronto. 

However, based on the geography provided by the Elliot Coues edition of Thompson’s journals, Chance disagreed, 

although it should be noted that Chance did not have available to him the original journals that Belyea compiled in 

her 1994 publication. See also, Elliott Coues (1897). New Light on the History of the Greater North West: the 

Manuscript Journals of Alexander Henry and of David Thompson. 3 Volumes. Francis P. Harper: New York. 

51 Belyea 1994, page 194. 

52 Belyea 1994, page 208. 




David Thompson visited the Columbia River in 1807, travelling with his wife and three children 

through Howse Pass and meeting the Columbia River at its confluence with the Blaeberry River. 

The canoe that Jaco Finlay had left the previous year was unfit for anything apart from light 

travel, requiring Thompson to alter his plans. Thompson was to have proceeded to the Flat Bow 

country to the south. Instead, he travelled upstream on the Columbia River to the Lower 

Columbia Lake (Lake Windermere) and built what he called “Kootenae House.” 53 

No Aboriginal people not associated with the NW Company were immediately present on the 

west side of the mountains, so on 2 July 1807 Thompson sent two of his men in search of the 

“Kootanaes.” 54 In the meantime, his party was starving. He sent word to two “Seauteaux” 55 that 

he required them to deliver meat that they owed him. A few days later the Ktunaxa had been 

located. 56 Contemporary oral history recorded by the Shuswap Indian Band from one of their 

elders states that Thompson was met at the Blaeberry Creek by the Shuswap, who then fed and 

cared for him. 57 But there is not support for this statement in Thompson’s own journal. 58 

Thompson arranged for some Ktunaxa hunters to provide game for the fur traders. He also hired 

Ktunaxa men to accompany a few of his men and take company horses “up to the Kootanae 

Lake” [Columbia Lakes area], while Thompson and his family, along with other men, travelled 

behind. 59 His description of the route indicates that he travelled upstream on the Columbia River 

to the lakes at the headwaters of the Columbia, the lakes now known as Lake Windermere 

(formerly Lower Columbia Lake) and Columbia Lake (formerly Upper Columbia Lake). During 

this trek he met only local people identified as “Kootanaes.” 60 



55 Saulteau, members of the Ojibwa who migrated west with the fur trade. 


57 Shuswap Indian Band 2008, page 34; Fish Lake Consulting, on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band 

2009, page 19. The source of this information is Shelagh Dehart, author of several manuscripts and publications on 

the migration of the Kinbaskets into the Columbia Valley. Mrs Dehart says in her 2006 book on the Kinbasket 

migration that her great-grandfather, Yelheena, was living at the time Kinbasket met David Thompson.. See Shelagh 

Dehart (2006). The Kinbasket Migration and Other Indian History. Palliser Printing: Invermere, BC. In her 1964 

interview with CBC broadcaster Imbert Orchard, Mrs. Dehart stated: “I mean, when he's a little boy [Pierre 

Kinbasket, her grandfather], he came over with his father and the men folks and then that was the time they saw David 

Thompson around Golden.” This will be discussed below. 

58 Shuswap Indian Band 2008, page 34. The same Shuswap elder mentioned that French men—presumably 

Legacé (a.k.a. Legasse) and Leblanc—were at the Blaeberry River before Thompson. 


60 Belyea 1994, pp. 50-51. 




The first site that Thompson chose for a post was on Lake Windermere, but when this site was 

found to be unsuitable, he travelled downstream to near where Toby Creek enters the Columbia 

River, near the present Invermere. Here Thompson established “Kootanae House” and began 

trading with the “Kootanae” people. 61 This site is across the river from the present Shuswap 

Indian Reserve. Thompson does not suggest that any Aboriginal people lived in the immediate 

environs of the new post, but people identified as “Kootenae” [Ktunaxa] were in the southern 

Columbia Valley. 

Thompson made several references to bands of Ktunaxa. On 28 July 1807, he referred to another 

“small band of Kootanaes who are about a long day’s March off.” 62 In August, he was visited by 

four tents of Kootanaes who had spent most of the summer “in the mountains among the 

buffalo.” 63 Thompson also sent by means of the Ktunaxa “a small Present of Tobacco to the Lake 

& Saleesh Indians.” As David Chance pointed out in his study, once Thompson was in the 

country he learned about “another group to the southwest to whom they applied the terms 

‘Lakes,’ ‘Arc Plattes,’and ‘Flatbows’.” 64 These terms refer to Ktunaxa bands, including the one 

at the Columbia Lakes. 65 On 16 September, Thompson reports that “12 Lake Indian Men with 

one Woman arrived: they have passed along the Kootanae River thro’ the Mountains.” 66 It is also 

Ktunaxa people to whom Thompson refers when he writes on 27 August 1807, with respect to 

the Peigans’ concern with the Company’s interruption of their trade monopoly: 

About 2 PM, 12 Peagan young Men & 2 Women arrived—they are come 

to see how we are situated. I had expected them long ago, & it must be 

their Policy to be highly displeased with us for being here, as we thus 

render all these Indians independent of them over whom from time 

almost immemorial they have held in dependence or as enemies, & 

destroyed them. They have it in their power to be very troublesome to us, 

& even to cut us off... 67 

61 Glover 1962, pp. xci-xcii; Belyea 1994, pp. 55ff. 



64 The “Lakes” in this context are likely the Columbia Lakes people and the Flatbows or Arc Platte are the 

“lower Kutenai” of the Kootenay River. See Chance 1981, page 7. 

65 The Columbia Lake Ktunaxa should not be confused with the “Lakes” or “Sinixt” (with various 

spellings) people of the Arrow Lakes who belong to a different ethnic group and speak an entirely different 

language. See Dorothy Kennedy and Randy Bouchard (1998). Northern Okanagna, Lakes, and Colville. Handbook 

of North American Indians, Vol. 12, Plateau (ed. by Deward E. Walker Jr.). Smithsonian Institution: Washington 

D.C. Pp. 238-240. For a discussion of Upper Ktunaxa bands, see section 2.3.1 of this present report. 






On 13 September 1807, Thompson again addressed the tension between the Peigans and the 

Ktunaxa: 

That the Peigans are highly jealous of the Kootanaes’ having a trading 

Post in their Country is certain, & equally so that they wish to find some 

means to drive us hence...[emphasis added] 68 

David Thompson’s journal from his time at Kootanae House describes several threatening visits 

by the Peigan to the NW Company House. 69 It also describes a battle between the Peigan and the 

“Saleesh.” 70 The journal is clear that the “Saleesh” being attacked were the Flathead of Montana, 

neighbours of the Shahapin, not Shuswap, whose language contemporary linguists now classify 

as a member of the “Interior Salish” division of the “Salishan Language Family.” Thus, the 

Peigan’s concern with the NW Company was their potential supply of firearms to their enemies, 

the Kootanae [Ktunaxa] and the Saleesh [Flathead]. 

A confusion in use of the term “Saleesh” may arise from editions of the Thompson journals that 

have altered the journals’ original spelling. For example, Victor Hopwood in his popularized 

edition of the Thompson journals altered numerous transcriptions of terms, including the term 

“Saleesh,” which he changed to “Salish.” 71 While the anglicized form “Salish” is now applied to 

the entire “Salishan Language Family,” which includes the Shuswap language, it is derived from 

the Flathead people’s name for themselves, séliš, a term that appears often in the Thompson 

journal and other fur trade records as “Saleesh.” Similarly, when the journals note the concern of 

the Peigan that Kootenae House would supply firearms to the “Saleesh,” they refer here to the 

Flathead. 

Thompson is explicit in the above-noted journal entry of 13 September 1807 that the environs of 

Kootanae House were “Kootanaes” country, at least in 1807. 


69 Belyea 1994, pp. 62-63. 


71 This edition is relied upon in Shuswap Indian Band 2008, page 34: “As the Peigan did not want the 

Kootenay and Salish to access firearms, they were not impressed when David Thompson opened trade in the 

Columbia Valley.” The source for this statement is given as Victor Hopwood, editor (1971). David Thompson: 

Travels in Western North America 1784-1812. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada. Page 10. Since the quotation follows 

the Shuswap elder’s statement about Thompson meeting her people at Blaeberry Creek, as noted above, the 

inference in the report is that the “Salish” in this context were Shuswap. 




Earlier Aboriginal Presence in the Columbia Valley 

During his 1981 review of fur trade records, David Chance compiled some additional 

information relating to Aboriginal occupation of the Columbia Valley that questions the length 

of the Ktunaxa people’s occupation of country west of the Rocky Mountains. This is relevant to 

an examination of the Aboriginal use of the Columbia Valley. It is the position of the Shuswap 

Indian Band, as set out in their 2008 TUS, that the Ktunaxa are relative newcomers and that the 

area has been occupied for thousands of years by “Interior Salish ancestors of the Secwépemc 

Nation.” 72 

The issue of an eastern origin for the Ktunaxa focuses on the location of one particular band. 

Citing fur trader Alexander Henry’s comments from February and May 1811, David Chance 

reports Henry’s statement on the extinct Tunaxa division of the Kutenai: 

...the Kutenai were pushed over the Rockies by tribes to their east and 

that they in turn displaced the ‘Snare’ Indians who had inhabited 

mountains where they eked out a miserable existence. In 1825, Alexander 

Ross met a Kutenai who told him, ‘My father...was a Kootenay chief; but 

in consequence of wars with the Blackfeet, who often visited his lands, 

he and a part of his people emigrated to this country about 30 years 

ago.’ 73 

Chance also noted comments by Ross Cox, reflecting on the period 1813-1817, who stated: “The 

Cootanais are the remnant of a once powerful tribe, who like the Flatheads, were perpetually 

engaged in war with the Blackfeet for the right of hunting on the buffalo grounds.” 74 

Chance concluded, albeit tentatively, that: 

If we follow these leads...we arrive at a compelling possibility, namely 

that the bulk of the eastern Kutenai [Upper Kootenai] were recent 

immigrants to the Kootenay Valley. 75 

A review of subsequent archaeological research that elucidates this view can be found in 

72 Shuswap Indian Band 2008, pp. 2, 11. 


74 Ross Cox (1831). Adventures on the Columbia River, Including the Narrative of a Residence of Six 

Years on the Western Side of the Rocky Mountains, among Various Indian Tribes Hitherto Unknown, Together with 

a Journal Across the American Continent. Two Volumes. Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley: London. Vol. 2, 

page 153 ( cited in Chance 1981, pp. 8-9). 





the 1999 report on the Salmon Beds site by Parks Canada archaeologist Rod Heitzmann. 76 

In 1982, Claude Schaeffer also examined the then-contentious issue of an eastern origin 

of the Ktunaxa. After reviewing ethnographic sources as well as fur trade records and his 

own ethnographic data, Schaeffer concluded that only one band of Ktunaxa, the Michel 

Prairie people from the Crowsnest Pass area, occupied the eastern foothills. He also 

concluded that they suffered to the point of near extinction both at the hands of their 

Blackfoot enemies and also from a 1781-1782 smallpox epidemic. It was Schaeffer’s 

conclusion that: 

David Thompson’s belief, apparently accepted by other and later 

writers, 77 that the Kutenai were forcibly driven from the northern Plains 

by the Blackfoot, seems entirely erroneous. 78 

Schaeffer opined that these Michel Prairie people once occupied both sides of the 

Crowsnest Pass region. Their occupation of the Plains-Plateau margins, Schaeffer noted, 

preceded the appearance of the horse. The Blackfoot, according to Schaeffer’s Ktunaxa 

consultants, were not resident in southwest Alberta at this time. The Michel Prairie band 

wintered in the east and moved west in the spring to hunt and fish, often in company with 

kinsmen from the Upper Kutenai band at Tobacco Plains. With this band, they hunted as 

far north as Golden. 79 

As will be reviewed in section 2.1.2 and 2.3.1, the available ethnographic data supports a 

continual Ktunaxa presence in the general environs of the Columbia Valley at the time of 

initial contact with Whites in the early 19 th century. 

Alexander Henry the Younger, factor at the Rocky Mountain House site from 1810 to 1811, 

provided information on the “Snare” people referred to by Chance and by others. These “Snare” 

people are sometimes associated with a division of the Secwepemc, or Shuswap, and sometimes 

associated with an Athabascan group, the Sekani. In the early 1800s, as reviewed in the present 

study in more detail in section 4.2.2, these “Snare” people occupied the drainage of the North 

Thompson River upstream from McLure to the headwaters of Fraser River from McBride to Tête 

Jaune Cache, over to Jasper and south to the headwaters of the Athabasca River. According to 

John McLeod, of the HBC, they occasionally went to the Canoe River. Alexander Henry said 

76 Additional information on the regional archaeology is presented in the December 1999 archaeological 

study, “Archaeological Investigations at the Salmon Beds,” prepared by Rod Heitzmann of Parks Canada. Available 

online: http://www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/cbasin/salmonbeds/index.htm 

77 Alexander Henry. See Coues 1897, pp. 703-705. 

78 Schaeffer 1982, page 9. His reference to Thompson is from the Glover edition of David Thompson’s 

Narrative, pp. 327-328. 





that they formerly resided on the “Kootenay or Columbia,” referring to names both applied to the 

Columbia River upstream from the Big Bend, but that they had lost these lands to the Ktunaxa. 80 

When David Thompson came to the Columbia Valley region in 1807 he did not note the 

presence of “Snare” people. He sent his men explicitly in search of the “Kootanaes,” 

who he expected and who were found to be in the area. Nor did Alexander Henry expect 

to see Snare people still residing in the Columbia Valley in the early 19 th century. 81 Still, 

Thompson’s arrival on the Columbia occurred only three decades after a major smallpox 

epidemic had devastated the region’s population. Speaking of the effects this disease had 

on the Ktunaxa, Peter Fidler wrote in the postscript to his 31 December 1792 entry: 

They [the Cottonahew] have but few horses, but a great number is 

running wild in the Woods & plains as wild as Deer, very few of which 

the Natives can catch. 

They have been in this state ever since the Time of the smallpox in the 

Summer 1781, which swept away nearly whole nations. 82 

This same smallpox epidemic likely caused great losses among the “Snare,” as well. 

Observations on the Aboriginal Presence in the Columbia Valley 1807-1811 

David Thompson became very familiar with the Rocky Mountain trench during his travels on the 

west side of the Rocky Mountains between 1807 and 1811. Barbara Belyea in her Introduction to 

the Columbia Journals summarizes these expeditions, as follows: 

...from 1807-1812, Thompson established the routes and posts of a 

Columbia Department: from Rocky Mountain House to Kootanae House 

via Howse Pass, by water and overland from the Columbia headwaters to 

Kullyspel House and Saleesh House on the Clark Fork River, and 

overland again from Pend Oreille Lake to Spokane House. During his last 

two years in the West, Thompson crossed the divide via Athabaska Pass 

and travelled the entire length of the Columbia River. He discovered and 

mapped what Mackenzie had failed to find: a navigable route from the 

Rocky Mountains to the western ocean. 83 

80 Coues 1897, page 705. At page 672, Coues provides a synonymy of the names used by David Thompson 

and the names used at the time of his edition, 1897. 

81 Coues 1897, pp. 596, 703-706. 

82 Fidler, edited by Haig 1991, page 50. 

83 Belyea 1994, page xxi. 




Figure 1. Tracing of 1813 map prepared by David Thompson 

showing the Columbia Valley and Howse Pass. Excerpt from 

Coues 1897: 

Thompson’s journals provide 

observations from his time in the 

Windermere Lake area. He travelled 

widely and had ample opportunity to 

encounter Aboriginal camps. He also 

communicated frequently with the 

people he met. Additionally, Aboriginal 

bands visited Kootanae House and 

Thompson recorded their names. In the 

fall of 1807, Thompson wrote while at 

Kootanae House: “Conversed much 

with the Kootanaes of the Country & 

Indians around us....”. 84 It was during 

such talks that Thompson learned that 

the Ktunaxa population had once been 

larger, but that their numbers had been 

depleted by smallpox and war. 85 

Thompson spent the fall and winter of 

1807-1808 at the newly-constructed 

Kootanae House situated near Toby 

Creek. That fall, he had accompanied a 

“Lake” Chief named “Ugly Head” to his 

own country located to the south in the 

environs of Canal Flat. 86 Other 

references in the journals reveal this 

man to be chief of a band of Ktunaxa 

identified as either the Lake or Flat 

Bow. 87 

The local Ktunaxa were the source of 

information on their usual enemies-- 

“Peagans,” “Blood,” “Blackfoot”—and on their allies, the “Lake,” “Saleesh,” and 

“Shawpatin.” 88 The “Lake” Chief informed Thompson about their common enemies, members of 



86 Belyea 1994, page73. 

87 Belyea 1994, page 227. 

88 The “Shawpatin” are the Sahaptin, commonly known as Nez Perce, and identified in the fur trade 

journals also by the name “Green Wood Indians” (Belyea 1994, page 228). 




the Blackfeet who he referred to as the “Meadow Indians.” 89 The plains east of the Rockies were 

generally referred to as the “meadows.” Alexander Henry recorded similar information on the 

identity and relationships of the tribes, noting the animosity between the Ktunaxa and the plains’ 

people. 90 

During the early months of 1808, David Thompson explored the Kootenay River. He then 

returned to Kootanae House before making another trip through Howse Pass to Rainy River 

House, and back, to spend the winter of 1808-1809 at Kootanae House. In the fall of 1809 

Thompson again travelled south, this time extending his journey to the “Saleesh” River, his term 

for both the Clark Fork and Pend d’Oreille rivers. 91 On the 19 th of September he sat with a group 

of “Pointed Hearts” [Coeur d’Alene], “Flatheads” and “Kootanaes.” He wintered among these 

people after first establishing Kullyspel [Kalispel] House at Pend d’Oreille Lake, and then 

Flathead House, also called “Saleesh House,” situated at Thompson Falls, Montana. During this 

winter, Thompson gained information on the southern groups, including the Spokane, who in 

1809 were ill, as was another southern tribe. 92 Thompson instructed some of his men to establish 

Spokane House the following year. 93 By this time, Kootanae House was no longer occupied, 

although still standing, and the relocation of the main depots resulted in the fur trade being 

focused farther south. 94 Chance proposes that the relocation of the trading post to the south “may 

have helped to start the Kutenai tendency to gravitate southward, something that happened 

whenever they lacked an active trading post in their own territory.” 95 If this is so, there is no 

evidence that the Rocky Mountain trench was abandoned. 

In the summer of 1810, Thompson travelled via Howse Pass to Rainy Lake, but with Howse Pass 

now blocked by the Peigans, he had to return westward during the winter through Athabaska 

Pass. 96 On this trip, Thompson followed the “Stone Indian Road” where, on the east side of the 

mountains, he met Aboriginal people identified as “Stone.” 97 His party descended the Wood 

River and, in January 1811, arrived at the Columbia, where they wintered near the mouth of the 

Canoe River. 

89 Belyea 1994, pp.70, 229. 

90 Coues 1897, pp.708-711. 

91 Belyea 1994, page 244. 

92 Belyea 1994, page 113. 

93 Chance 1981, page36. 



96 The Peigans had suffered considerable loss of lives in a battle with the Flathead (“Se’lish”) the summer 

earlier and didn’t want to see their enemy armed (Coues 1897, pp. 639-644). 

97 Belyea 1994, pp. 119-120, 123. 




Joseph Howse of the Hudson’s Bay Company also passed over the Rockies in the summer of 

1810, using the pass that now carries his name. Howse continued south, and after initially being 

stalled by the Peigans at Old Kootenay House, at Toby Creek (near Windermere), 98 he continued 

south and established a trading post at either Flathead Lake or Pend d’Oreille Lake. A Cree man 

who had accompanied the HBC men later reported to Alexander Henry that the Peigans were 

watching the NW Company men on the Kootenay River. Once he had told them, quite falsely, 

that David Thompson was to the south, the Peigans left, assuming that their enemies would not 

receive firearms this season. 99 

H. Christoph Wolfart, author of the entry on Joseph Howse in the Dictionary of Canadian 

Biography Online writes the following concerning this time: 

Opposition to both companies was mounted by the Peigans; at war with 

the Flatheads, they strove to block all trade across the mountains. While 

Thompson, travelling in October, chose to seek a more northerly route 

through Athabasca Pass (B.C.), Howse had reached the Cootana 

(Columbia) River by 20 August. There he remained some time “to gain 

further intelligence” in view of the threat the Peigan Indians posed to 

“him, or any white man” in the summer of 1810. According to one of his 

Cree guides, Howse was still on the Columbia on 1 September and on 

22 October another guide, who had “just come across the mountains,” 

specified his location to Henry as the “old” Kootenay House, at the head 

of the Columbia. The NWC’s watch was still being kept, and McMillan 

did not leave until 12 December, at which time Howse was reported to be 

wintering on or near Flathead Lake (Mont.). When he returned to 

Columbia Lake (B.C.), Howse once more crossed paths with Thompson, 

who was told of Howse’s presence on 14 May. 

The only record of the journey by Howse’s own hand is contained in a 

letter written to HBC governor Sir George Simpson in 1843. In sketching 

his itinerary Howse writes that he “crossed the Rocky Mounts in the 

Summer and Autumn of 1810 by y e North Branch of the Saskatchewan – 

ascended the Kootoonay [Columbia] River – carried into the Flat-Bow 

(?) [Kootenay] River – descended by the most Southly Bight of it – 

crossed (Portage Poil de Custer) to Flathead River . . . where we built.” 

He goes on to describe a further crossing of the continental divide in 

December 1810: “with a couple of my men I accompanied the Flat-heads 

to the head branches of y e Missouri – returned to our House – in Feb y 

1811.” 100 

98 Coues 1897, page 656. 

99 Coues 1897, page 656. 

100 http://www.biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?BioId=38099; accessed 28 October 2009. 




Thompson’s 1810-1811 journal describes his trip from Boggy Hill on the Saskatchewan River to 

the Athabaska Pass. 101 Once they had arrived in late January 1811 at the mouth of the Canoe 

River in the Boat Encampment area, Thompson and his men constructed a cabin where they then 

spent the next two months while building a canoe. In mid-April, with the new canoe now 

completed, Thompson and his party set off up the Columbia, travelling south. Deep snow and the 

rapids of the upper Columbia made Thompson’s trip difficult. He does not mention in his journal 

seeing any Aboriginal people when he reached the Columbia River and began his ascent. Nor 

does Thompson’s Narrative mention the presence of Aboriginal people anywhere in the area 

between the Big Bend and the Columbia headwaters, apart from Cree and Iroquois Free Hunters 

met while Thompson ascended the river. They were headed to the Canoe River, one of their 

favourite locations to trap beaver. 102 In the vicinity of Canal Flat, on May 14 th , 1811, Thompson 

met two Ktunaxa who had just come from the Tobacco Plains, where they had left most of the 

Ktunaxa people. 103 Several days later, in the vicinity of what is now Jennings, Montana, 

Thompson and his men came across a “Tent of Kootanae Indians” who informed him that “the 

great camp has moved from this place [Tobacco Plains] only three days ago,” 104 but that 

Thompson would find them, since he, too, was travelling to the “Saleesh” (Clark’s Fork River or 

Pend d’Oreille). 105 Thompson and his men left their canoe around Jennings and proceeded 

overland by horseback. Not finding anyone at the Clark’s Fork River, Thompson proceeded to 

Kettle Falls on the Columbia where he built another wood canoe in order to descend the river to 

its mouth. 106 

Although Thompson in the first few months of 1811 passed through the entire upper Columbia 

Valley, from Boat Encampment to Canal Flats, the two Ktunaxa people he met in the Canal Flats 

area were the first local Aboriginal residents he reported seeing. 

Thompson writes in his Narrative that, beginning in early July 1811, he proceeded down the 

Columbia River to Astoria at its mouth, accompanied by seven company men, two Iroquois, and 

two Sanpoil translators. 107 His mention of his company is notable, for the identity of the people 

101 Belyea 1994, page117. 

102 Glover 1962, pp. 328-329. 

103 Glover 1962, page 329, fn. 2. 

104 The Ktunaxa and freemen had left Tobacco Plains and were travelling south to the “Saleesh” 

[Flathead] country (Glover 1962, page 329, fn. 2). 

105 Glover 1962, page 329, fn. 2. 

106 Glover 1962, pp. 329-337. 

107 Glover 1962, page 339. The Sanpoil are speakers of the Okanagan-Colville (Interior Salish) language 

and live along the Sanpoil River in Washington State. The Sanpoil River empties into the Columbia about 90 Km 

downriver from Kettle Falls, Washington. 




who assisted Thompson in his expedition to Astoria is contested by contemporary members of 

the Shuswap Indian Band. For example, in a recent TUS study, Sam Paul [b. 1938] states: 

My Dad’s Dad, Louie Paul 108 came over [to the Columbia Valley] with Kinbasket. They 

took David Thompson to the United States, to Astoria, Oregon. My grandfather was gone 

all summer and Moses stayed all summer and came back later. 109 

Paul Sam [b. 1936] states: 

When you look at the paper and stuff it’s all written different...there is a 

lot of stuff that isn’t right in there, at least from what I went through. 110 

More information is available concerning the family history of Louie Paul. A July 1 st 1964 

interview between Imbert Orchard and Frank Paul [b. 1889] 111 , a grandson, had this to say about 

the origins of Louie Paul 112 : 

Frank: My name is Frank Paul and my dad's name is Baptiste. Paul. He 

was originated from United States, from Washington. 113 And we got a lot 

of people in Colville, Washington where my grandfather comes from, 

(name), Washington. That's along the Canadian border on the eastern 

B.C. And from there we settled at, they settled at Windermere on the 

Columbia lakes, you know, north of the Columbia lakes, place called 

Athalmere. There's a little Shuswap reserve where people went from 

Kamloops into that country, Kootenay country. How they got there it's 

impossible to say, just how they travelled through the mountains 

over into that country. But my dad's Indian name was (Indian), and he 

married a woman from around the Shuswap tribe. 

……………………………. 

108 In the 1901 Canada census, Louis Paul, Senior, is said to have been born in 1841, and Louis Paul, 

Junior, in 1866. The latter would seem to be the grandfather mentioned by Sam Paul. His reference to “Moses” is 

likely to “Moses Kinbasket,” born 1858. It is presumably this above-cited statement by Sam Paul that is being 

referenced in the April 2009 report by Fish Lake Consulting (Traditional Use and Environmental Interests in the 

Proposed Glacier Howser Hydroelectric Project) where it is stated: “Another Kenpesq’t member mentioned that 

David Thompson was accompanied to Astoria by an earlier Kenpesq’t [Kinbasket] member” (Fish Lake Consulting 

2009, page 19). 



111 1911 Canada Census. 

112 Available online: http://dspace.cc.uregina.ca/dspace/handle/10294/884; accessed 6 November 2009. 

113 The 1911 Canada census provides a birth date of 1870 for Baptiste Paul. 




Frank: Well, what I heard about my grandfather -- his name was old 

Louis Paul, and he belonged to the Colville reservation 114 . And 

years ago when the Hudson's Bay Company and the other companies 

that come into the country first dealing in furs and gold and other things, 

you know, horses, they had trouble in that... one of those ports there in 

Colville, Washington, somewhere in (name). And there was a kind of a 

battle between the Indians and the whites. And that's where my 

grandfather got chased and he was just a young boy then. And they 

chased him down the Columbia right down into the Okanagan Falls, you 

know, near Kettle Falls in Washington. And they jumped into the river 

from there -- there's quite a rapid in there. That's what they call the rapids 

there at the Okanagan Falls, not the Okanagan Falls but Kettle Falls. And 

they swam down quite a ways into somewhere around (name). Well then 

they lost him there. From there just straight over into the 

Penticton country and from there he crossed over into the Cranbrook 

country. Oh, it took him months and months to get there. He was on 

the Canadian side then. And then from there he settled in the Kootenay 

country at Athalmere where he got acquainted with a woman and married 

there. That's where my father was born then. You see how he got away 

was in war with those... Well, it was the dealers, you know, fur dealers 

and everything. There was trouble in the camps so they started to fight, 

you know, amongst the war, like, you know. And that's how my father 

got away, you know, jumped in the river and swam about two, three miles 

down the river until they lost track of him, you know. And then he 

straight over into Canada and he never went back ever since. And my 

dad was born there around Windermere and growed up and then us, the 

other generations. And my grandfather died at Windermere, Athalmere. 

Never went back. So that's where I originate from, from the States like, 

you know,into Canada. And on that same reserve -- they call the Little 

Shuswap Reserve [at Windermere Lake] -- there's about four tribes of 

Indians in that one little reserve. There's the Okanagan, the Shuswap, and 

there's the Kootenay and the Stoneys all mixed in there. They getting the 

women folks, marrying them, and settling in there. 115 

The Shuswap Indian Band’s April 2009 study, prepared by Fish Lake Consulting, notes the 

following 116 : “Winnifred Ariel Weir also identified that Paul Ignatius Kinbasket knew David 

Thompson, in her book ‘Tales of the Windermere’ (1980)”[reference given as pp. 122-123 of 

114 Washington State. 

115 Available online: http://dspace.cc.uregina.ca/dspace/bitstream/10294/884/1/IH-BC.58.pdf; we have not 

had the opportunity to check the transcript for accuracy. 

116 Fish Lake Consulting, on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band 2009, page 19. 




Weir’s book]. 117 It should be noted that the author cited, W.W. Weir, presents on these quoted 

pages a reconstructed conversation she imagines may have occurred. In the conversation between 

Marianne (wife of Pierre Kinbasket) and her granddaughter, Rosie Kinbasket, the older woman 

mentions Chief “Gelhulnah” and how he had come from Adams Lake “where the Kinbaskets had 

had their teepees for more years than you can count.” The fictional conversation then notes that 

Paul Ignatius Kinbasket knew David Thompson. Then it states that the old chief, “Gelhulnah,” first 

brought his son, Paul, to the area in 1819, after which they returned to the west. Weir sums up the 

narrative by writing: “Chief Paul Ignatius Kinbasket had brought his people from the Shuswap Lake 

country in the 1850s, travelling through the Big Bend country of the Columbia to settle finally in the 

Windermere Valley. 118 Fish Lake Consulting concludes that the evidence provided by these pages of 

the Weir book confirm that the Kinbaskets were in the Columbia Valley before the time Thompson 

left the country in 1812. 119 

Assertions that the Kinbasket Shuswap people met David Thompson or accompanied him to 

Astoria are not supported in the pertinent historical record. Both Thompson’s journal and in his 

Narrative, he is explicit on the identity of the people who accompanied him. Thompson had no 

reason to conceal or misrepresent the identity of the Aboriginal people with whom he engaged in 

trade or hired for various tasks, including the responsibilities of guiding and interpreting. Indeed, 

it was an important part of Thompson’s job, and that of other fur traders, to know the identity 

and habits of the region’s Aboriginal occupants. Thompson did not report meeting Shuswap 

people either at Boat Encampment or in the Columbia Valley. 

While the fur trade resulted in the depletion of fur bearing animals on the east side of the 

mountains in the early 19 th century, hunters described the productivity of the Columbia River in 

glowing terms. It was like having a “sack of provisions,” Thompson’s Narrative reports 

concerning the productivity of the upper Columbia region. And so numerous were the animals 

that the weight of their feet had worn a wide, foot-deep trail in the mountain pass. 120 Thompson 

reports in his journal that Iroquois and other Free Hunters harvested this game. The richness of 

the animal life in the upper Columbia Valley and the headwaters of the Columbia, as well as the 

mountains surrounding them, prompted David Chance to speculate that the area had been 

sparsely inhabited in the decades just preceding 1800. 121 It is the position of the Shuswap Indian 

Band, as set out in their TUS study, that the fur trade may have prompted their people’s 

117 Winnifred A. Weir (1980). Tales of the Windermere. W.W. Weir: Invermere. 

118 Weir 1980, page 122. The additional statement on the timing of the Kinpasket migration—“the 

1850s”—is not included in the April 2009 Fish Lake Consulting study. 

119 Fish Lake Consulting, on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band , 2009, page 19. 

120 Glover 1962, page 382. 





relocation to the Columbia Valley, for on previous visits to the area they may have noticed an 

abundance of furs and pelts. 122 The reason for the move is entirely plausible. 

2.2 The Kinbasket Migration 

Disagreement on the history of the Kinbasket Shuswap has contributed to tense relations 

between the Ktunaxa and the Shuswap Indian Band in recent years and to charges of the KFN’s 

superior attachment to the country. An example of such claims can be found in the 

November/December 2008 issue of Ktuqcqayam, presented as the official newsletter of the 

Ktunaxa Nation. Speaking of the Ktunaxa Nation’s opposition of the Jumbo Ski Resort and the 

Kinbasket Shuswap’s agreement with the resort developers, the Ktunaxa Nation Chair, Chief 

Sophie Pierre, is quoted as saying in October 2008: 

The Kinbasket people do not have the same level of history or 

commitment to our traditional territory…Our creation story is quite clear 

that Ktunaxa have a responsibility to be stewards of the land, and we take 

that role seriously. 123 

Pierre’s reference to the “same level of history” relates undoubtedly to the contentious issue of 

the so-called Kinbasket migration, particularly the timing of the relocation of a small group of 

individuals whose descendants created the current Shuswap Indian Band. The two opposing 

positions, as presented by community leaders and presented in reports commissioned by the 

respective First Nations are set out below in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. Along with a summary of 

each opinion is a discussion of the data upon which the opinion is based. 

2.2.1 The Contemporary View of the Kinbasket Migration As Provided by the Shuswap 

Indian Band and the Ktunaxa Nation 

The Ktunaxa view of the Shuswap Indian Band’s history is included in statements on the cultural 

affiliation of Ktunaxa Nation Council members, available on the website of the Ktunaxa First 

Nation. Here they states: 

The majority of Ktunaxa Nation citizens originate from the Ktunaxa or 

Kootenai culture. However, the Nation also contains descendants of the 

Kinbasket family, a small group of Shuswap (Secwepemc) people who 

journeyed east from Shuswap territory in the mid-1800's into Ktunaxa 


123 http://www.ktunaxa.org/ktuqcqakyam/documents/NovDec2008issue_000.pdf; Chief Pierre’s statement 

was also circulated in an October 20, 2008 press release: http://www.ktunaxa.org/news/documents/2008-10-20- 

MediaRelease.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2009. 




territory looking for a permanent home. Ktunaxa leadership allowed the 

Shuswap Kinbasket people to stay in Ktunaxa territory where they 

eventually settled in the Invermere area and became members of the 

Ktunaxa Nation. 124 

Thus, it is the view of the Ktunaxa Nation that: a) the Kinbasket Shuswap came from the west to 

Ktunaxa territory; 2) the migration occurred in the mid-1800s; and 3) the Ktunaxa permitted the 

Shuswap to establish residency in the Invermere area. 

In 2007 Brian Robertson of Vancouver, 125 on behalf of the Ktunaxa First Nation, also examined 

the Kinbasket migration in a report prepared as part of consultation requirements with the 

Ktunaxa Nation concerning their current and traditional use of the Duncan – Lardeau region, an 

area proposed for the hydroelectric development. Robertson undertook a review of historical 

documentation and ethnographic studies; he conducted no interviews with members of his 

client’s Nation. 126 The Robertson report concludes that the Kinbasket migration occurred during 

the time of Paul Ignatius Kinbasket, sometime before 1840 and as a result of a peaceful 

arrangement made with the Ktunaxa. This report also opines that the Shuswap were at Boat 

Encampment in 1811, 127 were “transiting and even hunting in northern portions of Ktunaxa 

traditional territory since at least the 1820s,” 128 and, in the Summary of Findings, concludes that 

the Kinbasket settlement in the Columbia Lakes was “likely” in the mid-1840s. 129 However the 

author also states that the “documentation located is tantalizingly inconclusive about whether or 

124 http://www.ktunaxa.org/who/index.html. Accessed September 16, 2009. 

125 Brian Robertson, Vancouver [No affiliation given]. The Ktunaxa First Nation and the Duncan – 

Lardeau Region: a Comprehensive Survey of Historical Documentation Relating to Aboriginal Use and Interest. 

Prepared on behalf of the Ktunaxa First Nation, 2007. 43pp. Available online: 



126 Robertson 2007, page 1. This report also relies on another report said to have been prepared by M. 

Keefer et al. (2004), but the reference is missing from the bibliography. 

127 Robertson 2007, page 23. Robertson points to Shelagh Dehart’s 2006 book The Kinbasket Migration 

for evidence in support of this statement. However, as discussed earlier in the present report, Thompson’s own 

journals to not support this statement. 

128 Robertson 2007, page 22. The evidence in support of this statement is given as Father de Smet’s 1845 

meeting of the Canadian trapper/ hunter Morigeau who was seen with his “companions of the chase, the 

Shooswaps.” The author also references the Journals of the Thompson River post and Jasper House, but provides no 

precise citations from these materials, or any specific journal entries. 

129 Robertson 2007, page 39. 




not the Kinbasket Band had actually settled in the Columbia Valley by the time of the assertion 

of British sovereignty in 1846. 130 

As noted, this 2007 Ktunaxa by Brian Robertson opines that the Shuswap band has been 

“transiting and even hunting in northern portions of Ktunaxa traditional territory since at least the 

1820s.” Two sources are given in support of this statement. The first is identified as “Journals of 

the Thompson’s River Post [B.97/a-1] and Jasper House [HBCA B.94/a1-3]” and the second is 

“the 1845 letter of Father DeSmet.” 131 The author does not point to any specific entry in the 

journals to support his proposition. 132 Nor does he state what he means by the phrase “northern 

portions of Ktunaxa traditional territory,” an issue that appears unresolved, so it is not clear if he 

includes the Columbia Valley Project lands in this statement. Elsewhere (p.23), Robertson does 

refer to an 8 November 1822 entry in the Fort Kamloops journal that mentions “the old North 

Branch chief...and family are in the habit of going some times to the east side of the Rocky 

Mountains and Jaspers House...” and suggests that this man is likely “Yelheela” of the Kinbasket 

Shuswap. 133 It should be noted that in Mrs Dehart’s 2006 book, edited by her granddaughter, 

there is a confusion in the identification of where “Yelheela” came from. The book states: “A 

year or so later the same men were joined by two or three other young men from Chu Chua 

(Adams Lake area).” 134 The place known as “Chu Chua” is on the North Thompson, not Adams 

Lake, which is near the South Thompson River. Yet in describing the hunters’ route, the book is 

clear that “They went right over the mountains near Adams Lake…”. 135 An Adam’s Lake origin 

for the man Yelheela is consistent with Mrs Dehart’s 1964 interview with CBC broadcaster, 

Imbert Orchard. 136 

As reviewed elsewhere (see section 4.1.1 ) in discussing the delineation of the extent of Ktunaxa 

lands, the present authors are not aware of any anthropologists who have recognized the “North 

Branch” of Thompson River as ever having comprised the northern portion of Ktunaxa territory. 

Nevertheless, it may be that Mr. Robertson is referring to an alleged relationship between the 

North Thompson Shuswap and a little-known people identified earlier by Alexander Ross as the 

“Snare Indians” and concluding that “Yelheela” was a Snare member. One might note that the 



132 It is sometimes difficult to assess fully Brian Robertson’s opinion, as he has not always provided 

footnotes for some statements said to be based on the historical and ethnographic record, and has not always 

referenced information sufficiently well for independent confirmation. 

133 Robertson 2007, page 23, fn.59. 

134 When the story is summarized in the Shuwap Indian Band 2008 TUS report, “Chu Chua” is mentioned, 

but not Adams Lake. 

135 Dehart 2006, page 28. 

136 Dehart 1964. Mrs Dehart says that she researched the issue with people from the South Thompson and 

that the hunters came from Adams Lake. See section 2.2.1 of this present report. 




1822-1823 report of John McLeod written from Spokane House mentions that the “Chin-poo” 

[“Simpcw”, i.e, North Thompson] were one of the “tribes or nations” trading at Fort Kamloops. 

McLeod also remarked that they were remnants of the “Snare Indians” and that they 

“occasionally go in small parties to the Canoe River, and have often been seen at Jasper House 

on the east side of the Rocky Mountains.” 137 Still, McLeod does not mention the Kinbasket 

ancestor, “Yelheela.” A discussion of the Snare people can be found in section 4.2.2. 

The reference in the 2007 Ktunaxa study to “the 1845 letter of Father DeSmet” is more apparent, 

although it is the present authors’ opinion that it doesn’t provide direct evidence of Shuswap 

either “transiting” or “hunting” in the Columbia Valley in the 1820s, as alleged. This letter 

requires comment, as the author of a recent Shuwap Indian Band study (Fish Lake Consulting, 

on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band, April 2009) recently pointed to it in support of the same 

proposition, where he writes: 

The earliest documented date that a Chief of the Kenpesq’t (Yelheelna 

Kinbasket) and his companions were in the Columbia Valley was in 

1819. However, based on a number of stories of their settlement, it 

seems as though the gradual move towards permanent settlement in the 

Columbia Valley may have started in the late 1700’s or early 1800’s. 138 

It is necessary to ask if, indeed, as alleged, this letter does confirm that the “earliest documented 

date that a Chief of the Kenpesq’t (Yelheelna Kinbasket) and his companions were in the 

Columbia Valley was in 1819.” 

This date “1819” is based on a 9 September 1845 letter from Father P.J. de Smet to his Superior. 

The full translated letter, and another from this time, appear in the 1905 volume Life, Letters and 

Travels of Father Pierre-Jean De Smet, S.J., edited by Hiram Chittenden and Talbot 

Richardson. 139 In this September 9 th , 1845 letter, De Smet describes meeting the Canadian trapper 

and hunter [Francois Baptiste] Morigeau at the Columbia Lakes. He says that this man had been 

in the region—described here as “this desert,” but not meant literally—for 26 years [i.e., since 

137 John McLeod (1822-1823). Spokane House Report 1822-1823. Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, 

Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Winnipeg. B.208/e/1. To this can be added James Teit’s note that the Shuswap 

crossed the Rockies only through the Yellowhead Pass and that after the Kinbasket migration some of these people 

“may have crossed occasionally in later times visiting the Stoney.” See, James Teit (1908-1920). Salish 

ethnographic materials. American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372, Roll 16, S .7 

(copy held by the B.C. Archives, Victoria. Add. Mss. 1425, Microfilm A-247). 

138 Fish Lake Consulting on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band 2009, p. 18. 

139 See Hiram Martin Chittenden and Alfred Talbot Richardson, editors (1905). Life, Letters and Travels of 

Father Pierre-Jean DeSmet, S.J., 1801-1873. 4 Volumes. Francis P. Harper: New York. 




1819]. 140 At the time of the meeting, Morigeau was practicing a nomadic lifestyle and living in 

his “portable palace,” as De Smet described the man’s lodging. 141 Morigeau had travelled from 

some unknown place “in haste” to intercept the priest at the headwaters of the Columbia to have 

his family baptized. De Smet said that Morigeau was with some “Shooswap” [Shuswap] hunting 

companions when he met him on this occasion in 1845. 142 He did not identify these men, their 

chief, or indicate where they lived. Thus, this letter does not say anything about an Aboriginal 

presence being documented in 1819, or that De Smet concluded anything about the tenure of the 

Canadian trapper’s Shuswap hunting companions in 1845. What the 1845 De Smet does provide, 

however, is direct evidence that Shuswap men were hunting near the Columbia Lakes area in 

1845. 

An interview with Chief Martin Morigeau (b. 1885) by CBC broadcaster Imbert Orchard in 

November 1964 confirms the itinerant nature of this man’s ancestor, the Canadian trapper who 

travelled in haste to meet Father P.J. DeSmet. The earlier Morigeau was also a farmer and, 

according to Chief Morigeau, first settled in Oroville, Washington: 

Imbert: Tell me about, was that, was this the 

yoursame grandfather ranch that first settled on? 

Martin: No, I don't think so. I don't think he ever did settle 

down. My dad had one, two, three places that I know of. He sold two of 

them and then this last one and then we moved into Alberta, you know. 

We moved in where my great-grandfather come from, Rocky Mountain 

House? Right on, over the mountain, you know. After David Thompson, 

you know. The second man in the valley, you know. As far as I know, 

you know. 143 

140 The Shuswap Indian Band studies (2008 and 2009) rely upon excerpts of this letter that are summarized 

and appear in an article by Rev. Robert J. McGuinness (1941-1942). CCHA, Report, Vol, 9. Available online: 

http://www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back%20Issues/CCHA1941-42/McGuinness.html; accessed 5 

November 2009. It was Rev. McGuinness’ own statement, not one by DeSmet, that asserted, “[Morigeau] left then 

[NWC] and migrated with the Shuswaps from around Fort Thompson on Shuswap Lake in the year 1819 and with a 

few of them settled in the Columbia Valley.” The 2007 Robertson study prepared for the Ktunaxa Nation cites a 

1932 article written upon the death of Morigeau’s son, Baptiste Morigeau, stating that his father came to the East 

Kootenays in 1819 (p.22). Robertson suggests that Morigeau’s wife was not from the Kinbasket band, as some 

people may have assumed. The precision of the date suggests that it was informed by one of the secondary accounts 

about the migration, such as the one compiled by Rev. McGuinness. 

141 Chittenden and Richardson 1905, Vol. 2, page 498. 

142 Chittenden and Richardson 1905, Vol. 2, page 500. 

143 Available online: http://dspace.cc.uregina.ca/dspace/handle/10294/898. The present authors have not 

cross-checked the transcript of the interview with the original tape recording. 




There was some confusion in the interview whether Francois Morigeau was Chief Martin 

Morigeau’s grandfather or great-grandfather. Regardless, Chief Morigeau had heard about his 

ancestor’s encounter with Father DeSmet, and he discussed it in this November 1964 interview, 

which is excerpted here as it appears online: 

Imbert: Tell me about him. What have you heard about him? You know, 

that's been passed down in tradition? 

Martin: Oh, just that he was in the valley, you know, when 

the first priests come along. Father Desmets(?), and married him and 

the wife he was travelling with. Supposed to have eight children -- 

baptized all the children and everything, you know. That's what I heard. 

Of course I heard that, you know, years afterwards. Of course I don't 

know nothing about it, you know. 

Martin: Well, he was working for the Hudson's Bay. He come 

out from the east, you know, worked for the Hudson's Bay and he wouldn't, 

he didn't like the way they were dealing with the Indians, you know. 

They paid for a muzzle loader gun as much as you are paying for a 

cannon now, you know. They'd stand the gun up and pile the fur up to the 

top of the muzzle; the longer the better, you know. There was black fox 

and everything else you know. So we figured they were paying about as 

much as you would for a cannon nowadays. (laughs) So he didn't like 

that and he quit them and come over into this country, you know. 

And he was the first, he went on west, you know, around... I forgot the 

name of that place. 

Imbert: 

Martin: 

Imbert: 

Out of the valley or in the...? 

Over in the west. 

Over to the Okanagan? 

Martin: Yeah, yeah. It's along the border where you see lots 

of apple trees, you know. Old apple trees, maybe you've seen it. Big 

fields, you know. 

Imbert: 

Martin: 

Imbert : 

Martin: 

Imbert: 

Down at Osoyoos? 

It's a little further. 

Down into the States? 

Yeah, more in the States. I forget the name of the place. 

Yeah, Auraville [Oroville, Washington]? 




Martin: Auraville, in that country, yeah. He was the 

first farmer there, you know, he growed wheat, you 

know. 144 

The 2007 Ktunaxa report suggests that the Kinbasket migration east was instigated by Paul 

Ignatius Kinbasket “sometime before 1840 and as a result of a peaceful arrangement made with 

the Ktunaxa.” Moreover, this same report notes that Baptise Morigeau, son of the original 

Francois Baptiste Morigeau, 145 is said to have described the migration to the present Shuswap 

settlement occurring during the time of Paul Ignatius Kinbasket, and not during the time of Paul 

Ignatius’s father. 146 

The position of the Shuswap Indian Band concerning the “Kinbasket migration,” as presented in 

their 2008 Traditional Use Study and reiterated in their 2009 report for the Howser and Glacier 

Creek Hydroelectric Project, is based largely on the oral history of two sisters, Shelagh Dehart 

and Tracie Williams. The Shuswap Band has presented their version of the Kinbasket history on 

several occasions over the past five decades, among them the following: 

 

 

an article based on information by Tracie Williams that appeared originally in The Lake 

Windermere Valley Echo (19 March 1960) and was transcribed by anthropologist Claude 

Schaeffer in his fieldnotes. 147 

interviews with Shelagh Dehart and Tracie Williams by broadcaster Imbert Orchard 

(1964) 148 ; 

144 Available online: http://dspace.cc.uregina.ca/dspace/handle/10294/898. The present authors have not 

cross-checked the transcript of the interview with the original tape recording. 

145 The 2007 Robertson study prepared for the Ktunaxa Nation cites a 1932 article written upon the death of 

Morigeau’s son, Baptiste Morigeau, stating that his father came to the East Kootenays in 1819 (p.22). The author 

suggests that information in the article indicates that Morigeau’s wife was not from the Kinbasket band, as some 

people may have assumed. We might note that the 1901 census provides Baptiste Morigeau’s birth date as 1842. He 

is said to have been born in the Columbia Valley. According to family genealogical research available online 

(http://www.forgue.com/WC21/WC21_007.htm), His older brother, Alexander Morigeau, was born 1838 in Jasper, 

Alberta. This seems to suggest that Francois Baptiste Morigeau travelled, as DeSmet noted in 1845. The 

genealogical data concerning Alexander has not been confirmed. 

Reel 3). 

146 Robertson 2007, page 23, fn. 60. 

147 “Shuswap,” The Lake Windermere Valley Echo (19 March 1960). Transcribed in Schaeffer (1934-1969, 

148 Available online: http://dspace.cc.uregina.ca/dspace/handle/10294/910; 

http://dspace.cc.uregina.ca/dspace/handle/10294/996. 




 

 

Tales of Windermere (compiled by Winnifred Weir, 1980, said to be based in part on her 

interviews with Shelagh Dehart and Tracie Williams) 149 ; 

Shelagh Dehart, The Kinbasket Migration and Other Indian History, edited by her 

granddaughter. Dusty Dehart (Dehart 2006); 150 and 

Shuswap Indian Band Traditional Use Study (2008); 

Mrs. Dehart and Mrs. Williams are two of the daughters of local non-Native farmer William 

Hobbs Palmer, from Nova Scotia, and Amelia Agnes Kinbasket, daughter of Chief Pierre 

Kinbasket (b. circa 1835) 151 , said to be the son of Paul Ignatius Kinbasket. Mrs. Dehart was born 

in 1910 at Stoddart Creek and in 1933 married Dino Dehart of Switzerland, after which she 

continued to live on family land at Stoddart Creek. 

Shelagh Dehart sincerely believes that the history of the Shuswap Indian Band has been 

misrepresented. She states in her 2006 book The Kinbasket Migration and Other Indian History: 

I have read many different versions and many untruths over the years 

about the history of the Kinbasket people, their migration and the other 

Shuswap Indians... 152 

While the details of the events as set out in the above-noted various works vary, the Kinbasket 

granddaughters—as they are identified—are clear that their ancestors came from the Shuswap 

Lake area and migrated first to Kinbasket Lake and eventually moved south down the Columbia 

Valley to Windermere. Mrs. Dehart says in her 2006 book that the Ktunaxa resided farther south 

at Fort Steele. 153 Both women understand that their grandfather [Pierre Kinbasket] was young 

when brought here to the Columbia Valley. Mrs. Dehart tells how her great-great-grandfather, a 

man named Yelheelna, had first seen this area while “exploring” with friends during a hunting 

trip. Her comments indicate that travelling this far east was not part of these hunters’ routine: 

The elders tried to stop the explorers, they forbid them to keep going into 

enemy territory, the dangerous Kootenay Country but the young ones 

continued to explore. 154 

149 Winnifred Ariel Weir (1980) Tales of the Windermere. W.W. Weir: Invermere , BC. 

150 The 2008 Shuswap Indian Band TUS does not cite these 1964 oral history interviews. 

151 Birth date given in 1901 and 1911 Canada census. 

152 Shelagh Dehart (2006). The Kinbasket Migration and Other Indian History. Palliser Printing: Invermere, 

BC. Page 15. 

153 Dehart 2006, page 34. 

154 Dehart 2006, page 29. 




The story of the Kinbasket migration as told by these two sisters has been reviewed in reports 

compiled recently both on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band (2008; Fish Lake Consulting 

2009) and also by the Ktunaxa Nation (Robertson 2007). To the information discussed in these 

reports can be added information that Mrs. Dehart and Mrs. Williams provided during interviews 

with CBC broadcaster, Imbert Orchard, in 1964. The BC Archives holds the originals of these 

interviews; unedited transcripts are available online through the University of Regina and are 

excerpted below. 155 

In the 8 November 1964 interview, Shelagh Dehart describes the exploration of the hunters, the 

Kinbasket migration, and the eventual meeting between her Shuswap ancestors and the Kootenay 

near Golden. Those sections that focus on the move from the west to the upper Columbia Valley 

are included, as follows: 156 

Oh, well, my great-great-grandfather and his, like his brother-in-law 

and a few other friends, wanted to go hunting and so they went way up, 

what you call it, Seymour Arm? You know where that is? And they went 

along there and in the old days, you see, when they go out like that and 

travelling, you know, they stayed out for a month sometime, and weeks. 

And so they went up there and then they crossed over. Now I guess we 

would have to have a map to know where it is and then they have these 

Shuswap names. But I see where they went up the Seymour Narrows 

and then they crossed under, to the Columbia R i v e r . A n d t h e n t h e y 

c a m e d o w n a n d , y o u s e e , m y great-great-grandfather used to 

climb the mountains, you know, and he wondered what it was like down 

on the other side. And so this kept on all spring and all summer and then 

they finally got to Kinbasket Lake. And they were on foot, of course, 

just the men folks. And that was so beautiful, you know, this valley 

here, from the Kinbasket Lakes. And then they wandered to, down to 

Golden and they didn't think anybody lived in this valley, so then they went 

back. Gosh, I don't remember how long that took them now, to go. It 

was months, like maybe three months they travelled at a time. But I 

think they wintered here and then they went back in the spring and he 

told his people that it was so beautiful out here and, what did they call the 

place now? The lakes I think it was. 

…………………… 

155 Available online: Shelagh Dehart: http://dspace.cc.uregina.ca/dspace/items-byauthor?author=Dehart%2C+Shelagh%2C+%28Mrs.%29; 

Tracie Williams: http://dspace.cc.uregina.ca/dspace/itemsby-author?author=Williames%2C+Tracie%2C+%28Mrs.%29. 

156 The present authors have not cross-checked these transcripts against the original tape recordings. The 

transcriber has written “(name)” in those places in the transcripts where indigenous words are mentioned. 




So they talked it over and then they started over, you know, the women. 

And they took the same route, you know, through the Columbia River. 

So they got, they had their camp at Kinbasket Lake, you know. And 

when they arrived, the mosquitoes were so thick that they had to be all 

covered….[mosquito incident] 

And then the next year, by golly, they said they were going home, you 

see. And my grandfather said, well, it was so nice here and everything 

was plentiful and they better stay. But oh no, they just got ready and they 

went [back to Shuswap Lake country] and left the men folks. So then 

of course, afterwards, the men had to follow and the next year they came 

over and they said they were going to take a shorter route to come over. 

………………. 

But anyway, they came through there, where the railroad came through 

afterwards [through Three-Valley Gap] and it was shorter, all right. But 

then they brought horses along and there were places where they had to 

make ladders, you know, over the cliffs and they brought their... Well, 

not straight drop but you know, difficult for horses to come over. 157 Well, 

then they'd make these sort of ladder things and they tie them together 

with willows and they'd bring the horses over this and it too them so long 

to come over. 

So then they settled around the Kinbasket Lakes and then the men folks 

would come down to this valley you know. And one summer they saw 

tracks of, you know, people had been around. So of course they were 

worried that it may be the Prairie Indians, you see. So they were a little 

leery and they went back to camp and told the others about it. So I think 

it was in the fall, in the late fall, that they were coming down the slough 

with their bows and arrows. And then all of a sudden the Kootenays came 

out of the bush and my great-grandfather wanted to, well, kill them, I 

guess. And his son took away the arrow, the bow and arrow from him, 

and told him these people are, haven't shown any signs of being hostile. 

So then he didn't like it when they took away his bow and arrow and he 

ran back to camp. And so when these Kootenays, they lined up in front of 

them and of course they got in line on this side, themselves. And so one 

of the Kootenay showed his arrow, you know, like he wanted to give it to 

this Shuswap. So the Shuswap exchanged arrows with him and then they 

all did the same down the line. And so then they tried to make signs to 

157 To this view should be added the comments of an old man met by Alexander Ross while near Nakusp in 

1825: “I and several of my people have likewise been to the ‘She-waps’ which lies northwest from this, but the road 

leading there is two days journey from this and it takes eight days to accomplish. We have no horses, nor is the 

country suitable for them.”Alexander Ross (1849). Adventurers of the First Settlers on the Oregon or Columbia 

River . . .with an account of some Indian Tribes on the Coast of the Pacific. Smith, Elder, and Company: London. 




understand each other, you know, and they were making signs that they 

had been up those hills. Of course they took them there later and they 

saw that the camp was up on top the hill and they had been watching 

them for days, down, you know, where they were camped in Golden. 

And so then they said, well, they're friendly people, and they were not the 

Prairie Indians, so they must live in this valley somewhere. So then they 

kept coming up here and they landed up over there near Athalmer, on the 

hill, you know, those flats there. And so then they'd go back, you 

know, back to Squilax and Kamloops. Like my grandfather [Pierre 

Kinbasket] came from, what do you call the place, (name). And, well, 

after, years after that of course, he met my grandmother -- she lived 

around Squilax -- and they married. And so they married and then my 

grandfather came, you see. And he was, I think he was ten or twelve 158 

when he was... That's before he was married, of course. I mean, when he's 

a little boy, he came over with his father and the men folks and then that 

was the time they saw David Thompson around Golden. 

………… 

But they say David Thompson was really sort of helpless, you know, in 

the ways of the woods. So then they left them alone. They were camped 

around there and later on they saw them somewhere else along the 

Columbia River. And of course my people were living near Athalmer 

there. And so one day some of the young fellows were down the river 

and there was David Thompson, you know, coming along the river again. 

And so they went over there by Wilmer, you know, were the monument 

is. And that's where they settled. And... the Indians used to feed them. 

You know, they felt sorry for them because they were so helpless. 

..................... 

But you know the white people always say that they, the fort there, in 

Invermere, and they have those buildings there, supposed to be a replica 

of the old fort. But the Shuswap Indians and my grandparents tell us that 

they have never seen them settle there. They think they might have 

stayed there during the day, you know, and fished or something. But they 

were never seen even camping there. And, you know, I wonder about that 

and so I've always asked the old Indians around Cranbrook and around 

here. And even last night I asked about it and they said they have -- the 

158 The 1901 and 1911 Canada census provide a birth date for Pierre Kinbasket of 1835. Thus, this account 

places the migration at c.1846. It is possible that the Canada census data is incorrect. Moses Kinbasket thought that 

his grandfather was born 1826 and died in 1920, and he thought that he, himself, was about 62, born 1858; quoted 

in B.R. Atkins (n.d.). “How Shuswap Indians Came to Kootenay One Hundred Years Ago”. Kamloops Museum and 

Archives. “Interior Salish – Miscell.” 




old people -- have never spoken of David Thompson ever camping or 

living at the Invermere fort. 

So then one of the young people told my grandfather -- that was my 

great-grandfather, you see -- and my grandfather was just a little boy 

then [emphasis added]. And so this, one of these young fellows [word 

missing from transcript (?) ] to him about it and my goodness, he went 

and round up the young ones and give them a good talking and told them 

to leave them alone, that they were not doing any harm. So that was it. So 

then David Thompson wanted some, what do you call it now, moose 

meat. They say the moose was plentiful in this country... And of course I 

heard too from -- or have read, you know -- from books that David 

Thompson gave them tobacco but then they didn't smoke, they didn't 

make a practice of smoking. 159 They had their own kinnikinnik and 

willow bark smoke, you know... 160 

Concerning the initial relationship between the Shuswap and Ktunaxa, Shelagh Dehart stated 

during this 1964 interview: “Well, the Kootenays told us they didn’t mind and my grandmother 

said that they were very nice…” . 

In Tracie Williams’ 1964 interview with Imbert Orchard she agreed with her sister that it was 

their “great-grandfather” [Yelheelna] who first discovered the Columbia River area, but she at 

one point thought that they came from the North Thompson River: 

Tracie: Well, my great-grandfather is the one that brought 

the band over from North Kamloops -- that's in (Indian). Originally they 

came from (Indian). (Indian) means a lot of lakes in Indian. 

…………………….. 

Tracie: Well, my ancestors -- I put it that way because I had 

a grandfather, a great-grandfather, and a great-great- grandfather. And 

he was so old, my great-great-grandfather, 

that was way before the white man was ever in the country. He, you know 

what I mean, that was so long ago, like. And he liked to travel, more or 

less it was in his blood to move, and he wanted to keep moving. And he 

kept moving camp all the time from one place to the other and he always 

159 “Tobacco Plains” is so named because this was an area where the Ktunaxa cultivated tobacco [wild 

tobacco (Nicotiana attenuata)] (Chance 1981, page 13). 

160 Shelagh Dehart, 8 November 1964. Transcript of interview by Imbert Orchard. CBC Imbert Orchard 

Collection. Tape IH-BC.36.Original held by the BC Archives, Victoria. As noted here in fn 154, the transcript is 

available online. This interview is not referenced in either the 2008 TUS study or the 2009 consultation report, both 

prepared by Fish Lake Consulting. 




moved where there was a lot of game. For instance he always had to 

move into the Kootenay Valley because he figured that was a paradise 

for hunting. That was his paradise, the Kootenay Valley. 

……………………. 

Imbert: Do you know the route that they came across? Where 

would they cross the mountains? 

Tracie: That was, they came from Shuswap Lake into... I remember 

her talking about the Big Bend. Do you know the Kinbasket Lake was 

named after my grandfather? There's a lake on the Big Bend road, the 

Kinbasket Lake, and that's where they stayed for the winter. Every winter 

they went back to the Kinbasket Lake to winter and... of course, there 

was a lot of animals there to hunt and trap; that is why they stayed there. 

Grandmother always said the winters were terrific on account of very 

heavy snow, deep snow, but of course they had their snowshoes. 

Imbert: 

Tracie: 

Was your grandmother with them? 

Oh yes. Yeah, grandmother was with them. 

The interview continued with Mrs. Williams (b. 1912) explaining to Imbert Orchard how her 

grandmother was among the people who moved from the west: 

Imbert: 

Tracie: 

Imbert: 

Was your grandmother with them? 

Oh yes. Yeah, grandmother was with them. 

How old would she be about that time? 

Tracie: At that time? I imagine she was quite young. 161 She wasn't 

too young but she was more on the... 

Imbert: 

Was she married at that time? 

Tracie: Yes, she was married then, yes. Because my mother was 

born here, she was born at Vermilion -- it's north of here. 162 

161 The 1901 and 1911 Canada census provides a birth date for Maryann, wife of Pierre Kinbasket, as 1837. 

162 Tracie Williams, November 1964. Transcript of interview by Imbert Orchard. CBC Imbert Orchard 

Collection. Tape IH-BC.66.Original held by the BC Archives, Victoria. Transcript available online. This interview 

is not referenced in either the 2008 Shuswap Indian Band TUS compiled by Fish Lake Consulting, or the 2007 




Mrs Williams also provided information on the Shuswap’s relationship with the Kootenay and 

where the Kinbasket family met their new neighbours: 

Imbert: Did, what was the meeting with the Kootenays? How did that, 

where did they meet the Kootenays? 

Tracie: Oh, they met the Kootenays by (name) that's north of here 

close to Golden, by (name). Grandmother said they got up in the 

morning, early in the morning, and they saw these tracks. And they 

knew, well, it was different tribe of Indians because when they walked, 

how would you call it? They walked this way. 

Imbert: 

They were bowlegged? 

………………………………….. 

Tracie: Stuck in, yes. That's how they walked. They saw 

these tracks and the Kootenays wanted to fight with them but my 

grandfather was peace-loving and he just refused to fight and he wouldn't 

fight. And this Indian come to him wanting to fight so much and that was 

the very first time my grandfather ever set eyes on a granite bowl… 

Claude Schaeffer obtained information on the Shuswap perspective concerning the Kinbasket 

migration from an article that had appeared in The Lake Windermere Valley Echo, 19 March 

1960. Information contained in this account is attributed to Tracie Williams, granddaughter of 

Pierre Kinbasket, as noted above, and younger sister of Shelagh Dehart. In the 1960 Windermere 

Valley Echo account, Chief Paul Ignatius Kinbasket (father of Chief Pierre Kinbasket) was said 

to have come from Adam’s Lake near Squilax and travelled across the Purcell Mountains from 

Revelstoke to the Beavermouth and Moberly area. Mosquitoes drove them from their first 

encampment at Kinbasket Lake, so Chief Paul “visited Lake Windermere valley and made it his 

choice for a new settlement.” This occurred, according to the article’s author, “about 135 years 

ago,” which would date the incident to circa 1825. 163 

In sum, information provided by Mrs. Dehart and Mrs. Williams in these interviews confirms 

that the Kinbasket family moved from the west to the Columbia region. But there is also a vague 

reference to the North Thompson River area. The genealogical reconstruction is imprecise and 

the move to the present Shuswap settlement at Windermere may have occurred anytime between 

about the 1830s-1860s, according to these two oral histories. In Mrs. Dehart’s and Mrs. 

report prepared for the Ktunaxa Nation by Brian Robertson. Mrs. Williams seems to suggest that the migration 

south to near Golden occurred after the marriage of her grandmother, circa 1868. It is Mrs Dehart’s opinion that the 

migration occurred when her grandfather was a young boy, not after he was married, which is the position of Mrs 

Williams. 

163 The Lake Windermere Valley Echo, 19 March 1960 (transcribed in Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reel 3). 




Williams’s view, the settlement at Windermere was the last step in a gradual migration east that 

took a number of years. It is also their view that the Kinpasket family was accepted by the 

Ktunaxa and that they have lived peacefully together. 

2.2.3 Ethnographic and Historical Data Relating to the Kinbasket Migration 

Additional information on the Kinbasket migration can be found in available ethnographic and 

historical literature, including information recorded directly from “Chief Kinbasket.” Some of 

this information was provided by Kinbasket family members, including Moses Kinbasket, 164 a 

son of Cassimir Kinbasket (brother of Chief Pierre) and uncle to Mrs. Dehart and Mrs. Williams. 

His information from the Kinbasket family’s oral history can be found in a newspaper article 

compiled by Revelstoke resident B.R. Atkins, likely around the 1920-1930s. 165 Moses Kinbasket 

related how his grandfather, identified there as “Peter” Kinbasket—but seemingly the same man 

identified by others as “Paul Ignatius Kinbasket”—had come “from near Kamloops” over to the 

Columbia headwaters “by way of Canoe River,” an event said to have occurred just prior to the 

birth of his first son around 1826. The old chief had died when Moses was about 4 years old (c. 

1862). 166 In his account, “Peter” Kinbasket had first seen the upper Columbia country one 

summer when he had crossed the mountains to hunt, travelling east to near the present town of 

Golden. He thought it was a good winter hunting ground for his people. 167 

Atkins includes also a summary of the historical literature in this article and it is sometimes 

difficult to distinguish information that is based on recorded fact from the author’s own 

conclusions. 168 Atkins writes that Peter Kinbasket claimed the salmon beds at Athalmer, and that 

164 Moses Kinbasket was said to have been born in 1860 according to the 1911 Canada Census 

http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/1911/pdf/e001937872.pdf. This date is likely rounded, for he gave his birth date to 

B.R. Atkins as 1858. 

165 Benjamin Richard Atkins (b.1866-d.1941) lived in Revelstoke for 45 years, during which time he was a 

part-owner of The Kootenay Mail and compiled a local history entitled Columbia River Chronicles. Atkins n.d. 

[newspaper article] How Shuswap Indians Came to Kootenay. On file with the Kamloops Museum and Archives. 

File 31, Interior Salish – Miscellaneous. 

166 The birth date was possibly rounded, and Moses may be off on how old he was at the time of his 

grandfather’s death. The Chief Kinbasket who met Walter Moberly in 1866 was likely this was Moses’s 

grandfather, “Peter,” elsewhere identified as Paul Ignatius Kinbasket. 

167 Apparently in a 1928 article, Suzette Kinbasket, daughter of “Paul Nease” [Paul Ignatius Kinbasket] 

said that the Kinbasket used to hunt in the Columbia Valley and that her father accompanied his own father on trips 

here before they settled. The present authors have not seen this article which is cited in the April 2009 Fish Lake 

Consulting study prepared for the Shuswap Indian Band . 

168 On the other hand, Atkins’s statement that the Arrow Lakes people (Sinixt), who he calls the 

“Senijextee,” “controlled Columbia from Colville to Big Bend” is confirmed by other sources. See Randy Bouchard 

and Dorothy Kennedy (2005). First Nations’ Ethnography and Ethnohistory in British Columbia’s Lower 




Chief Kinbasket and his hunters periodically travelled east through “the ‘Shuswap’ pass” to hunt 

on the plains. 169 This seems to be a reference to the Athabasca Pass route. The neighbouring 

Ktunaxa made similar excursions, travelling east by way of Vermilion Pass situated farther 

south, about 60 kilometres east of Golden. 

Ethnographer James Teit in his 1909 published study of the Shuswap recorded the story of an 

historical migration of Shuswap people that occurred in the first half of the 19 th century. He tells 

how the North Thompson Chief “Kenpê’sket” [Kinbasket] led fifty or sixty friends to the head of 

the Columbia River “on the confines of the Kootenai Tribe.” 170 They made the trips, mostly with 

canoes, by way of Canoe River. On arriving at their destination, Teit reports, they made an 

alliance with the Stoney people of the Rocky Mountains against the Kutenai. While these 

Shuswap initially had close ties with their old homeland, Teit recorded that by his time (c.1900), 

little intercourse took place between these Kinbasket Shuswap and the rest of the Shuswapspeaking 

people. 171 Elsewhere in Teit’s monograph he writes that the Kinbasket Band’s ancestors 

came mostly from the Upper North Thompson Band, whom he called “people of the upper 

reaches,” or “those at the top” (named “Pesskalálten” ‘salmon place’), although some “belonged 

to the Lower North Thompson band, and a few to the Adams Lake and Shuswap Lake Bands”. 172 

Former HBC servant and Indian Agent J.W. Mackay reported that the Kinbasket people were 

from the North Thompson and had followed a route—presumably overland—that reached the 

Columbia near the mouth of the Canoe River. 173 

Discussing the tribal boundaries of the Plateau, Teit in his 1910-1913 “Notes to Maps of the 

Pacific Northwest,” prepared after publication of his 1909 Shuswap monograph, referred to the 

location of various bands of the Ktunaxa. In this context he discussed the Shuswap’s migration: 

I do not know if the Kootenay formerly extended any further north in the 

Columbia Valley. The Shuswap claim that region (marked 1) as old 

Kootenay/Columbia Hydropower Region. Report prepared for Columbia Power Corporation , Castlegar BC, in 

August 2000 and revised/reprinted in April 2005. Page 67. 

169 Atkins n.d. [newspaper article] How Shuswap Indians Came to Kootenay. On file with the Kamloops 

Museum and Archives. File 31, Interior Salish – Miscellaneous. 

170 James Teit (1909). The Shuswap. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume 4, Part 

7 (Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Volume 2). E.J. Brill: Leiden, Holland. Page 467. 

171 Teit 1909, page 467. 

172 Teit 1909, page 460, fn. 5. 

173 George Dawson (1892). Notes on the Shuswap People of British Columbia. Proceedings and 

Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada for the Year 1891. Vol. 9. Page 5. Such a route is illustrated on 

Samuel Black’s circa 1833 map. See Samuel Black (c. 1833). Manuscript map of Thompson's River District, 

attributed to Samuel Black of the Hudson's Bay Company. BC Archives, Victoria. Map Collection, CM/B13,660. 




hunting grounds, although it seems they did not have permanent 

settlements there until about 70 years ago [c. 1840]. 174 

While Teit considered the Kinbasket community to be mostly from the North Thompson, 

surveyor Walter Moberly of the Columbia River Exploring Expedition was told by Chief 

Kinbasket, himself, that his people came from Little Shuswap Lake. Mobertly met with Chief 

Kinbasket 175 on September 1 st , 1866 at “Kinbasket’s fishing station” located near Spillamacheen, 

south of Golden. Concerning his meeting with Chief Kinbasket, Moberly wrote: 

These Indians are a portion of the Shuswap tribe (from Little Shuswap 

Lake), and settled here about 20 years ago [c. 1846]. . . .The following 

information I obtained from Kinbaskit, the chief of the Shuswaps, who is 

the most intelligent Indian I have met with, and from what I saw of the 

country both before and after he left me, has a thorough knowledge of the 

country from Wild Horse Creek to the Boat Encampment, and thence to 

Colville… 176 

Hence, Moberly learned directly from Chief Kinbasket that his people arrived in the mid-1840s 

and that he was familiar with the country at least as far north as the Boat Encampment and as far 

down the Columbia River as Kettle Falls (Washington State). It is our opinion that Chief 

Kinbasket’s statement directly to Moberly is very credible. 

At the time of the first visit of the Columbia River Exploration party in October 1865, Kinbasket 

was described as “nearly always encamped about the headwaters of the Columbia” where he had 

“made a horse trail from the mouth of Toby Creek.” 177 On 29 th August 1866, Moberly followed a 

trail along the east side of the upper Columbia Lake [now known as Columbia Lake]. He notes in 

his journal that about a mile beyond the north end of this lake he encountered “ a large 

174 James Teit (1910-1913). Notes to Maps of the Pacific Northwest. American Philosophical Society 

Library, Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372, Roll 4, No. 1, Item 59 (copy held by the BC Archives, Victoria. Add. 

Mss. 1425, Microfilm A-239). 

175 This seems to be the father of Chief Pierre Kinbasket (b. 1835). Moses Kinbasket [said to have been 

born in 1860 according to the 1911 census ( http://data2.collectionscanada.ca/1911/pdf/e001937872.pdf)] stated that 

his grandfather “Peter Kinbasket” died when he was four years old. The census likely rounded this man’s birth date 

and Mr Kinbasket could be mistaken about how old he was when this death occurred. 

176 Walter Moberly (1866), In, British Columbia (1869). Columbia River Exploration, 1866: Reports and 

Journals Relating to the Government Exploration of the Country Lying Between the Shuswap and Okanagan Lakes 

and the Rocky Mountains. Government Printing Office: Victoria BC. Journal of the second year’s work…[28 March 

1866-13 September 1866. Pp. 17-18]. 

177 James Turnbull (1865), In, British Columbia (1866). Columbia River Exploration, 1865-6: Reports and 


and the Rocky Mountains. Government Printing Office: Victoria BC. Mr. Turnbull’s Journal [20 July 1865-29 

November 1865]. Page 32. 




encampment of Kootenay Indians, who were engaged curing salmon, which are caught in great 

abundance here….” 178 

Indian Commissioner Peter O’Reilly, after meeting with the Kinbasket Band in August 1884, 

confirmed the date of mid-1840s for the migration of the Band. Writing to the Superintendent 

General of Indian Affairs, O’Reilly stated that he had visited “a band of Indians, offshoots of the 

Shuswap tribe near Kamloops, who, under the leadership of a chief named Kinbasket some forty 

years ago [c. 1844] migrated from Shuswap, and settled in the Columbia Valley.” 179 Importantly, 

O’Reilly noted that these people had maintained their Shuswap language and identity, despite 

being intermarried in the 1880s with the Kutenai. O’Reilly set aside a 2,700 acre Indian Reserve 

for the Shuswap Band, descendants of Kinbasket, just north from the northern end of “Lower 

Columbia Lake” [Columbia Lake] and on the east side of the Columbia River. 180 

The date of the Kinbasket migration varies from source to source. The 1910 edition of the 

Handbook of North American Indians stated that it was about 60 years prior to the volume’s 

publication, i.e., c. 1850, when Kinbasket settled among the Kutenai. 181 This is also the date (c. 

1850) that former HBC man and Indian Agent J.W. Mackay provided to George Dawson. 182 

Moberly’s estimate of c. 1846 should be given weight, inasmuch as he actually met with Chief 

Kinbasket in September 1866 and obtained this information directly from him. In 1884, George 

Dawson stated that the “colony of Shuswap …in the midst of the Kootanie country…was 

178 Walter Moberly (1866), In, British Columbia 1869, p. 17. 

179 Letter of 17 December 1884 from Indian Reserve Commissioner Peter O’Reilly to the Superintendent 

General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa [re: Indian Reserve set aside for the “Shuswap Indians, Kinbasket’s Band” in 

August 1884]. Federal Collection, Indian Reserve Commission Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, 

Volume 10. Copy held by the Indian Lands Registry, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. BC Regional Office, 

Vancouver. Page 11; the Provincial set of these same materials is found in: Provincial Minutes of Decision etc. 

O’Reilly to the Chief Commissioner of Lands & Works, Victoria. 19 November 1884. BC Archives, Victoria. GR 

2982, Box 3, Item 3041/84. 





Vancouver. Pp. 11-20 [including sketch of IR at page 19]; the Provincial set of these same materials is found in: 

Provincial Minutes of Decision etc. O’Reilly to the Chief Commissioner of Lands & Works, Victoria. 19 November 

1884. BC Archives, Victoria. GR 2982, Box 3, Item 3041/84. 

181 Frederick W. Hodge, editor (1910). Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, Part 2. Bureau of 

American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution: Washington D.C. Page 561. 

182 Concerning these Kinbasket Shuswap people, Dawson (1892, page 5) wrote: “According to notes 

supplied by Mr. J.W. Mackay, this band emigrated thither about forty years ago [c. 1850], from the North 

Thompson; following a route which reaches the Columbia near the mouth of Canoe River.” 




established within the memory of men still living.” 183 Yet, James Teit, as reviewed below, at one 

point in his investigation reported that some believed that the Kinbasket migration occurred 

around 1810, although his own view was that “probably it was somewhat later.” 184 

Paul David (b. 1852), a Ktunaxa member interviewed by Claude Schaeffer in 1935, also 

provided information on the Shuswap presence in the upper Columbia. Schaeffer’s handwritten 

notes concerning this, which follow below and are emphasized as in his originals, state: 

The Shuswap were called kłíłkatwumłat “naked people.” 

See Simpson’s Journal, page 21 (1824) for Kutenai and Cree (?) raid 

against the Shuswap. 

About a century ago (1835) some akánahonek [Tobacco Plains people] 

first encountered the Shuswap Indians north of Columbia Lakes, their 

first meeting (?). Prior to this the akánahonek and Akámnik [St. Mary’s or 

Fort Steele people] 185 used to hunt moose and elk as far north as Golden. 

The Shuswap moved into this territory about the 1840s. 

Could these have been the Snare people of Thompson? 186 

In a typed version of this same information, dated “8/5/35” and entitled “Territory of 

Aganahónek [Tobacco Plains people]”, Schaeffer wrote: 

Previous to a hundred years ago [c. 1835] the aganahónek [Tobacco 

Plains people] and gakawakamitúkinik [Michel Prairie people] used to 

hunt together north of Columbia Lakes, probably as far as Golden, for 

moose and elk. 187 

Ktunaxa member Louis Joseph provided Schaeffer with additional information on the Ktunaxa 

perspective. Louis Joseph’s oral tradition is somewhat consistent with the Shuswap traditions 

183 Tolmie and Dawson 1884, page 125. 

184 James Teit (1908-1920). Salish ethnographic materials. American Philosophical Society Library, 

Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372, Roll 16, S .7 (copy held by the B.C. Archives, Victoria. Add. Mss. 1425, 

Microfilm A-247). 

185 Elsewhere in his fieldnotes, including the typed variant cited below, Schaeffer wrote that it was the 

Michel Prairie people—not the St. Mary’s people—who in former times hunted together with the Tobacco Plains 

people, north of Columbia Lakes. 

186 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reel 1. 





told by the Kinbasket granddaughters, as he notes that the “Shuswap was first located around 

Kinbasket Lake and followed Kutenai into the Columbia Lakes country. There was no warfare 

between them.” 188 

It was Teit’s view, as set out in his 1909 publication, that the migration of the Kinbaskets did 

not alter the overall extent of Shuswap territory. Concerning alterations to the overall territory 

used by Shuswap-speaking people, Teit remarked: 

Neither did the settlement of the Kinbaskets on the Upper Columbia 

really mark any change or extension of the tribal boundaries, as that 

region was hunted over more or less by Shuswap parties as far back as 

tradition goes. 189 

Further information is provided in a footnote to this same publication, discussing the “Kinbaskets 

Band” of the Shuswap: 

This band live on reserves nearly opposite the mouth of Toby Creek, on 

the right bank of Columbia River…They lived for many years in a more 

or less nomadic state, wintering and ranging in the Columbia valley, 

chiefly between Golden and Windermere. The ancestors of these people 

[the Kinbaskets] belonged mostly to the Upper North Thompson band. It 

seems, however, that some of them belonged to the Lower North 

Thompson band, and a few to the Adams Lake and Shuswap Lake 

bands. 190 

Hence, according to this information appearing in Teit’s published 1909 work, the upper 

Columbia—which includes the Columbia Valley Transmission Project area between Golden and 

Invermere—became Shuswap hunting territory after the Kinbasket migration from neighbouring 

Secewepmc bands. 

It should be noted that Teit’s published 1909 work was based on research he undertook among 

the Shuswap between 1887-1904. He stated that during these years he had visited and collected 

information from “all the bands of the Shuswap, excepting the isolated ones of Upper North 

Thompson River at Jasper House, the Kinbaskets on Columbia River, and the Arrow Lake 

Band.” 191 Teit undertook further research among both the Shuswap and Kutenai subsequent to 

1904. As a result, he was able to correct errors and provide clarifications to certain statements he 

188 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reel 2. Notes with Louis Joseph in materials concerning “Acculturation,” page 

294. 

189 Teit 1909, page 462. 

190 Teit 1909, page 460, fn. 

191 Teit 1909, page 447. 




had made in his 1909 monograph. 192 While these corrections and clarifications, themselves, were 

never published, Teit’s conclusions based on them were printed in 1914 as part of a “Tribes of 

the BC Interior” chapter he wrote for the Canada and its Provinces historical series. 193 

Referring to his 1910-1913 discussions with the Kutenai, Teit wrote that: “They claimed the 

country around the heads of the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers had always been upper Kutenai 

hunting country until the Shuswap came.” 194 Undoubtedly this last clause refers to the Kinbasket 

Shuswap. As discussed above, Teit had described this Kinbasket migration in his 1909 

monograph, but he did not give a date for it. Subsequently he did provide dates; in his 1910-1913 

notes, Teit stated: 

Nearly a century ago [c. 1810] a band of Shuswap [the Kinbaskets] 

located themselves on the southern headwaters of the Columbia within 

hunting country claimed by the Kutenai. The Shuswap however laid 

claim to this territory as part of it was not entirely hunting ground of the 

Kutenai as they themselves [the Kinbasket Shuswap] had been in the 

habit of trapping over it. 195 [emphasis added] 

In his 1914 publication, Teit wrote: 

The Kutenai formerly claimed the upper part of the Columbia down to 

about Golden, but in later years this tract of country was also hunted by 

Assiniboin and Shuswap, and finally, about ninety years ago [c. 1810], a 

192 See, for example, Teit 1909, pp. 450, 455, 482. Teit’s comments concerning his correction of this 

significant error—i.e. his inclusion of the “Arrow Lake Band” as part of the “Shuswap Lake Division” of the 

Shuswap, rather than the Lakes group of the Okanagan-Colville—are contained in unpublished fieldnotes and 

manuscript materials which include the following: James Teit (1898-1910). Salish ethnographic materials. 

American Philosophical Society Library (APS), Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372, Roll 4, No. 1, Item 61 (copy 

held by the BC Archives, Victoria. Add. Mss. 1425, Microfilm A-239); Teit (n.d.). Fieldnotes on Thompson and 

neighboring Salishan languages [circa 1904-1913]. APS, Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372.1, Roll 48, S 1b.7 (copy 

held by the BC Archives, Victoria. Add. Mss. 1425, Microfilm A-262); Teit (1908-1920). Salish ethnographic 

materials. APS, Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372, Roll 16, S .7 (copy held by the B.C. Archives, Victoria. Add. 

Mss. 1425, Microfilm A-247); and, Teit (1910-1913). Notes to Maps of the Pacific Northwest. APS, Philadelphia. 

Boas Collection 372, Roll 4, No. 1, Item 59 (copy held by the BC Archives, Victoria. Add. Mss. 1425, Microfilm A- 

239). 

193 James Teit (1914). Indian Tribes of the Interior. In, Canada and its Provinces (ed. by Adam Shortt and 

Arthur G. Doughty). Toronto: T. & A. Constable. Pp. 283-284. 

194 Teit 1910-1913. 

195 Teit 1910-1913. 




band of the latter [the Kinbasket Shuswap] located there permanently in 

close proximity to the most northern settlement of the Kutenai. 196 

Teit’s date of 1810 seems a little early when examined against the historical record. And Teit, 

too, thought so. In his collection of notes dated 1908-1920 he stated that it was probably 

somewhat later, the date being “not quite certain.” 197 When discussing tribal boundaries in his 

1910-1913 notes, he suggested that the migration occurred “about 70 years ago,” placing it at 

circa 1840. 198 The historical evidence of Father de Smet does confirm that hunters identified as 

Shuswap hunted in the Columbia Lakes area in the mid-1840s. As already noted, Chief 

Kinbasket, himself, advised Walter Moberly that his people “are a portion of the Shuswap tribe 

(from Little Shuswap Lake), and settled here about 20 years ago [c. 1846].” Chief Kinbasket had 

nothing to gain by misrepresenting this history. He was well placed to provide accurate historical 

information. 

In sum, since at least the 1840s the Shuswap Kinbasket family has formed the core of an 

independent band centred at the north end of Lake Windermere where they have lived and used 

the local resources. In-marrying spouses came from the surrounding area, but the band has 

maintained a distinct identity. 

Until 2005, the Ktunaxa Nation Council represented this Shuswap Band politically and continues 

to claim territory associated with them. A Ktunaxa interest in the Lake Windermere area is 

consistent with the historical and ethnographic data that represents early 19 th century use and 

occupation. 

2.2.4 A Possible Earlier Occupation 

Studies prepared by Fish Lake Consulting on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band in 2008 and 

2009 point to the presence of one or more house pits in the Columbia Valley as evidence of non- 

Ktunaxa occupation at an earlier time. 199 Such features indicate the location of previouslyoccupied 

winter homes. It is the view of the Shuswap Indian Band that these archaeological 

features remain from village sites of the Shuswap Band’s immediate ancestors and that culturally 

these people were Interior Salish. 

196 Teit 1914, page 284. 

197 Teit 1908-1920. 

198 Teit 1910-1913. 

199 Information correlating pit houses with “Interior Salish” is reviewed extensively in the Shuswap Indian 

Band’s TUS (2008). Additional information on this issue and the regional archaeology is presented in the December 

1999 archaeological study, “Archaeological Investigations at the Salmon Beds,” prepared by Rod Heitzmann of 

Parks Canada. Available online: http://www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/cbasin/salmonbeds/index.htm 




There is no indication in the historical record that these pithouses were occupied at time of direct 

contact with non-Aboriginal traders in the early 19 th century. The historical records reviewed in 

this report indicate that the area was almost devoid of human habitation at the time of contact, 

likely a result of the devastating effects of smallpox in the early 1780s. 

One historical source indicates that a group known to the early fur traders as the “Snare” people 

may have occupied parts of the Columbia region in earlier times, but had moved north by the 

time of contact. When trader David Thompson arrived on the Columbia River and travelled 

south through the Columbia Lakes, he encountered only Free Hunters comprised largely of 

Iroquois, Cree and other eastern tribes who came west with the fur trade. 200 The traders’ inquiries 

about the region’s Aboriginal people did not reveal a Shuswap presence or their use of the 

Columbia Lakes, at least in the first several decades of the 19 th century. The traders expected to 

find Ktunaxa on the west side of the mountains, and eventually they did. Nevertheless, by at least 

1845, there is evidence of both Shuswap and Ktunaxa in the Columbia Lakes region. 

The issue of an earlier people remains a topic in need of further investigation. But to the data 

discussed in this report should be added the following note of James Teit, found among his 

“Notes to Maps” compiled 1910-1913. The context is his discussion of the Ktunaxa bands: 

Another band [Michel Prairie people] was located in the Crows Nest Pass 

and the main hunting grounds of the Upper Kutenai extended up the 

Kootenay and Elk Rivers. For a considerable time back still another band 

has been located much further north at Windermere [Columbia Lakes 

Band] on the head of the Columbia but from information I obtained last 

year it seems all this northern part of the Kutenai territory was only 

hunting grounds long ago and the ancestors of all the Indians of this band 

were originally from bands in the south. According to some there were 

people up here in mythological times but they died out and by some they 

were not considered real Indians or Kutenai. 201 

200 See also Richard Somerset Mackie (1997). Trading Beyond the Mountains: the British Fur Traser on 

the Pacific 1793-1843. University of B ritish Columbia Press: Vancouver. Mackie comments on the multi-ethnic 

diversity of the fur trade and cites, at page 33, Alexander Ross’s observation that one of the Snake River parties 

consisted of forty-one men from east, and twelve men from west of the Rockies: ” ‘two Americans, seventeen 

Canadians, five half-breeds from the east side of the mountains, twelve Iroquois, two Abinakee Indians from Lower 

Canada, two natives from Lake Nipisingue, one Sauteaux from Lake Huron, two Crees from Athabasca, one 

Chinook, two Spokanes, two Kouttanais, three Flatheads, two Callispellums, one Palloochey, and one Snake 

slave!’.” 

201 Teit 1910-1913. 




2.3 Traditional Land Use and Occupancy Data for the Columbia Valley Project Area 

Traditional land use and occupancy data for the Columbia Valley Transmission Project Area is 

contained in anthropologists’ field notes, manuscripts and publications, and also in ethnohistoric 

documents. While this information reveals that Ktunaxa people intensively used the area of the 

Columbia Valley Project between Golden and Invermere for settlement sites and for harvesting 

resources, few of the available data are site specific. 

The original Ktunaxa bands who populated the upper Columbia Valley appear to have been 

devastated by the smallpox epidemic of the early 1780s. However, the ethnographic evidence is 

consistent with the historical data reviewed earlier in section 2.1.2. It shows continuing Ktunaxa 

use of the Columbia Valley region, at least as far north as Golden. 

Ethnographic data also support claims of Shuswap Indian Band use of the area in the second half 

of the 19 th century and continuing. Their use of the upper Columbia Valley began by the 1840s, 

at least. The two groups, Kinbasket Shuswap and Ktunaxa, intermarried and jointly used the 

resources of the area. A series of maps presenting polygons said to represent Shuswap Indian 

Band use of some of the Columbia Valley region can be found in their reports submitted for the 

Glacier Howser Hydroelectric Project. 202 Indigenous place names also appear on these maps. 

The following discussion of resource use in the environs of the Columbia Valley Transmission 

Project is meant to be illustrative and not exhaustive. It adds to information provided in the 2008 

Shuswap Indian Band Traditional Use Study and in the Ktunaxa Nation report of 2007, both of 

which have been cited in the present report. 

2.3.1 Occupation by Ktunaxa Bands 

Anthropologist Claude Schaeffer undertook ethnographic research with Kutenai (Ktunaxa) 

consultants between 1934-1969, working with people who were born between the 1840s- 

1890s. 203 Included among those interviewed by Schaeffer were a number of individuals from the 

Upper Kutenai “Columbia Lakes Band” or “akískənəkinik” [“/a . kisQnuKniK ”]. 204 



12176cfc051ed407d456a922c101567f0.pdf;l 


12176cfc051ed407d456a922c101567f0.pdf 

203 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reels 1 and 2. 

204 This transcription, “akískənəkinik”, is Schaeffer’s; the transcription provided in Brunton (1998, page 

226) is “/a . kisQnuKniK ”. 




Schaeffer was told by those he interviewed that “prior to the opening of the 19 th century,” the 

“Columbia Lakes” area 205 was one of the four Upper Kutenai “populational loci.” The other three 

“populational loci” were identified by Schaeffer as: the Crows Nest Pass or Michel Prairie area; 

the Tobacco Plains area on both sides of what is now the Canada/United States boundary; and, 

the area around Libby, Montana. Schaeffer went on to say that: 

Each one of these localities was strategically located for the exploitation 

of an important food resource: salmon on the uppermost Columbia, bison 

in the Crows Nest Pass region, camas, bitterroot and berries at Tobacco 

Plains, and deer in the Libby-Jennings section. 206 

The “Columbia Lakes Band,” Schaeffer wrote, was actually comprised of two separate groups of 

Kutenai who had their main campsites in this locality at different periods: 

a) Kátamukinik, the earlier people, named from their camp site (kátamu) located 

on the Columbia River immediately south of the mouth of Toby Creek. They 

were a small group of Upper Kutenai, whose economic activities were carried 

out along the north-south axis of the Kootenai-Columbia valley, with eastwest 

excursions across the Rockies to the bison range. They subsisted more 

upon fish than game. They are said to have spoken Tunáxa. 207 

b) Akískənəkinik, “people of the two lakes,” the successor group, which had its 

main camp near Fairmont Springs [Fairmont Hot Springs] between Columbia 

and Windermere Lakes. 208 

Concerning the earlier group, the “kátamukinik”, sometimes called the “Toby Creek Kutenai,” 209 

Schaeffer reported they spent November and December at Tobacco Plains or Libby, Montana. 

After New Year, some of them travelled to the Toby Creek area (“kátamu”, from which this 

group took their name) where they spent January through March hunting bighorn sheep and 

waterfowl. The “kátamukinik” spent the months of August through September in the Columbia 

205 In earlier times, what is known today as “Lake Windermere” was referred to as “Lower Columbia 

Lake,” and what is today “Columbia Lake” was known as “Upper Columbia Lake.” 


207 The Robertson study states that this band is now comprised “of the Shuswap descendants of the 

Kinbasket clan, who have intermarried with the Ktunaxa, Colville, and Stoney people, as well as Ktunaxa 

descendants of the Columbia Lake Band near Windermere, BC.” It is said to consist of the former Toby Creek and 

Whiteswan Lake bands ((Robertson 2007:1). 

“kátamukinik”. 


209 Schaeffer (1934-1969, Reel 2) also transcribed the name for these people as “katamukínik” rather than 




Lakes area, catching and drying salmon. 210 After this time, some of them went across the 

Rockies to the fall bison hunt, and others went down the Columbia to Golden, or even beyond, to 

Yellowhead Pass, to hunt deer and elk. The “kátamukinik” were also known as “kulnaki” from 

their practice of pulling hide sleeves over the bows of their bark canoes as a protection in icefilled 

streams. Schaeffer pointed out that the “kátamukinik” sometimes moved up Sheep Creek 

and across Elk Pass to the headwaters of Elbow River. The “kátamukinik” people were almost 

entirely wiped out by the smallpox epidemic of 1781-1782, Schaeffer wrote, although their 

leader, a man named “Gray-Head” survived and eventually repopulated his group who then 

became known as the “akískənəkinik”. 211 

Still under the leadership of “Gray-Head,” former leader of the “kátamukinik” people prior to 

their decimation by smallpox, and followed by subsequent leaders, the “akískənəkinik” people 

continued a similar annual round as that which had been followed by the “kátamukinik”. One 

exception was that the “akískənəkinik” tended to abandon the deer and elk hunting trips down the 

Columbia and Canoe Rivers undertaken by their predecessors, in favour of bison hunting 

excursions across the Rockies. 212 

Elsewhere Schaeffer stated that “akískənəkinik” is derived from the term “akískənik” meaning 

‘two lakes,’ referring to the main camp site—and one of the wintering sites of these people— 

located “near Fairmont Springs between Columbia and Windermere Lakes.” 213 On another 

occasion in his fieldnotes Schaeffer wrote that the “akískənəkinik” people made use of the hot 

210 On another occasion, a different Aboriginal consultant interviewed by Schaeffer (1934-1969, Reel 2) 

stated that “kátamu” was “a regular place on Toby Creek, at Columbia Lakes, where these people [the 

“kátamukinik”] secured their second batch of salmon” (as mentioned below, they obtained their first catch of salmon 

in the vicinity of Brisco). To this Schaeffer added they, “must have spend considerable time there [at “kátamu”], 

since that name was given them.” He also mentioned two other consultants’ statements that the “kátamukinik” “lived 

more on fish than on game.” As well, Schaeffer noted there was a camp site at “kátamu”. 



213 Schaeffer (1934-1969, Reel 2) identified three other wintering sites within this general area: 

“akinmiłukóuwat” meaning ‘bunch grass’, described as a post-horse site located “at mouth of small creek emptying 

in [into] Columbia Lake” and said to be a good place to winter horses as there was lots of bunch grass here. No 

further information was provided as to this site’s exact location; “ya’kuwʋłak” meaning ‘inlet’ and described as an 

“inlet on east side of Columbia, about 8 to 10 miles north of Canal Flats.” This description fits the location of what 

appears to be a small inlet forming the northeasternmost end of Columbia Lake, across from the outlet of Dutch 

Creek. Other information provided by Schaeffer about this place includes the statement that there are “rock paintings 

near here at inlet”; and, “yakinukuk” (?) meaning ‘rib of yawunik’, described as a “small prairie at mouth of Dutch 

Creek” which is located at the northwesternmost end of Columbia Lake. Concerning this place, Schaeffer also 

noted: “Moss abundant here and roasted in spring—presumably this is a reference to “tree moss” [black tree lichen 

(Alectoria fremontii)] which was gathered and pit-cooked as food (see the “Gathering” section that follows). 




waters at Fairmont Springs to treat their sick “in the old days”. He also recorded that they hunted 

and speared salmon north along the Spillimacheen River 214 (identified by Schaeffer 

as“yakinasúkwe” meaning ‘red river’), 215 which joins the Columbia near Brisco. And like their 

predecessors, the “kátamukinik” , the “akískənəkinik” went eastward up Sheep Creek and across 

the Rockies to hunt bison. 216 

Information concerning the subsistence practices of these “Columbia Lakes” people is also 

provided in documents of the Indian Reserve Commission. In August 1884 when Indian Reserve 

Commissioner Peter O’Reilly met with Chief “Moyeas” of the Upper Kutenai people who were 

living around the south end of “Lower Columbia Lake” (Lake Windermere), O’Reilly reported 

that: 

Until recently these Indians subsisted almost entirely on the products of 

their annual hunt on the eastern slope of the Rocky mountains, and on the 

salmon which formerly were abundant in the Columbia river; these 

sources of supply being exhausted, and game not very plentiful in their 

own country, they now depend chiefly on their cattle, horses, and 

gardens, supplemented by what they can earn as herders, packers, or 

laborers. 217 

O’Reilly set aside an 8,320-acre Indian Reserve for the “Upper Kootenay Indians” who 

214 As reviewed earlier, in 1866 Moberly saw Kinbasket and his band fishing near Spillimacheen. 

215 Elsewhere in his field notes, Schaeffer (1934-1969, Microfilm No. 1) wrote this river was known as 

as“yakinasúkwe” meaning ‘red river’ because of the blood of the salmon speared here. On another occasion, 

Schaeffer (1934-1969, Microfilm No. 2), Schaeffer was told that the term “yakinasúkwe” was applied to a “salmon 

fishing site at Brisco.” He was also told that its meaning was ‘red water’ which was derived from the fact that a 

water monster was speared here. And he was told that the people fished here in August, that there was a campsite 

here, and that this the first place where the Columbia Lakes people caught salmon each year (as discussed above, the 

second place they caught salmon was at “kátamu”, Toby Creek). 

216 A summary of Ktunaxa bands said to have been prepared by Keefer et al. (2004; no reference provided; 

2002, no reference provided) is contained in Robertson’s 2007 report, at page 1. 


General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa [re: Indian Reserves set aside for the Kootenay Indians in August 1884]. Federal 

Collection, Indian Reserve Commission Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, Volume 10. Copy held 

by the Indian Lands Registry, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. BC Regional Office, Vancouver. Pp. 36-40; the 

Provincial set of these same materials is found in: Provincial Minutes of Decision etc. O’Reilly to the Chief 

Commissioner of Lands & Works, Victoria. 19 November 1884. BC Archives, Victoria. GR 2982, Box 3, Item 

3041/84. 




were then living—in 1884—around the south end of Lake Windermere. 218 

Also in August 1884, O’Reilly provided information about the subsistence practices of another 

group of Aboriginal people, the “Kinbasket Shuswap,” who were then living around the north 

end of “Lower Columbia Lake” (Lake Windermere). These “Kinbasket” people, O’Reilly wrote, 

had “migrated from Shuswap, and settled in the Columbia valley…some forty years ago [c. 

1844].” O’Reilly added: 

A large and profitable salmon fishery formerly existed on this reserve; 

but, for some years past, only a few fish have been caught by the Indians, 

owning to the establishment of many canneries and the systematic 

destruction of the fish in the Columbia river in American territory. 219 

The sketch map of the 2,700-acre Indian Reserve for the “Shuswap Indians, Kinbasket’s 

Band” that was set aside by O’Reilly in August 1884 indicates a “Fishery” at the north 

end of “Lower Columbia Lake” (Lake Windermere) where it empties into the 

Columbia. 220 Undoubtedly this was the “large and profitable salmon fishery” that 

O’Reilly said “formerly existed on this reserve.” 

218 Field minute, minutes of decision and sketches for the Upper and Lower Kootenay Indians, August 1884 

[contained in Indian Reserve Commissioner Peter O’Reilly’s letter of 16 December 1884 to the Superintendent 

General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa]. Federal Collection, Indian Reserve Commission Minutes of Decision, 

Correspondence and Sketches, Volume 10. Copy held by the Indian Lands Registry, Indian and Northern Affairs 

Canada. BC Regional Office, Vancouver. Pp. 36-42, 56-57; the Provincial set of these same materials is found in: 

Provincial Minutes of Decision etc. O’Reilly to the Chief Commissioner of Lands & Works, Victoria. 19 November 

1884. BC Archives, Victoria. GR 2982, Box 3, Item 3041/84. 





Vancouver. Pp. 11-20; the Provincial set of these same materials is found in: Provincial Minutes of Decision etc. 

O’Reilly to the Chief Commissioner of Lands & Works, Victoria. 19 November 1884. BC Archives, Victoria. GR 

2982, Box 3, Item 3041/84. 

220 Field minute, minute of decision and sketch for the “Shuswap Indians, Kinbasket’s Band”, August 1884 

[contained in Indian Reserve Commissioner Peter O’Reilly’s letter of 17 December 1884 to the Superintendent 

General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa]. Federal Collection, Indian Reserve Commission Minutes of Decision, 

Correspondence and Sketches, Volume 10. Copy held by the Indian Lands Registry, Indian and Northern Affairs 

Canada. BC Regional Office, Vancouver. Page 18; the Provincial set of these same materials is found in: Provincial 

Minutes of Decision etc. O’Reilly to the Chief Commissioner of Lands & Works, Victoria. 19 November 1884. BC 

Archives, Victoria. GR 2982, Box 3, Item 3041/84. 




2.3.2 Fishing 

The most important species obtained in this region was salmon. The people would make their 

first camp in August, at Brisco on the Columbia River, and after taking salmon there for a while, 

would move up the Columbia to the fishing site near Fairmont Hot Springs. 221 Here the salmon 

runs were of some size and good quality in August and September, but by October were 

declining both in condition and in numbers. The salmon fishing season ended with a small catch 

made at the site of Athalmer 222 (near Invermere) where a weir was constructed to catch the 

salmon. 223 In former times, the Michel Prairie people occasionally fished the fall run of salmon 

in the Columbia Lakes area. 224 Reports of locals non-Aboriginal Kootenay residents interviewed 

prior to 1940 stated that it was spring (Chinook) salmon that were once plentiful on the upper 

Columbia and that they spawned in beds by Athalmar and the Columbia Lakes. It was “not 

uncommon to observe some fifty teepees of the Indians on the flats of Athalmer, who took large 

numbers of salmon off the salmon beds for their winter food.” 225 

221 This fishing site was identified by Schaeffer (1934-1969, Reel 2) elsewhere in his notes as “kakasítłuk” 

(?) meaning ‘mouth of river’ and referring to the site where Dutch Creek “empties into Columbia, not far from 

Fairmont Springs.” Present-day topographical maps indicated that Dutch Creek actually enters into the west side of 

the north end of Columbia Lake, about 5 Km south from Fairmont Hot Springs. This site, Schaeffer added, was 

where the Columbia Lakes people fished salmon in September, following their fishing at Brisco [and at Toby 

Creek]. As well, Schaeffer noted there was a camp site here. See also Schaeffer 1940, page 41. Another site that is 

likely in this general area that was identified by Schaeffer (1934-1969, Microfilm No. 2) as a salmon fishing site of 

the Columbia Lakes people was “kołwa . ákak” (?) meaning ‘berries of rosebush’ [wild rose]. This was a site “on 

north side of Geary Creek, where it empties into Columbia.” Schaeffer stated that the Columbia Lakes people 

speared salmon here, and that there was a camp site here. However, it has not been possible to find “Geary Creek” 

on any map reviewed to date. 

222 See also Schaeffer 1940, page 41. Schaeffer (1934-1969, Reel 2) elsewhere in his fieldnotes identified 

this fishing site near Athalmer as “koatákanuk” (?) meaning ‘where lake empties into river.’ Schaeffer noted this 

was a shallow place where the salmon spawned, that it was the last site where the Columbia Lakes people fished, in 

October, and that there was a camp site here. 

223 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reels 1 and 2 

224 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reels 1 and 2; Schaeffer 1982, page 6. Like the “kátamukinik” people, the Michel 

Prairie people are said to have been almost entirely wiped out by the 1781-1782 smallpox epidemic (Schaeffer 1982, 

pp. 4, 8-9). 

225 Letter of C.H. Robinson, Fishery Supervisor, to Director, Pacific Biological Station, 9 May 1940. The 

Director forwarded a copy of the letter to Claude Schaeffer on 14 May 1940. It is now among the papers of the 

Schaeffer collection (1934-1969, Reel 1). 




According to Schaeffer, tradition suggests that prior to White contact, the Upper Kutenai were 

more dependent upon the rivers for their food supply—especially during the late winter—than 

they were during the historic period . 226 

During the period of the salmon runs, fish were taken by means of the detachable-point spear. 

Men would either wade into the shallow waters of the spawning beds to spear the fish, or spear 

them from the shore. As well, narrow waterways in the Columbia Lakes area were said to have 

been blocked off by means of nets, and the salmon thus confined were speared . 227 

The fall catch of salmon in the Columbia Lakes area that was not eaten fresh was sundried on 

drying racks and stored for use five or six months hence. For storage, these fish were packed in 

“flat envelopes” made from salmon skins which were then laid in bark boxes that were stored on 

tree platforms or in log structures. 228 

Methods of fishing employed by the Upper Kutenai of the Columbia Lakes area included 

fish traps used in the tributaries of creeks and rivers empyting into these lakes. Fish 

caught by these methods included whitefish, suckers and squawfish. 229 

2.3.3 Hunting 

Schaeffer reported that “long ago” moose were said to be numerous in the region of Columbia 

Lakes, around Michel Prairie, and further north. Moose were sometimes hunted in July, when 

Saskatoon berries ripen, as that was the time they were in their best condition. A special 

ceremony was held when the first moose was killed in summer. 230 Sometimes the Michel Prairie 

people together with the Tobacco Plains people hunted moose and elk, in winter, north of the 

Columbia Lakes, occasionally as far north as Golden. 231 

226 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reel 1. See also Schaeffer 1940, page 31. 



229 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reels 1 and 2. See also Schaeffer 1940, page 32. 

230 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reel 1. See also Schaeffer 1940, page 28. 

231 Elsewhere in his notes, citing information he recorded in 1935, Schaeffer (1934-1969, Reel 2) said he 

was told it was “previous to a hundred years ago” that the “aganahónek” (Tobacco Plains people) and 

“gakawakamitúkinik” (Michel Prairie people) used to go hunting together for moose and elk north of Columbia 

Lakes and “probably as far north as Golden.” These statements were subsequently repeated in a posthumouslypublished 

article by Schaeffer (1982, page 6), and in his doctoral dissertation (Schaeffer 1940, page 28). These 

Michel Prairie people, like the “kátamukinik” people, are said to have been almost entirely wiped out by the 1781- 

1782 smallpox epidemic (Schaeffer 1982, pp. 4, 8-9). 




There were no deer in the Columbia Lakes vicinity so the people here had to go south to the area 

around Jennings, Montana to hunt deer. But there was an abundance of elk around the Columbia 

Lakes, as well as mountain goats, mountain sheep and moose. 232 

Ducks and geese were hunted in spring at the Columbia Lakes and at Brisco. Hunters used 

decoys made from a deer’s foreleg fastened to a stick to attract these birds at their feeding 

grounds, then shot them with bows and arrows. As well, nets hung between trees were used to 

ensnare ducks in flight, as these birds were said to fly low at night in this region. 233 

2.3.4 Gathering 

According to Claude Schaeffer, “tree moss” [black tree lichen (Alectoria fremontii)] was one of 

the more important vegetal foods. Around the Columbia Lakes, tree moss and “wild onions” 

[nodding onions (Allium cernuum)] were mixed and pit-roasted together. Elsewhere in his notes 

Schaeffer said that the Columbia Lakes people in spring and summer would pit-roast tree moss 

alone on the east side of Columbia and Windermere Lakes. Schaeffer wrote that: “Old root pits 

were said to be numerous along both lake shores [Lake Windermere and Columbia Lake] and 

would still be seen until late years.” In winter periods of scarcity, tree moss was often boiled 

with the stomach contents or even the droppings of the fool hen or sage grouse for added 

flavour. 234 

According to Schaeffer’s Ktunaxa consultants, the two main varieties of wild fruits gathered 

were “serviceberries” [Saskatoon berries (Amelanchier alnifolia) ] and chokecherries [Prunus 

virginiana]. A “first-fruits” ceremony was held at the time of gathering the first Saskatoon 

berries. These berries were usually dried in the sun and stored away, while chokecherries were 

crushed, formed into cakes, and dried. 235 

The Columbia Lakes people, together with the Michel Prairie and Tobacco Plains people, 

travelled to the Wigwam River, located east from Tobacco Plains, to obtain camas [Camassia 

quamash], an important root food for their people. 236 



234 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reels 1 and 2. See also Schaeffer 1940, p. 43. 

235 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reel 1. See also Schaeffer 1940, pp. 43-44. 

236 Schaeffer 1934-1969, Reel 2. See also Schaeffer 1940, pp. 44-45. 




3.0 FIRST NATIONS WHO MAY CLAIMS RIGHTS AND TITLE 

INTERESTS 

Several First Nations’ political organizations are claiming interests in all or portions of the 

proposed Columbia Valley Transmission Project area. These organizations are: the Ktunaxa 

Nation; the Secwepemc Nation; the Shuswap Indian Band, and; the Sexqeltkemc or Lakes 

Division of the Secwepemc Nation (comprised of the Neskonlith, Adams Lake, and Splatsin 

[Spallumcheen] Bands). 

The overlapping claims put forward by these Aboriginal organizations arise from overlapping 

assertions of rights and title. There is also disagreement among the Aboriginal claimants on the 

identification of the appropriate political entity that may hold the rights and title interests. 

Hence, there is disagreement among the First Nations themselves regarding whose interests they 

purport to represent, with occasional conflicts separating individual “Band” interests from those 

being asserted by larger “Nation” governments, resulting in dual organizations claiming to 

represent the same aboriginal interests. There is disagreement on the history of the Shuswap 

Indian Band who assert ancient Aboriginal rights and title interests, with the result that this Band 

is in conflict with the Ktunaxa Nation, with the former government not recognizing the Band’s 

political autonomy or the Band’s interpretation of the historical data on which its claim rests. 

The following section discusses the identity and interrelationship of these claimant groups and 

reviews the territory being claimed by them, as presented by the First Nations, themselves, in 

correspondence, reports, treaty statements, and through First Nation-sponsored web pages on the 

internet. Information presented here focuses of the data used by the specific group for the basis 

of their claim. 

The discussion that follows is divided into three sections based solely on the Aboriginal speech 

community, in order to address most easily the complex relationships between particular 

claimant groups: Ktunaxa or Kutenai-speaking claimants (2.1), and ; Secwepemc or Shuswapspeaking 

claimants, including the Sexqeltkemc or Lakes Division as well as the co-called “Snare 

Indians” (2.2). 

3.1 Political Representation of Ktunaxa or Kutenai-speaking claimants 

In 1970, a single political organization known as the Kootenay Indian District Council was 

established to represent all the Ktunaxa Bands in British Columbia. Between the years 1991 and 

2005 this organization also included the Secwepemc-speaking Shuswap Indian Band at 

Invermere and was known by the name “Ktunaxa/ Kinbasket Tribal Council” (KKTC). Since the 

departure of the Shuswap Band in 2005, however, the name changed to “Ktunaxa Nation 

Council” (KNC). Documents available online indicate that the split was not welcomed by the 

Ktunaxa who continue to assert their earlier occupation of the Invermere area and the superior 




nature of their rights and title claim over any exclusive interests of the Shuswap Indian Band to 

the same lands. 

Effective September 14, 2005, the Shuswap Indian Band or Kinbasket Shuswap Band declared 

its independence from what had been called the Ktunaxa/ Kinbasket Tribal Council. 

Subsequently the Shuswap Indian Band supported their claims of autonomy by completing a 

“Traditional Use Study” in 2008 that presented their interpretation of relevant historical and 

ethnographic facts. The Kutanaxa Nation Council responded to the Shuswap Indian Band’s 2005 

withdrawal by announcing their reaffirmation of their recognition of the Shuswap Kinbasket’s 

“citizenship” in the Ktunaxa Nation. 237 In their media release of 25 May 2005 the KNC also 

affirmed their underlying title to the lands settled by the Shuswap Kinbasket. 

Concerning the cultural affiliation of Ktunaxa Nation Council members, the website of the 

Ktunaxa Nation, represented by the KNC, states the following: 

The majority of Ktunaxa Nation citizens originate from the Ktunaxa or 

Kootenai culture. However, the Nation also contains descendants of the 

Kinbasket family, a small group of Shuswap (Secwepemc) people who 

journeyed east from Shuswap territory in the mid-1800's into Ktunaxa 

territory looking for a permanent home. Ktunaxa leadership allowed the 

Shuswap Kinbasket people to stay in Ktunaxa territory where they 

eventually settled in the Invermere area and became members of the 

Ktunaxa Nation. 238 

It is the position of the KNC political organization that Ktunaxa Nation “citizenship” is 

comprised of “seven Bands located throughout historic traditional Ktunaxa territory.” One of the 

seven listed bands is the “Kyaknuqłi?it” or Kinbasket Shuswap Band situated at Invermere. The 

KNC does not recognize any rights and title interests held by any of the individual seven KFN 

Bands to the exclusion of other KFN rights. It is the position of the KNC that the Shuswap 

Indian Band has a history and language distinct from that of the KFN members Bands, and came 

to the Columbia Valley in the mid-1800s with the agreement of the Ktunaxa leadership. This 

view of the Kinbasket Shuswap history is in dispute. 

In describing the composition of the “Ktunaxa/ Kinbasket Treaty Council,” the Ministry of 

Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation notes that the Shuswap Indian band is not affiliated with 

the Ktunaxa Tribal Council. 239 

September 2009. 

237 http://www.ktunaxa.org/news/documents/MediaReleaseShuswapDeclaration.pdf; Accessed 17 

238 http://www.ktunaxa.org/who/index.html. Accessed September 16, 2009. 

2009. 

239 http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/ktunaxa_kinbasket/default.html#background; Accessed October 5, 




The Shuswap Indian Band maintains its own website and responds to consultation requests 

independently of the KNC or the Secwepemc Nation. 240 

3.2 Political Representation of the Secwepemc-speaking Claimants 

The Columbia Valley Transmission Project lands are within the area claimed by the Shuswap 

Nation Tribal Council (SNTC), said to represent the Adams Lake, Tk’emlups te Secwepemc 

(Kamloops), Shuswap, Little Shuswap, Neskainlith, Skeetchestn, Splatsen, St’uxwtews, 

Whispering Pines/ Clinton, and Simpcw. 241 There are three Shuswap-speaking Bands within the 

overall Secwepemc territory that are not represented by the SNTC. 

As noted above, the Kinbasket Shuswap (“Shuswap” in the above list) are currently members of 

the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, listed as the “Shuswap Indian Band” on the current SNTC 

website. 242 Additionally, SNTC member Bands comprising the Shuswap Lake Division of the 

Shuswap, have recently asserted interests in the Project lands. 243 

It is the position of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, however, that the rights and title interests 

of the Bands are held collectively by the “Nation.” 

It should be noted that according to the work of James Teit, the basic Shuswap political unit was 

the autonomous "band." Teit described Shuswap “bands” as being "composed of a group of 

families closely related among themselves, who generally wintered within a definite locality, at 

or within a few miles of a larger village or centre." 244 Hence, by Teit’s definition, the Kinbasket 

Shuswap would have become an autonomous, independent “band.” 

240 Available online: http://www.shuswapband.net/. 

241 http://www.shuswapnation.org/bands/member-bands/littleshuswap.html#; Accessed 17 September 2009. 

242 http://www.shuswapnation.org/bands/member-bands/shuswap.html; Accessed 17 September 2009. 

243 Sunny LeBourdais (2009). Tult, Transformation of Energy into Matter. Report prepared for 

Sexqéltkemc: the Lakes Division of the Secwepemc Nation. 

244 Teit 1909, page 457. 




4.0 LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL AFFILIATIONS OF THE 

CLAIMANT GROUPS 

The follow section examines the identity of the claimant groups and the territory that they are 

said to have used and occupied in the historic period. 

4.1 Ktunaxa Linguistic and Ethnic Affiliations 

The “Ktunaxa” or Kutenai people speak the Kutenai language. Although “Ktunaxa” is now a 

widely-used popular term in British Columbia, most linguistic and ethnographic studies continue 

to use the spelling “Kutenai” which is often spelled “Kootenai” in the United States. Another 

spelling, “Kootenay,” appears in geographical names in British Columbia, and is widely known. 

There have been literally dozens of spellings of this term since it was first recorded in the early 

1800s. 

“Kutenai” is an anglicization of the term “kotonáwa,” a word said to be used by the Blackfoot to 

refer to the Kutenai people. Apparently the term “kotonáwa” is based on a root “kotóna-” which 

itself may ultimately be derived from the Kutenai word “ktunaxa/ “ (written as “Ktunaxa”). 

This term, “ktunaxa/ ”, as well as the term “ksanka” are the two words in the Kutenai language 

which are used to describe the Kutenai people as a whole, as well as the language. It is said that 

the Montana Kutenai in particular use the word “ksanka” while other Kutenai people generally 

use the term “ktunaxa/ ”. 245 Similar information is provided by anthropologist Bill Brunton who 

notes that the Montana “Kootenai” (Kutenai) use the term “ksanka” for both “themselves and for 

all Kootenais.” Brunton states as well his view that “it is possible that ksanka originally applied 

only to the Lower Kootenai while ktunaxa applied to the Upper Kootenai” 246 (see below for the 

distinction between Upper and Lower Kutenai). 

Most linguists identify Kutenai as a “linguistic isolate” meaning that it is not related to any other 

known language. 247 At one time, all the language families of the Northwest Coast and Plateau 

culture were classified into one of three “phyla”—Na-Dene, Algonkin-Wakashan and 

Penutian—although these phyla are no longer accepted as valid by most linguists. Kutenai, 

245 Lawrence Morgan (1991). A Description of the Kutenai Language. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation in 

Linguistics. Department of Linguistics, University of California at Berkeley. Pp. 1-2. 

246 Bill B. Brunton (1998). Kutenai. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, Plateau (ed. by Deward 

E. Walker Jr.). Smithsonian Institution: Washington DC. Page 236. 

247 Dale Kinkade, William W. Elmendorf, Bruce Rigsby and Haruo Aoki (1998). Languages. Handbook of 

North American Indians, Vol. 12, Plateau (ed. by Deward E. Walker Jr.). Smithsonian Institution: Washington DC. 

Pp. 49-52. 




which was formerly classified within the Algonkin-Wakashan group, is now considered to be a 

language isolate on the Plateau. 248 Numerous other scholars have also identified Kutenai as a 

linguistic isolate. For example, Horatio Hale, who served as ethnologist with the United States 

Exploring Expedition which explored parts of the Oregon Territory in 1841, concluded that 

“Kitunha” [Kutenai] was one of the languages he encountered which could not be grouped with 

any others into a language family. 249 And J.W. Powell’s 1891 classification and map of the 

Native languages of North America north of Mexico also classified “Kitunahan” as an isolate. 250 

More modern studies which classify Kutenai as a linguistic isolate include Voegelin and 

Voegelin (1977) 251 and Goddard (1996). 252 Notwithstanding, linguist Lawrence Morgan, who 

has studied the Kutenai language since the late 1960s and whose Master’s thesis and Doctoral 

dissertation are both on this language, is of the opinion that “Kutenai is remotely and genetically 

related to the Salishan languages.” 253 

Two major social divisions of Kutenai — “Upper Kutenai” and “Lower Kutenai” — are 

recognized. These distinctions, which correspond with two slightly divergent dialects of the 

Kutenai language, are made with reference to the course of the Kootenay River. Upper Kutenai 

is spoken along the upper course of the Kootenay River both in British Columbia and Montana, 

whereas Lower Kutenai is spoken along this river’s lower course, both in B.C. and Idaho. 254 The 

dividing line between Lower and Upper Kutenai has been identified as Kootenai Falls, near 

Troy, Montana. 255 

248 Michael K. Foster (1996). Language and the Culture History of North America. Handbook of North 

American Indians, Vol. 17, Lanugages (ed. by Ives Goddard). Smithsonian Institution: Washington DC. Page 81. 

249 Horatio Hale (1846). Ethnography and Philology. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition 

During the Years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Vol. 6. :535). Lea & Blanchard: Philadelphia. Page 535. 

250 John Wesely Powell (1891). Indian Linguistic Families of American North of Mexico [with map]. In, 7 th 

Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology for the Year 1885-1886. Washington. Pp. 1-142. 

251 Charles F. Voegelin and Florence M. Voegelin (1977). Classification and Index of the World’s 

Languages. Elsevier: New York, Oxford and Amsterdam. Page 209. 

252 Ives Goddard (1996). Introduction. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17, Lanugages (ed. by 

Ives Goddard). Smithsonian Institution: Washington DC. Pp. 1-16. 

253 Morgan 1991, page 494. 

254 Morgan 1991, page 3; Brunton 1998, page 225. 

255 Allan H. Smith (1984). Kutenai Indian Subsistence and Settlement Patterns, Northwest Montana. United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report Series. (Project Report No. 2, Vol. 2, of the Center for Northwest 

Anthropology, Washington State University). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division: Seattle. Pp. 

24, 29-30). Schaeffer (1934-1969, Reel 3) on one occasion in his fieldnotes said this boundary was “a small 

unidentified creek flowing northward into the Kootenay R. near Troy.” See also Harry H. Turney-High (1941). 

Ethnography of the Kutenai. American Anthropological Association Memoirs No. 56. Menasha, Wisconsin. Pp. 14- 

15. Turney-High stated this boundary was in the general vicinity of Libby, Montana, which is not far from Troy. 




Thus, the Columbia Valley Transmission Project area is within the territory of the “Upper 

Kutenai,” as defined by anthropologists and linguists, and is within the overall area claimed by 

the present-day “Ktunaxa Nation Council”. 

While several subgroups or “bands” have been identified within the larger Upper Kutenai and 

Lower Kutenai social divisions of the Kutenai, it is the “Columbia Lake Band” or 

“/a . kisQnuKniK” 256 that is most relevant to the present study. This term, “/a . kisQnuKniK ”, 

translates as ‘people of the two lakes,’ with reference to the “main camp site” of these people, 

located “near Fairmont Hot Springs, between Columbia and Windermere Lakes.” 257 Other 

transcriptions of “/a . kisQnuKniK ”, the name for the Columbia Lake band of the Upper Kutenai, 

include: “aqkísk . Enū´ kinik” 258 ; “aqkiskanū´ kEnik” 259 ; and “akisknúknik” . 260 

Maps delineating Ktunaxa lands consistently include the Columbia Valley Transmission Project 

area within Ktunaxa territory. These include maps prepared by the following: Canadian geologist 

and ethnographer George Dawson (in, Tolmie and Dawson 1884) 261 ; anthropologist and linguist 

Franz Boas (1891; 1928) 262 ; ethnographer James Teit (1909) 263 ; and anthropologists Diamond 

Jenness (1932) 264 , Verne Ray (1936; 1939) 265 and Harry H. Turney-High (1941). 266 The extent of 

256 This is the transcription provided in Brunton 1998, page 226. 


258 Franz Boas (1890). First General Report on the Indians of British Columbia. Pp. 801-893 in, 59 th 

Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1889. London (also issued as a separate 

publication, with different pagination; reprinted in 1974 in Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 8, 

No.’s 1 and 2, pp. 39-91). 

259 A.F. Chamberlain (1893). Report on the Kootenay Indians of South-Eastern British Columbia. Pp. 549- 

614 in, Report of the Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1892. London (reprinted 

in 1974 in Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 8, No.’s 1 and 2, pp. 208-247). 

260 Edward Curtis (1911). The Kutenai. In, The North American Indian, Volume 7. Plimpton Press: 

Norwood, Massachusetts (reprinted in 1970 by Johnson Reprint Company, New York). Pp. 117-155, 167-179. 

261 Tolmie, William F. and George Dawson (1884). Comparative Vocabularies of the Indian Tribes of 

British Columbia, With a Map Illustrating Distribution. Geological and Natural History Survey of Canada. Dawson 

Brothers: Montreal. 

262 Franz Boas (1891). Linguistic Map of British Columbia. Plate XIX In, Second General Report on the 

Indians of British Columbia. Pp. 562-714 in, 60 th Annual Report of the British Association for the Advancement of 

Science for 1890. London (reprinted in 1974 in Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, Vol. 8, No.’s 1 and 2, 

pp. 98-174).; Franz Boas (1928). Map Showing Distribution of Salish Dialects, And of Languages Spoken in the 

Adjoining Territory, Before 1800 . . . Bureau of American Ethnology, 41st Annual Report. Washington D.C. 

263 James Teit (1909). The Shuswap. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History, Volume 4, Part 

7 (Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Volume 2). E.J. Brill: Leiden, Holland. Page 450. 

264 Diamond Jenness (1932). The Indians of Canada. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 65: 

Anthropological Series 15. Ottawa. 




Ktunaxa territory shown on all these maps is discussed by Allan Smith in his review of Kutenai 

boundaries. 267 

4.1.1 Upper Kutenai/Ktunaxa Territory as Delineated in the Ethnographic and 

Historical Literature 

One of the earliest statements about the extent of Kutenai territory was provided by John Work 

of the Hudson’s Bay Company. He indicated in an 1830 report 268 on the “Colvile District” 269 that 

the country of the Aboriginal group he identified as the “Kootanies” “lies on the Kootany river 

from near its discharge to its sources, and on the head of the Columbia river.” Work did not 

provide a map of this territory. 

What is likely the first map delineating Upper Kutenai/Ktunaxa territory with some accuracy is 

the one that was prepared by geologist and ethnographer George Dawson together with medical 

doctor and ethnographer W. Fraser Tolmie. This map, published in 1884, delineates Upper 

Kutenai territory—identified by Dawson as “Kootenuha or Upper Kootanie”—beginning in the 

north from a line starting around Mt. Hooker in the Rocky Mountains and extending southwards 

down the southeastern side of the Wood River to the Columbia River where it crosses the 

Columbia in the vicinity of Boat Encampment. From here, this boundary line extends south 

along the summit of the Rockies, in the east, and in the west along the summit of the mountains 

which extend north and south along the eastern side of the Arrow Lakes. Elsewhere in this 

publication Dawson notes that the “Upper Kootenuha Tribe” inhabit the country “about the headwaters 

of the Kootanie and Columbia Rivers.” Dawson also points out that “a colony of Shuswap 

or Shewwhapmuh [Secwepemc]” had, in 1883, been in existence for “many years…near the 

265 Verne Ray (1936). Native Villages and Groupings of the Columbia Basin. The Pacific Northwest 

Quarterly 27. Pp. 99-152; Verne Ray (1939). Cultural Relations in the Plateau of Northwestern America. 

Publications of the Frederick Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund, Vol. 3. Southwestern Museum: Los Angeles. 

266 Harry H. Turney-High (1941). Ethnography of the Kutenai. American Anthropological Association 

Memoirs No. 56. Menasha, Wisconsin. 

267 Allan H. Smith (1984). Kutenai Indian Subsistence and Settlement Patterns, Northwest Montana. United 

States Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report Series. (Project Report No. 2, Vol. 2, of the Center for Northwest 

Anthropology, Washington State University). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division: Seattle. Pp. 6- 

24. 

268 John Work (1830). Some information relative to Colvile District, April 1830. Hudson’s Bay Company 

Archives, Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Winnipeg. B.45/e/3/1-14. 

269 The “Colvile District,” named after the HBC’s fur trade center established in 1825 at Kettle Falls on the 

Columbia River (about 40 Km south of what later became the Canadian border), comprised the entire Columbia 

River watershed above today’s Grand Coulee Dam, including the Big Bend region of the Columbia. 




second Columbia Lake.” It was noted that this “colony of Shuswap” had been established there 

“within the memory of men still living.” 270 

Upper Kutenai/Ktunaxa territory was also delineated on Franz Boas’s “Linguistic Map of British 

Columbia” which was published in 1891. 271 This map was based primarily on data Boas obtained 

during the course of his fieldwork undertaken between 1888-1889, including Boas’s first Kutenai 

fieldwork which he conducted in July 1888 in the Windermere area. 272 Boas’s map delineates the 

upper extent of “Kutonaqa” (Ktunaxa) territory and the boundary between “Kutonaqa” and 

“Okanaken” (Okanagan) as a line crossing the Columbia River in the vicinity of Beavermouth 

which is about 110 km upriver from Boat Encampment and approximately 40 km downriver 

from Golden. Similar to the Tolmie and Dawson 1884 map, the boundary line extends from here 

south along the summit of the Rockies, in the east, and in the west along the summit of the 

mountains which extend north and south along the eastern side of the Arrow Lakes. 

James Teit’s (1910-1913) fieldnotes reporting on his discussions with Ktunaxa people state: 

“They claimed the country around the heads of the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers had always 

been upper Kutenai hunting country until the Shuswap came.” 273 The last clause undoubtedly 

relates to the Kinbasket Shuswap. 274 In other notes Teit writes: “On the west side of the Rockies 

the Kutenai do not claim any territory north of about Donald on the upper Columbia. The region 

is now occupied by the Shuswap but the Kutenai claim it as old hunting grounds.” 275 

4.1.2 Kutenai Territory as Asserted by Ktunaxa Nation Council 

A resolution of 18 November 1993 submitted to the B.C. Treaty Commission by the then-called 

Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council sets out their tribal lands as follows: 

the territory of the Ktunaxa people extends from the Big Bend of the 

Columbia River north of Donald Station then south including all of the 

Kootenay sinuosities to Missoula Montana then west to Bonner’s Ferry, 

270 Tolmie and Dawson 1884. Dawson said that he obtained his Upper Kutenai linguistic data in 1883 from 

an Aboriginal man identified only as “Joe,” living at Joseph’s Prairie. Pp. 5B, 124B-125B, and Map. 

271 Boas 1891, Plate XIX. 

272 Ronald P. Rohner (1969). The Ethnography of Franz Boas: Letters and Diaries of Franz Boas Written 

on the Northwest Coast from 1886 to 1931. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Pp. 101-103. 

273 Teit (1910-1913). Notes to Maps of the Pacific Northwest. American Philosophical Society Library, 

Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372, Roll 4, No. 1, Item 59 (copy held by the B. C. Archives, Victoria. Add. Mss. 

1425, Microfilm A-239). 

274 These notes are not mentioned in the two studies prepared by Fish Lake Consulting for the Shuswap 

Indian Band that have been reviewed in this present repory. 

275 Teit 1908-1920. 




Idaho, then north to the Upper Arrow Lakes area of British Columbia 

then east across the Big Bend of the Columbia River to the eastern slopes 

of the Rocky Mountains. 276 

This area is delineated on the map of “Traditional Territory of the Ktunaxa Nation” that appears 

on their website . 277 While the area involved in the Treaty process includes the Columbia Valley 

Project lands, this area does not include the overall lands said to delineate the approximate extent 

of traditional Ktunaxa 

territory. 

In support of Ktunaxa 

presence in this area, 

present-day elder 

Wilfred Jacobs 

provided a “Ktunaxa 

Creation Story” that 

appears also on the 

Ktunaxa website. The 

story tells how a 

monster traveled 

around the country 

from place to place as 

it was chased by a war 

party. The story 

mentions numerous 

landmarks, including 

the Big Bend, and thus 

encompasses the 

Project lands within an 

area said to be 

appropriated by the 

Ktunaxa at the 

beginning of time. 278 

276 Ktunaxa/Kinbasket Tribal Council 1993. Statement of Intent to Negotiate a Treaty. December 16 th , 

1993. On file with the British Columbia Treaty Commission Office, Vancouver, B.C. 

277 http://www.ktunaxa.org/who/popup_tradterritorymap.html; Accessed 5 October 2009. Slight revisions 

to this statement are reflected on a map submitted by the KNC to the BC government to accompany documents 

dated February 2009. http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/haa/Docs/Ktunaxa_MPB_20MAY09.pdf. The Columbia Valley 

Project lands continue to be included within the area that the KFN identify as their traditional territory. 

278 Schaeffer (cited in Brunton 1998, page 255) recorded another story describing the Ktunaxa entry and 

expansion in the world by travelling downstream along the Kootenay River. 




4.1.3 KNC Relations with the Kinbasket Shuswap 

The Ktunaxa are of the opinion that “Ktunaxa leadership allowed the Shuswap Kinbasket people 

to stay in Ktunaxa territory.” For support of this position the Ktunaxa point to earlier territorial 

claims made by Chief Isidore of the “Upper Kootenay” during his 1884 meeting with Indian 

Commissioner Peter O’Reilly: 

The Chief stated, again and again, that he would not accept any limits to 

his reservation, unless they included the whole valley of the Kootenay, 

and Columbia rivers, (from the International boundary line) and followed 

the base of the Rocky Mountains to the Boat Landing on the Columbia 

River. 279 

Chief Isidore claimed the most eastern valley of the Columbia, the area upstream (i.e., southeast) 

from Boat Encampment, and east to the Rocky Mountains, and as such would include the 

Columbia Valley Transmission Project lands. 

In July 1884, Sub-chief David of Tobacco Plains presented a more conservative statement on the 

extent of territory and claimed “the whole country from the boundary line to the Columbia 

Lakes.” 280 The extent of the lands delineated by this sub-chief would include the Columbia 

Valley Transmission Project lands. 

It is the contemporary position of the Shuswap Indian Band that a geographical division exists 

between the Shuswap Indian Band and the Columbia Lake Band of the Ktunaxa in terms and 

land and resource use: 

From the interviews done for the Kenpesq’t [Kinbasket] TLUS, its seems 

that while the Kootenay and Kenpesq’t territories may have overlapped 

and been willingly shared at times, the general consensus was that the 

Kootenay use was concentrated from the Akisq’nik [Columbia Lake 


General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa [re: summer 1884 meeting to set aside Indian Reserves for the Upper Kootenay 

Indians]. Federal Collection, Indian Reserve Commission Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, 

Volume 10, page 30. Copy held by the Indian Lands Registry, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. BC Regional 

Office, Vancouver. 


General of Indian Affairs, Ottawa [re: summer 1884 meeting to set aside Indian Reserves for the Upper Kootenay 

Indians]. Federal Collection, Indian Reserve Commission Minutes of Decision, Correspondence and Sketches, 

Volume 10, page 24. Copy held by the Indian Lands Registry, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. BC Regional 

Office, Vancouver. 




Band] reserve and south, while the Kenpesq’t use was concentrated from 

the Kenpesq’t reserve north. 281 

Statements by the leadership of the Ktunaxa Nation do not appear so accommodating. The 

Ktunaxa Nation continues to recognize a superior claim of rights and title to the area now 

comprising the Columbia Valley Transmission Project lands. 

4.2 Secwepemc (Shuswap) Speaking Claimants 

The Secwepemc Nation Tribal Council (SNTC), as representing most of the the Shuswapspeaking 

people, 282 as well as the newly-reconstituted Secwepemc division called the 

“Sexqéltkemc,” focused around Shuswap Lake, may assert aboriginal rights and title to the 

Columbia Valley Transmission Project area. 

4.2.1 Divisions or “Bands” Comprising the Secwepemc 

The basic Shuswap political unit, according to ethnographer James Teit, was the autonomous 

band “composed of a group of families closely related among themselves, who generally 

wintered within a definite locality, at or within a few miles of a larger village or centre." 283 

George Dawson also describes winter villages as being "the permanent centres of the tribal 

subdivisions." 284 However, each Shuswap band used a number of small villages in addition to the 

central village, and thus Teit describes the residency pattern and affiliation of families 

constituting these small villages as subjective. 285 Village groups changed their band affiliation as 

it suited their needs, and band populations and composition was in constant flux. 

The relative permanence of the bands varied throughout Secwepemc territory. Some divisions of 

the Secwepemc, specifically some bands of the upper North Thompson Shuswap, were formerly 

very nomadic with no main winter village, while others such as the bands of the Canyon 

division, located near productive salmon fisheries, were almost sedentary. Most, however, were 

semi-nomadic. 286 

281 Fish Lake Consulting, on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band 2009, page 22. 

282 As previously noted, three of the Secwepemc-speaking Bands do not belong to the SNTC. 

283 Teit 1909, page 457 

284 Dawson 1892, page 8. 

285 Teit 1909, page 457. 

286 Teit 1909, pp. 459-60, 569-70. 




In his 1909 publication, ethnographer James Teit identified clusters of Secwepemc bands in the 

mid and late 19th century as being grouped into seven "well recognized" tribal "divisions," 

including: 287 

1. Fraser River Division: inhabiting the environs of the Fraser River from 

High Bar to Soda Creek, including Clinton, the Empire valley and the 

Green Timber Plateau. They claim as their hunting ground the west side of 

the Fraser for as much as 30 miles back; 

2. Canyon Division (territory now occupied by the Chilcotin): inhabiting the 

west side of the Fraser River from Churn Creek to beyond Risky Creek, 

including the Chilcotin River, below the canyon, and west to near 

Hanceville. On the north and south they hunted over the same area as the 

Fraser River Division; 

3. Lake Division: inhabiting the interior plateau between Fraser and North 

Thompson Rivers, including the Lac la Hache area, with hunting grounds 

extending north to the Caribou Mountains opposite Yellowhead Pass; 

4. North Thompson Division: inhabiting the North Thompson River east to 

the Rocky Mountains. They are sometimes divided into two groups: one 

about 50 miles north of the mouth of the river, and the other a nomadic 

group residing in the Rocky Mountains around the headwaters of the 

North Thompson; 

5. Bonaparte Division: inhabiting the valley of the Bonaparte River to near 

Ashcroft on the Thompson River, including Cache Creek, Loon Lake and 

the lower Hat Creek area, through Marble Canyon to Pavilion and both 

banks of the Fraser River near there; 

6. Kamloops Division: inhabiting the environs of Kamloops Lake and 

Savona. Their hunting grounds include part of the South and main 

Thompson Rivers, the North Thompson as far as Louis Creek, all of 

Deadman's Creek, and some of the headwaters of the Bonaparte; 

7. Shuswap Lake Division: inhabiting the upper South Thompson, Shuswap 

Lake and Spallumcheen River. They hunt south along Salmon River and 

north on Adams Lake to the Columbia, and east to around Mabel and 

Sugar Lakes. 

287 Teit 1909, pp. 453-456. 




The SNTC asserts an interest in a large territory identified as “Secwepemcul’ecw Traditional 

Territory” that purports to be based on “extensive research of historical maps and documents,” 

including maps by Marianne Boelscher. 288 The most recent map illustrating as 

“Secwepemcul’ecw Traditional Territory” can be found on the Shuswap Nation website. 289 The 

area delineated as Secwepemc territory is greatly expanded from the map accompanying 

Marianne Boelscher Ignace’s 1998 article on Shuswap in the Handbook of North American 

Indians. 290 Importantly for the purposes of the present study, this Secwepemc territorial map now 

includes the area south of Windermere, as far as the Canada-US border, and therefore 

encompasses all of the territory in southeast BC generally associated with the Ktunaxa. Although 

this most recent Secwepemc territorial map is not in accord with the maps on which it is said to 

be based, no other explanation is offered. Additionally, the Shuswap Band has a map delineating 

its own “Traditional Territory.” The Shuswap Indian Band submitted a copy of this map during 

regulatory proceedings for the proposed Glacier Howser Hydroelectric Project. This map is 

available online. 291 

Recognition of a “Nation” 

The data suggest that land and its resources were the common property of the Secwepemc, with 

certain bands having customary use of particular areas. Only when individuals invested special 

labour (as in the construction of deer fences) was privileged access to resources acknowledged. 

Where resources were not particularly valued or were very plentiful, the uninvited presence of 

non- Secwepemc was tolerated, providing they did not harass any Secwepemc parties or steal 

their property. The Secwepemc use of territory was not necessary to the exclusion of other 

indigenous people. Teit gives an account of the Sekani Athapaskan intruding upon Shuswap 

territory in the Upper Fraser River area. 292 After annoying the Secwepemc for several years, 

including murdering a few people, an allied Secwepemc war party eventually drove the Sekani 

back over the mountains. 

288 Anthropologist Dr. Marianne Boelscher Ignace is the wife of former Skeetchestn (Deadman’s Creek) 

Chief , Dr. Ron Ignace, who recently completed his doctoral dissertation in anthropology. See Ron Ignace (2008). 

Our Oral Histories Are Our Iron Posts: Secwepemc Stories and Historical Consciousness.” Ph.D dissertation, 

Department of Sociology and Anthropology. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby. 

289 Available online: http://www.shuswapnation.org/pdf/maps/Secwepemc-Map-2009_07_09b.pdf; 

accessed 7 November 2009. This map is dated 13 March 2009 and apparently was added to the website in 

September 2009. 

290 Marianne Boelscher-Ignace. Shuswap. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, Plateau (ed. by 

Deward E. Walker Jr.). Smithsonian Institution: Washington DC. Page 204. 

291 Available online at: 


12176cfc051ed407d456a922c101567f0.PDF; accessed 9 November 2009. 

292 Teit 1909, page 546. 




In another report the present authors made a statement concerning the Aboriginal perspective on 

“places of cultural significance,” and pointed out what is meant by use of the term “traditional 

territory”: 

It should also be noted, however, that First Nations have a relationship 

with much broader territories than the specific sites identified by name. 

They used and occupied lands that we refer to commonly as their 

“traditional territory.” Their use of such territory was not necessarily to 

the exclusion of other indigenous people, but this territory did contain 

a particular group’s winter villages and customarily-used resourceharvesting 

sites. In the present report, when we speak of a specific area 

being within the “traditional territory” of a certain people, we mean that 

the area was used primarily by these people and that they and other tribes 

regarded it as their territory. Indigenous people associated with other tribes 

may have used the same area, provided they made their presence and 

amicable intentions known, or travelled there as guests of the resident First 

Nation. While incursion into a neighbouring First Nation’s territory and 

exploitation of their resources was not uncommon, when done without 

permission it often resulted in forceful retaliation. 293 

This passage is noted here because a portion of it has been cited in the July 2009 report entitled 

“Tult, Transformation of Energy Into Matter,” prepared by Sunny LeBourdais for the Lakes 

Division (“Sexqéltkemc”) of the Secwepemc Nation. Sunny LeBourdais introduces the statement 

by saying that resources “were managed by the community [and] were accessible by all its 

members.” 294 The LeBourdais report also states: 

Each ‘Division’ or People also had the responsibility of defending the 

boundaries of the Nation. The Secwepemc Nation was well defined in 

terms of its boundaries and the laws governed who were allowed to use 

resources within its boundaries.” 295 

Thus, it is the position of the report written on behalf of the Sexqéltkemc that resource 

management occurred at the band level but that the bands coordinated themselves into the 

“Nation.” The study also concludes that while there “was no chief at the Nation level[,] the 

Secwepemc society functioned as a confederated political entity with representation from each 

293 Randy Bouchard and Dorothy Kennedy (2005a). First Nations Aboriginal Interests and Traditional Use 

in the Waneta Hydroelectric Expansion Project Area: A Summary of Known and Available Background 

Information. Prepared for Waneta Expansion Power Corporation, Castlegar BC (Revised in November 2005 from 

the August 2004 report with the same title). Page 12. 

294 Sunny LeBourdais (2009). Tult, Transformation of Energy Into Matter. Report prepared for 

Sexqéltkemc: the Lakes Division of the Secwepemc Nation. Page 6. 

295 LeBourdais 2009, page 6. 




community.” 296 This is also the position put forward recently by Ron Ignace. 297 <strong>Evidence</strong> 

presented in the Sexqéltkemc report in support of this assertion is a Memorial from the Shuswap 

chiefs submitted to Wilfrid Laurier in 1910. 298 Statements in support of the assertion that the 

Secwepemc “nation” as a whole functioned as a “confederated political entity” are not included, 

apart from this 1910 Memorial, and reference to the so-called “Fish Lake Accord,” an agreement 

that took place in the late 18 th century between a Kamloops chief and his half-brother, an 

Okanagan chief, providing for a land transfer to the latter’s band. 299 The example, however, 

shows political affairs being centered in the band. 

Teit reported that the man designated chief of the Shuswap band or kingroup had little authority 

or privileges; his main responsibility was to “look after the general welfare of the band, 

regulating, when necessary, the gathering of the food supply, so that all could have an equal 

share”. 300 The powers of the (loosely) hereditary chief – other than providing advice, acting as an 

agent in dealings with strangers, and arbitrating disputes – were limited in his control over the 

lives of co-resident families. 301 Some groups of Secwepemc also had war chiefs, hunting chiefs 

and dance chiefs elected because of skill and achievement. It is to this type of leadership that 

Boas refers when he states, “common people can, on account of bravery or wealth, attain a high 

rank.” 302 

Anthropologist James Brow’s 1972 study provides support for a common recognition of 

Secwepemc territory without a paramount political organization. One Alkali Lake elder, David 

Johnson, explicitly stated in a 1966 interview with Brow that: 

Each band had its own chief, and there was no chief of all the Shuswap. 

Each band was independent, but the Shuswap bands were all friendly 

with each other. But I don’t know of any common organizations. 303 

296 LeBourdais 2009, page 6. The reference for this statement is given as an unnamed 2009 manuscript by 

Marianne Boelscher Ignace. 

297 Ignace 2008, page 108. 


299 James Teit (1930). The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus. Franz Boas, ed. Forty-fifth Annual 

Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. United States Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. Page 

265 

300 Teit 1909, page 570. 

301 Verne Ray (1939) Cultural Relations in the Plateau of Northwestern America. Publications of the 

Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund, Vol. 3. Los Angeles: Southwestern Museum. Pp. 15, 18. 

302 Boas 1891, page 85. 

303 James Brow (1972). Shuswap of Canada [A Cross-Cultural Study of Ethnocentrism]. Human Relations 

Area Files, Inc.: New Haven, Connecticut. Page 49. 




Alice Belleau of Alkali Lake also opined that she did not know of any Shuswap-wide 

organization that united the bands, but that their relations were friendly. 304 Other respondents 

supported the concept of the totality of unbounded band lands comprising the territorial holdings 

of the Secwepemc people. 

Pierre Squinahan of Alkali Lake responded to the question about individual band boundaries 

before Europeans came by saying: 

There was no real boundary. The different bands lived in different places 

by the land belonged to all the Shuswap. 305 

David Johnson also distinguished access to hunting grounds, available to all Shuswap people, 

from access to fisheries and to village sites, the property of a residential group, but he, too, 

stressed the undifferentiated territory associated with the Shuswap speech-community: 

There was no fixed boundary. Each band had its special fishing places 

and places where it used to build its winter villages, but the land was 

belonged to all the Shuswap and anyone could hunt where he wanted. 306 

Teit also concluded that each band "had its common recognized hunting, trapping and fishing 

places, but members of any other bands were allowed to use them without restriction, whenever 

they desired." 307 Each family was relatively independent and was able to procure and process 

what it required, with equal access to the same resources as other families. 

Apart from the recognition of a common territory occupied by Shuswap-speaking people, and the 

association of bands or kin-groups with particular territories, there is some data available 

concerning specific hunting locations that were regulated. Fragmentary data concerning such 

stewardship is provided in the ethnographic literature. Boas reports that among the Shuswap, 

"tribes [i.e., bands] and families had separate hunting grounds originally" but at the time of his 

investigation among the Kamloops Shuswap [in 1889], this practice was all but forgotten. 308 

Boas contrasts this with the communal ownership of the resource and states: 

It seems that the various tribes of the Shuswap had no separate hunting 

grounds, but that they hunted over the whole territory, wherever they 

liked...Disputes arising between members of the same tribe were 

generally settled by arbitration. For instance, where a number of men had 

driven deer into a lake, and a dispute arose as to who had driven one 

304 Brow 1972, page 52. 

305 Brow 1972, page 46. 

306 Brow 1972, page 49. 

307 Teit 1909, page 572. 

308 Boas 1891, page 86 




particular deer, an arbitrator was appointed, who had to track it and 

whose decision was. 309 

Boas' reference to family hunting grounds is almost identical to a passage appearing in Dawson 310 

stating that "all the Shuswaps formerly had hereditary hunting grounds, each family having its 

own peculiar hunting place or places." Additionally, Dawson reports that hunters invited friends 

to accompany them on hunts, and that specific rules governed the distribution of the resulting 

meat and skin. He also notes that the owner of a hunting territory, on learning of a kill within his 

locality by a trespasser, expected to be feasted with the poached game. 311 

There were also property rights associated with a specific type of hunting apparatus. A deer 

fence that was made by an individual and left in situ was, according to Teit 312 , inheritable 

property that could be bequeathed to the next of kin, or if not wanted, sold "to a stranger." 

Among the Shuswap, ownership was attached to the fence itself, and not to the property on 

which it was used. And as Teit observed, if the fence was abandoned for a number of years, 

anyone could erect a new one or snare deer in that particular place. 313 

4.2.2 Shuswap Lake Division 

Of interest to the Columbia Valley Transmission Project is the relationship between the 

“Shuswap Lake Division”—as described by Teit in his 1909 publication and recently 

reconstituted as the “ ‘Sexqeltkemc’ Lakes Division of the Secewpemc Nation”—and the 

contemporary “Shuswap Indian Band” situated in the Project area at Lake Windermere. 

As of July 24 th 2009, according to the report compiled by Sunny LeBourdais, Technical 

Coordinator of the “Sexqeltkemc” Lakes Division, not all of the member bands had agreed to 

reconstitute the Shuswap Lakes Division, as recognized and described by Teit: 

The modern Lakes Division consists of the communities of Neskonlith, 

Adams Lakes and Splatsin who have signed a resource sharing protocol 

in their movement towards re-uniting the Sexqéltkemc. These 

communities have been re-united by their common interests to further 

309 Boas 1891, page 86. 



312 Teit 1909:573; James Teit (1900). The Thompson Indians. Memoirs of the American Museum of 

Natural History 2. Pp. 293-294. Ron Ignace (2008) disparages the views of Boas and Dawson concerning owned 

hunting territories. It is his opinion that “caretakers” of particular resources acted on behalf of the Secwepemc nation 

and not a family, the band or local community. 

313 Teit 1909, page 573. 




their assertion of Aboriginal Title and Rights and to re-instate themselves 

as Yecweminmen Sexqéltk (Caretakers/ Stewards of the Lakes Region). 

While this historical group of people would have included both the 

communities of Little Shuswap and trhe Shuswap (or Kinbaskets) these 

communities have not decided at this time to join the present Lakes 

Division protocol. 314 

As reviewed in section 2.2, some accounts of the Kinbasket migration indicate that this band 

originated from a small group who came from the South Thompson River area. Walter Moberly, 

who met and talked with Chief Kinbasket in 1866, is one of those who said that Chief Kinbasket 

came from Little Shuswap Lake. 315 Others, such as Shuswap Band elder Mrs. Shelagh Dehart 

said that her research indicated that her Kinbasket ancestors came from Adams Lake, 316 and her 

uncle, Moses Kinbasket is said to have mentioned their origin from “near Kamloops,” 317 which 

could possibly be his reference to the Adams Lake/Little Shuswap Lake/Shuswap Lake area. 

Others were of the view that they came from the North Thompson. 318 In this section, we will 

address only the relationship between the Kinbasket and the Shuswap Lake division to the west, 

and comment on the Shuswap Lake Division’s use of the Columbia Lakes for hunting. 

The Kinbasket family oral history is that hunters are said to have come upon the Big Bend of the 

Columbia while out hunting and then began to use the area on a seasonal basis. At some time in 

the 1820s to 1850s period they moved east, eventually settling near Lake Windermere. The 

evidence is fragmentary. Mrs. Dehart in her 2006 book said that the hunters were at the start 

“exploring” and went farther east than usual, taking them to a new area in the environs of 

Kinbasket Lake that was rich in game and fur-bearing animals. Once discovered, they continued 

travelling seasonally to this area, sometimes staying away from home for long periods of time. 

Certainly, Father P.J. DeSmet met Shuswap hunters in the Columbia Lakes area in 1845 in the 

company of a Canadian trapper. It is known from fur trade records that Kootenae House 

remained a summer depot in at least 1841, so it was certainly known as a rendezvous place, if not 

a settlement, for the trading of furs. 319 


315 Walter Moberly (1866). In, British Columbia (1869). Columbia River Exploration, 1866: Reports and 



1866-13 September 1866. Pp. 17-18. 

316 Dehart 2006, page 28. 

317 Atkins n.d. 


319 Chance 1981, pp. 53, 93. 




In Teit’s 1909 published description of the hunting grounds of the Shuswap Lake Division he 

places them as far north as the Columbia River, but not explicitly east to the Columbia Valley. In 

short, Teit described the Shuswap Lake Division as inhabiting the upper South Thompson, 

Shuswap Lake and Spallumcheen River and noted that they hunted south along Salmon River 

and north on Adams Lake to the Columbia, and east to around Mabel and Sugar Lakes. He 

initially included within this Division the Arrow Lake Band and marked their territory on the 

Columbia River, albeit south of the Big Bend. 320 He added that they hunted “north on Adams 

Lake to the Columbia above Revelstoke.” 321 Teit subsequently corrected his identification of the 

Arrow Lakes (Sinixt) as Secwepemc. This has been thoroughly addressed by the present authors 

in the study entitled “First Nations’ Ethnography and Ethnohistory in British Columbia’s Lower 

Kootenay/Columbia Hydropower Region.” 322 It is the Secwepemc use of hunting territory farther 

upriver on the Columbia, specifically in the Columbia Valley, that is the focus of this present 

discussion. 

It is significant to note Teit’s description of the North Thompson band’s hunting grounds: 

On the west their hunting grounds are co-extensive with those of the Lake 

division, while east and north they extend along Adams Lake, include 

Canoe River, part of the Big Bend or the Columbia, part of the Rocky 

Mountain region (around the head of the Athabasca), and the Upper 

Fraser country north towards the head of Smoky River nearly to latitude 

54. 323 

In Teit’s 1908-1920 notes, compiled after the 1909 publication (which he mentions in these 

notes), 324 he writes with respect to the Secwepemc that they seldom wintered on the east side of 

the mountains in the Revelstoke area, although: 

. . . the country a little north of Revelstoke (about 15 miles N and 

beyond) was considered Shuswap. . . Numbers of them came across the 

mountains to Revelstoke where sometimes in the fall there were as many 

Shuswap as Lakes [Sinixt, Okanagan-Colville people]. At the end of the 

320 Teit 1909, pp. 450, map, 453-456. 

321 Teit 1909, page 455. 

322 See Randy Bouchard and Dorothy Kennedy (2005). First Nations’ Ethnography and Ethnohistory in 

British Columbia’s Lower Kootenay/Columbia Hydropower Region. Report prepared for Columbia Power 

Coporation , Castlegar BC, in August 2000 and revised/reprinted in April 2005. 

1904. 

323 Teit 1909, page 454; emphasis added. 

324 Teit’s published 1909 work was based on research he undertook among the Shuswap between 1887- 




fishing and berrying these people went up the Columbia on trapping & 

hunting expeditions or returned to Shuswap Lake. 325 

But the question remains: Did these traditional hunting grounds take them to the Columbia 

Lakes? A few bits of additional evidence are contained in Teit’s notes. In his 1908-1920 

collection of notes he describes the Kinbasket as having: 

settled permanently at the head of the Columbia within about four miles 

of the Windermere band of Kunenai. They had previously been a good 

deal in contact with the Assinaboine (Stony) with whom they were goods 

friends. 326 

Teit’s inference is that the Shuswap Lake hunters had been in the north—in the Canoe River, Big 

Bend and Jasper areas—but that their contact with the Ktunaxa living upstream on the Columbia 

River was something new. Their move south put them into contact with people who were not 

part of their regular network. This would be in accord with the oral history as given by Mrs 

Dehart. Still, Teit did remark in his 1909 publication that the Shuswap’s settlement at 

Windermere did not alter their former hunting grounds in any significant way: 

Neither did the settlement of the Kinbaskets on the Upper Columbia 

really mark any change or extension of the tribal boundaries, as that 

region was hunted over more or less by Shuswap parties as far back as 

tradition goes. 327 

What Teit means by “more or less” is certainly open to interpretation. Once the Kinbasket Band 

established themselves at Windermere, their hunting grounds, according to Teit, extended along 

“both sides of the Columbia, north to beyond Golden.” 328 In the mid-1860s, according to the 

Columbia River Exploring Expedition, Kinbasket and his band were nearly always encamped 

about the headwaters of the Columbia, 329 and, importantly, had not begun the cultivation of 

potatoes or other crops. 330 

325 James Teit (1908-1920). Salish ethnographic materials. American Philosophical Society 

Library, Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372, Roll 16, S .7 (copy held by the B.C. Archives, Victoria. 

Add. Mss. 1425, Microfilm A-247). Teit’s comments notwithstanding, several reliable Hudson’s Bay 

Company sources from 1822-1830 reported that Sinixt (Lakes Okanagan-Colville) territory extended 

as far north as the Big Bend/Boat Encampment area (see Bouchard and Kennedy 2005, page 67). 

326 Teit 1908-1920. 

327 Teit 1909, page 462. 

328 

Teit 1909, page 455. 

329 James Turnbull (1865), In, British Columbia (1866-6). Columbia River Exploration, 1865-6: Reports 

and Journals Relating to the Government Exploration of the Country Lying Between the Shuswap and Okanagan 




It is not readily apparent from the historical records if hunters from the South Thompson area 

continued travelling east to hunt, but there are bits that provide some guidance. Ashdown Green, 

a surveyor and member of the Columbia River Exploration party in 1865, observed his guides 

from the area of Chase on the South Thompson holding a war dance before taking him to the 

Columbia River, as they would be “entering a hostile country.” 331 This and other statements in 

these journals and in other sources indicate there were hostilities between the Shuswap and the 

Sinixt at this time. Mrs. Dehart also noted hostile relations between the Shuswap and Ktunaxa. If 

was her opinion that the Ktunaxa decided to be friendly and to allow her ancestors occupation of 

the Columbia Valley. 332 In the 1880s, Canadian Pacific Railway Chief Engineer Sandford 

Fleming remarked that his Secwepemc guides were "on their own ground" once they had reached 

Three Valley Lake (west of Revelstoke) heading west, 333 but his statement was meant to 

distinguish Secwepemc territory from Sinixt territory, and not what area Secwepemc hunters 

may have travelled. 

The 24 July 2009 Sexqéltkemc report acknowledges that: 

Indigenous people associated with other tribes may have used the same 

area, provided they made their presence and amicable intentions known, 

or travelled there as guests of the resident First Nation. While 

incursion into a neighbouring First Nation’s territory and 

exploitation of their resources was not uncommon, when done without 

permission it often resulted in forceful retaliation. 334 

Lakes and the Rocky Mountains. Government Printing Office: Victoria BC. Mr. Turnbull’s Journal [20 July 1865- 

29 November 1865]. Page 32. 

330 Walter Moberly (1866), In, British Columbia (1869). Columbia River Exploration, 1866: Reports and 



1866-13 September 1866]. Page 17. 

331 Ashdown Green (1865). In, British Columbia (1866). Columbia River Exploration, 1865-6: Reports 

and Journals Relating to the Government Exploration of the Country Lying Between the Shuswap and Okanagan 

Lakes and the Rocky Mountains. Government Printing Office: Victoria BC. [Mr. Green’s Journal 26 July 1865 – 7 

December 1865.] Page22. 

332 Dehart 2006, page 29. 

333 Sanford Fleming (1884). England and Canada: A Summer Tour Between Old and New Westminster. 

Dawson Brothers Publishers:Montreal. Page 304. 

334 As noted in the LeBourdais 2009 report at page 6, and discussed above in the present report, the source 

of this quote is: Randy Bouchard and Dorothy Kennedy (2005a). First Nations Aboriginal Interests and Traditional 

Use in the Waneta Hydroelectric Expansion Project Area: A Summary of Known and Available Background 




It is also significant that it was common for Secwepemc bands to change composition over time. 

Teit describes the creation of new bands that became distinct political entities: 

as some families were more nomadic than others...on the whole, each 

band was composed of a group of families closely related among 

themselves, who generally wintered within a definite locality... 335 

At the time Teit undertook his investigations circa 1900, there was “very little intercourse 

between the Kinbaskets and their western kindred.” 336 Teit’s information is that once they settled 

at Windermere, the Kinbasket became an autonomous group with a recognized hunting ground 

that extended beyond Golden. This was not an exclusively-used area, for the neighbouring 

Columbia Lakes Ktunaxa had established rights in the same manner. It is possible that both the 

Kinbasket Shuswap’s and the Ktunaxa’s hunting areas in the environs of Golden had been 

formerly held by another group who became extinct. And the known and available evidence 

suggests that the Ktunaxa repopulated the area at an earlier time than the Shuswaps. But by the 

1840s, both groups had established rights to this area. A document reproduced by the Shuswap 

Indian Band’s (Fish Lake Consulting 2009) recent study shows that the Shuswap and Kootenay 

residents of the Columbia Valley collectively made an agreement with the Stoney of Alberta 

concerning game management. 337 Thus, by the 1880s the two groups worked together to manage 

the local resources. 338 There is no suggestion in this document that the Shuswap Lake division 

had any interest in the area or that the Kinbasket band’s leadership was representing any interests 

other than the local Columbia Valley residents. 

The ethnographic data reviewed for this report indicates that each Secwepemc band was a 

discrete political entity, even though they maintained a consciousness of being Secwepemc. In 

earlier times, hunting territories may have been owned property. But in times of abundance—or 

perhaps in areas of depopulation—there existed an intrinsic laisser faire when it came to 

acknowledging hunting territories. Still, it was the resident band that exercised customary rights 

to the local resources and decided if others were welcome or not. 

In reviewing the potential claim of the Shuswap Lake Division to the Columbia Valley 

Transmission Project lands, it is the present authors’ opinion that while the evidence is sparse, 

what is available does not support Shuswap Lake Division holding rights to the Project lands. No 

known evidence exists to support the assertion of the Secwepemc of the Shuswap Lakes region 

Information. Prepared for Waneta Expansion Power Corporation, Castlegar BC (Revised in November 2005 from 

the August 2004 report with the same title). Page 12. 

335 Teit 1909, page 457. 

336 Teit 1909, page 467. 

337 Chief and Headmen, Abel, Pielle, Pierre Kinbasket, John Cheneka, George Crawler et al. 1895. Record 

Group 10, Vol. 3855, File 80,143. Cited in Fish Lake Consulting 2009, pp. 22-23. 

338 Fish Lake Consulting, on behalf of the Shuswap Indian Band 2009. 




hunting in the Columbia Valley Transmission Project lands situated between Golden and 

Invermere. According to Shuswap Indian Band oral history, their people from the South 

Thompson first explored the area to the north, around Kinbasket Lake. Eventually, the Shuswap 

hunters who “discovered” this area came south of Golden where they were met by Ktunaxa, and 

settled here (likely in the 1840s). They established a new band that soon forged close alliances 

with their Ktunaxa neighbours. The evidence suggests that these latter people had been using the 

Project lands prior to the Kinbasket arrival. By the 1840s, however, both the Kinbasket Band and 

the Columbia Lake Ktunaxa used the Columbia Valley. The oral history suggests that the 

Shuswap Kinbasket acknowledged the fact that the Ktunaxa were there first. But the latter also 

recognized that a more ancient people may have occupied the area in earlier times, so long ago 

that some regarded these earlier people as mythical. 

Any interest that the “Shuswap Nation” in its entirety may allegedly hold to the Project lands 

flows from the area being occupied in the 1840s by a Secwepemc band (the Kinbasket Shuswap), 

together with an acknowledgement that the Secwepemc view territory occupied by the bands as 

comprising the nation’s “commons.” However, in the case of the Kinbasket migration, the band 

established itself in an area that Shuswap oral history says was new to them and was at the time 

of the final move south being used by another nation. If the Secwepemc laws of “permission” – 

as discussed by the 2009 Sexqéltkemc (The Lakes Division) study (at pp. 4, 6) —are applied to 

this situation, then the Shuswap Nation does not seem tenable. The situation is more analogous 

to the agreement called the “Fish Lake Accord” that is referred to in the July 2009 report by 

Sunny LeBourdais. It was an agreement between the leaders of two autonomous bands. There is 

no indication that the “Accord” granted rights to all the Okanagan-Colville speaking people. 

4.2.2 The “Snare Indians” 

It is possible that descendants of Teit’s “North Thompson Division” (which incorporated both 

the upper and lower bands of the North Thompson) may claim that they have an interest in the 

Columbia Valley Transmission Project. Such a claim would be based, in all likelihood, on two 

possible associations: 1) an assertion that they are the descendants of the “Snare” people who 

were decimated by smallpox in the late 1700s but who may have occupied the northern 

Columbia Valley prior to the arrival of fur traders, and; 2) a claim that the Kinbasket band 

consisted originally of people who moved south from this area and were reclaiming their old 

lands. 

The North Thompson band, one of one of 17 contemporary Bands of Shuswap-speaking people, 

refer to themselves as the “Simpcw,” a Secwepemc term that these people applied to the North 

Thompson River. 339 Nevertheless, they do not assert interests in this area on their current website, 

which sets out their territory as follows: 

339 This is the term Archibald Mcdonald of the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1827 transcribed as “Chinpoos” 

and placed on the North Thompson River on his 1827 map. See Archibald Mcdonald (1827). A Setch of 




The Simpcw are a division of the Secwepemc, or Shuswap, who 

occupied the drainage of the North Thompson River upstream from 

McLure to the headwaters of Fraser River from McBride to Tête Jaune 

Cache, over to Jasper and south to the headwaters of the Athabasca 

River. 340 

The data are inconclusive whether the Simpcw and the “Snare” are one and the same. Similarly, 

the data concerning the place of origin of the Kinbasket band is disputed, although the 

preponderance suggests a west to east migration from the Shuswap Lake area. 

John McLeod of the Hudson’s Bay Company in his 1822-1823 Spokane House report described 

the “Chin-poo” [“Simpcw”] as one of the tribes trading at Fort Kamloops. Concerning the 

character and location of these people, McLeod stated that they went occasionally to the Canoe 

River, but he did not mention any travels farther south. 341 

There is some suggestion in the ethnographic and historical record that a group of people known 

in English as the “Snare Indians” lived in the Rocky Mountains and spent time on both sides of 

the foothills, especially in the Jasper area, and may have used the area as far south as the 

headwaters of the Columbia. About 1840, the Snares were lured to a proposed peace treaty with 

Stoneys at the mouth of the Snake Indian River near Jasper and were massacred. They 

eventually went extinct, according to one source, and their lands were taken over by Metis and 

Iroquois hunters. 342 Teit is very clear in his notes that the Snare were not related to the 

Ktunaxa. 343 

There is disagreement in the literature whether these “Snare” people were Shuswap-speaking or 

Athapascan-speaking (possibly Carrier or Sekani). Their identity is relevant here, for the 

contemporary “Shuswap Nation” seems to assert an interest in lands formerly associated with 

them, although any delineation of “Snare” lands would be conjecture at best. 

Anthropologist Diamond Jenness reviewed the issue of the identity of the “Snare Indians” in the 

1939 Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada. While drawing on the historical record to 

examine this issue, Jenness considered comments by Alexander Henry (the Younger) and David 

Thompson, who were among the earliest writers to mention these aboriginal people. Thompson, 

as Jenness discusses, did not mention the “Snare Indians” in his narrative yet marks “Snare 

Thompson’s River District 1827. Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Winnipeg. 

B.97/a/2 (1826-1827), folio 40; see also Teit 1909, page 460. 

340 http://www.simpcw.com/; Accessed 6 November 2009. 

341 McLeod, John (1822-1823). Spokane House Report 1822-1823. Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, 

Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Winnipeg. B.208/e/1. 

342 Hugh Dempsey (1998). Indians of the Rocky Mountain Parks. Fifth House, Ltd.: Calgary. Page 69. 

343 Teit 1908-1920. Salish ethnographic materials. American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia. 

Boas Collection 372, Roll 16, S .7 (copy held by the B.C. Archives, Victoria. Add. Mss. 1425, Microfilm A-247). 




Indian River” on his map, at the headwaters of the Athabaska River. 344 Though Jenness 

concluded that the “Snare Indians” were a band of Shuswap-speaking people, he suggested that 

by 1910 “they survived, perhaps, in the mixed Cree-Iroquois-Shuswap band near Jasper, which 

Teit estimates to number about seventy.” 345 

However, there are significant omissions to the documentary evidence Jenness examined in 

coming to his conclusion. Importantly, he omits Teit’s unpublished notes—which were publicly 

unavailable at the time—compiled after the 1909 publication of The Shuswap, upon which 

Jenness did rely. In his “Notes to Maps on the Pacific Northwest,” prepared 1910-1913, Teit 

states: 

I judge that the Snare Indians of Henry and Thompson were Athapascans, 

probably a part of the Sekani who may have followed south along the 

west side of the Rockies further than other Sekani at the time of the 

Sekani invasion of Shuswap territory at the heads of the Fraser and North 

Thompson Rivers. 346 

Teit’s notes dated 1908-1920 set out reasons why he does not accept that the Snare people were 

Secwepemc. He does suggest, however, that another Athapascan tribe may have occupied the 

upper Columbia and upper Kootenay rivers, although he adds: 

Of course we have no evidence as yet beyond H & T’s statements 

[Alexander Henry and David Thompson] to show the Snare Indians (or 

any other people) occupied the upper Columbia and upper Kootenay 

region prior to the Kutenai, and H & T furnish no positive evidence, their 

remarks on the subject being largely conjecture. 347 

Father P.J. De Smet provides support for the Snare Indians having an Athapascan association, for 

in 1847 he met “Capote Blanc” and identified him as a Carrier (Athapascan) man. 348 The identity 

of “Capote Blanc is noteworthy as he is said to have been one of the last of the “Snare Indians” 

and was identified the same year (1847) by Paul Kane as a Shuswap Chief. 

344 Diamond Jenness (1939). The “Snare” Indians. In, Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of 

Canada. Third Series, Vol. XXXIII, Section II. Page 104. 

345 Jenness 1939, page 105. 

346 Teit (1910-1913). Notes to Maps of the Pacific Northwest. American Philosophical Society Library, 

Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372, Roll 4, No. 1, Item 59 (copy held by the B. C. Archives and Records Service, 

Victoria. Add. Mss. 1425, Microfilm A-239). 

347 James Teit (1908-1920). Salish ethnographic materials. American Philosophical Society Library, 

Philadelphia. Boas Collection 372, Roll 16, S .7 (copy held by the B.C. Archives, Victoria. Add. Mss. 1425, 

Microfilm A-247). 

348 J.G. MacGregor (1974). Overland by the Yellowhead. Western Producer Book Service: Saskatoon, 

Saskatchewan. Page 67. 




Diamond Jenness (1939) placed great reliance upon the comments of John McLeod, as cited 

above, who associated the Snare Indians with the Chinpoo [“Simpcw”], now recognized as the 

North Thompson Band of Shuswap. Another scenario presented in Teit’s notes (1908-1920) 

proposes that the Snare were a group of Sekani Athapascan, separated from their northern kin, 

who migrated first into Shuswap country and then south until they reached the upper Columbia 

and Kootenay valleys where they were soon driven out by the Ktunaxa. After this time they took 

refuge in the mountains. 

It is the position of the Shuswap Indian Band, as set out in their 2008 TUS report, and reiterated 

in the April 2009 report by Fish Lake Consulting, that archaeological features present in the 

Columbia Valley, specifically house pits (pithouse depressions), reveal an earlier occupation of 

the area by people who were immediate ancestors of those now identified as Interior Salish, 

which would include the Secwepemc. Hence, it is the Shuswap Nation view that the any such 

features in the Columbia Valley would represent former Secwepemc winter sites, providing the 

Shuswap Indian Band (and the larger Shuwsap Nation) with a stronger and more ancient claim to 

the territory. 

Without commenting on the veracity of this interpretation of the archaeological evidence, this 

present report has not found evidence of these semi-subterranean winter homes being used in the 

Project area at the time of contact. The evidence indicates that the Kinbasket family entered the 

area sometime between the 1820s and 1840s and likely settled prior to the 1850s. 




5.0 CONCLUSIONS 

This report has reviewed and assessed an extensive literature of both ethnographic and 

ethnohistoric documentation in an effort to examine the identity of First Nations who may assert 

rights and title interests to the area of the Columbia Valley Transmission Project. 

Non-aboriginal fur traders first entered the Upper Columbia River region in the early 1800s 

expecting to find Ktunaxa people. Their journals, correspondence and maps indicate that they 

observed very few aboriginal Aboriginal people in the region, although various parties undertook 

several reconnaissance trips through the area at different times of the year. In the summer of 

1807, David Thompson sent his men looking for the Ktunaxa. A few days later a band had been 

found and Thompson called upon their assistance to help provide for his party and for the 

company horses. Building his trade depot near Toby Creek, Thompson recognized explicitly that 

he was in the territory of the Ktunaxa. 

Both the historical and ethnographic evidence describe the Ktunaxa practice of a semi-nomadic 

subsistence quest that took them annually to a number of locations within a defined area. The 

ethnographic evidence indicates that this area included hunting grounds located as far north as 

Golden. It was in these most northern hunting grounds where the Kinbasket family’s oral 

histories report first encountering the Ktunaxa when they, the Kinbasket, moved south, sometime 

after their initial move to the Columbia River. These same traditions indicate that it had not been 

the former practice either of the Kinbasket family, or member bands of the Shuswap Lake 

Division, to hunt as far south as Golden, although they formerly hunted as far east as the Big 

Bend and Canoe River areas, where they encountered Secwepemc people belonging to the North 

Thompson band. A single historical reference to a people known as the “Snare Indians” does not 

explicitly place them as far south as the Project area. The ethnic affiliation of the “Snare” people 

remains an open debate. 

It is possible that the Kinbasket family’s encounter with the Ktunaxa resulted when the 

Secwepemc moved south (upstream) on the Columbia and the Ktunaxa moved north, both filling 

a vacuum left by earlier depopulation. In 1910-1913, ethnographer James Teit put forward this 

opinion when he reviewed his notes on tribal territories. Ktunaxa people he interviewed 

acknowledged an earlier occupation of the area which some believed to have been “in 

mythological times,” an occupation that some regarded as either non-human or non-Ktunaxa. It 

is the position of the Shuswap Indian band that these people were their own direct ancestors. 

Subsequent ethnographic investigations reported that one of the Ktunaxa bands had a 

headquarters at Toby Creek, near where David Thompson established Kootanae House in 1807, 

but this Ktunaxa band had suffered greatly from the smallpox epidemic of the early 1780s. The 

available evidence indicates that the Ktunaxa used the Columbia Valley for fishing and hunting 

at this time and that their use of the Columbia Valley continued. 

The evidence reviewed here suggests that the Ktunaxa did not object to the Kinbasket band 

establishing a settlement among them. The evidence is clear that at least by 1845, Secwepemc 




men hunted in the Columbia Valley. Discussions with Chief Kinbasket indicate that he 

established residency in the Columbia Valley, likely in the 1840s, and had a number of camps. 

Subsequent to the establishment of this residency, the Kinbasket family’s contact with their kin 

among the Shuswap Lake Division became less. They increasingly intermarried with the 

neighbouring Ktunaxa. 

At the time the Indian Reserve Commission set aside lands for the Kinbasket Shuswap and for 

the Columbia Lake Ktunaxa in 1884, the Kinbasket Shuswap were an autonmous band with 

linguistic ties to the Secwepemc, but with strong social ties to the neighbouring Ktunaxa. By at 

least the end of the 19 th century, the two groups acted together on issues of resource 

management. 



BC hudro m 

FOR GENERATIONS 

Chris Heard 

BC Hydro Aboriginal Relations & Negotiations 

6911 Southpoint Drive . 

Burnaby, BC V3N 4X8 

March 19, 2010 

Chief Nelson Leon 

The Lakes Division of the Secwepemc Nation 

c/o Adams Lake Indian Band 

PO Box 588 

Chase, BC VOE 1 MO 

Dear Chief Leon: 

Re: 

Columbia Valley Transmission (CVT) Project 

It was my pleasure to meet you at the CVT procedural conference in Vancouver on March 

17,2009. 

As I mentioned when we spoke on March 17,2010, based on the most recent letter that the 

Lakes Division of the Secwepemc Nation (the 'Lakes Division') sent to BC Hydro regarding 

the CVT Project on December 10, 2009, which states, "We remain in full support of the 

Shuswap Indian Band and their leadership role regarding the Columbia Valley Transmission 

Project.", I was somewhat surprised to hear your comments that you feel that The Lakes 

Division may not have been properly consulted with respect to the CVT Project. 

As I also mentioned, I am still,8s I have always been, open to further discussing concerns 

that the Lakes Division may have with regard to the Project, and your role in supporting the 

Shuswap Indian Band. 

Please contact me at your convenience to set up a meeting to discuss any matters relating to 

the CVT Project at 604-528-1558, or at Chris.Heard@bchydro.com. 

C ris eard 

Senior Coordinator, Aboriginal Relations and Negotiations 

cc: 

Chief Judy Wilson, Neskonlith Indian Band 

Chief Wayne Christian, Splatsin First Nation 

Sunny Lebourdais, Technical Coordinator 

Chief Paul Sam, Shuswap Indian Band 

-• 

• 

-- 

vancouver 2010 

C&9 

~ 

~ 


r.u.uYW1CG.A.t.&U 

'[\1)( ,AlW.t'M"Quu 

ll-....l 

BC hydro m 


OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 



FOR GENER ATIONS 

Chris Heard 


6911 Southpoint Drive 


April 1, 2010 


Adams Lake Band 

PO Box 588 

Chase, BC 

VOE 1MO 

Fax: (250) 679-8813 


Re: Columbia Valley Transmission Project - BCUC Commission Order G-S4-10 

Pursuant to BCUC Commission Order G-54-1 0, please find enclosed a copy of the 

Order with Reasons for Decision dated March 24, 2010, setting out the Regulatory 

Timetable for the review of the Columbia Valley Transmission Project. Included as 

appendix B is the Regulatory Timetable. 

Please note that April 15 is identified in Appendix B of the Order as the date for the 

Community Input Session which will be held in Invermere. 

Feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns at 604-528-1558 or via e 

mail at Chris.Heard@bchydro.com . 

Sincerely, 

~nbehalfOf 

Chris Heard 

Senior Coordinator 

Aboriginal Relations and Negotiations 

Enclosure 

-• 

• 

- vancouver 2010 

QSe9 

~ 

~ 


PAAAlTIoII'IC CoUI,£S 

JnJX I'AlVJ.YMf>lQU£S 

~-...J 

DC hydro m 

FOR GE NERAl IONS 

OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Chief Wilfred Teneese 

?Akisq'nuk First Nation 

PO Box 130 

Windermere BC 

VOB 2LO 

Fax: (250) 342-9693 

Dear Chief Teneese: 

Re: Columbia Valley Transmission Project - BCUC Commission Order G-S4-1 0 








mail at Chris.Heard@bchydro.com. 

Sincerely, 

-~- 

Denis Roux on behalf of 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

• 

• - vancouver 2010 

QSe9 

~ 

~ 


P'AIlAlYWP1CGA.WU 

JWXPAJlW.YMptQUES 

ll-...J 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 1,2010 

Chief Terry Porter 

Bonaparte Indian Band 

PO Box 669 

Cache Creek, BC 

VOK 1HO 

Fax: (250) 457-9550 

Dear Chief Porter: 

Re: Columbia Valley Transmission Project - BCUC Commission Order G-54-10 







Feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns at 604-528-1558 or via e- 

mail at Chris.Heard@bchydro.com . . 

Sincerely, 

~~ 


Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

I! 

- 

vancouver 2010 vancouver 2010 

, AAAl.YWPlC G.UWi 

twX ,,uw.YWI'IQUES 

Cc--..J 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 


BC hydro en 

FOR GENE RATION S 

Chris Heard 


6911 South point Drive 


April 1, 2010 

Chief Shane Gottfriedson 

Kamloops Indian Band 

200-355 Yellowhead Highway 

Kamloops, BC 

V2H 1H1 

Fax: (250) 372-8833 

Dear Chief Gottfriedson: 





appendix B is the Regulatory Timetable . . 




mail at Ch ris.Heard@bchydro.com. 

Sincerely, 

Deni Roux on behalf of 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 


Qse9 

~ 

~ 


, AAAlVWI'IC GAMU 

JDJX PAAAlYIoU'IQUES 

Cc--.j 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 


BC hydr-o m 


Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Mr. Dean Martin, CEO, 

Kinbasket Development Corporation 

PO Box 790 

Invermere, BC 

VOA 1KO 

Fax: (250) 341 -3683 

Dear Mr. Martin: 








Feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns at 604-528-1558 or via e- 

mail at Chris.Heard@bchydro.com. . 

Sincerely, 

.~ 


Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 

- 


Q%) 

~ 

~ 


'AaAlnIl'lC CAMU 

1t\JX ' AMl'OolP'lQUU 

{b-J 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 





Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Ms. Sunny LeBourdais 

Shuswap Arrow Lakes Division 

c/o Splatsin . 

PO Box 460 

Enderby, BC 

VOE 1EO 

Fax: (250) 838-2131 

Dear Ms. LeBourdais: 










Sincerely, 

~- - 

Den s Roux on behalf of 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

• 

~ 

- ~ 



vancouver 2010 vancouver 2010 OFFICIAL ' 

rA.UlY/oIl'1 c G.U(6 

JDJX rAAAlTMPKWES 

SUPPORTER 

QSe9 

lc-....l 


BC hydro 

FOR GENERATION S 

Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Chief Felix Arnouse 

Little Shuswap Indian Band 

PO Box 1100 


VOE 1MO 

Fax: (250) 679-4422 

Dear Chief Arnouse: 










Sincerely, 

W= 


Chris Heard 



Enclosure ' 

- • 

BC 

~ 

- ~ 

hydro m 



PAIlAlUII'ICCAMU 

OFFICIAL 

J£\IX rARAl'f1olJlKlUES 

SUPPORTER 

QSe9 

1L-..J 




Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Chief Christopher Luke 

Lower Kootenay Indian Band 

830 Simon Road, 

Creston, BC 

VOB1G2 

Fax: (250) 428-7686 

Dear Chief Luke: 












Enclosure 

• 

- 


"AAAlYW~C GAWlS 

IWX ' ARAlYNI'tQUf.S 

(~ 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Chief Judy Wilson 

Neskonlith Indian Band 

PO Box 608 


VOE 1M3 

Fax: (250) 679-5306 

Dear Chief Wilson: 










Sincerely, 

-~ behalfOf 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

I! 

• - vancouver 2010 

QSe9 

~ 

~ 


'AAALYIoII'IC c.u.tES 

JElIX PAAAlYWf1QUES 

ll-...J 


FOR GENERATI ON5 

OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Chief Cheryl Stephanie Casimer 

St. Mary's Indian Band 

7470 Mission Road, 

Cranbrook, BC 

V1C 7E5 

Fax: (250) 426-8935 

Dear Chief Casimer: 










Sincerely, 

~ 

Denis ooxon behalf of 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

• 

~ 

.. ~ 


Q%) 

P'AAAl.yt.IMcc.u.to: 

lEUX 'ARAlYlAPIQUES 

(6.; 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Mr. Bob Moody, Director 

Shuswap Nation Tribal Council 



V2H 1H1 

Fax: (250) 374-6331 

Dear Mr. Moody: 








Feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns at 604-528-1-558 or via e 


Sincerely, 

-~n behalf of 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 

- 


Qse9 

~ 

~ 


I'AAAI.'l'WICGAAl6 

JEUX 'ARALllo41'1QUES 

CL'-oJ 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 





Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Chief Albert Deneault 

Skeetchestn Indian Band 

PO Box 178 - 330 Main Drive 

Savona, BC 

VOK 2JO 

Fax: (250) 373-2494 

Dear Chief Deneault: 










Sincerely, 



Enclosure 

-I! 

• 


~ 

- ~ 

hydro m 



PAJlAlY"'''CCAMU 

OFFICIAL 

)tUX PAAAlYIoU'IQUU 

SUPPORTER 

QSO> 

lL'-" 


Chydro m. 


Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Chief Wayne Christian 

Spallumcheen (Splatsin) First Nation 

PO Box 460 


VOE 1VO 

Fax: (250) 838-2131 

Dear Chief Christian: 










wSincerely, 

- 

Denis Raux o~ ehalf of 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-e 

• 


Q5O) 

~ 

- ~ 


I'AA,\lY"'P1C c.ucu 

JEUX I'AJtAln.tPIQUU 

lc--.l 

hydro m 


OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 



FOR GENERAT IONS 

Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Chief Mary Mahseelah 

Tobacco Plains Band 

PO Box 76, 

Grasmere, BC 

VOB 1RO 

Fax: (250) 887-3424 

Dear Chief Mahseelah: 

Re: Columbia Valley Transmission Project - BCUC Commission Order G-54-10 









Sincerely, 

~ 


Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

I! 


QSe9 

i: 


~ 


PAJUJ,.YI.U'IC GAMES 

JEUX ' AJW.YIIP1QlIU 



Chris Heard 




April 1, 2010 

Chief Michael LeBourdais 

Whispering Pines Indian Band 

615 Whispering Pines Drive 


V2V 8S4 

Fax: (250) 579-8367 

Dear Chief LeBourdais: 

Re: Columbia Valley Transmission Project - BCUC Commission Order G-54-1 0 

Pursuant to BCUC Commission Order G:-54-1 0, please find enclosed a copy of the 





Community Input Session which will be held in Invermere. . 



Sincerely, 

Denis oux on behalf of 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 

.. 


Q5(9 

~ 

~ 


,AAALYW,..C GAMES 

Jrux PAIlAlntJ>lQUlS 

ll--..J 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 


TERMS OF REFERENCE (TR) 

CVT – Archaeological Impact Assessment 

PART 2b - TERMS OF REFERENCE 

D R A F T 



PART 1 - TERMS OF REFERENCE 

CONTENTS 

Clause Subject Page 

TR1 

Introduction.................................................................................................................1-1 

TR2 Columbia Valley Transmission (CVT) Project - Description ......................................1-1 

TR3 Description of Services and Requirements ................................................................1-4 



PART 1 - TERMS OF REFERENCE 

TR1 

INTRODUCTION 

BC Transmission Corporation (BCTC) is a provincial Crown corporation responsible 

for planning, managing, operating and maintaining most of the provincial power 

transmission system and its interconnection with the larger North American grid. 

The communities in the upper Columbia Valley, the area of the Columbia Valley 

between Invermere and Golden, are experiencing significant load growth. As a result 

of this load growth, the regional transmission system that supplies this area is rapidly 

reaching its supply capacity. Golden, which is the largest and fastest growing load 

centre in the upper Columbia Valley, is located at the end of this line. 

The community in the upper Columbia Valley and the Town of Golden are presently 

supplied by a single 69 kV transmission line (60L271) approximately 129 km in 

length between Invermere Substation (INV) and Golden Substation (GND). This 69 

kV transmission line also supplies four other distribution substations along its route in 

the upper Columbia Valley. 

For this project, BCTC has retained AECOM Canada to conduct a detailed 

Environmental Overview Assessment study. The study report is available on request. 

BCTC is seeking the services of a firm to complete an Archeology Impact 

Assessment and act as the Archaeological Officer for the duration of the Project. 

BCTC is interested in firms that have experience working with First Nations in the 

Project area. The Shuswap Indian Band, and the Ktunaxa Nation Council 

(representing the ?Akisq’nuk First Nation, the Lower Kootenay Indian Band, the St. 

Mary’s Indian Band, and the Tobacco Plains Indian Band) have been identified as 

having an interest in the Project area (see Appendix XXX – FN Maps). 

TR2 

COLUMBIA VALLEY TRANSMISSION (CVT) PROJECT - DESCRIPTION 

2.1 Project Outline 

The CVT Project comprises of: 

1-1 CVT AIA 



a) Construction of approximately 112 km, 230 kV wood-pole, H-frame 

transmission line from Invermere Substation (INV) to a new 230/69 kV 

substation called Kicking Horse Substation (KHS); 

b) Construction of new 230/69kV Kicking Horse Substation (KHS) substation; 

c) Construction of approximately 3 km, 69 kV transmission line from Kicking 

Horse Substation (KHS) to existing Golden Substation (GDN); 

d) Expansion of the existing Golden Substation (GDN); and 

e) Modifications inside the Invermere (INV) and Cranbrook (CBK) Substations. 

The right-of-way for the new 230kV and 69kV transmission lines would be over 

Crown and some Private Lands. BC Hydro has already acquired right-of-way over 

most of the Private Lands, and will apply to Integrated Land Management Bureau to 

acquire new right-of-way of the Crown Lands. The new right-of-way would be 

approximately 50m wide to accommodate the new 230kV transmission line and 

approximately 10m to accommodate the new 69kV transmission line. The fee-simple 

site for the Kicking Horse Substation (KSH) will be approximately 225x200m and will 

be on Crown Land. BC Hydro owns the land required for expansion of the existing 

Golden Substation (GDN). 

The route the new 230kV and 69kV transmission lines and the location of the Kicking 

Horse, Invermere and Golden substation are shown in Appendix XX – MAPS 1, 2, 3 

and 4 and 69kV Route Map. 

In most forested areas, to accommodate the new transmission lines, it will be 

necessary to undertake clearing both within and beyond the right-of-way boundary. 

Access requirements for construction and operation/maintenance of the new 

transmission facilities along the transmission lines route will be identified and 

mapped by the Project Team. Access will involve the use of existing and/or potential 

new roads (Private and Public/Forest Service), tracks and/or helicopter landing sites. 

2.2 Construction Footprint 

The limits of construction for the Project include the area within the proposed right-ofway, 

adjacent areas required for clearing for initial line stability, as well as any 

1-2 CVT AIA 



existing access roads, helicopter landing pads and laydown areas or new accesses 

that are planned to be constructed. 

2.3 Study Area for AIA study 

The AIA study will be conducted for the areas covered by: 

a) +/- 100 metres of the proposed centre line for the entire length of the 230kV 

transmission line. 

b) +/- 50 metres of the proposed centre line for the entire length of the 69kV 

transmission line. 

c) +100 metres around the land requirements for the identified Kicking Horse 

Substation (KHS) site. 

Please refer to Appendix XXX – MAPS 1, 2, 3 and 4. 

2.4 Regulatory Context 

2.4.1 BC Utilities Commission ("BCUC") Certification 

BCTC has made an application to the BC Utilities Commission for a Certificate of 

Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the project in January 2010. BCTC 

anticipates a decision regarding this application by the summer of 2010. 

2.4.2 Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB) 

BCTC applied to the Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB) for Crown Land 

License of Occupation for the project in March 2010. BCTC is expecting an ILMB 

decision on this application to be made by the summer of 2010. 

2.4.3 Environmental Assessment Process 

For this project, BCTC will not be submitting an Application for an Environmental 

Assessment Certificate under the B.C. Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) or 

Screening Level Environmental Assessment report under the Canadian 

Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). 

As mentioned above, BCTC retained AECOM Canada to conduct a detailed 

Environmental Overview and Archaeological Overview Assessment for this Project. 

1-3 CVT AIA 



2.5 First Nations Engagement 

BC Hydro’s Aboriginal Relations and Negotiations group is responsible for First 

Nations engagement and consultation for the CVT Project. The selected 

firm/consultant will coordinate activities and all communications with potentially 

impacted First Nations through BC Hydro Aboriginal Relations and Negotiations 

team. 

TR3 

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES AND REQUIREMENTS 

3.1 Scope of Services 

BCTC is seeking the services of a firm/consultant to complete an Archeology Impact 

Assessment for the CVT Project. BCTC is interested in firms/consultants that have 

experience working with First Nations in the Project area, and have undertaken AIAs 

of similar size and scope. 

The AIA is to be completed under one permit issued by the Ministry of Tourism, 

Sports and the Arts - Archaeology branch to the firm/consultant. The firm/consultant 

will apply for and obtain this permit from the Archaeological Branch. 

First Nations may choose to undertake the AIA work relevant to their area 

themselves or to engage the services of another company or they may wish to 

participate in and witness the Archeological work to be undertaken by the successful 

firm/consultant. The successful firm/consultant should be able to outline standard 

practices that this work should adhere to and be able to incorporate the findings into 

one AIA report to be submitted to the Archeology branch. The firm/consultant should 

identify any existing relationships or experiences with the Shuswap Indian Band 

and/or the Ktunaxa Nation Council, and will be asked to outline their strategy to 

involve First Nations. 

BC Hydro’s Aboriginal Relations and Negotiation representative on the CVT project 

must be consulted in regard to proposed and continuing communications with First 

Nations related to the CVT project and this Archeological work. 

The selected firm/consultant will act as BCTC’s Archaeological Officer for the project. 

This will require providing archaeological orientation to Construction staff/contractors 

1-4 CVT AIA 



at the beginning of the construction work in the field. BCTC is expecting up to 5 such 

orientation sessions. 

As BCTC’s Archaeological Officer, conduct a high-level screening of the Golden 

Substation expansion site at the time of “site preparation/excavation” of the site. It is 

also expected that when a new archaeological site is identified, the firm/consultant 

will provide technical resources to evaluate the site and recommend mitigation 

measures. This will be on a “cost plus” basis. 

3.2 Deliverables 

The successful firm/consultant shall deliver high quality AIA report that meets the 

requirements of the Archaeology branch of the Ministry of Tourism, Sports and the 

Arts. The AIA report should be ready for submission by the fall of 2010, as more fully 

set out in section 3.3 below. 

Deliverables to be provided by the Consultant shall include the following: 

a) develop a plan for the completion of the Services, including a timeline, for 

BCTC review and approval; 

b) develop an outline indicating timeline and methodology for engaging First 

Nations; 

c) identify significant archaeological sites, First Nations traditional uses, 

Culturally Modified Trees (CMT), spiritual practices and culturally significant 

sites; 

d) identify all known cultural heritage assets that may be affected by the Project; 

e) identify the potential for currently unrecorded archaeological sites to be 

located within the Project Area; 

f) provide detailed mapping information using a reasonable scale for all sites 

identified in 3.2.3, 3.2.4 and 3.3.5. 

g) assess the potential impact of the Project on the local historic landscape and 

built heritage resource; 

1-5 CVT AIA 



h) assess the cumulative impacts of the Project on known and currently 

unrecorded archaeological sites; 

i) describe (where possible) proposed mitigation measures; and 

j) make recommendations on the scope of further assessment that may be 

needed to determine more fully the potential for archaeological impacts within 

the Project Area. 

3.3 Reporting Timeline 

The firm/consultant shall submit the AIA report in accordance with the following: 

a) monthly progress reports - on a set date each month to be mutually agreed to 

by both parties upon award of the Contract, in coordination with invoicing; 

b) first draft AIA report (for review and comments) – by July 31, 2010 or earlier; 

and 

c) final AIA report – by August 31, 2010 or earlier. 

1-6 CVT AIA 


J 

./ 


Chris Heard 




April 20, 2010 

Mr. Bill Green, Director, 

CCglFC 



ViC 7E5 

Dear Bill: 

Re: 

Columbia Valley Transmission (CVT) Invoice Payment and Further 

Capacity Funding 

Please find enclosed two cheques for services related to the CVT Project. The cheque 

in the amount of is payment for the outstanding amount from your invoice # 

CCR091 0-114 following consideration of the - that was previously paid. 

As per my conversation with Jaime Crist~les, please find enclosed an interim capacity 

funding cheque in the amount of in advance of further work that you are 

undertaking 'with regard to the CVT Project. 

Please contact me directly at Chris.Heard@bchydro.Gom or 604-528-1558 should you 

have any questions or concerns. . 

Chris eard 



Enclosures 


- 


P'.u.uncncCAMES 

lWXPAML'l'NflQUE$ 

1-'-' 

DChydro m 


OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 


BC hgdro m 


Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 


Adams Lake Band 

PO Box 588 


VOE 1MO 


Re: 

Columbia Valley Transmission Project - Toby Creek Diversion 

Please find enclosed the 'Toby Creek Diversion Supplement' that was filed with the BC 

Utilities Commission for the Columbia Valley Transmission (CVT) Project regarding 

BCTC's application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. 

Please contact me directly with any questions or concerns at 604-528-1558 or via email 

at Chris.Heard@bchydro.com. 

Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

e 

• 

BC - ~ 

PAMlYIUICGAIoCU 

QSe9 


JEVX rAIIAU't.C"QUtS 

lL.....; 

hydro m 

FOR GE NERATIONS 

OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Wilfred Teneese 

?Akisq'nuk First Nation 

PO Box 130 

Windermere BC 

VOB 2LO 

Dear Chief Teneese: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

~ 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 

- 


QSe9 

t; 

~ 


'AAALnulCGA.WU 

I(UX ,AAAlncnQUES 

1....; 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 


BC hgdro 


Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Terry Porter 

Bonaparte Indian Band 

PO Box 669 

Cache Creek, BC 

VOK 1HO 

Dear Chief Porter: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

I! 

-- 


C&9 

~ 

~ 


'AAA1YM~GAJ.IU 

Jrux 'AAA1YM~ 

ll-....) 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Shane GoUfriedson 

Kamloops Indian Band 



V2H 1H1 

Dear Chief GoUfriedson: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

- • 


tt= 

- ~ 


QSe9 

PAMlYJ.lMCCoAMU 

,EVX rAAALYllm QUES 

((-...i 

hydro m 


OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Paul Sam 

Shuswap Indian Band 

PO Box 790 

Invermere, BC 

VOA 1KO 

Dear Chief Sam: 

Re: 







Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

•- 


Q5O) 

t; 

~ 


,......,..,., c:.wn 

J(UX,AAALlMI'\QutS 

1.-....1 


FOR GE NERATIONS 

OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 


BC hydr-o m 


Chris Heard 


6911 Southpoint Drive • 


April 21, 2010 

Kathryn Teneese, Chair 

Ktunaxa Nation Council 



V1C 7E5 

Dear Ms. Teneese: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

e 

- 

Q5O) 


t; 

~ 


'AAAlnu1C GAMES 

JWX rAAAln&nQUES 

ll"-ol 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




, Chris Heard 

BC Hydro Aboriginal Relations & Negotiations' 



April 21, 2010 

Chief Felix Arnouse 

Little Shuswap Indian Band 

PO Box 1100 


VOE 1MO 

Dear Chief Arnouse: 

Re: 


Please find enclosed the 'Toby Creek Diversion Supplement' that was filed with the Be 





Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

- • 


~ 

- ~ 

hydro en 



•....,"41'(:c:..... 

OFFICIAL 

f[UX rAAAlnmQUES 

SUPPORTER 

C&9 

1--- 




Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Christopher Luke 

Lower Kootenay Indian Band 

830 Simon Road, 

Creston, BC 

VOB1G2 

Dear Chief Luke: 

Re: 






at Chris. Heard@bchydro.com. 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

I! . 

- 


Q5e9 

~ 

~ 


'AllAlY&.CMCc..u«s 

JtVlIt PMAlYM"QUES 

l[-...; 

BC hudro en 


OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Judy Wilson 

Neskonlith Indian Band 

PO Box 608 


VOE 1M3 

Dear Chief Wilson: 

Re: 

Columbia Vallev Transmission Project - Toby Creek Diversion 






Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 

- 


QSe9 

~ 

~ 


,AAALn.tIIC c.ucu 

IEVX rARAI,YMrtQUU 

l(....; 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Cheryl Stephanie Casimer 

St. Mary's Indian Band 



V1C 7E5 

Dear Chief Casimer: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

I! 

- 


Q§e9 

t; 

~ 


,A.IlAlYWICGJ.MU 

,EUII. 'AMlYMnQUU 

((-....I 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 


BC hydro en 


Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Ms. Sunny LeBourdais 

Shuswap Arrow Lakes Division 

c/o Splatsin 

PO Box 460 


VOE 1EO 

Dear Ms. LeBourdais: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

I! 

.. 


Q5e9 

~ 

~ 


'AAAlYl4l1C G.UIU 

J£ux'AlW.YM"QV(S 

1-.....1 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 21 ,2010 

Ms. Bonnie Leonard, Tribal Director 

Shuswap Nation Tribal Council 



V2H 1H1 

Dear Ms. Leonard: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

I! 

- 


QSe9 

~ 

~ 


PAMU'lUICGAMlS 

IWlt rAAAl.n.I"QlIES 

ltv 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Keith Matthew 

Simpcw First Nation 

PO Box 220 

Barriere, BC 

VOE 1EO 

Dear Chief Matthew: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

II 

- 


QSe9 

~ 

~ 


'AlW.YloIMC G.UIU 

,EUX 'AAAlYMnQun 

£Lv 

BChydro en 


OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 


BC hudro m 


Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Albert Deneault 

Skeetchestn Indian Band 

PO Box 178 

330 Main Drive 

Savona, BC 

VOK 2JO 

Dear Chief Deneault: 

Re: 







Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 

.. 


cese9 

~ 

-.;. 


'AAAlYW1C G.WLS 

lEU" .AJW,nol"QUES 

1--...1 

8C hydro m 


OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Wayne Christian 

Spallumcheen (Splatsin) First Nation 

PO Box 460 


VOE 1VO 

Dear Chief Christian: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 

vancouver 

-2010 

QSe9 

~ 

~ 

vancouver lOIO 

PAAALYMIiC GAMU 

lEU)!; rAAALYMnQUU 

ll~ 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 


BC hgdr-o m 


Chris Heard 




April 21 , 2010 

Chief Mary Mahseelah 

Tobacco Plains Band 

PO Box 76, 

Grasmere, BC 

VOB 1RO 

Dear Chief Mahseelah: 

Re: 







Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 

- 


QSe9 

~ 

~ 


I'AMlYWiCCAI.IU 

JEVX I'AMlYMrtQUES 

CCv 



OFFICIAL 

SUPPORTER 




Chris Heard 




April 21, 2010 

Chief Michael LeBourdais 

Whispering Pines Indian Band 

615 Whispering Pines Drive 


V2V 8S4 

Dear Chief LeBourdais: 

Re: 





Please contact me directly with any questions or c'oncerns at 604-528-1558 or via email 


Sincerely, 

Chris Heard 



Enclosure 

-• 

• 

- 


QSe9 

~ 

~ 


PAAAlYMl'lCCoUIU 

JEVX'MAlYMnQUU 



KTUNAXA NATION COUNCIL BCTC RESPONSES Status 

MOUNTAIN GOAT ADDENDUM - ISSUES and CONCERNS 

Toby Creek 

1 It (the report) addresses only the 

transmission line alignment previously 

proposed by BCTC, and does not 

consider potential alternatives, such as 

the keeping the alignment entirely on the 

north side of Toby Creek. 

BCTC has proposed an alternative alignment 

in its CPCN Application submitted to the BC 

Utilities Commission. 

BCTC is now proposing to use an alternate 

route which avoids the Toby Creek Crossing. 

2 The concern over public access to the site 

is not identified as a potential impact from 

the CVT Project (Section 2.1). 

BCTC is not proposing any new access points 

as a result of this project. Public access to the 

corridor is not restricted now on areas that is 

Crown Land. BCTC cannot restrict access to 

Crown Land and will work with other 

governmental agencies on some aspects of 

signage in the area warning of the potential 

effects of goat/human interaction if this route is 

selected. 

No change in status. BCTC is now proposing to 

use an alternate route which avoids the Toby 

Creek Crossing. 

3 No convincing evidence has been 

presented to indicate that additional 

clearing would not increase the risk of 

predation. 

This was a concern that was raised by 

stakeholders. 

Additional clearing may or may not impact on 

mountain goat predation 

No change in status. BCTC is now proposing to 

use an alternate route which avoids the Toby 

Creek Crossing. 

Please see response to #1 

4 Regarding the ability to control access, the 

recommendation to develop a 

management plan would be appropriate, 

with or without additional crossings of 

BCTC agrees that as part of a Mountain Goat 

management plan for the area, access controls 

may be appropriate. BCTC understands that a 

plan is under development by the Mr. John 

No change in status. 


Toby Creek. 

5 It would be worthwhile knowing 

(a) whether it is realistic to expect that 

routine inspection and maintenance could 

be done without helicopters, as 

recommended for mitigation, and 

(b) how frequently helicopters would be 

needed for more urgent matters, such as 

when searching for downed lines. 

Canyon Creek 

1 If the vicinity of the proposed crossing is 

consistently used as a mineral lick by a 

significant number of goats, as at Toby 

Creek, then re-routing or other major 

mitigation may be warranted. 

Zehnder under contract to the Columbia Basin 

Trust. If this route is selected, BCTC would be 

happy to review the plan once it has been 

developed. 

It is realistic to expect that routine inspection 

and maintenance could be done without 

helicopters provided there is access to all 

transmission structures. 

Helicopters would be needed for more urgent 

matters and in emergency situations such as 

searching for downed transmission lines. 

Frequency of this would depend on the 

frequency of these forced outage. Traditionally, 

the 230kV transmission lines as one proposed 

for this project are very reliable. 

Also, there are other users of helicopters and 

BCTC cannot control their use by others. 

If the Project is approved, BCTC will undertake 

the mitigation measures specified in the EOA 

report. 


Further contacts with a local biologist have not 

suggested this area near Canyon Creek is used 

by other than a few mountain goats each year 

and there are no known mineral licks in the 

area. Mitigation measures as previously 

proposed should be adequate. 



FISHERIES / AQUATIC REVIEW OF EOA 

Issues 

1 Temporary / permanent harmful 

alteration, disruption or destruction of fish 

habitat (HADD), specifically modifications 

to riparian areas composition and 

structure. 

The initial design process will assume that all streams 

and water bodies are fish bearing and will design 

crossings of the water bodies and streams 

appropriately. Once the final design alignment is 

complete BCTC will have the water bodies assessed 

for fish and fish habitat. Where BCTC may be unable 

to avoid effecting fish habitat BCTC’s will consult with 

DFO and follow appropriate guidelines. 


Fish survey will be initiated during 

the development of the 

construction EMP 

2 Noise/ disturbance and modifications to 

fish behavior (i.e. displacement during 

spawning / rearing or critical life history 

stages) as a result of construction and 

subsequent maintenance activity. 

3 Impacts on water quality (refueling, 

increased sedimentation during run offs 

events as a result of clearing right of way 

and pathways, construction activities and 

maintenance of the transmission line) 

4 Cumulative impacts- as it relates to water 

quality, fish and fish habitat. 

BCTC will conduct riparian clearing and any in stream 

works within any DFO prescribed in-stream work 

windows to minimize the effect on fish. 

BCTC will prepare a detailed construction 

environmental management plan that specifies 

requirements for erosion and sediment control 

measures to avoid or minimize the transport of 

sediment into natural water bodies. 

The KNC will be consulted in the development of the 

construction EMP. The draft construction EMP will 

also be reviewed by Ministry of Environment and 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans staff. 

The area in which the project is proposed has an 

infrastructure of roads, trails, and forestry activity, and 

range and farm lands. This project will likely overlap 

with existing and past projects that may have had an 

effect on the watercourses within the study area. 





However, any residual effects to water quality and 

hence fish as a result of this project would be 

insignificant. 

5 Riparian Impacts 

Where riparian habitat loss occurs how 

wills the loss/ impact be compensated 

for? 

Will large mature trees which provided 

critical seasonal thermal cover be 

removed? 

If so how will this be compensated for? 

Will compensation occur off-site or at the 

area of impact? 

6 Compensation Strategy - a detailed 

compensation / mitigation plan needs to 

be formalized prior to transmission line 

construction in order to provide detailed 

examples of how aquatic ecosystem 

impacts will be compensated/ mitigated. 

BCTC will review the plans for cutting within riparian 

habitat with MOE and DFO. The appropriate 

guidelines for cutting within riparian zones will be 

prescribed In the Construction EMP, 

The conclusion of the EOA was that significant 

adverse effects were unlikely with mitigation. Those 

mitigation measures will be formalized before 

construction. In the absence of significant adverse 

effects, compensation will likely not be required. 

However, please note response to point #5. 



Concerns 

1 Section 4.2.2. pp 4-1-vague statement, 

clarification as to what the definition of 

"representative" is would be appropriate. 

2 Section 4.24.1 pp 4-3- Does this 

statement refer to sculpin species or any 

general fish species? 

Representative means that the environmental 

consultant selected streams and sites that exemplified 

the size and morphology of watercourses found along 

the length of the corridor. 

The methodology used has been explained in the 

EOA report. 

The statement “Many species are unlikely to be in 

streams crossed by the corridor options for the CVT 

Project” refers to the table 4-2 in the EOA report. The 

table shows that 33 species of fish are found in the 

Columbia Valley. 



Please refer to BCTC’s response 

to point #1. 


3 Section 4.4.2.1 Canyon Creek- Report 

indicates that Reach 6 of Canyon Creek is 

an obstruction to upstream fish migration; 

this information is speculative and is not 

based on detailed scientific evidence. 

This is based on the following reference 

Timberland Consultants Ltd., 

2001: Reconnaissance (1:20,000) Fish and Fish 

Habitat inventory of West Bench Study Area WSC: 

300. Prepared for Evans Forest Products Limited 


4 Section 4.4.2.4 Bugaboo Creek - Report 

states that Bugaboo Creek is "relatively 

unproductive". 

How was this statement formalized, were 

productivity tests performed or is this a 

subjective statement based on the cold 

water glacial source of the stream? 

5 Section 4.4.2.4 Driftwood Creek- Report 

states that barriers are described for this 

system but fish are found above these 

barriers. Caution should be exercised. 

The EOA describes Bugaboo Creek as “relatively 

unproductive” based on another report (Triton 

Environmental Consultants Ltd. 1999). This was their 

appraisal of the system after working in a number of 

streams in the Steamboat Mountain area. The 

statement about the productivity of the stream did not 

lead to a different assessment of the potential for the 

CVT Project to affect this stream relative to any, more 

productive streams in the area. 

For the purposes of design and construction of the 

transmission line, the section of stream that will be 

crossed will be assumed to be fish habitat. 

The use of the term barrier was taken from a report by 

Hunter (1993) which suggests that there is a barrier to 

fish movement near the mouth of Driftwood Creek but 

clearly populations of fish are found above the barrier. 

It is not unusual to find a population of fish to be 

resident above a barrier. 

For the purposes of design and construction of the 

transmission line, the section of stream that will be 

crossed will be assumed to be fish habitat. 



to point #1. 



to point #1. 


CVT EOA ISSUES/ CONCERNS 


WILDLIFE & VEGETATION REVIEW OF EOA 

ISSUES & CONCERNS 

Vegetation 

1 Sensitive ecosystems may be 

under-represented in mapping 

associated with this report. 

The environmental overview assessment was conducted using best 

available information, including PEM and TEM. Areas not covered by these 

datasets were supplemented by other data sources (e.g. VRI, air photo 

interpretation, field surveys, Ministry of Forest and Range (forest cover 

component of the RESULTS dataset) etc.). However, it is possible that 

some sensitive ecosystems were not captured given the depth of study 

defined for the project. 

BCTC has proposed general approaches that would address sensitive 

ecosystems such as using existing cleared areas, avoiding wetlands and 

old forest patches, having environmental monitors on site during 

construction and development of the construction Environmental 

Management Plan. 

Detailed assessment of the 

transmission alignments (230 and 

69kV) will be done during the 

preparation of the construction 

Environmental Management Plan. 

2 The assertion that there will be a 

Low Potential Impact on sensitive 

ecosystems does not seem to be 

well supported. 

AECOM conducted an environmental overview assessment based on 

conceptual project information and has recommended BCTC to apply best 

management practices in conjunction with environmental monitoring during 

construction to reduce risk. 

AECOM rated the potential impact of the project on sensitive ecosystems 

as moderate in the absence of mitigation and low with mitigation after 

consideration of a number of factors: 

Potential disturbance would not be severe enough to cause irreversible 

damage to these ecosystems. Corridor Options ‘A’ and ‘B’ would not 

No change in status 


3, 

4 

& 

5 

Just north of the Frances Creek 

crossing on Option B (BCTC's 

preferred option), the combination 

of old forest, wetland and dry 

slopes covers a large enough area 

that it cannot be avoided through 

careful structure placement, 

without moving outside of the 

proposed alignment. Even in cases 

where those three types cover 

large portions, but not the entire 

kilometer-wide analysis strip, the 

cost and engineering 

considerations entailed in 

"bending" the line around them 

may decrease the likelihood of 

doing so. Unless such reserves 

are in fact formally established, 

those stands will ultimately be 

logged. 

6 The assessment does not consider 

the potential effect of the 

transmission line's presence of 

fire-dependent ecosystems. 

impact the extent of sensitive ecosystems (i.e. the disturbance by the 

project would push these ecosystems back to an earlier succession stage, 

but would not degrade them to the point that they could not progress to later 

successional stages as expected in the event that the line was removed). 

Additional mitigation measures are identified in the report. Those measures 

would also reduce the potential impact of the CVT Project on sensitive 

ecosystems if constructed using either Route Corridor Option ‘A’ or ‘B’ . 

It is possible that there will be sensitive ecosystems in some areas that will 

be partially disturbed by the construction of the transmission line. However, 

the application of mitigation measures as recommended in the report 

should greatly limit the occurrence of such disturbances. Site-specific 

concerns will be addressed (through the development of additional 

mitigation measures.. 

BCTC does not have the authority to establish Old Growth Management 

Areas on crown land – establishment and management of OGMAs is the 

responsibility of B.C. Integrated Land Management Bureau. 

The environmental overview assessment of the potential impacts of the 

project on vegetation was conducted through a consideration of rare plant 

species, sensitive ecosystems (including those classified as being firemaintained 

ecosystems if they were considered by the province as blue- or 

red-listed communities), and invasive species. 

Detailed assessment will be 

conducted during the preparation of 

the construction environmental 

management plan 


conducted during the preparation of 

the construction environmental 

management plan which would help 

to maintain the plant and animal 

communities associated with the 

transmission line corridor 


7 Even with measures to limit weed 

spread during construction 

(6.3.5.2, Table 6-9), the presence 

of a permanent corridor having 

perpetually disturbed vegetation 

and allowing access to trucks and 

off-road vehicles will almost 

certainly increase the spread of 

invasive weeds. 

In cooperation with the Ministry of Environment, BCTC has developed a 

comprehensive invasive plant management program and is committed to 

implementing this program during construction and operation of the 

proposed transmission lines. 

Mitigation measures will be outlined in 

the construction EMP for the project. 

8 Table 6-9 and other tables 

covering the same material do not 

specifically include the 

recommendations made in the text 

to conduct more detailed plant 

surveys throughout the final route. 

9 There is a small western red cedar 

swamp in the vicinity of the 

Moonraker Diversion, just north of 

the Canyon Creek. Does it align 

with the route? 

A more updated version of the EOA report was produced and was 

submitted as a part of the CPCN Application to the BC Utilities Commission. 

This table was revised and now recommends that BCTC “Have a qualified 

professional conduct a detailed assessment of rare plants and sensitive 

ecosystems along the route once the final alignment has been selected. “ 

At this time the alignment of the 230kV transmission line has not been 

finalized. BCTC will consider this information at the time of finalizing the 

alignment. 


conducted at the time of the 

preparation of the construction EMP. 

Site specific information like this will 

be collected, confirmed by the 

environmental consultant, and 

considered during the preparation of 

the construction EMP. 


Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 

1 The comments relating to 

vegetation also relate wildlife 

habitat suitability or effectiveness, 

particularly points 2-7 vegetation. 

2 There is little information on 

invertebrates. 

3 The potential effect on the 

mountain goat that uses mineral 

licks along Toby Creek. 

4 New access would be created 

through much of the new 

transmission corridor. 

5 The mitigation actions relating to 

nesting birds - Interpretation of 

"practical" and "feasible" 

6 The effect of recommended 

mitigation for invertebrates, reptiles 

and amphibians is difficult to judge 

now. 

Please see above. 

AECOM did survey for rare butterflies, dragonflies and damselflies. 

Weather conditions limited the ability to cover every possible habitat under 

good survey conditions. Most butterflies and dragonflies observed were 

actually using the road right of ways and cleared areas. 

Please review EOA Addendum on Mountain Goats. 

Also, BCTC has proposed an alternative route avoiding Toby Creek 

Crossings. 

As per the EOA report, there is already access along most of the proposed 

transmission route. BCTC is committed to maintain all natural barriers and 

use already existing access where possible. 

BCTC acknowledges there is potential for increased human access to 

certain areas that will be cleared by the project. BCTC also understands 

that this is considered a benefit by some members of the public and 

government agencies and a detriment by others. 

Depending on the situation, there could be many mitigation measures that 

could be applied. The definition as used in the EOA Report, of 

'feasible' means physically possible and 'practical' means that the 

measure will result in a net reduction in environmental impact 

without being cost-prohibitive. 

The impacts of the project and the effects of the applied mitigation 

measures will be reflected in the environmental monitoring reports during 

the construction of the project. 

Please see above 


BCTC is currently evaluating this 

alternative route. 

BCTC will work with private land 

owners to manage access through 

private parcels. 

BCTC cannot control access to 

Crown Lands and will work with the 

government agencies to create an 

access management plan. 

[NTD – BCTC will not initiate the 

creating of this plan; however will 

work if any activity is initiated by other 

governmental agencies. Deepak] 




7 The only red-listed vertebrate 

confirmed in the study area is the 

badger. One additional step would 

be to avoid creating roads or 

pacing structures over existing 

burrows of badgers or their main 

prey Columbian Ground squirrels 

At the time of access construction, environmental monitors will scan the 

area for badgers. If a burrow is identified, appropriate mitigation measures 

will applied. 

This additional measure will be 

included in the construction EMP. 

8 The potential presence of the bluelisted 

southern red-blacked vole 

(galei subspecies) might more 

appropriately be identified as 

"Likely" rather than "Unknown". 

9 Table 5-7 identifies the least 

chipmunk as having been detected 

in the study area. 

10 Olive-sided flycatchers (blue list) 

were recorded once in the surveys, 

near the northern end of the 

proposed route. 

11 The list of garter snakes (Table 5- 

10) does not mesh with 

expectations for this area. 

12 It is not clear from the material 

available to my why this option B 

was chosen. 

Southern red-backed vole (galei subspecies) are listed 

”Unknown” because AECOM does not have enough information to 

conclude otherwise. AECOM did not find any red-backed vole in the specific 

study area. 

It appears that there may have been a misidentification. AECOM cannot 

confirm that the rare species was present. 

BCTC recognizes that birds may be transient in the study area and 

mitigation measures have been provided in the EOA report. 

Rare birds could be nesting in the area, and mitigation measures as 

suggested in the Environmental Overview Report should reduce risks to all 

bird species. 

AECOM has good photo documentation for most of the snakes observed 

and would be happy to follow up with a species expert to confirm which 

sub-species was observed. 

The basis upon which Option B was identified as preferred is discussed in 

Section 5 of the CPCN Application (Exhibit B-1) 


AECOM will issue errata to the 

Environmental Overview Assessment 

Report removing this species from the 

species list of confirmed mammals on 

site. 


conducted at the time of the 

preparation of the construction EMP. 

Also, during the construction (ROW 

clearing and access construction) 

environmental monitors will survey for 

the nesting birds during the nesting 

season. 




THE KTUNAXA NATION 

AND THE UPPER COLUMBIA VALLEY: 

A SURVEY 

OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION AND RESEARCH 

RELATING TO ABORIGINAL USE AND INTEREST 

Prepared on behalf of the Ktunaxa Nation Council 

by 

Brian D. Robertson 

2160 West 48 th Ave., 

Vancouver, B.C. 

V6M 2P5 

e-mail: robertsonb@shaw.ca 

April, 2010 


CONTENTS 

Page No. 

1. Preface and Objectives 1 

2. Backgound to the Columbia Valley Transmission [CVT] Project 1 

3. Approach of This Study 3 

4. The Geography of the East Kootenays 4 

5. General Notes on the Ktunaxa People 5 

6. Archaeological Assessments Relating to the Ktunaxa Presence 8 

7. Historical Overview of the Eurocanadian Impact on the Ktunaxa 11 

8. Traditional Territory of the Ktunaxa as Seen by Early Europeans 15 

9. Government Documentation 20 

10. The Kinbasket Band 23 

11. Observations by Local Individuals 26 

12. Ethnographic Assessments of Territorial Boundaries and Use 30 

13. Summary of Findings 45 

Bibliography 46 

1 


THE KTUNAXA NATION AND THE UPPER COLUMBIA VALLEY 

A SURVEY OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION 

RELATING TO ABORIGINAL USE AND INTEREST 

1. PREFACE AND OBJECTIVES 

The B.C. Transmission Corporation wishes to construct a hydro-electric transmission line [the 

Columbia Valley Transmission or CVT line] along the west side of the Columbia Valley from the 

vicinity of Invermere to Golden, a distance of approximately 115 kilometres. As part of the 

consultative requirement, the company has requested the Ktunaxa Nation to provide information 

regarding its current and traditional uses and interests in areas perceived to be impacted by this 

project [the study area]. 

This report seeks to provide information on these uses and interests gained from historical 

documentation and ethnographic studies. The preparation of this report has not involved any 

'traditional use' interviews with Ktunaxa elders and knowledge-holders. As such, this report is not 

comprehensive and does not purport to provide a comprehensive summary of Ktunaxa traditional 

and/or current interests and uses in the project area. 

However, this report concludes that the historical documentation, supported by the consensus opinion 

of nearly all ethnographers, points to the study area lying within the core traditional territory of the 

Ktunaxa Nation and that it has been an important part of their seasonal round for a very long time. 

2. BACKGROUND TO THE COLUMBIA VALLEY TRANSMISSION PROJECT 

The proponent, B.C. Transmission Corporation, asserts that existing 69 kV transmission facilities in 

the Invermere-Golden area are now operating close to capacity and proposes a new 230kV to meet 

growing peak (winter) demand in the Golden area.. According to the Application of the proponent to 

the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) 

for the project: 

The CVT Project is proposed to address the electrical supply needs of the portion of 

the Columbia Valley north of Invermere. The most pressing need is for reliable supply 

to meet load growth, especially in and around the town of Golden. Load in this area is 

forecast to presently exceed capacity of the present source of supply, a 69 kV 

transmission line (circuit 60L271), fed by 230/69 kV transformation at Invermere 

Substation (INV). The preferred solution to meet the identified need consists of the 

construction of: 

a) a new substation in the Golden area, to be named Kicking Horse Substation 

(KHS); 

b) a new 230 kV transmission line connecting the existing Invermere Substation 

(INV) and the new Kicking Horse Substation (KHS); 

c) a new 69 kV line to connect the new Kicking Horse Substation (KHS) to the 

existing Golden substation (GDN); and 

d) modifications at the existing substations in Golden, Invermere and Cranbrook. 

These facilities would add cost effective and reliable capacity to address the load 

1 


growth in the upper Columbia Valley. The Golden area load would be transferred to 

the new facilities to alleviate transmission constraints on the existing 69 kV system. 

The total length of the proposed new transmission lines would be approximately 115 km. 

Figure 1. A portion of the Kootenay region, showing the proposed routing of the Columbia Valley 

Transmission lines 1 

1 Provided in the Application of the B.C. Transmission Corp. 

2 


3. APPROACH OF THIS STUDY 

The main thrust of this study has been to locate and review relevant historical documentation, 

ethnographic studies and scholarly publications with the aim of illuminating the history of aboriginal 

peoples in the subject area with a particular focus on the Ktunaxa. 

The Internet has played a fundamental role in locating these sources. A crucial resource has been the 

various computer search engines mounted on websites for most major catalogues, including those for 

the libraries of the Universities of British Columbia [UBC], Simon Fraser, Toronto, Washington and 

Gonzaga, the Vancouver Public Library [VPL] and for holdings in the B.C. Archives and Library 

Services [BCARS], Library and Archives Canada [LAC], the Department of Indian and Northern 

Affairs Canada [INAC], 2 and the Hudson’s Bay Co. Archive [HBCA] located in the Provincial 

Archives of Manitoba. 

The internet also contains a myriad of other useful websites, including those of first nations, 

environmental and historical associations and local archives, as well as on-line publishers of books 

and essays relating to the area. Often these are useful stepping stones to find primary and secondary 

source materials. 3 

Major archives visited in person during this research include the Special Collection and Koerner 

Library divisions of U.B.C., the Northwest Collection of the Vancouver Public Library, British 

Columbia Archives and Research Services [BCARS] and Hudson’s Bay Company Archives and The 

Resource Centre of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Local archives visited [at time of writing] 

include those in Castlegar [Selkirk College Local Collection], Fort Steele, Kaslo, Nakusp, Nelson 

[the Shawn Lamb Collection at Touchstones Museum], Revelstoke and those of the Ktunaxa Nation 

Council at Cranbrook. 

This study presents a general historical summary of the area with a focus on how the documentation 

gathered reflects on the inter-tribal relationships through time as they relate to traditional territory. 

Traditional material culture will also be a focus, primarily through published ethnographies, with a 

view to exploring the historical use and importance of the subject area to the Ktunaxa people. 

Names used will employ, in a somewhat arbitrary fashion, common Anglicized versions as opposed 

to constructions informed by linguistic symbols or other specialized conventions, e.g., Ktunaxa, 

Shuswap, Sinixt, Okanagan, etc. 

It is important to note that this research has relied entirely on the review of written documents 

reflecting the observations and views, principally of non-natives: explorers, fur traders, early settlers, 

ethnographers, archaeologists and historians. The conclusions that are drawn are based on this 

evidence and may not completely accord with the knowledge of the members of the Ktunaxa Nation. 

2 The holdings of primary interest in LAC and INAC are found in Record Group 10 [RG 10] of the Federal Government 

of Canada, the majority of which has been microfilmed. The resource centers at the resource centers of Specific Claims 

West [INAC] and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs [UBCIC], both located in Vancouver, have fairly complete collections 

of the Black Series [the western component] of RG 10 microfilmed documents. 

3 Special mention must be made of the web site Early Canadiana Online [http://canadiana.org], on which can be found in 

their entirety a number of early accounts relating to the area and published in the 19 th Century by fur traders and others 

and available as .pdf downloads. These include the writings of David Thompson, Ross Cox, Alexander Ross, the artist 

Paul Kane and Father Pierre-Jean De Smet. 

3 


4. THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE EAST KOOTENAYS 

As this study will make reference to numerous locations and their inter-relating roles in the traditional 

and more recent Ktunaxa modes of life, a description of major aspects of the region’s geography is 

useful. The territory of the Ktunaxa features dramatic and formative geological features, most 

notably three high north-south mountain ranges - the Rockies, Purcells and Selkirks – and two major 

river systems, the Columbia and the Kootenay. An interesting feature of the territory is that these two 

great rivers rise within a few miles of each other, and form opposing arcs of hundreds of miles in 

length before joining near the town of Castlegar and flowing south through Washington State. 

Other crucial elements of the economic geography of the region are the many mountain passes, which 

traditionally provided the Ktunaxa people access to both upland game and material resources beyond 

these mountains, most notably the bison of the western plains and fish in the West Kootenay region. 

Some of these passes are now used as routes for major rail and road links. 

These features naturally give rise to a great diversity of biogeoclimatic zones, ranging from damp 

timberlands to xeric grasslands to alpine tundra and consequently a wide range of adaptations in 

resource utilization which include the broad array of mammals, fish, birds, plants and invertebrates 

(e.g. molluscs) that have sustained the Ktunaxa and their ancestors for millennia. 

The highest abundance and diversity of wildlife species within the Nelson Forest Region occurs in the 

East Kootenay. This are is unique in its capacity to support seven species of ungulates, many of which 

inhabit the same winter ranges. This diversity, couple with the capacity to support several species of 

carnivores, makes the East Kootenay a wildlife area of national significance. 4 

A breakdown of this diversity indicating that the study area has the best wildlife values in the region 

has been tabulated by Pinnell in a 1998 report on the impact of forestry and titled “Background 

Information for Kootenay-Boundary Region” 5 

Southern Park Ranges 

Location: Rocky Mountains including Bull River and Blaeberry River 

Terrain: Rugged mountains, long rivers and narrow valleys, 1100 to 3500m 

Rainshadow area, cool and dry 

Wildlife: Moose, elk, white-tailed deer, grizzly and black bear, mule deer in valley bottoms 

Bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, mountain goats at higher elevations 

Central Park Ranges 

Location: Rocky Mountains from Blaeberry in the south to Hugh Allen Creek 

Terrain: High, rugged mountains with glaciers, short steep sided mountains 

600 to 3300 m 

Wildlife: Floodplains, riparian and avalanche tracks provide habitat for moose, elk, grizzly, 

black bear, beaver, wolf 

Caribou population reduced due to flooding of Columbia 

Big Bend Trench 

Location: Northwest of Donald Station 

Terrain: Narrow straight valley with steep sides; 680 to 1100m 

4 Demarchi, D.A., 1986, from Braumandl, T.F., and Curran, M.P , p. 201, 2002 

5 Pinnell, Heather; pp. 21, 22, 1998 

4 


BEC: ICH only; wet and cool 

Wildlife: Severely impacted by impoundment of Columbia River at Mica Creek 

Caribou almost eliminated; moose, grizzly and black bears 

East Kootenay Trench 

Location: Rocky Mountain Trench from north of Golden to the south 

Terrain: Valley 700 to 1100m 

BEC: PP, IDF, MS, ICH 

Wildlife: Best ecosection for wild game due to grasslands, shrublands and wetlands 

Elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer winter throughout; bighorn sheep on steep south-facing 

slopes on east side of trench 

Impacts on wildlife arise not only because of direct loss of feed and cover for these animals due to 

land disturbances but the long term suppression of genetic viability arising out of fragmentation and 

the loss of migration corridors. For example Ministry of Forests Land Management Handbook No. 

20 6 states: 

For some species habitat fragmentation results in increased predation and parasitism while others are 

subjected to harsher weather conditions or increased vulnerability to large-scale fires and disease 

epidemics. Small populations are also susceptible to demographic changes such as loss of 

reproductively active individuals and may experience loss of genetic variability through inbreeding. 

One way to minimize problems associated with habitat fragmentation is to link wildlife habitat patches 

by travel corridors. Such landscape linkages can function as pathways for genetic interchange, for daily 

or seasonal movements, and for range extension. 

Although this material was originally intended to address to concerns about timber harvesting 

practices, it is directly applicable to the impacts of the proposed project as well. With respect to the 

Columbia Valley Transmission project, the Ktunaxa Nation is concerned about potential impacts of 

land disturbances on wildlife and fishing populations, especially concerning hunting and fishing 

opportunities and pressures, traditional food and medicine gathering areas and sacred or spiritual 

sites. 

5. GENERAL NOTES ON THE KTUNAXA PEOPLE 

The consulting report of Keefer et al 7 made on behalf of the Ktunaxa Nation with respect to the 

proposed Jumbo Glacier resort project provides good summaries of the present and as well as the precontact 

bands of the Ktunaxa people. The report indicates that there are currently seven bands of 

Ktunaxa people consisting of five “northern” or Canadian bands and two “southern” bands in the 

USA: 

•The Columbia Lake Band (a·kisq’nuknik’) near Windermere, B.C.; this band consists of the descendants of the 

qatmukinik (Toby Creek) and Whiteswan Lake (kaintak Band). 

•The Tobacco Plains Band (a·kanuxunik’) near Grasmere, BC, originally lived near the Graves Creek and Small 

Creek. At the time of the government imposing reserves on the people this band was camping at the present day 

border crossing, Rooseville, B.C. 

6 Braumandl, T.F., and Curran, M.P., pp. 204, 2002 

7 Keefer, M. et al, 2004 

5 


•The St. Mary’s Band (aq’amnik’), woodland Ktunaxa, were forced to relocate from Josephs Prairie (present 

day Cranbrook) to the St. Eugene’s Mission area. 

•The Lower Kootenay Band (aqakŧhaŧxu) lit. Swamp people, is located just south of Creston. 

•The Shuswap Band (ksamnik’) near Invermere, B.C. that consists of the Shuswap descendants of the Kinbasket 

clan, who have inter-married with the Ktunaxa, Colville and Stoney people, as well as Ktunaxa descendants. 

•The Bonners Ferry band (aqankminik) is located in Northern Idaho at Bonners Ferry. 

•The Elmo Montana Band (ksanka) members were moved onto the Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribe by the 

U.S. government in 1855 from the Jennings, Montana area. (Keefer 2002) 

At time of writing, the Shuswap Band has left the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Tribal Council (which 

represented the five Ktunaxa communities in Canada), and this body has since been renamed the 

Ktunaxa Nation Council and now represents the four remaining Ktunaxa communities in Canada.. 

The report by Keefer and his colleagues also describes the make up of the Ktunaxa people before the 

upheavals caused by the introduction of the horse and the coming of Europeans: 

Before European contact, smallpox epidemics and the acquisition of horses brought about major 

changes in Ktunaxa culture. Before this time it is believed that there were eleven Ktunaxa Bands. A 

Ktunaxa Band lived on the east side of the mountains in the Oldman River watershed. In the literature 

this Band was known as the Tunaxa Band; it is believed that this Band became extinct from an early 

small pox epidemic. The Tobacco Plains (akanaxunik) Band was formerly based around the 

confluence of Small and Graves Creeks. The Libby (ksuq’kinik) Band was based around modern day 

Libby Montana. The Whiteswan Lake (qa intak) Band wintered around Whiteswan Lake in BC. Michel 

Prairie (qakawakanmituqnik) Band used Michelle Prairie near present day Sparwood to plant Tobacco, 

but they were primarily based on the east side of the Continental Divide, their name means river 

running into and out again (Michelle Creek into the Elk River). The akiyiinik or “thigh bone or femur 

people” lived around the present day Jennings, Montana area. aqukua isukinik Band occupied country 

between Tweed and Warland Montana on the Kootenay River, this Band is extinct because of an 

epidemic. The qatmukinik or Toby creek Band wintered around the Toby Creek area and used the 

Upper Columbia basin for winter subsistence and the Lower Columbia Valley during salmon season 

(Laura McCoy per. com & Schaeffer “Kootenai Social Life #49”). 

Roughly reflecting this distribution of villages, the Ktunaxa Nation definition of the extent of their 

traditional territory is indicated in the attached map [Figure 2]. 

There are several theories concerning the origin of the name Ktunaxa. Many ethnographers believe 

that it originally was a Blackfoot word with a number of meanings. Another theory told to Claude 

Schaeffer was that it derived from attempts by whites to pronounce the word for the pulling of hide 

covers over the unique bows of the unique sturgeon nosed bark canoes, an act called ktuna’ki. 8 For 

their part, the Ktunaxa traditionally referred to themselves by their own band names, not an overall 

designation, although this has changed to the single name in modern times. 

8 This explanation is improbable as the first white man to record meeting the Ktunaxa and writing a version of this name 

was Peter Pond, east of the Rockies in 1792 and likely far away from any sturgeon nose canoes. 

6 


Figure 2. Traditional territory of the Ktunaxa Nation [supplied by Ktunaxa Nation Council] 

Ktunaxa territory on the Canadian side of the border is divided according to Ktunaxa tradition into 

six districts: 

• Land of the Wood Tick, in the Tobacco Plains area and east to the Rockies; 

• Land of the Raven, in the Rockies containing the headwaters of the Kootenay River 

• Land of the Spruce Grouse, east of the Columbia Lakes and Radium Hot Springs into 

the Rockies; 

• Land of the Eagle, from St. Mary’s to Golden, on the west side of the Columbia, then 

both sides of the Columbia Valley up to the Big Bend [Kinbasket Reservoir]; 

• Land of the Wolverine, centered around Kootenay Lake; and, 

• Land of the Chickadee, extending from Castlegar to Big Bend, centred around the 

Slocan watershed, and lying between the Columbia River and the Selkirk Mountains. 

7 


The above summary of the traditional districts within the Ktunaxa territory in British Columbia 

indicates that the proposed CVT line lies in the Land of the Eagle. 

Newcomers to the Kootenays noted that the Ktunaxa spoke the same language throughout this area, 

but one very different to that of surrounding tribes. Despite this, they saw evident differences in their 

material economy, enough to generate the distinctions of Upper Kootenay, centred around the Upper 

Columbia and Upper Kootenai valleys, and the Lower Kootenay whose focus lay more to the south 

and west nearer Kootenay Lake and the confluence of the Kootenay and Columbia Rivers. 

Ktunaxa appears to be a language isolate, essentially unrelated to surrounding languages. Some 

scholars have suggested that there are special elements in the language that appear to connect it with 

only the Algonquin language group to the east, which interestingly includes their traditional enemies 

the Blackfeet. Others have suggested that it has a different type of connection with Salish languages. 

The linguist Matthew Dryer assessed these possible connections and concluded that the similarities 

with Algonquin languages which he describes as “quirky features” are highly specific and likely due 

to later contact, not a common “genetic” inheritance. 9 He finds the connection of Ktunaxa to 

Salishan languages less convincing, pointing out that more general typological similarities indicate a 

common inheritance is possible but not very useful since that connection would actually apply to 

most tribes in the Pacific Northwest. 

This situation has interesting parallels in Europe, for example, in the Hungarian and Basque 

languages. Both are language isolates, and both are spoken by people who have seen vast migrations 

of people moving around them through the past several millennia but have retained their ancient 

languages, probably because of their homeland’s mountainous geography. Similarly, a likely 

explanation for the isolate nature of the Ktunaxa language is that these people have been in their 

mountainous Kootenay enclave for at least several millennia, while the evolution and movement of 

other language groups has swirled around them. As the Royal Engineer and Surveyor Charles 

Wilson observed in the 1850s, this tribe “is entirely isolated, and has had far less intercourse with the 

whites than any other surrounding tribe." 

6. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS RELATING TO KTUNAXA PRESENCE 

Archaeological evidence also suggests that the ancestors of present-day Ktunaxa have inhabited the 

Columbia Plateau for many thousands of years. Archaeologist Wayne Choquette has noted that 

archaeological sites throughout the Columbia Plateau in the period 5,000 to 2,500 years ago contain 

implements made of the distinctive grey-green argillite found in the Kootenay Lake area: 10 

The abundant representation of the distinctive Kootenay Argillite in archaeological sites around 

Creston, in northern Idaho, and as far up the Kootenay River as the Libby, Montana vicinity makes it 

clear that the north arm of Kootenay Lake was an important part of the aboriginal seasonal round. This 

appears to have been especially the case between about 5000 and 2500 years ago when Kootenay 

Argillite attained its highest proportions in upriver artefact assemblages. In other parts of the region, 

this time period is characterized by a greater orientation to the resources of aquatic and riparian habitats 

by the resident human populations… 

9 Dryer, Matthew S. Kutenai, Algonquian, and the Pacific Northwest from an Areal Perspective 

10 Choquette, 2005, pp. 13-15 

8 


The Inissimi Complex was defined for this time period to encompass a distinctive set of artefact 

assemblages on the Kootenay river and its major tributaries, from the big bend in northwestern Montana 

at least as far downstream as the north arm of Kootenay lake…Characteristic features of the Inissimi 

Complex are predominance of Kootenay Argillite and a distinctive form of projectile point not found in 

surrounding regions that has an expanding stem, a ground convex base, and acute to right-angled 

shoulders… 

The abundance and distribution of Kootenay Argillite in Inissimi Complex sites along Kootenay Lake 

and the Kootenay River as far upstream as Libby, Montana has been interpreted to reflect the use of 

canoes. The seasonal round is hypothesized to have comprised wintering near the important deer winter 

ranges at the south end of the Purcell Mountains and a summer focus on the salmon fishery along the 

lower Kootenay River. Prior to the return to the wintering area, a northward swing was made to obtain 

stone from quarries above the North Arm of the Kootenay and to hunt deer on the east side of the lake. 

Were these Indians the ancestors of modern Ktunaxa? An archaeological discovery in Alberta 

appears to cement these ancient argillite sites with the uniquely Ktunaxan mode of life of fishing on 

waterways of the Kootenays and hunting east of the Rockies. The archaeologist Brian Reeves wrote 

of his work on the 2000 year old “Pelican Lake” phase of the famous site of Head-Smashed-In- 

Buffalo-Jump: 11 

Some of the projectile points from the Pelican Lake strata have stems rather than being notched at the 

corners. These too were made from an exotic raw material: metamorphosed argillite from the Kootenay 

Lake area of British Columbia some 800 kilometers west of Head-Smashed-In. Both their source and 

their alien shape suggest that visitors from Kootenay Lake occasionally participated in the Pelican Lake 

people’s buffalo drives… 

For his part, Choquette and his colleagues have been following the distribution of a chert originally 

quarried at a site called Top of the World in the Canadian Rockies. This hard stone was highly prized 

for tool making and has been found throughout and beyond the Ktunaxa range, in British Columbia, 

Washington, Montana and Idaho. 

The first scientific archaeological investigation in the study area may have been carried out in 1954, 

when an archaeological team led by Charles Borden of the University of British Columbia performed 

over 50 site surveys in the Upper Columbia stretching from Lake Windermere to the U.S. border. 12 

In a gradient increasing towards the south end of this range, his team uncovered large numbers of 

expanded stem points characteristic of the Ktunaxa, many of which were encrusted by a patina 

created by centuries of being subjected to the elements. As they moved northward to Columbia 

Lakes they encountered more side-notched points which were thought to be more characteristic of 

Interior Salish and concluded they were probably left by the Kinbasket people. Remains of what were 

identified as Salishan pit houses were also found in the vicinity of Columbia and Windermere Lakes, 

leading Borden to conclude that the southern range of the Kinbasket Shuswaps may have at one time 

included all of Columbia Lake. Unlike many of the expanded stem points, the side-notch points 

appeared to have had virtually no patina of aging, attesting to relatively recent deposition. 13 

However subsequent excavations have called into question some of the conclusions of Borden’s team 

11 From Scientific American, October, 1983, from Weir, p. 9. 

12 Borden, Charles 1956, pp. 73-104, 

13 In more recent research, Wayne Choquette has argued that the Ktunaxa also appear to have used side-notch points, thus 

disputing an orthodoxy that has usually attributed this style to non-Ktunaxa people. At the least, the conclusions of 

Borden’s team should be viewed with some caution 

9 


concerning the identification of these more recent cultural heritage resources. One examination, 

consisting of field work carried out by Paul Snead and his team in 1978 14 in response to a proposal to 

divert the Kootenay River into the Columbia for power generation purposes, stated [pp. 51-52]: 

…test excavations at the northeast end of Windermere Lake (McKenzie, 1975), Fairmont Hot Springs 

(Choquette, 1971) and several other localities, have not revealed conclusive evidence of use as 

habitations. According to Borden, "a test excavation just beyond the lip of a large house pit (sic) at site 

EcPx-2...yielded no artifacts, but much ash, fire cracked rocks, and numerous splintered animal bones" 

(Borden, 1956: 81). Reexamination of site EcPx-2 by this study team revealed no large house pit. In 

fact, as mentioned before, many of the so-called house pits, previously recorded by other investigators 

are natural features. Furthermore, we believe that most, if not all, of these large features were not used 

as habitations but rather as large storage or food processing facilities. 

Concerning their attribution to Shuswap people, he more generally concludes [p. 58] 

Along with earlier investigators, we observed that the two major classes of projectile points were small 

side-notched and triangular varieties and, generally larger stemmed and corner-notched varieties. In his 

earlier investigations, Borden assigned the small side-notched points to the Salishan Shuswap and 

considered only the larger corner-notched arrow points to be associated with the Kootenay Indians 

(1956: 97). However, research by others (Choquette, 1971; and, Taylor, 1973) and our own 

observations of artifact distributions indicate that this association is only partially correct, at best. The 

Kootenay, also, made and used small triangular side-notched projectile points. 

Features, such as the supposed housepits, exhibited on heritage sites in the Upper Columbia valley have 

also been used to assign cultural identity and chronology (Borden, 1956). However, we believe this can 

be tentative, at best. Features like food processing facilities are known to occur in both Shuswap and 

Ktunaxa settlement patterns. Storage pits, although thought to be more closely associated with the 

Shuswap, cannot be definitely assigned to them alone. Finally, the large circular depressions, thought 

to be Shuswap housepits, as we have argued earlier, may not even be habitation features. 

Snead’s team found evidence of considerable pre-historic and proto-historic activity in the Upper 

Columbia Valley. In their Phase I reconnaissance, they discovered 180 heritage sites and reevaluated 

51 more, concluding that only 13 were attributable to “historic Euro-canadian 

colonization”. The study projected from its representative sampling that “there would be about 238 

heritage sites in the potential impact zone which is over 100 linear miles long and 250 to 1000 feet 

wide” [p. viii]. Almost 90% of these aboriginal sites were classified as close to the high water line of 

the Columbia [p. 65]. The area distribution of all aboriginal sites, indicating that almost half may be 

in or near the CVT study area, was given as follows [p. ix]: 

119 (55%) are recorded in the area from Canal Flats to Invermere (Section 1), 93 (42%) are recorded in 

the area from Invermere to Spillimacheen (Sector 2), and 6 (3%) are found in the area from 

Spillimacheen to Golden (Sector 3). 

The Snead report cautiously concludes that from at least the middle of the Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 

A.D. 500-1800) “there is evidence of substantial occupation, probably by ancestral Kootenay 

speakers, in the Upper Kootenay River valley and, by extension, probably in the Upper Columbia 

River Valley." 

Although they are most famously thought of as passing over the Rockies to hunt buffalo, the Upper 

Ktunaxa regularly travelled westward over the mountains too. For example, Choquette observed 15 : 

14 Snead, Paul G., Kootenay River Diversion - Cultural Heritage Resources, Phase I Impact Statement, January 1978 

10 


Another group of Ktunaxa, the Qatmuk’nek, also frequented the Duncan Lake vicinity during their 

seasonal transhumance between the winter ungulate range at the Columbia’s headwaters in the Rocky 

Mountain Trench and the summer salmon fishery of the Arrow Lakes. 

In the Jumbo Pass research study, 16 he and his co-authors conclude that the Toby Creek people 

(whose descendants are now largely part of the Columbia Lakes Band of Windermere) have traveled 

through the Purcells into the Lardeau-Duncan area and on to the Arrow Lakes as a part of their 

seasonal round for a very long time. From personal observation they found the route from Toby 

Creek over the saddle of Jumbo Pass and down Glacer Valley to be topographically suitable with 

considerable supportive habitat. In addition, a somewhat cursory examination yielded several sites 

bearing signs of pre-contact use. 

The archaeological evidence therefore is consistent with the notion that, with the exception of the 

recent adoption of the horse in the eastern part of their range and the added focus on the buffalo hunt, 

the Ktunaxa first encountered by Europeans on the Columbia Plateau in the 19 th century were living 

in much the same way and largely in the same areas their ancestors had for millenia, and that a major 

focal point of their range was the upper Columbia River Valley. 

7. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE EUROCANADIAN IMPACT ON THE KTUNAXA 

Most of our early written knowledge of the traditional culture and inter-relationships of the Ktunaxa 

and other Indians of the Columbia Plateau comes to us from the observations of fur traders, 

missionaries and adventurers who began arriving in the area in the early 1800s. 17 This was a time of 

upheaval in western North America, arising primarily from three great impacts of Europeans upon 

Indian culture. 

The descendants of horses originally taken from the extensive Spanish ranching district around Santa 

Fe expanded northward through the western plains, and early in the 18 th Century became a crucial 

part of life for those engaged in the seasonal buffalo hunts on the eastward portions of the Plateau and 

the Great Plains. 18 With ranges dramatically expanded for cultures long used to travelling on foot, 

increased competition for hunting territory and access to the buffalo herds soon evolved into range 

wars between the various tribes and an increased glorification of warrior culture. Into this volatile 

mix stepped fur traders who brought with them trade goods and contagious diseases, most notably 

firearms and smallpox, and these had further huge impacts on the indigenous people of the Plateau. 

In order to assist readers with place names of the area, some of which are no longer found on modern 

maps, a detail of John Arrowsmith’s 1864 map of “The Provinces of British Columbia & Vancouver 

Island, with Portions of the United States & Hudson’s Bay Territories” is included as Figure 3. 

15 Choquette, 2005, p. 14 

16 Keefer et al, 2004, pp. 23-25 

17 According to Bill Brunton, the first European contact with the Ktunaxa occurred in 1792 “when Peter Fidler met a 

small party east of the Rocky Mountains” from the Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12, p. 232. 

18 For example, see Haines, Frances (1932): he attributes this spread to the frequent escapes from Spanish missions by 

indentured Indians with their horses and equestrian knowledge, followed by the development of systematic horse theft, 

especially by the Apache. Aided greatly by the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, horses are believed to have reached the Plateau 

area by the 1720s, after which they were spread north and east into Blackfoot and Cree country. 

11 


Fig. 3. A detail [high resolution] from the 1864 map of western North America by John Arrowsmith, a 

useful reference to names of places and Indian tribes as found in historical documents of the 19 th Century. 

12 


Perhaps the greatest of these impacts happened on the eastern portions of traditional Ktunaxa 

territory. The eastward situation of Plains tribes, especially the Blackfoot, gave them the first 

opportunities to trade with the westward moving agents of the Hudson’s Bay and North West 

Companies who themselves were eager to improve the efficiency of fur collection by introducing 

arms to Indian hunters. Sporting the new rifles, driven by the competition for buffalo access and 

protective of their new status as middlemen, the Blackfoot Indians and their allies soon obtained the 

upper hand over the traditional weapons of the Ktunaxa and Flathead Salish further west. 

As a result of this military imbalance, most historians and ethnographers [e.g., Turney-High] agree 

that the portion of the Ktunaxa living on or near the Plains were forced to withdraw into the Rockies 

and further west to join their linguistic brethren in what approximates their post-contact territory. 

This notion was first advanced by David Thompson and Alexander Henry, the latter stating: 19 

Along the Clearwater, and near the foot of the mountains are still to be seen the remains of some of the 

dwellings of the Kootenays, built of wood, straw, and pine branches. The same are observed along 

Riviére de la Jolie Prairie and Ram river. This gives us every reason to suppose that nation formerly 

dwelt along the foot of these mountains and even as far down as our present establishment, near which 

the remains of some of their lodges are still to be seen. About the time the Kootenays were in 

possession of this part of the country, the Snare Indians dwelt on the Kootenay or Columbia. But the 

former, being driven into the mountains by the different tribes who lived E. of them, with whom they 

were perpetually at war, in their turn waged war upon their harmless neighbours on the W., the Snare 

Indians, and soon drove them off the land the Kootenays now inhabit. This is on the upper part of the 

Columbia, and on Ram [sic] river, a little S. of it, now called McGillivray’s river, but formerly termed 

by the natives Flat Bow river, from a tribe of Indians who then inhabited the lower part of it….The 

Snare Indians, it seems, retired northward to an uninhabited part of the Rocky mountains, where they 

continue to wander, a most wretched and defenceless people, who never war upon any of their 

neighbours. 

Fellow fur trader Ross Cox also wrote of the initial impact of the gun on Ktunaxa-Blackfoot range 

wars: 20 The Cootonais are the remnant of a once brave and powerful tribe, who, like the Flat-heads, were 

perpetually engaged in war with the Black-feet for the right of hunting on the buffalo grounds. 

Previous to our arrival among them they entertained the most dreadful hatred against white men, to 

whom they attributed all their misfortunes, owing to the assistance which their enemies received from 

the North-west Company’s people to the eastward of the mountains. 

Like Thompson and Henry, some modern authorities appear to hold that this was a general westward 

movement, with a few believing that the Ktunaxa are relative newcomers [since the 1700s] to their 

current treaty claim area. On the strength of some key informants, Turney-High, the most prominent 

of the Ktunaxa ethnographers, believed that the ultimate origins of the Ktunaxa were “not only an 

eastern provenance…but even a trans-Rocky mountain one”, although he evidently felt that this was 

far earlier than the 1700s. 21 The B.C. Department of Education guide book for B.C. schools, 

developed in conjunction with B.C. Archives in the early 1950s, attempted to synthesize oral tradition 

and documentary sources into the following: 

19 From Coues, E., pp. 703-706. 

20 Cox, R., Adventures on the Columbia, pg. 233. 

21 Harry Turney-High, Ethnography of the Kutenai, p. 10. Note that on the same page his acknowledgment of a “strong 

tradition” of the Ktunaxa that this westward movement was at “a very ancient time”. Also, he accepts “Tobacco Plains, 

or the Big Village” as “the ancient Kutenai ‘capital’ ” [p. 16]. 

13 


They speak of a racial group living in the vicinity of McLeod, Alberta, half of whom became the ancestors 

of the Piegans. The other half, their numbers reduced by a virulent epidemic, crossed the mountains to 

inhabit what is now the south-eastern part of British Columbia. The members of this latter group became 

the ancestors of the present day Kootenay. 

However, linguistic analysis, archaeology and material adaptation demonstrate the longevity of 

Ktunaxa occupation of their Kootenay territories. The most plausible explanation is that the Ktunaxa 

are an ancient tribe who predate the much larger Salishan and Cree tribes in the region, having 

resisted the swirl of migration around them because of their isolation, and who experienced losses of 

effective control of buffalo hunting grounds in the eastern part of their traditional range because of 

their relatively late acquisition of firearms and the ravages of smallpox. 22 

This and other diseases obviously played a major role in reducing the Ktunaxa presence on the Plains. 

The early ethnographer James Teit considered the Ktunaxa on the plains an old offshoot of the main 

body of Ktunaxa, and called this group the Tunaxe; he suggested that they disappeared primarily 

because of smallpox with an assist by Blackfoot predation. This echoes an earlier account of one of 

the Catholic missionaries in the area: 23 

In his 1847 “Recollections” from Flathead Mission, Jesuit Father Gregory Mangarini…recalled being 

told by the elders that about seventy years earlier (ca. 1777), a devastating outbreak of smallpox had 

killed a large camp of Salish Flathead, sparing only a few children. At the same time the epidemic 

destroyed an “entire nation” living five days journey to the north. This nation was very likely the 

Kutenai Tuna’xe, an eastern band of Kutenai who, like the Salish Flathead, travelled annually to the 

plains to hunt buffalo. 

Writings of David Thompson 24 and others indicate that the Blackfoot 25 attempted to discourage as 

much as possible the westward advance of fur traders past their territories. However, the Northwesters 

and others were determined to trade directly with tribes like the Ktunaxa in the rich fur lands 

west of the Rocky Mountains. Although this westward movement was delayed for a number of 

years, trading posts were eventually opened west of the Great Divide in the early 1800s, and with it, a 

redressing of the arms imbalance between the two sides. With their discipline, excellent hunting 

skills and abundant game, the Ktunaxa were soon well armed and able to re-establish a strong 

presence in the buffalo hunting grounds east of the Rockies. Although their control of substantial 

buffalo hunting grounds may not have been reasserted to its previous extent, they began to regularly 

travel in large vanguards from their mountain redoubts to the buffalo hunting grounds, often allied 

with other tribes, especially the Flathead Salish to the southeast. 

22 A parallel example in Europe worth considering might be the Hungarian people, who also live in a mountainous region 

and speak a language isolate, evidently resisting the great movements of people that have occurred in Europe since the 

dawn of agriculture. 

23 From Elizabeth Vibert, Traders’ Tales, pg. 55. The ethnographer Teit also subscribed to this account of a Ktunaxa 

band residing east of the Rockies, whom he called the Tunaxe, being wiped out by smallpox. 

24 See Nisbet, The Mapmaker’s Eye, for a good overall description. 

25 It should be mentioned that the eastern neighbours of the Ktunaxa were the Cree [Sarsi and Stoney] to the northeast and 

the Blackfoot [Piegan, Blood, Blackfoot] to the south and southeast. The Cree were usually considered friends and the 

Blackfoot enemies, although on occasion the Ktunaxa traded with the Small Robe Piegans, even during hostilities with 

other Blackfoot. This may be due to the ongoing presence in that tribe of a remarkable young Canadian from Trois 

Rivieres, Quebec named Hugh Monroe. At the age of 15, he was sent by the Hudson’s Bay Company to live with the 

Piegan and learn their language, eventually living out his days as a full member of the tribe with the name of Rising Wolf. 

14 


The first trading post in Ktunaxa territory was established close by the Columbia River by David 

Thompson in 1807 near present day Windermere, B.C. and called Upper Kootenay House. 26 This 

appears to have been both for its nearness to Howse Pass and for what he perceived as good trade 

possibilities. Subsequently, regional posts for trading with the Ktunaxa and other Indian nations were 

established at Fort Colvile, Thompson’s River [Kamloops], Spokane and Flathead along with 

numerous smaller outposts. 

It appears that the location of these trading posts had important impacts on the activities of the 

various tribal groups. For the Upper Ktunaxa, the posts at Kootenae House, Spokane and Flathead 

drew their attention southwards. For the Lower Kootenay, Sinixt and Okanagans, Fort Colvile was a 

powerful attractant. While most of the neighbouring Shuswap looked westward to Thompson’s Fort, 

we shall see that some were deliberately attracted by the Hudson Bay Company towards Jasper’s 

House, east of the Rockies which brought them into the traditional northern range of the Ktunaxa. 

Catholic missionaries like Fathers Blanchet and De Smets, called by the Indians “black robes”, began 

to proselytize in the area in the 1830s and 1840s and established a number of missions. They were at 

first received with an almost messianic fervour by the Plateau Indians, but this fervour appears to 

have subsided markedly in the later 1800s. According to Larry Cebula 27 , the Indians slowly realized 

that the white man’s Christianity was not conferring the spiritual power they initially thought it 

would, especially regarding immunity to the horrifying and deadly diseases that continued to plague 

them. 

The character of the area began to change even more dramatically with the settling of the border with 

the United States through the signing in 1846 of the Oregon Treaty in 1846, one result of which was 

to sever Ktunaxa territory roughly in half. The impact on the western neighbours of the Lower 

Ktunaxa, the Salish speaking Sinixt, was even more dramatic in that new border restrictions and 

aggressive settlers caused them to eventually abandon the Canadian portion of their traditional 

seasonal round and remove southward into the U.S. to settle on the newly created multi-tribal 

Colville Reservation. This new reality also occasioned the 1855 Lame Bull Treaty, in which the 

American based Blackfeet were reduced to a Montana reservation and peaceful access to the 

dwindling buffalo herds was made available to the American Ktunaxa and other tribes in the U.S. 28 

The latter half of the 19 th Century saw the decline of the fur trade and the arrival of first a trickle and 

then a flood of settlers into the Kootenays, primarily miners and farmers. Largely in response to the 

sudden influx of thousands of American gold prospectors, the Crown Colony of British Columbia 

was created in 1858, and was eventually combined in 1862 with its counterpart on Vancouver Island. 

The colonial government saw as its prime concern the attraction of new settlers who professed loyalty 

to the British Crown, and not the protection of Indians in their traditional lands, an orientation 

strongly reinforced by the Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works, Joseph Trutch. Under his 

26 This post was closed after a few years and subsequently replaced by the Hudson’s Bay Company with a small post to 

the south in the Tobacco Plains area known as Kootenae House. The initial clerk in charge was Edouard Berland, who 

was succeeded on his untimely death by Michael Phillipps who in turn subsequently became the first Indian Agent for the 

Kootenay District. The post was closed for economic reasons in 1871 

27 Cebula, Larry, Plateau Indians and the Quest for Spiritual Power, 2003 

28 Traditional hostilities between the Blackfeet and other tribes continued in Canada throughout the 1860s but their 

intensity mirrored the vanishing buffalo herds until both had virtually disappeared by 1880. 

15 


authority, the basis of Indian allotments, if allowed in the first place, was reduced to a maximum of 

ten acres per family, even though standard pre-emptions for settlers were set at 160 acres. 

Although some B.C. lands were set aside for Indians during the colonial period, this was not the case 

in the Kootenay region. It was not until the entry into the Dominion of Canada by the Crown Colony 

of British Columbia in 1871 and their agreement to transfer responsibility for Indian matters to the 

Dominion through Article 13 that reserve allotments were made for all groups recognized by Canada 

and B.C. as Indian bands. For the Ktunaxa, these allotments were made primarily in the 1880s. 

However, these restrictive allotments of land under the reserve system combined with range land 

alienation, cultural suppression by Federal and Residential School officials and disruption of fisheries 

resources have severely disrupted the traditional way of life of the Ktunaxa. 

8. TRADITIONAL TERRITORY OF THE KTUNAXA AS SEEN BY EARLY EUROPEANS 

The journals, letters and reports of the Plateau’s earliest fur traders and to a lesser extent its 

missionaries, land surveyors and independent adventurers, are a major source of our understanding of 

the extent of the territory traditionally controlled by the Ktunaxa. While their role included gathering 

intelligence concerning the habits and territories of the Indians they encountered, their journals 

writings are often sparse and imprecise in this regard but nevertheless have provided valuable 

insights into aboriginal world of the Columbia Plateau at this time. 

David Thompson 

Arguably the best known and certainly the most celebrated of all the European trader/explorers in the 

area, Thompson was the first literate trader to encounter the Ktunaxa in their homeland west of the 

Divide. He and others in the North West Company realized that a rich source of furs lay to the west 

of the Rocky Mountains in Ktunaxa territory and, inspired by the establishment of maritime trading 

posts at the mouth of the Columbia and Alexander MacKenzie’s recent voyage to the Pacific in 1793, 

they determined to cross the mountains and tap into that potential profit. 

The opening through the Blackfoot blockade began when Thompson, hearing that a Ktunaxa party 

was in the mountains nearby, went to meet them and proposed a visit by them to the local North West 

post. 29 This led to a plan as described by fur trader Peter Fidler: 30 

In the fall of 1800, 28 Cotton n haw men with 2 Women came into Acton House, our uppermost 

settlement in the Saskatchewan river, with a few furrs [sic] – this is the first time they have ever seen a 

House. After remaining here for a few days (no other Indians being near the house) 2 Canadians 

accompanied them to their Country to examine it & learn whether or not any Beaver in any quantity 

was to be found there – but as these two men could neither read nor write, what remarks they made was 

merely verbal…They arrived at the House…on the 23 rd of May 1801. 

Thompson and Fidler had successfully conspired to have the French Canadians, Le Blanc and La 

Gasse [Legace], slip undetected through the Rockies and they lived periodically with the Ktunaxa in 

29 From The Manuscript Journals of Alexander Henry and of David Thompson, ed. by Elliott Coues [1897]; pp. 703-704. 

30 HBCA E3/2; Acton [Old Acton] House later became known as Rocky Mountain House. 

16 


the Tobacco Plains area for three more years 31 , gathering information. Their route through the 

Rockies appears to have been through Howse Pass 32 and was described by Fidler: 33 

In going out they crossed over the Mountain near the Source of the Saskatchewan in an oblique 

direction the latter place was more easy to pass than the former across the Mountain. Beyond the 

Mountain opposite to the head of the Saskatchewan a thick woody country – they passed thro’ it along 

an old Track formerly cut by the Cottonahaws, being the Northern most track they have; it was now 

very troublesome to pass thro’ it on account of the long time they have not passed that way, being much 

encumbred with Wind fall wood &c. 

Following the path of his deputies La Gasse and LeBlanc over Howse Pass, David Thompson finally 

crossed the Rockies in 1807, seeking to trade directly with the Ktunaxa and to explore a route 

westward to the sea. He soon realized that there were two distinct groupings of Ktunaxa, the Upper 

and Lower “Kootenai”, 34 which reflected their relative positions on the Columbia and Kootenay 

Rivers and different occupational emphasis. The Upper Ktunaxa they found to be more active traders 

with an orientation toward horses and the plains buffalo hunt which they pursued with regular 

seasonality. The Lower Ktunaxa, whom Thompson describes in his Journals as “Lake” Indians and 

later traders named “Flatbows” 35 , were found to be less active in this regard, with more orientation 

toward boats and fisheries of the territory’s lakes and rivers. Despite these differences in their 

respective economies, Thompson often found them encamped together. 36 

In that first summer of 1807, Thompson established, as noted previously, a trading post called 

Kootenae House, just north of present day Invermere, and spent much of the next four years 

exploring the Columbia Plateau, including residing there during the winters of 1807-1808 and 1808- 

1809. Unfortunately, Thompson was not much of an ethnographer and neither his Journals nor his 

later Narrative provide much illumination in the way of delineating aboriginal territory particularly 

with respect to the subject area of this study. Most of his travels in the area concerned the exploring 

the Kootenay River system [which he first believed to be the Columbia] down into present day states 

of Washington, Idaho and Montana, although he made one foray in 1808 to the southern portion of 

Kootenay Lake, where he encountered a band of Lower Ktunaxa. 37 In 1811 he travelled along what 

eventually came to be known by the fur brigades as the “Columbia Express”, from Jaspers House in 

Alberta over the Athabaska Pass then down the Wood River to Boat Encampment 38 , thence down the 

Columbia in canoes via the Arrow Lakes to Fort George at the mouth of the Columbia. His last 

travels in the region were around the Flathead Lake area of present-day Idaho and Montana in 1812, 

after which he performed survey work in eastern Canada. 

31 See also Schaeffer, LeBlanc and LeGassé: Predecessors of David Thompson in the Columbian Plateau. 

32 Belyea, Columbia Journals, David Thompson, p. 194 

33 HBCA E3/2, from Belyea, p. 194. This passage is interesting in that it suggests that the Ktunaxa may have been 

shifting their buffalo hunting efforts southward, likely in response to the effective arming of their enemies east of the 

Rockies by fur traders and the added protection afforded by cooperative hunting with the more southerly Flathead Salish. 

34 Other anglicized spellings encountered include Kutenai, Kootanais and Kootenae 

35 From the shape of their hunting bows. The name may have originated with Quebecois “free” traders who called them 

“Arc-des-Plattes”. 

36 For example, David Thompson’s Narrative, ed. Burr [p. 388]. This is consistent with Turney-High, who points out in 

his Ethnography of the Kutenai that such differences should not be over-interpreted as both groups were seen as skilled 

hunters and each would visit the other’s regions for hunting buffalo or fishing for trout and salmon. 

37 Op cit, p. 386 

38 The historic Boat Encampment was on the right bank of the Columbia, just below the mouths of the Canoe and Wood 

Rivers. The site now lies beneath the Kinbasket Reservoir formed by the Mica Dam. 

17 


While Thompson’s Narrative is a very readable literary reminiscence of his days in the Columbia 

Plateau, the Journals appear to offer more in the way of daily observation, including numerous 

incidents of friendly interaction with the Ktunaxa. Belyea’s Columbia Journals provide 

transcriptions with otherwise informative annotations of most of the Journals but unfortunately, she 

has only provided transcriptions of his travelling journals which are inclined to geography rather than 

ethnography. The journals covering the two winters of 1807-1808 and 1808-1809 in Ktunaxa 

territory, when he may have used his plentiful spare time to describe it more thoroughly are not 

included in her book. An added research problem has been the very poor quality encountered of 

microfilmed copies of his Journals, which renders them indecipherable, and a famously missing 

journal from the late summer of 1808. 39 

John Work 

A career man with the Hudson Bay Co. who rose from Clerk to Chief Trader, Work travelled 

extensively in the Columbia Plateau area in the 1820s through the 1840s, based out of Company forts 

at Vancouver [Washington], Colville, Spokane and Kamloops, and wrote a number of journals and 

post reports detailing his observations, most of which can be found in the Hudson’s Bay Archives in 

Winnipeg. 40 

Although Work encountered Ktunaxa people in some of these travels, he has little in the way of 

observations relating to the extent of their traditional territory. Work’s application of the term “Lakes 

Indians” to the “Senacteht” [Sinixt] introduces some confusion into the historical record, in that 

Thompson originated this term as a description of the Lower Ktunaxa. 41 

Of these post journals and reports, the most interesting to us is the one for 1830, in which he answers 

a long series of numbered questions sent to him and other Factors by the Company’s Committee. 

Some relevant passages address territorial questions and read as follows, using local Spokan language 

for some of the tribal and place names 42 : 

The Kootenais [are] of two tribes the Silaquilosqui (by the whites called the Flat Bows) and the 

Callesaulk. Their country lies on the Kootenay river from near its discharge to its source and on the 

head of the Columbia river, [sic] To the Westward this country is mountainous but to the Eastward 

there are fine plains with little wood. 

In his second census [1830] Work gives the following numbers for the Ktunaxa. 

Men Women Boys Girls 

39 Personal communications with authorities such as William Moreau and Jack Nisbet have not provided further relevant 

observations by Thompson on Ktunaxa use of the subject area. 

40 These journals include: Journal of a voyage from a voyage from [York Factory to Spokane House], 1823; Journal of a 

Voyage from Fort George to the Northward...1824; Journal of a Trip from Fort Vancouver to the Interior...1826; Journal 

of a Trip fro Ft. Vancouver to O'Kanagan in May 1828; Diary of a Journey in 1830 [from Colvile to Spokane to Fort 

Vancouver]; and Diary of Journey to the Missouri in 1831 - & Return [from Ft. Vancouver and return] 

41 Modern ethnographers have tended to associate the term “Lakes” with the Sinixt and not the Lower Ktunaxa, and 

review of their material in this report will show that these Salishan people occupied the mid-Columbia area from Arrow 

Lakes to north of Kettle Falls in the US, apparently sharing much of this territory with the Lower Kootenay and, to a 

lesser extent, Okanagan and Shuswap people. 

42 HBCA B.45/e/3, fo.2 

18 


Callesauilk [Upper Kootenays] 91 121 65 72 

Silaquilosqui [Lower Kootenays] 91 94 50 43 

He further notes that the Kootenais are called by one name by their neighbours. Again, however, 

there is little information relating to their occupation of the Kootenay region, and nothing at all about 

the Upper Columbia. 

Narratives of other fur traders 

During the first half of the 19 th Century, there was much romance attached to the western fur trade, 

and a number of popular narratives were published by Hudson’s Bay fur traders and others for 

adventure readers. The memoirs have also been consulted in this research, including those of George 

Simpson, Alexander Ross, Ross Cox, Paul Kane and Thomas Lowe, but these shed little light on the 

presence of the Ktunaxa along the Upper Columbia since they generally followed the so-called 

“Columbia Express” route which bypassed the Upper Columbia valley. 43 

Alexander Ross, another prominent HBC fur trader, met a portion of these people on his 1824 trip 

from Spokane to Jasper’s House and referred to them as the “Sinatcheggs.” He indicated that they 

lived in the neighbourhood of the Arrow Lakes and mid-Columbia below what is the site of Nelson. 

In a later narrative written for public consumption, he gave the following recollection of conversation 

with one of them, indicating an important pre-contact relationship with the Ktunaxa, one that is 

consistent with historical movements of the time: 44 

“My father,” said he, “was a Kootanais chief, but, in consequence of wars with the Blackfeet, who often 

visited his lands, he and a part of his people emigrated to this country about thirty years ago. I am now 

chief of that band, and head of all the Indians here. We number about two hundred, and call ourselves 

Sinatcheggs, the name of the country; and here we have lived ever since…This part is well stocked with 

beaver and other kind of furs…The lakes abound with sturgeon and other fish; so that we live well, and 

are at peace with all men.” 

Several of these sources also indicate a high regard for the Kutenai by the first Europeans in the area. 

For example, Ross Cox, an early employee of the North West Company wrote this description of the 

Ktunaxa in 1832: 45 

The greatest cleanliness and neatness are observable about their persons and lodges. They are rather 

handsome, above the middle size, and, compared with other tribes, remarkably fair. On the whole, we 

may say of this interesting people, that, in their intercourse with white men, they are rather haughty and 

reserved; in conversation, candid; in trade, honest; brave in battle; and devotedly attached to each other 

and their country. 

In 1845, the well known Catholic missionary, Father Pierre-Jean De Smet traveled through the 

Columbia Valley through Tobacco Plains up to Boat Encampment and over the Rockies to Jaspers 

House. He wrote a series of letters about his journey through the land of the Ktunaxa [which he 

43 This was the famous fur brigade route which left Jasper’s House, crossed over the Rocky Mountains via the Athabaska 

Pass and descended westward to Boat Encampment, where canoes were waiting to take them down the Columbia River 

via the Arrow Lakes to Fort George at the mouth of the Columbia. 

44 from Alexander Ross, The Fur Hunters of the Far West, Vol. II, pp. 171-172. 

45 from Ross Cox, Adventures on the Columbia River, p.234 

19 


claimed were known in the area as Skalzi] and these include sentiments about the character of the 

Ktunaxa echoing those of Cox. 46 

The writings of earliest travellers, Thompson, Cox, Ross, Simpson, Work and Kane, among others, 

also provide very interesting and colourful reading and offer fascinating glimpses of the life and 

times of the Ktunaxa and their relationships with various other groups. Taken together, they suggest 

that the Ktunaxa had generally hostile relations with the Blackfoot Indians and their allies to the east 

and occasional hostilities with the Salish-speaking Shuswaps, Okanagans, Colvilles and others to the 

west and south. On the other hand, they appear to have been on relatively good terms with the 

Stoneys and Plains Cree to the east and the Flathead Salish whose lands lay to the southeast. 

9.. GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTATION 

The Palliser Expeditions of 1858 and 1859 

Perhaps the first government sponsored expedition through the area was led by Captain John Palliser 

in the late 1850s as part of a general surveying project designed to fix the border between British 

North America and the United States and to survey passes through the Rocky Mountains. According 

to the lengthy report submitted to British Parliament in 1863 as well as a separate journal written by 

Charles W. Wilson, Palliser’s survey parties encountered Ktunaxa people numerous times during 

1858 and 1859, primarily in the Tobacco Plains area, but their focus on surveying the border seems to 

have precluded much ethnographic consideration or other information about the study area. 

The Big Bend Trail Map 

Believed to date from the early 1860s, this map is focused on the area around Big Bend. 47 Although 

it has scant detail, it indicates a trail extending northward from the Windermere area along the east or 

right bank of the Columbia and, by an apparent tying in with several portage trails, reaches all the 

way to Boat Encampment, where it connects with the trail over Athabaska Pass to Jasper’s House. 

On the way it connects with other trails, including one over “Pavilion” [Howse] Pass to Jasper’s 

House, and another one appearing to cross the Purcell Range north of present day Golden to the 

vicinity of Revelstoke. If the dating is accurate, these trails precede miners in the area and would be 

attributable to use by the Upper Ktunaxa and latterly by the Kinbasket Shuswap as well. 

The Columbia Rivers Explorations of 1865 and 1866 

This collection of exploratory reports was written for the Colonial Government of British Columbia 

by Walter Moberly and his team of surveyors. As part of an attempt to keep Americans from taking 

over the trade in supplies to the newly discovered Gold Fields of southeast B.C., Moberly and his 

team, which included James Turnbull and Ashdown Green, were commissioned to examine the 

region defined by the arc of the Columbia River with a view to finding good supply routes. Their 

travels, mostly in separate parties, took them variously up the Arrow and Kootenay Lakes and over 

mountain passes to the Upper Columbia, and their reports contain some relevant points of interest. 

One passage worth noting is the mention of “Kinbaskit’s Trail,” a four day passage from Windermere 

Lake over the mountains to the Kootenay Lakes. 

46 From Chittenden/De Smet, Oregon Missions and Travels Over the Rocky Mountains, 1845-1846 

47 B.C. Ministry of Crown Lands, Surveyor General Branch, Map 21T1. 

20 


Kinbaskit, the Chief, who is nearly always encamped about the head waters of the Columbia has made a 

horse trail from the mouth of Toby Creek, which continues along its bottom for 2 days journey, then he 

follows a foot trail which passes over the summit traversed by Mr. Howman and reaches the Kootenay 

Lakes in 2 days more, thus taking 4 days to complete the journey. 

But as referenced by Affleck, 48 the Lower Ktunaxan guides of James Turnbull, who was Moberly’s 

colleague on the expedition, could not explore this trail after travelling up Kootenay Lake, essentially 

because of its succumbing to disuse. 

When Moberly travelled down the Upper Columbia in the summer of 1866, he wrote of meeting 

Kinbasket whom he described as having led his band to the Upper Columbia area where they settled 

“about 20 years ago.” 49 Kinbasket accompanied Moberly’s party for several days, and is described as 

having: 

a thorough knowledge of the country from Wild Horse Creek to the Boat Encampment, and thence to 

Colville…He also says he has taken horses up the valley of Toby Creek, No. 2, nearly to its source, and 

then leaving them has passed on foot over a high divide to the head of Kootenay Lake… 

Perhaps reflecting this extended contact, the team referred to the first passage as “Kinbaskit’s Trail”. 

For example, when Surveyor Turnbull’s party was exploring the “Upper Kootenay Lake” [now 

Duncan Lake] area at this same time he wrote in his report that he had “reached the foot of 

Kinbaskit’s Trail. Found no Indians there.” At any rate, Moberly’s team felt that it would not serve 

as a supply route because of the high elevation of its westward section. 

This appears to be the same trail that was described by Palliser a few years earlier: 50 

There once was a good trail from the Columbia Lakes to the west but no one has traveled it for many 

years and [Alick] thinks it must now be blocked up with fallen trees. 

It would thus appear that the length of the trip and its unsuitability for horses led to the trail’s disuse 

by Kinbasket’s people after only a relatively short period of usage. This appears to be in contrast to 

conclusions by Keefer et al 51 concerning the apparent long standing use of the Toby Creek – Jumbo 

Pass trail by the Columbia Lake Ktunaxa, long before contact. 

Government of Canada Documentation 

Indian Superintendent Israel W. Powell visited the Kootenays in 1873 to discuss the creation of 

reserve land with both the Upper and Lower Kootenay and returned in 1886 to discuss their 

grievances and demands for larger reserves. While he does include impressions of a general 

ethnographic nature, his descriptions of territorial lands are very limited for our purposes. 52 

48 Affleck, p. 10 

49 Moberly, 1866 This suggests a date for the resettlement of Kinbasket’s Band to the Columbia Lakes area of about 1846. 

If Kinbasket was familiar with the Columbia down to Colville it is reasonable to expect that the Ktunaxa were too. 

50 Palliser, p. 155 

51 Keefer, Choquette, McCoy and Williams (2004), pp. 30, 31. 

52 Reports of November 3, 1873 [RG 10, Vol. 3738, file 28013-1] and November 18, 1886 [RG 10, Vol. 3738, file 28013- 

1A] 

21 


Reserves were officially allotted in the summer of 1884 to the Ktunaxa and Kinbaskets by Reserve 

Commissioner Peter O’Reilly [the one time Gold Commissioner for the District] and the discussions 

he had with Chief Isidore are instructive as to how the Ktunaxa viewed the entire Columbia Valley. 

O’Reilly allotted reserves to the Kinbasket without any real difficulty. In conveying copies of the 

Minutes of Decision for the new reserves, O’Reilly met at length with Kinbaskit and reported: 

I visited with a band of Indians, offshoots of the Shuswap tribe near Kamloops, who, under the 

leadership of a chief named Kinbaskit, some forty years ago, migrated from Shuswap, and settled in the 

Columbia valley. Although connected by marriage, and association with the Kootenays, this band has 

preserved its language, and individuality… 53 

Things were not so easy with the Ktunaxa. At Wild Horse Creek in July 1884 he initially met Chief 

Isidore, accompanied by most of his tribe: 

I explained the object of my visit, and invited them to shew me what lands they most desired to have 

reserved; owing, however, to their excessive demands, and not being provided with a competent 

interpreter, I decided to defer the consideration of their land question, and to proceed to the “Tobacco 

Plains”, 60 miles south of Wild Horse Creek, where a portion of the tribe resides; David being subchief, 

and here I was fortunate to secure the services of an experienced interpreter, Mr. John Campbell, 

who is favourably known to the Indians. 

I found “David”, the subchief, quite as unreasonable in his demands as “Isidore” had been, claiming the 

whole country from the boundary line to the Columbia Lakes, an area of 1100 square miles; and I had 

great difficulty in inducing him to listen to my proposals to the contrary. He repeatedly referred to the 

large reserves allotted by the United States Government to the Indians, containing millions of acres, and 

compared them with the small area he asked for; he also pointed out that the chiefs on American 

territory, only a few miles to the south, received an annual pension of $500 each; and he complained 

that the Kootenay Indians had received nothing at the hands of the Dominion government, though the 

Cree, Blackfeet and Stoneys, on the other side of the mountains, had been furnished with stock, seeds, 

implements, and even rations. 

After considerable discussion, O’Reilly managed to allot Reserve No. 2 of 11,360 acres to the Upper 

Ktunaxa that day and left for other business. He returned later that month to visit with Chief Isidore 

where “no result was obtained, however, for several days.” 

The Chief stated, again and again, that he would not accept any limits to his reservations, unless they 

included the whole valley of the Kootenay, and Columbia rivers (from the International boundary line) 

and followed the base of the Rocky Mountains to the Boat landing on the Columbia river. 

Again, “after a good deal of persuasion” the Chief accompanied O’Reilly and eventually two more 

Reserves [No. 1 and 3, containing 18,150 and 8,320 acres respectively] were set aside. 

O’Reilly also allotted reserves to the Lower Ktunaxa at this time. He noted that they too had once 

travelled to the plains to hunt buffalo, but were now “dependent principally on fish and berries.” 

Files of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada [INAC] indicate that the first two Indian Agents, 

Michael Phillips and then R.L.T. Galbraith, having lived in the district for many years prior to 

appointment, seemed quite familiar with the bands in Kootenay Agency, but their writings reveal 

53 O’Reilly to Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, December 17, 1884. 

22 


little in the way of fresh insights into the Ktunaxa and their use of the territory. Unfortunately the 

RG10 microfilm copies of the letterbooks of both Agents are mostly illegible. 

Still, several interesting documents from Galbraith’s tenure have been located, including a 

Memorandum of Agreement between the Stoney Indians of Alberta and the Ktunaxa and Kinbasket 

Shuswap [see the discussion of this group in the next section]. It was designed to put an end to 

hostilities arising from provocative and destructive hunting incursions of the Stony Indians into the 

Upper Columbia Valley region. Dated September 27, 1895, and signed by chiefs and headmen of the 

three groups in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs and Agent Galbraith , it 

is agreed: 54 

That the Stonies shall have the privilege of hunting as far West as the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers, 

and that in return the Kootenay Indians, and the Shuswap Indians shall have the privilege of hunting as 

far East as the base of the Rocky Mountains, on the Eastern Slope thereof. 

And that this mutual concession is made with the distinct understanding that the Game Laws of British 

Columbia, and the North West Territories, as the case may be, shall be strictly observed, and that any 

infraction of the said Game Laws by the Stonies of British Columbia, or by the Kootenays or Shuswaps, 

in the North West Territories, shall be considered sufficient reason for withdrawing the concessions 

above made, from the band or bands to which the Party, or Parties Transgressing belong. 

The fact of such an agreement suggests a sense of continuing ownership and stewardship on the part 

of the Ktunaxa towards the Upper Columbia Valley region and its resources. In line with this, the 

historical documentation reviewed in this section supports the sense that the study area has always 

lain within the core territory of the Ktunaxa. 

10. THE KINBASKET BAND 

The migration of Kinbasket’s people into the Upper Columbia Valley 

Documentation located supports the notion that, around the time of European contact in the early 

1800s, a group of Shuswap people led by their chief Yeheelna Kinbasket began spend more and more 

time eastward of their North Thompson traditional home territory. After years of movement, this 

eventually culminated in the creation of a permanent settlement near Windermere Lake around the 

middle of the 19 th Century. Descendants of these people, now known as the Shuswap Band or 

sometimes the Kinbaskets, assert a claim to the upper Columbia Valley study area. 

Agent Galbraith in a 1914 interview with the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs [the McKenna – 

McBride Commission] offered this comment on the Kinbasket migration [see immediately below], 

stating that “…there was some family feud years ago and they passed over the Selkirk mountains and 

came and settled in the Kootenay country where they originally were known as the men-withoutclothes.” 

55 

From examination of Hudson’s Bay Company archival material dating from the 1820s 56 it is clear 

that this band of Shuswaps began trading with the Company by at least the mid 1820s. For example, 

54 From RG.10, Vol. 3855, file 80143 

55 From Kootenay Agency – Transcript - Examination of Indian Agent Galbraith, pp. 72-140, Royal Commission on 

Indian Affairs in the Province of B.C. 

56 Journals of Thompson’s River Post [B.97/a-1] and Jasper House [HBCA B.94/a1-3] 

23 


they are mentioned in Post Journals as visiting the Jasper House Post during October, 1827; January, 

March, November and December, 1828; November, 1829; November and December, 1830; and 

March and April, 1831. 57 This material, however, is inconclusive about which passes through the 

Rockies were used by the Kinbasket Shuswap during this period. 58 

In this, it appears that the Shuswap were encouraged in that direction through the express strategy of 

Governor George Simpson. 59 For example, when camping at Big Bend in 1824 with some 

“Freemen” [trappers] and their followers, Simpson discovered that these Freemen 

"were preparing to go on a War Expedition against a poor helpless inoffensive tribe of Indians 

"Shewhoppes", natives of the North branch of Thompsons River knowing them to be weak and 

unprovided with the means of defense and solely with a view to plunder and gain themselves renown as 

Warriors by taking a few Scalps without incurring danger...I have been anxious to encourage those 

Indians to frequent the Establishment in the Mountain [Rocky Mountain House, according to the Merck 

footnote] in order to draw them from Thompsons River as in the event of their being prevailed on to go 

the former place for their supplies and with their returns we should be enabled to abandon that heavy 

and unprofitable Establishment [Fort Thompson, according to a Merck footnote] for a Year or two, but 

this unprovoked warfare was likely to defeat my plans; on the score of humanity as well of interest. I 

therefore spoke my Mind very plainly to those freemen, told them we meant to protect the Shewhoppes 

and if they did not instantly abandon their cruel intentions they should not this Winter have even a 

particle of ammunition at any of our Establishments and that next Season they should be bundled down 

to Canada where starvation & misery would follow them. This lecture had the desired effect and they 

promised that they would no longer entertain hostile feelings towards those people. Those freemen are 

fully in our power and if they break their promise I shall keep my word in regard to them. 

Although Simpson never visited the Upper Columbia beyond Big Bend, his policies may have had a 

major impact on its aboriginal history. 

On the ground this movement of the Shuswap was strongly facilitated by their connection to the 

engaging Quebecois free trader Francois Morigeau, who trapped and hunted in the area, travelled and 

camped frequently with them and generally sold his furs to Jasper House. 60 Flannigan notes that 

even though they were called “free”, these traders “were issued letter orders similar to military 

orders, telling them exactly where they could go and who they could employ.” 61 

As noted, the documentation located is inconclusive about when the Kinbasket Band actually settled 

in the Columbia Valley. For example, De Smet’s letter of September 9, 1845 indicates that Morigeau 

with his “little family” accompanied by three Shuswap families had traveled “in all haste” to meet 

him near the source of the Columbia in order to secure long desired baptisms. However, where they 

travelled from and whether this was permanent settlement is not indicated. 

In an article written on his passing 62 , Baptiste Morigeau is quoted as saying his father first came to 

the East Kootenays in 1819 with a Swampy Cree wife, who returned east after some years, leaving 

57 HBCA B.97/e-1, 2 and 3. It is possible that the Shuswaps had been visiting the post for several years prior to 1827 

since it opened in 1821, but the available Post Journals only run from 1827-1831. 

58 For example, Yellowknife Pass may have provided an easier and more direct route than the Athabaska Pass. 

59 Merk, George Simpson’s Journal…1824-1825, p.30 

60 B.97/e-1 and 3 

61 Flannigan, 2001, p. 19 

62 Taken from a reprint of Basil Hamilton’s article in the Cranbrook Courier, Jan. 21, 1932, copy in the Fort Steele 

archive [Dave Kay Fonds, No. 43-44]. 

24 


three of their children including Francois Jr. He then brought a second wife from east of the Rockies, 

a Scots Metis named Isabella, who bore him at least four sons and five daughters, including Baptiste 

who was born in 1840. A number of these children including Baptiste subsequently married into both 

Kinbasket and Ktunaxa families. Baptiste claimed that it was Chief Paul Kinbasket who assigned 

land in the area to him upon his marriage in the 1850s. 

Winifred A Weir’s Book 

Tales of the Windermere, self-published in 1980 by Ms. Weir, whose ancestors were among the 

earliest settlers in the area, is written in a folksy style and contains chapters on historically prominent 

families in the Golden area, most notably for our purposes the Morigeaus and Kinbaskets. The 

general detail appears to be in good agreement with Shelagh de Hart's book [following] which was 

published more than 20 years later. 

Regarding the Morigeaus, this material asserts categorically that it was Francois Morigeau Sr. who 

was baptized by de Smet, and that Baptiste Morigeau married Collette a daughter of Paul Kinbasket. 

[pp. 107-109]. 

The book also conveys a history of the Kinbasket migration as part of an imagined conversation 

between Marianne Kinbasket and her granddaughter Rosie [p. 122]: 

Your great-great-grandfather Gelhulnah had brought your great-grandfather Paul Ignatius with him. It 

was long ago, maybe 1819 or some year near that. It was a hard trip over the mountains but the 

Kinbaskets are never afraid. Paul went back to the Shuswap country and then returned here." 

Chief Paul Ignatius Kinbasket had brought his people from the Shuswap Lake country in the 1850s, 

travelling through the Big Bend country of the Columbia to settle finally in the Windermere valley. 

With a group of his band he had travelled from the Adams Lake area, across the Purcell Mountains. 

They stayed for a time at a large lake in the Big Bend country, the lake named Kinbasket Lake by 

Walter Moberly...Whether the mosquitoes drove them on or whether they were headed for the 

Windermere Valley is not known but here they arrived. 

Shelagh Dehart’s Book 

Another interesting source of information for this aspect of East Kootenay history is the memoire of a 

direct descendant of the Kinbasket chiefs, Shelagh Dehart, edited by her granddaughter, Dusty Dehart 

and published in 2007. 63 Titled The Kinbasket Migration and Other Indian History, this book offers 

a number of important recollections that illuminate the area’s history. 

For example, one might be forgiven if an impression was made from a number of other sources 

consulted that “Kinbasket” was one chief. In fact, as Ms. Dehart makes plain, this is a hereditary 

name that was used by the leader of the band and refers to her three male ancestors, great-great 

grandfather Yelheelna, his son Paul Neass [Paul Ignatius], and her own father, Pierre. According to 

her narrative, the wanderings of the Shuswap happened over a period of many years, starting when 

Yelheelna was a young man and ending after his death, when his son and successor Paul founded the 

present Kinbasket settlement. Since it is likely that Yelheelna was the old established chief of the 

63 Published by Palliser Printing, Invermere, B.C., 2007. It may be argued that, logically, such a publication should not be 

part of this study which is essentially predicated as a survey of written historical materials from “non-tribal” sources, i.e., 

not directly from Ktunaxa/Kinbasket people themselves. However, it is included here both as a publication and because it 

is illuminating and forms some interesting corroborations with other sources referenced in this study. 

25 


Shuswaps described in the HBC records dating from the 1820s, 64 the book shows how “Kinbasket” 

could still be actively travelling through the mountains with Provincial Surveyors nearly half a 

century later. 

The book asserts that this band spent a number of years living in the vicinity of the Boat 

Encampment, and that oral tradition describes how busy a place it was with comings and goings of 

many kinds of people, including priests. This again is consistent with the use of Boat Encampment 

by the fur trade, especially from the 1820s on, as a key stop on the route known as the Columbia 

Express and the employment by the HBC of Shuswaps as packers, hunters and guides. The claim 

that Yelheelna met David Thompson therefore becomes plausible, and ties in with suggestions that 

these Kinbasket Shuswaps were present in the area of Boat Encampment by 1811. 

According to Dehart, the migration began as an exploration of some young Shuswap men from the 

Adams Lake area [pp. 28-29]: 

They were really exploring and so they went north on Kinbasket Lake up to Canoe Reach and on to 

Valemont. They explored all of Kinbasket Lake on both sides. They camped for a few days before 

they got to the Columbia River. From there they crossed the river and kept following the shore. They 

again camped at Downie Creek where it enters the Columbia River for quite some time. They were 

away from their people a long time and when they went home, they told the people about it. The Elders 

told them “That’s Kootenay Country, very dangerous”. 

_____ _____ _____ 

The Elders tried to stop the explorers, they forbad them to keep going into enemy territory, the 

dangerous Kootenay Country but the young ones continued to explore. 

Eventually the explorers grew into a band, with Yeheelna as their chief, staying for some time at the 

Boat Encampment and making occasional forays southward up the Columbia Valley. The Shuswaps 

were evidently fearful that they would be attacked for encroaching on Ktunaxa territory and then very 

happy with ultimate acceptance into the northerly portion of the Ktunaxa’s territory. Referring to the 

meeting that established peace between them, deHart indicates that the main body of the Kinbaskets 

were camped at the confluence of the Beaver and Columbia Rivers at that time, with a smaller group 

including Chief Yeheelna camping further upstream near present day Donald [p. 33]. According to 

her book, the Ktunaxa had watched the Shuswap for a long time before offering Yeheelna and his 

small group a welcome and friendship through the making of signs and offering of gifts [p.34]. 

Dehart then indicates that the Ktunaxa continued to freely hunt or travel there, often in the company 

of their new neighbours. 

Regarding the founding of the Kinbasket settlement Dehart goes on to say: 

The Indians met the Morigeau’s [sic] near Windermere Creek sometime before 1840. The first priest 

Father de Smet came in 1845. He baptized the Morigeau children and a few Indian children, among 

them Chief Pierre’s oldest daughter Maras. 65 The Kinbasket’s and the Morigeau’s [sic] were already 

settled here before that. The Weir’s settled after that but they all had met the Shuswaps before the 

priests came. 

64 For example, the Kamloops – North Thompson Journal entry for November 8, 1822, mentions “the old North Branch 

Chief…and family are in the habit of going some times to the east of the Rocky Mountains & Jaspers House…” 

65 This reference to Chief Pierre is likely incorrect, unless he had a daughter at a very young age. Other parts of her 

account indicate the Chief at this time was Paul Neass. 

26 


Although these accounts confirm that the Kinbaskets acknowledge that they migrated from Shuswap 

territory, it is difficult to ascertain exactly when they settled in Ktunaxa territory. Although Winifred 

Weir indicates that it was in the 1850s, Shelagh deHart appears to suggest it occurred before the visit 

of Father de Smet in 1845. 

11. OBSERVATIONS BY LOCAL INDIVIDUALS 

As noted previously, a number of archives in towns of the East and West Kootenays have been 

visited in the course of this study, including those of Castlegar’s Selkirk College, Nelson’s 

Touchstone Museum, the Arrow Lakes Historical Society of Nakusp, the Kootenay Lake Archives at 

Kaslo, the Fort Steele Heritage Town and Revelstoke Museum Archives. Often operated by 

volunteers who are passionate about the history of their area, they often prove to be useful 

repositories of local information about the region. Unlike the West Kootenays, however, the few 

local sources that have been found to contain unique information or perspectives on Indians in the 

study area mostly address the migration of the Kinbasket Shuswap into the area. 

W. A. Baillie-Groman 

Although the following excerpts concern the Ktunaxa in the vicinity of Kootenay Lake, it is felt that 

they are worth including in this study as illustrating the breadth of Ktunaxa activity in their traditional 

range. A wealthy big game hunter and author from England, Baillie-Groman made numerous 

hunting expeditions during the 1880s into the Columbia Plateau on both sides of the national 

boundary, and was especially drawn to the Kootenays, where he lived for a number of years and was 

employed in various official capacities for the Province, including the promotion of land reclamation 

projects in the Columbia Valley. On several occasions he employed Lower Kootenay Indians as 

guides in the Selkirk and Purcell Mountains and appears to have considered himself an authority on 

the Kootenay region. 

In one of his writings, 66 he makes it expressly clear that he felt the Lower Kootenay Indians were the 

Indian owners of the area around Kootenay Lake. Referring to the “the well-fitted out Alpine 

expedition of the Rev. W.S. Green”, which found very hard going in the Selkirks, he states that it 

made its attempt from a poor starting point: 

Had I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Green before completion of his exploration I think I might have 

saved him a considerable amount of hard work, and assisted him in the defining of the more prominent, 

though nameless, landmarks he saw from the elevated points he gained. Thus the big river he saw (to 

the southward) from the top of Mount Bonney, is the head water of the Lardo (or Lardeaux) up which I 

have been several times, which flows into the big Kootenay Lake, and not, as Mr. Green surmises, into 

the Upper Arrow Lake, a low watershed about sixteen miles in width separating the Upper Arrow Lake 

from the Trout or Fish Lake, from which the left or eastern fork of the Lardo flows. One great 

advantage he would have gained had he directed his attack from the southward would have been the 

presence of a small tribe of Indians (the Lower Kootenay Indians), picked men from which could have 

been used with much advantage as porters, and even as guides, for Mr Green is somewhat misinformed 

when he says, that “no Indians are resident in the Selkirks.” The above-mentioned tribe inhabit what 

might be called the heart of the Selkirks, i.e., the country round the big Kootenay Lake, and as I have 

had four or five of these exceptionally good native mountaineers with me for weeks at a time, and I 

used to know every one of the fifty-two or fifty-three “bucks” (male adults) of which the tribe consists, 

66 Baillie-Groman, 1899; also 1907, pp. 304-305 

27 


I could probably have given Mr. Green some useful hints. In The Field of Aug. 30, 1884, I gave a little 

sketch of these Indians, and mention the fact that the hunting grounds in the mountains around 

Kootenay Lake, which grounds extend well up the headwaters of the above-mentioned Lardo, are laid 

out in sections, each buck and his family having a huge slice of this American Switzerland, which is 

called after him; so that when inquiring for the native name of any prominent peak or mountain lake, 

one is told the name of the buck in whose preserve it happens to be located. 

These Indians do all their hunting on foot, using the larger streams (such as the Lardo) as far as they can 

take their canoes. In most cases the squaw, who, as is so common among the American aborigines, is 

used more as a pack animal than as a human being, and even the half-grown children “pack” up the 

mountains till a suitable camping place near timber line is found, where they will remain for days, and 

from whence the noble lord of creation can then follow with greater ease the goat; or where he can lie in 

wait for them at the licks, which are much frequented by these animals during certain parts of the year. 

Baillie-Groman was also very enthusiastic about the mountaineering abilities of his Ktunaxa guides: 

I will back a Kootenay to beat by miles in a long day’s climb the best white mountaineer Switzerland or 

Tyrol ever turned out, and I am speaking with a twenty or more years’ experience in the Alps. 

Again, this passage supports the notion that the Ktunaxa generally did not confine themselves to 

major river valleys but actively used the whole of their territory and felt a degree of ownership that 

extended throughout the region’s watersheds and upland areas. 

Darris Flanagan 

A contemporary author based in northern Montana near the B.C. border, Flanagan has put together 

extensive research on the location and history of Ktunaxa passage through the Rockies, culminating 

in a book titled Indian Trails of the Northern Rockies. He identifies 24 distinct passes used by the 

Ktunaxa, from Pipestone in the south near Butte, Montana to Yellowhead Pass in the north [See 

Figure 4, following page]. He notes that due to their shifting usage over time by the Ktunaxa, some 

of these passes were not known to Eurocanadian explorers until the later 1800s. 

Flanagan indicates that there were two main factors influencing which of these passes the Ktunaxa 

might use, their “annual economic cycle” and their sense of where their enemies, primarily the 

Blackfeet tribes, might be. Concerning the annual round, he states [p. 22]: 

From berry picking to fishing to buffalo hunts, this cycle determined when to hunt male and female 

bison. The summer hunt was for the bulls whose tender meat was savored and not yet affected by the 

coming mating season. 

Correspondingly, hides of bulls taken in summer made the best cover for the lodges; eight were 

required for each tipi. On the other hand, the winter hunt was for the fat cows whose robes were best 

for bed and body robes. The Kutenai also understood the nature of their prey; according to informants, 

a bison migrated about 300 miles a year from the north in the spring to the south in the winter as well as 

eastward in the summer and westward towards mountain valleys in the winter. As a result of this 

economical cycle, different families or groups used trails at different times of the year. In addition 

travelers often went east by one pass and west by another. 

28 


Fig. 4 - From Flanagan’s Indian Trails of the Northern Rockies. This shows the more than twenty 

passes used by the Ktunaxa to access the western plains through the Rockies. 

29 


In describing the 24 passes, he groups them under three headings “Salish”, “Predominantly Kutenai” 

and “Fur Trade”, the latter of which includes the Athabaska and Yellowhead Passes. The Salish 

passes are all located in the U.S., and obviously were shared with those people. Some of the more 

important “Kutenai” passes more commonly used were South and North Kootenay, Crows Nest, 

Vermilion, Howse and Kicking Horse. He states that the northern passes of Athabaska and 

Yellowhead “only came into use…when transporting furs to avoid the Blackfeet.” 67 

67 In fact, HBC records indicate the Ktunaxa rarely traded furs over these routes, preferring to head south to Kootenay 

Post, Spokane House and Fort Colville. Other sources [e.g., the Schaeffer interviews and the Ktunaxa Creation Story] 

suggest their use of the Yellowhead and Athabaska Passes predates the fur trade. 

30 


12. ETHNOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENTS OF TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES AND USE 

The several ethnographic works relating to the area have been a prime source of information and 

authoritative opinion on extent and use of the traditional territory of the Indians of the Columbia 

Plateau. A number of these works have combined thorough and evaluative research into primary 

sources of documentation [emanating from fur traders, missionaries, surveyors and others] and first 

hand field work. Perhaps the earliest significant attempt to define traditional territories of the 

region’s Indians was made by Tolmie and Dawson c. 1885. More recent relevant studies reviewed to 

date include Teit [1907], Boas [1928], Schaeffer [1937], Ray [1939], Turney-High [1941], Smith 

[1984] Brunton [1985] and Bouchard & Kennedy [2000], the latter three not based on original field 

work but containing comprehensive reviews of the available material. Other authorities considered 

include Chamberlain, Curtis and Jenness but their treatment of territory does not appear as 

comprehensive. The studies referenced in this report suggest some differences as to the northern 

boundary of Ktunaxa territory but, with one exception 68 , conclude that the study region lies within 

Ktunaxa territory. 

Teit, Ray and Turney-High have compiled classic ethnographies, in that they spent years among their 

subjects and have based their views on first hand oral accounts. Like Turney-High, Schaeffer spent 

several years doing field research among Ktunaxa on both sides of the international border, although 

his material is not published and he does not appear to have constructed a map of Ktunaxa territory in 

the materials consulted. 69 

While most of these studies and other ethnographic reviews have produced maps of traditional 

territories, they must be approached with some caution. 70 Apart from different analytical approaches, 

they represent to some degree snapshots of a region where there has been dynamic interplay between 

tribal groups and consequently some shifting of perceived boundaries. 

1. William Tolmie and George Dawson 

Tolmie was a trained medical doctor who had a long career with the Hudson’s Bay Company, 

culminating as a Chief Factor with the Hudson Bay Company, after which he became a successful 

provincial politician. Late in life, he teamed with the eminent scientist and surveyor George Dawson 

to produce an extensive study of aboriginal languages in British Columbia, published in 1884. With 

respect to the Ktunaxa, their work appears to demonstrate some depth of knowledge, showing basic 

dialectic sub-divisions. Their map [Figure 5] indicates that Ktunaxa traditional territory extended 

north, down the Columbia to Boat Encampment, and included the beginning of the Athabaska Trail. 

This is further north than other ethnographers who more commonly place the northern limit of 

Ktunaxa territory in the vicinity of Golden. However, Tolmie’s long career in the western fur trade 

would have made him highly aware of the circumstances of the Columbia Brigade, including use of 

the area and its people for transporting furs to the Pacific coast. The date of their work is of special 

interest in that, some of their informants or their parents would have been alive at the time of contact, 

unlike the later ethnographic studies reviewed in this report. 

68 The sole exception is Teit’s work, apparently based on the occurrence of Shuswap Salish language. As will be 

discussed in more detail, using his map to indicate traditional territory leads to over-estimates of Shuswap territory which 

are not in agreement with other authorities. 

69 Schaeffer also produced a PhD thesis arising from this work, but at date of writing, the author has been unable to secure 

a copy. 

70 See, for example, Vibert, quoted on p. 37 of this report. 

31 


Figure 5. Detail from a “Map shewing the Distribution of the Indian Tribes of British Columbia. By W.F. 

Tolmie and G.M. Dawson.” [From Allan Smith, 1984] 

32 


2. James Teit 

Around the turn of the last century, this early ethnographer spent a number of decades c.1900 living 

with the North Thompson Shuswap people, mastering the language, gathering oral traditions, 

studying their way of life and travelling throughout Salishan territory. While his important work The 

Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus does not appear to treat with the Ktunaxa directly, it is 

valuable for its examination in some detail of their historical Salish neighbours. His assessment of 

aboriginal territory [Figure 6], perhaps influential in Shuswap territorial claims, shows a very 

expansive Shuswap component compared to other ethnographers, in that it entirely encompasses the 

Big Bend area up the Columbia to the vicinity of Windermere and down the Columbia to include the 

Arrow Lakes. 

Figure 6. A portion of Teit’s map (1909:450) reproduced from Smith (1984), defining the Ktunaxa-Shuswap 

boundary as of the mid-nineteenth century. The letter ‘D’ by the upper Columbia denotes the Kinbasket 

people of the Upper North Thompson Band. 

33 


An important part of Teit’s analytical technique was to trace the occurrence of Salish place names as 

determinants of their territory, and use this to infer traditional Salishan occupation of those areas [pp. 

209-221]. His findings with respect to the study area are firmly based in the post-contact era, much 

of it the outgrowth of the Kinbasket settlement at Windermere Lakes. As such they ignore the much 

older occupation of this area by the Ktunaxa who, after permitting the settlement of the Kinbaskets in 

the mid 1800s, shared this area with them 71 . 

Note also the inclusion of the Arrow Lakes area as Shuswap speaking despite hard historical evidence 

that Ktunaxa, Sinixt and Okanagan people were also using the area. It appears that Teit’s map should 

be simply construed as a map where Shuswap Salish could be heard during the lifetime of his 

informants and not a meaningful delineation of traditional territorial boundaries at or predating the 

time of contact. 

An interesting contrast to Teit is afforded by the language based assessments made by the 

ethnographer Verne Ray of the traditional territory of the Sinixt people, now largely gathered in the 

Colville, Washington area. His 1936 map [Figure 7] suggests that Sinixt territory [vertical cross 

hatching] included all of the Big Bend area, extending up the Columbia to the vicinity of Golden. 

Figure 7. Traditional territories of the Plateau Indians, by Ray [detail, from Turnbull 72 ]. “S”, “O” 

and “C” indicate Salish, Okanagan and Colville peoples respectively. 

71 As seen for example, in Shelagh Dehart’s book 

72 Turnbull, Charles J., (1977). 

34 


Another example comes from a map assembled for local presentation by Wayne Choquette [Figure 8, 

following page] which shows Ktunaxa place names extending to Golden, Revelstoke and northward 

to the Kootenay Plains in Alberta which equally, by the logic of Teit and Ray, would suggest that 

these are within Ktunaxa territory. 73 

Figure 8: Territory of the Ktunaxa Territory, showing Ktunaxan place names, from W. Choquette. 

73 This deficiency would also seem to extend to the linguistic method employed by Bouchard and Kennedy, examined in 

detail later in this study. 

35 


Obviously, these place names may also have been developed out of familial relationships or post 

contact employment in adjacent lands, and this may also have contributed to the evident overstating 

of Shuswap and Sinixt territories. 74 

Vibert 75 describes more generally how such mechanistic interpretations can be misleading: 

Not only did language not coincide with culture, it did not coincide so neatly with territory. Language 

was little obstacle to the movement of people, goods, and ideas in the Plateau… 

Before we leave Teit, it should also be noted that he authored an article concerning the origins of the 

Ktunaxa 76 , at least a part of whom were living on the Plains before contact with whites and their 

resulting devastation by smallpox and rifle bearing Blackfoot. Much of the article concerns the fate 

of the Tona’xa, who appear to have been a plains oriented Ktunaxa, possibly associated with the 

Michel Plains Ktunaxa. In this regard, he mentions that in pre-contact time, Ktunaxa may have 

occupied portions of southwestern Alberta: 

The Piegan claim that before the white man dominated their country, the Blackfoot, Blood and Piegan 

lived north of Macleod; the Kutenai in the vicinity of the present Blood Reserve. 

3. Claude E. Schaeffer 

As a less published ethnographer, Schaeffer is not as well known in the field as some others, but in 

the late 1930s, working around the same time as Turney-High, he assembled a very large and 

valuable collection of field notes on the Ktunaxa, which he ultimately converted into some nine 

volumes of typescript notes. Although research has yet to discover a map of his that delineates 

aboriginal territories, he recorded valuable information relevant to our purposes from his many 

informants, who generally indicated an abundance of fish and game in the Upper Columbia Valley, 

yet an impressively large Canadian range from the U.S. Border to Yellowhead Pass and east of the 

Rockies. 

Some of the main fishing spots on the upper Columbia were named [Vol. VII, p. 31]: 

"1. yakinasu'kwl `red water' (from story of water monster yawu'nik that was speared here). Name 

given to salmon fishing site at Briscoe, on the Columbia 77 . The Kutenai fished here in August and was 

first fishing of season, as they followed the salmon up the Columbia River. 

2. roatqranur "where lake empties into river". A fishing site near Athalmer. This was a shallow place 

where the salmon spawned. This was last site at which Kutenai fished [for salmon?] in October. 

3. raras'ituk, "mouth of river". A fishing site at mouth of Coldspring Creek where it empties into 

Columbia, not far from Fairmont Springs. Kutenai fished here in September, following fishing at 

Briscoe. (Coldspring Creek or Dutch Creek?). 

4. kotwa.akak, "berries of rosebush". A site on north side of Geary Creek, where it empties into 

Columbia. Kutenai speared Salmon here. 

Louis Arbell, who appears to have been a highly valued informant judging by the number of 

references, claimed that: 

74 For example, we call the capital of Russia “Moscow”, but that doesn’t mean we can claim “Moskva” [the Russian 

pronunciation] as part of Canada. 

75 Vibert, Traders’ Tales, p. 30. 

76 Teit, Traditions regarding the Tona'xa America Anthropologist, Volume unknown, pp. 625-632, 1930. The Blood 

Reserve is located at Cardston, in the southwest corner of Alberta. 

77 Brisco is about midway between the Windermere and Golden. 

36 


The Columbia Lakes moved down the Columbia River, past Kinbasket Lake and along Canoe River, 

then up through the Yellow Head Pass ["Yakti.kL", = "foot print"], to east of the plains. 

Then they moved south along east bench of the Rockies and returned by one of the many passes, 

Vermillion, Kicking Horse, Elk or Crow's Nest, etc., to the west side of the mountains. 

Chief Arbell also observed that the Columbia Lakes area had “no deer” [but] an abundance of elk, 

moose, goats and sheep. Paul David advised that “the T.P. [Tobacco Plains] and St. Mary’s Kutenai 

used to hunt moose and elk, as far north as Golden.” [Vol. V, p. 46] 

Schaeffer himself observed in a letter to his thesis advisor Dr. Wissler dated July 13, 1937 that “the 

Windermere Kutenai” participated in the buffalo hunt to the extent that they had horses, but noted 

that "...the veneer of Plains trait was very thin” [Vol. IX]. The Columbia Lakes people therefore had 

placed a strong reliance on fishing and local game hunting for a very long time, consistent with this 

observation in Schaeffer’s notes [Vol V, p. 50]: 

‘Lived near town of Fairmont Springs and used these springs for treating the sick in the old days...They 

hunted north along the Sillimacheen River (yaginasu.ke - "Red River", named from the blood of salmon 

speared in this river)... 

Schaefer recorded that Eustace informed him about some of the seasonal round of the old qatmukinik 

people of Toby Creek, ancestors of the Columbia Lakes Ktunaxa: 

Katamu was a regular place on Toby Creek, at Columbia Lakes, where these people secured their 

second batch of salmon. Must have spent considerable time there, since that name was given them... 

At close of fishing seson, the Katamukunek split up, some set out to hunt bison, others elk and at end of 

season would meet to winter together in the south. Some returned Katamu after New Year's, to spend 

the months of January, February and March, hunting mountain sheep and wild fowl. Often Kutenai 

from Tobacco Plains joined them, as game was plentiful there... 

In his letter to Dr. Wissler, he also gives an indication of the impressive range of the Ktunaxa when 

he describes the area covered by the Michel Plains people: 

…[I]n addition to the Columbia Lakes and Tobacco Plains groups, there is left the group about Crow's 

Nest Pass (whom Teit called Tunaxa and claimed were living entirely east of the Divide). Strangely 

enough, I have been able to secure but little information on the latter group from informants here. The 

Chief told me the Tunaxa made a two year circuit of the region, fishing one fall at Columbia Lakes, 

then crossing the Rockies by Yellowhead Pass (near which is the Kutenai Parc mentioned by Henry 

Thompson, per your letter and which he confirms) moving south along the mountains in search of bison 

and recrossing again at North Kootenay Pass, and even as far south as Missoula, and then coming north 

to Tobacco Plains. This route refers to period after introduction of the horse, it being rather improbable 

that such a territory could be covered on foot in that length of time... 

Clearly the Ktunaxa had a heavy dependence on fish and game in the upper Columbia Valley, but 

Schaeffer reports a deep sadness in his informants at the passing of this richness, expressed in a 

poignant statement to him by Francais Adam Vol. VII, p. 3]: 

Nowadays the Kutenai get insufficient fish and game and believe that they may undergo a physical 

deterioration, similar to that of white foods when spoiling or rotting. 

There appears very little in Schaeffer’s notes concerning relations of the Upper Ktunuxa with the 

37 


Shuswap. However, he was told by Louis Joseph that “The Columbia Lakes were never attacked by 

Shuswap shamans” [Vol. VI, p. 52]. This indicates an amicable sharing of territory began after the 

Ktunaxa agreed to their settling in the Windermere area. 

Schaeffer’s work does not appear to be a comprehensive examination of traditional territory but his 

field notes alone indicate that the Ktunaxa had a strong interest in the upper Columbia down to Boat 

Encampment and were known to pass through the Yellowhead Pass to the plains east of the Rockies. 

4. Harry Holborn Turney-High 

Perhaps the best known published ethnography of the Kutenai was written by Turney-High in 1941 

following several summers of detailed field work primarily among the Upper Ktunaxa. The model 

adopted by Turney-High for determining traditional territory was essentially based on whether the 

Ktunaxa could travel and collect food in a place without fear of attack by another tribe. This 

contrasts with the delineation of Salish territory based on place names employed by Teit and Ray. 

The author summarizes the limits of Kutenai territory largely as given to him by Chief Paul of 

Tobacco Plains [p. 23], noting “His description was so accurate that verification among the other 

bands contributed only minor corrections.” According to his map [Figure 6], the northern boundary 

on the east appears to be held at the Blaeberry River a short distance north of Golden and on the west 

in the vicinity of Revelstoke. 

On the north the Kutenai considered their land to be marked by a small stream which runs into the 

Columbia on the other side of Golden, or at about Donald, B.C. 

The eastern boundary was clearly marked by the Rocky Mountains. Once on the other side, Kutenai 

parties were challenged by the Blackfoot bands. The Kutenai did consider the eastern face of the 

Rockies theirs, however, and maintained their right to hunt there… 

He accepts the more conservative word of the Bonner’s Ferry Ktunaxa in placing the southern 

boundary at Flat Head Lake in Montana, beyond which they would be challenged by the Pend 

d’Oreille Indians. The western boundary, according to his informants, extended to the western shore 

of the Arrow Lakes. 

With reference to this map of Ktunaxa territory [Figure 9], Turney-High’s informants told him that 

they were free to range throughout the area shown. The dotted areas in the southern and western 

portions of the range indicate traditional lands claimed by his Ktunaxa informants but questioned by 

authorities such as Ray. His own doubts lead to follow up interviews, after which he wrote: 

With but one exception they all claimed Arrow Lake and its shores, although admitting there were no 

Kutenai villages there. They said that the lake was one of their important sources of fish, that their 

fathers regularly visited it by canoe, and that they expected to find no enemy or rival there or on the 

way there…While the majority opinion is the one represented on the map in this work, it must be 

considered a moot point. 

38 


9. Ktunaxa Territory, according to Turney-High 

Figure 

39 


Concerning the Windermere area, the author notes that “The Tobacco Plains people say that the 

Windermere, B.C., band is the most recent of the Upper Kutenai bands” [p. 15] and that the 

American Kutenai whom he muses might be better called “Middle Kutenai” are more recent still. 

Although this is an ancient site of the Ktunaxa, Turney-High later states of the people at Windermere 

[p. 20]: 

This is quite a modern band and should not be given a separate enumeration. After a meeting with 

Governor Stevens in Montana, Chief Michel was dissatisfied with the United States arrangement and 

moved with the dissidents to Windermere, B.C. Many of the people there are of Libby-Jennings origin. 78 

However some of the Windermere people appear to be of more ancient Upper Kutenai lineages and 

certainly other references [e.g. Borden, Schaeffer] indicate that this is a very ancient site of the 

Ktunaxa. 

Before leaving Turney-High, it is worth examining what he has to say about hunting and fishing 

practices of the Ktunaxa, practices which would likely have been carried out in the study area. While 

the main goal of Upper Ktunaxa hunters was the buffalo for which they crossed the Rockies in large 

hunting parties several times a year, the Lower Ktunaxa were focused on the deer: 

As the Upper Kutenai chiefs sent messengers inviting the Lower Kutenai to join their communal bison 

hunts, so the Lower Kutenai chieftains sent similar invitations to the Upper Kutenai to join their deer 

drives [p. 39]. 

Although the bison was a major focus for most of the Upper Ktunaxa, other important animals were 

caribou, elk for hides, moose and bear [pp. 40, 41] 

Turney-High also notes [p. 41] that the Ktunaxa were avid bird hunters and that “duck flesh was a 

staple.” Ducks were caught in snare nets. Geese were shot with bow and arrows. Seagulls were also 

eaten “when hunger demanded”. 

Regarding fishing, Turney-High states [p. 44]: 

No trait marks the Kutenai off from the Plains more than their systematic fishing… 

Again, the reciprocal relationship between Upper and Lower Ktunaxa was at work, whereby the 

Lower Ktunaxa would be invited to go on buffalo hunts while the Upper Ktunaxa would be invited to 

participate in large weir fishing. Fish listed as important to the Ktunaxa included salmon, bull trout 

[dolly varden], suckers, sturgeon and whitefish 79 [pp. 44, 45], but Turney-High [p. 50] states 

categorically: 

78 Michel’s decision to reside with his followers at Windermere included a ringing endorsement of its plenitude. 

According to Malouf and White [n.d.], he told the Ktunaxa at Dayton and Elmo: 

I like it better in Canada. I'm not going back anymore and I'm going to leave you. I have found a good 

place to live with good land where you can never go hungry. There are lots of animals, fish, ducks, 

geese, deer, and elk. You can select a new chief. 

79 This list also includes a fish called e’pat! by the Ktunaxa but unknown to Turney-High. It likely is the fresh water ling 

cod or burbot, which can attain lengths of 2-2½ feet in the upper Columbia [Schaeffer’s Field Notes, Vol. VII, p. 93]. 

According to the memorial written about early Windermere by Violet Andrews [copy with the Ktunaxa Nation Council 

40 


Salmon played an important part in the Kutenai economy, but it is obvious that the members of the trout 

family were paramount in their thinking. 

The author indicates that the Upper Kootenay were considered as very skilled at hook and line fishing 

but notes they also practised small weir fishing of faster flowing waters using their distinctive conical 

traps in a funnel shape across the stream. Another type of distinctive trap “was devised for use at 

waterfalls...[and] used in the autumn when the fish could be expected to be going down stream 

seeking deeper water” [p. 47]. 

The Ktunaxa canoes were of the “sturgeon nosed” type, with low pointed bow and sterns that were 

under the water, and designed primarily for paddling in lakes. 

A migrating Kutenai band could assemble a fleet of respectable size. Bull Robe [informant] says that 

he heard of an expedition of the Libby-Jennings and Tobacco Plains bands travelling by river to 

Windermere in a fleet of one hundred and fifty-five canoes. 

The seasonal round of the food quest is summarized in this way. Early in the spring the Ktunaxa 

went to their fishing grounds and in the late spring harvested roots. Then came the early summer 

bison hunt, where they were often joined by the Coeur d’Alene and Spokan Indians. This was 

followed by a general time of rest, especially for the horses, although women did lay in the annual 

berry supply. In the late summer, salmon fishing was a prominent activity, most notably in the 

Windermere area, or westward towards Arrow Lakes. During the early autumn, the Lower Ktunaxa 

undertook their deer drives while the Upper Ktunaxa resumed hunting buffalo. Turney-High also 

mentions that there was a third buffalo hunt in the winter, but one carried out by snow-shoe, not with 

riding and pack horses. 

Additionally, in the late summer, salmon fishing was a prominent activity, most notably in the 

Windermere area, or westward towards Arrow Lakes. 

Although the buffalo hunt formed a central element in the Upper Ktunaxa way of life, Turney-High 

makes clear that the hunting of deer and bear and the fishing for bull trout and salmon were 

fundamentally important as well. He concludes his remarks on subsistence as follows [p. 55]: 

The Kutenai considered their land a fortunate one wherein any industrious man could get plenty to eat 

for himself and family. Scarcity, need, and famine were so unusual that they were considered of 

supernatural origin. 

5. Bill Brunton 

Bill Brunton’s views of the traditional territory of the Ktunaxa are found in Volume 12, Plateau, of 

the Handbook of North American Indians, published by the Smithsonian. The primary contribution 

taken from his article is his map at Fig. 6 entitled “Kootenai territory at contact in 1792…” and like 

Turney-High, he marks the northern limit of Ktunaxa territory in the vicinity of Golden, B.C. 

Brunton’s map [Figure 7] indicates a territorial division between the Lower and Upper Kootenay that 

appears to follow the Purcell Range. Brunton’s piece does not offer much more for our specific 

purposes, although he notes that the first missionary establishment, named St. Mary’s and begun in 

archive], this fish was prized by Indians and settlers alike who would usually take it by hook and line ice fishing [see 

picture, p. 101]. 

41 


1840 with the arrival of the Jesuit Father de Smet, was abandoned in 1850 with “limited” influence 

on the Ktunaxa. He also advises that about 80 per cent of Ktunaxa died of small pox outbreaks that 

recurred as late as the early 1900s. 

Figure 10. Ktunaxa territory, according to Brunton. 

42 


6. Allan Smith 

In 1984, on behalf of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Smith prepared a report entitled Kutenai 

Indian Subsistence and Settlement Patterns, Northwest Montana. Although the reasons for 

commissioning the report concerned Ktunaxa groups in the Lake Koocanusa area of Montana, Smith 

pointed out [p. 7] that the study should take a look at the whole of the Ktunaxa range: 

The Lake Koocanusa groups were, however, by no means limited in their subsistence foraging to their 

own band lands. In their food quest they wandered freely over the total territory of the Upper Kutenai 

and seasonally even joined Lower Division people in exploiting their downriver food resources. 

In assessing the origins of the Ktunaxa, Smith writes [preface, p. vii]: 

A tentative reconstruction of the subsistence and settlement patterns of the Upper Kutenai suggests four 

successive protohistoric and early historic periods: (1) a prehorse, prefirearms, prebison period when 

hunting, fishing, and plant gathering were pursued year-round in a relatively balanced manner west of 

the Continental Divide by small wandering camps; (2) a period when mid-winter foot treks for bison 

meat east of the Rockies were initiated by certain groups near the mountains but otherwise life was little 

changed; (3) a late prehistoric period which saw the introduction of the horse, and a significant turn on 

the part of several bands toward equine-dependent bison hunting on the Plains during warmer seasons 

to complement the earlier winter bison hunts on foot, toward a decreased utilization of the traditional 

food resources within their tribal homeland, and toward fewer but larger and more sedentary settlements 

when resident in their own territory; and (4) an early postcontact period when firearms were obtained, 

bison hunting received a still greater emphasis on the part of most of the Upper people, and certain 

minimal elements of Western culture were adopted. 

Smith evaluates the relevant work on traditional territory done by numerous ethnographers, 

sometimes addressing shortcomings he perceives in their analyses. Like Turney-High, he points out 

that Verne Ray spent very little effort in gathering Ktunaxa data. His discussion of Teit’s work is 

also interesting. For example, he notes [p.12] that “Teit recognizes no distinct Lakes “tribe” in the 

Arrow Lakes sector and along the Columbia to the north.” He also asserts that “Teit’s findings seem 

to establish beyond argument that the Kinbasket group represented an early postcontact thrust of 

various eastern Shuswap peoples into aboriginal territory of the Columbia Lakes Band of the 

Kutenai.” 80 

His map [Figure 11] shows the northern boundary of Ktunaxa between present day Donald and 

Golden, crossing eastward through the Rockies via Howse Pass. It draws the western boundary of 

the Ktunaxa roughly in line with the Purcell Mountains, denying the Ktunaxa a share of the 

Revelstoke and Arrow Lakes areas. 

Smith appears to suggest that it’s more than coincidence that Ray, who spent a great deal of time 

among the Fort Colville Indians, and Teit who lived with and married into the Shuswaps delineate 

vastly greater areas for these tribes than other ethnographers. This appears to be a gentle criticism 

that some ethnographers have exhibited a bias in favour of their subject tribes when it comes to 

delineating traditional boundaries. 

80 Although much of the Columbia Lakes Band derives from the followers of Chief Michelle, who arrived from the U.S. 

in the 1850s, they were joined by other Ktunaxas whose ancestors had occupied the area for a very long time. 

43 


Figure 11. Approximate boundaries of Ktunaxa traditional territory, according to Smith 

44 


6. Randy Bouchard and Dorothy Kennedy 

Their Ethnography and Ethnohistory in British Columbia’s Lower Kootenay/Columbia Hydropower 

Region, 2000 appears to be an exhaustive synthesis of available documentation and ethnography 

relating to the Lower Kootenay / Columbia Hydropower Region. It has close to 70 pages of 

bibliography alone, indicating that a very wide range of material has been reviewed. 

Bouchard and Kennedy, who also contributed a chapter on the Okanagan Indians in Volume 12 of the 

Handbook of North American Indians, believe that the traditional boundary line of the western 

portion of Ktunaxa territory runs relatively straight north as an extension of the Washington – Idaho 

state border until it reaches Golden [Figure 7]. 

Following Teit’s practice as they have in other studies, 81 Bouchard and Kennedy cite “Lakes place 

names” as evidence that the Columbia River and adjacent areas from Revelstoke to below the U.S. 

border were Sinixt lands and lay outside Ktunaxa territory. In this, their analysis falls prey to the 

same weakness as Teit’s, especially in that it does not appear to account for Ktunaxa names for such 

places [see pp 26-27, above]. 82 However, the net result is that they essentially agree with Allan 

Smith in a delineation of Ktunaxa territory that includes the study area. 

81 Consistent with their usual approach, Bouchard and Kennedy’s register much of their work under the name “The B.C. 

Indian Languages Project.” 

82 It should also be pointed out that, although the historical research in their report is extensive, their selective 

interpretation and use of documentation can be unfortunate. For example, in their enthusiasm to reconstruct the history of 

a once extensive and powerful Sinixt nation, they slough off Ross’s account of meeting of people expressly identified as 

Ktunaxa living in the Arrow Lakes in the 1820s as mistaken. Another concerns the 1861 report of Colonial Gold 

Commissioner William Cox, implying in their reference that he only met with the Sinixt concerning troubles with the 

miners. In fact, Cox not only met separately with the Lower Ktunaxa and acknowledged their presence at the mouth of 

the Pend d’Oreille River, he marked out a reserve for them at the confluence of the Kootenay and Columbia Rivers. 

45 


13. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

i) With one disputable exception, there is a consensus among authoritative ethnographers that the 

study area, extending from Golden to the Columbia Lakes, is wholly within Ktunaxa traditional 

territory. 

ii) The archaeological and historical information located indicates that the study area has been a 

focal point of the regular seasonal round of the Ktunaxa, in particular those from the Columbia Lakes 

area, for at least many centuries and probably far longer. 

iii) Lands and waters in the subject area have been historically very rich in fauna, with large numbers 

of ungulates [deer, elk, moose, mountain goat, sheep], fur bearing animals [beaver, marten, bear], 

fish [salmon, bull trout, burbot] and birds [ducks, geese]. 

iv) The Kinbasket Shuswap people began migrating towards northern portions of traditional Ktunaxa 

territory in the early 1800s, encouraged in part by the Hudson Bay Company and its free traders. 

Initially fearful of reprisals for encroaching on Ktunaxa territory, they eventually settled in the area of 

Windermere Lake in the mid-1800s with the permission of the Ktunaxa. 

46 


BIBLIOGRAPHY for KTUNAXA AIUS –THE UPPER COLUMBIA VALLEY 

Archival Sources 

Arrow Lakes Historical Society, Nakusp, B.C. 

B.C. Archival & Research Services [BCARS], Victoria, B.C. 

Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development [INAC], RG 10 microfilm collection 

Fort Steele Heritage Town Archives 

Hudson’s Bay Company Archives [HBCA], Winnipeg, Manitoba 

Kootenay Lake Archives, Kaslo, B.C. 

Ktunaxa Nation Council Archives and Library, Cranbrook, B.C. 

Selkirk College, Archives and Local History Collection, Castlegar, B.C. 

Shawn Lamb Collection, Touchstones Museum, Nelson B.C. 

Revelsoke Museum and Archives 

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs 

University of British Columbia Library, Special Collections Division 

University of British Columbia Library, Koerner Division 

Vancouver Public Library, North West Collection. 

Published and Archival Sources 

Affleck, E.L. Kootenay Yesterdays, Vancouver: Alexander Nichols Press, 1976 

Kootenay Lake Chronicles, Vancouver: Alexander Nichols Press, 1978 

Ahearn, Josie. Indigenous Peoples of the West Kootenay, Report for School District #8 (Kootenay Lake), 2005 

Andrews, Violet Richardson Bridger. The Windermere I Knew. Violet’s Story, Minuteman Press, Calgary, 2002 

Baillie-Grohman, W.A. Camps in the Rockies…, London: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1882; 

Stalking the Haplocerus in the Selkirks, Camp and Field, 140, May, 1895; 

Seven Years of Pathfinding in the Selkirks of the Kootenays;, Field, The Country Gentleman’s 

Newspaper, May 11, 1899: 657-8; 

Fifteen years’ sport and life in the hunting grounds of western American and British 

Columbia, London: H. Cox, 1907 

Baker, Paul E. The Forgotten Kutenai, Mountain States Press, 1955 

Belyea, Barbara, ed. Columbia Journals - David Thompson, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1994 

Birdstone, Violet. Ktunaxa Nation Aboriginal Interests and Traditional Use Study – Waneta Power Expansion and 

Power Project Arrow Lakes Area, Consultant Report, copy on file with Ktunaxa Nation Council, 2006 

Boas, Franz. Kutenai Tales, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 59, Washington, 1918 

Borden, Charles. Results of Two Archaeological Surveys in the East Kootenay Region of British Columbia, 

Research Studies, Vol. 24; Pullman: Washington State University, 1956 

Bouchard, Randy and Kennedy, Dorothy. First Nations’ Ethnography and Ethnohistory in British Columbia’s 

Lower Kootenay, Columbia Hydropower Region, Victoria: B.C. Indian Languages Project, 2005 

British Columbia Dept. of Education, Kootenay, British Columbia Heritage Series: Our Native Peoples, Series 1, 

Volume 8, Victoria, 1952. 

Cebula, Larry. Plateau Indians and the Quest for Spiritual Power, 1700-1850, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and 

London, 2003 

47 


Chamberlain, A.F. Notes on the Kootenay Indians, The American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal, No. 17, 1887, 

pp.68-72 

Report on the Kootenay Indians of South-Eastern British Columbia, 

The British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1892 

On the North-western Tribes of Canada, 

The British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1893 

Chittenden, Hiram and Richardson, Alfred Talbot. Life, Letters and Travels of Father Pierre-Jean de Smet, 

1801-1873, New York: Harper & Rowe, 1905. 

Choquette, Wayne T. Archaeological Component of Duncan Reservoir Water Use Planning Project, Report 

for B.C. Hydro, copy on file with Ktunaxa Nation Council, 2005. 

Coccola, Father. Memoirs, Mss. 199, St. Eugene Fonds, Fort Steele Museum and Archive 

Cole, Jean Murray, ed. This Blessed Wilderness: Archibald McDonald’s Letters from the Columbia, 1822-1844, 

Vancouver: UBC Press, 2001 

Collier, D., Hudson, A.E. and Ford, A. Archaeology of the Upper Columbia Region, University of Washington 

Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 9, No. 1, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1942, pp.1-178. 

Coues, Elliott, ed. New Light on the Early History of the Greater Northwest: The Manuscript Journals of Alexander 

Henry and David Thompson, 1799-1812, New York: Harper, 1897. 

Cox, Ross. Adventures on the Columbia River…, New York: Harper, 1832 

Curtis, Edward. The Kutenai, 1911 

Dehart, Shelagh Palmer Kinbasket, and Dehart, Dusty. The Kinbasket Migration and Other Indian History, Palliser 

Printing, Invermere, B.C., 2006 

De Smet, Father P.-J. Oregon Missions, and Travels Over the Rocky Mountains, 1845-1846, Edward Dunegan, New 

York, 1867 

Douglas, David. Journal Kept by David Douglas, 1823-1827; William Wesley & Son, London, 1914 [digitized by 

Google Books] 

Dryer, Matthew S. Kutenai, Algonquian, and the Pacific Northwest from an Areal Perspective, Proceedings of the 

Thirty-Ninth Algonquin Conference, copy held at Ktunaxa Nation Council Library Archive, n.d. 

Farwell, A.S. Report on the Kootenay Indians, from B.C. Sessional Papers, 47 Vic., p. 325 

Flanagan, Darris. Indian Trails of the Rocky Mountains, Stoneydale Press, Stevensville, Montana, 2001 

Gates, Charles, ed. Five Fur Traders of the Northwest. Peter Pond et al., Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, 1965 

Haines, Frances. Northward Spread of Horses Among the Plains Indians, American Anthropologist, N.S., 40, 1938 

Hodge, Frederick Webb, ed. Handbook of North American Indians, Smithsonian Bulletin, Rowman and Littlefield, 1971 

Hopwood, Victor, ed. Travels in Western North America, 184-1812. David Thompson, MacMillan, Toronto, 1971 

Hungry Wolf, Adolf and Beverly. Indian Tribes of the Northern Rockies, self published, 1991 

Johnson, Olga Weydemeyer. Early Libby and Troy, Montana; self published, copy held by Touchstones Museum, 

Nelson, 1958; 

Flathead and Kootenay: The Rivers, the Tribes and the Region’s Traders, Glendale, 

48 


California: The Arthur H. Clarke Co., 1969 

Kane, Paul. Wanderings of an Artist Among the Indians of North America…, Longman, Brown et al, London, 1859 

Kay, D., and McDonald, D. Looking Back to Yesterday, a very large series of articles [over 500] from The Daily 

Townsman, copies held in the Fort Steele Archives, 1970s 

Keefer, M., Choquette, W., McCoy, Laura and Williams, R. Ktunaxa Aboriginal Interests: Traditional Use and 

Archaeological Overview of the ProposedJumbo Glacier Alpine Resort, Consultant report, copy on file with the 

Ktunaxa Nation Council, 2004 

Keefer, M., and McCoy, P. All Living Things: A Ktunaxa Ethnobotany; copy on file with the Ktunaxa Nation Council, 

1999 

Kootenay Culture Committee, confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Ktunaxa Legends, Salish Kootenai College 

Press, 1997 

Kutenai Language Task Force. Kutenai Nation Resource Book, Cranbrook, 1989 

Lewis, William S. and Phillips, Paul C., ed. The Journal of John Work, Arthur H. Clark, Cleveland, 1923 

Linderman, Frank B. Kootenai Why Stories, Blue Ribbon Books, New York, 1926 

Malouf, Carling & Thaine White. Early Kutenai History, Flathead Lake Lookout Museum, Lakeside, Montana, No. 10, 

n.d. 

McLeod, Malcolm. Peace River: A Canoe Voyage from Hudson’s Bay to Pacific by George Simpson…in 1828, from 

A Journal of…Archibald McDonald, Edmonton: Hurtig, 1971. 

Michel, Mary Anne. Kootenay Indian of the Past and Today, self-published collection of essays, copy held by Fort 

Steele Heritage Museum Archive, undated 

Merk, Frederick, ed. Fur Trade and Empire, George Simpson’s Journal…1824-1825, Cambridge, Belknap Press, 1968. 

Nelson Daily News. Copies held in the Shawn Lamb Collection, Touchstones Museum, Nelson 

Nisbet, Jack. Mapmaker’s Eye – David Thompson on the Columbia Plateau, Washington State University Press, 2005 

Ogden, Peter Skene. Traits of American-Indian Life and Character, Smith, Elder & Co., London, 1853 

Snake Country Journals, 1827-1829, Hudson‘s Bay Record Society Ltd., Glasgow: University Press, 1971 

Palliser, Capt. James. Journals, Reports and Detailed Observations…Presented to the Houses of Parliament, 1863, 

London: Eyre & Spottiswood, 1863. 

Parker, Rev. Samuel. Exploring Tour Beyond the Rocky Mountains…Performed in the Years 1835, 1836 and 1837…, 

Self-published, Ithaca, N.Y., 1838 [digitized by Google Books] 

Pond, Peter. Adventures in the American Northwest, Peter Pond et al. Journal of American History, Vol. 1, 1907 

Rappagliosi, Father Philip. Letters from the Rocky Mountain Indian Missions, ed. Robert Bigart, University of Nebraska 

Press, 2003 

Ray, Verne, F. Cultural Relations in the Plateau of Northwestern America, Los Angeles: The Southwest Museum, 1970 

William Rodney. Kootenai Brown, Canada=s Unknown Frontiersman, Heritage House Publishing Co., 1996 

49 


Ronan, Peter. Historical Sketch of the Flathead Indian Nation…1813-1890, Ross and Haines, Inc., 1965 

Ross, Alexander. Fur Hunters of the Far West, Smith, Elder and Co., London, 1854 

Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the Province of British Columbia, Final Report, Victoria: Acme Press Ltd., 

1916 

Schaeffer, Claude, Kutenai Field Notes, Montana and British Columbia, Unpublished typescript held in Ktunaxa Nation 

Council Archive, 1937; 

Le Blanc and La Gassé: Predecessors of David Thompson in the Columbian Plateau, 

Museum of the Plains Indian for the United States Department of the Interior, 1966 

Smiley, H.D. The Kootenai Puzzle, Tobacco Plains Ranch, Montana, 1976 

Smith, Allan H. Kuteani Indian Subsistence and Settlement Patterns, Project Report No. 2, Vol. 2, Pullman: Center 

for Northwest Anthropology, Washington State University, 1984 

Snead, Paul G. Kootenay River Diversion - Cultural Heritage Resources, Phase I Impact Statement, Unpublished study, 

January, 1978 

Stanley, George F.D. Mapping the Frontier [The Journal of Charles William Wilson], Toronto: Macmillan of 

Canada, 1970. 

Teit, James, A. 

The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateau, from the 45 th Annual Report of the Bureau of American 

Ethnology, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930; 

Traditions Regarding the Tona’xa, American Anthropologist, pp.625-632, 1930 

Thwaites, Ruben [ed]. Franchere’s Voyage to the Northwest Coast, 1811-1814; Translated and Edited by J. V. 

Huntingdon, Redfield, New York, 1854 

Tolmie, W. Fraser, and Dawson, George M. Comparative Vocabularies of the Indian Tribes of British Columbia, 

Montreal: Dawson Brothers, 1884 

Turnbull, Charles J. Archaeology and Ethnohistory in the Arrow Lakes, Southeastern British Columbia, 

Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 65, Ottawa, 1977 

Turney-High, Harry Holbert. Ethnography of the Kootenai, Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, 

New York, 1941. 

Tyrell, J.B., ed. David Thompson: Narrative of His Explorations in Western America, 1784-1812, Champlain 

Society, Toronto, 1916 

Vibert, Elizabeth. Traders’ Tales, University of Oklahoma Press, 1997 

Walker, Deward E. Handbook of American Indians, Volume 12, Plateau, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, 

1997 

Weir, Craig. Written in Stone: Exploring Kaslo’s Prehistory, self-published, copy held by Kootenay Lake Archives, 

Kaslo, B.C. 

Weir, Winifred. Tales of Windermere, self-published, Windermere, 1980 

Yerbury, J.C. Nineteenth Century Kutenai Settlement Patterns, Western Canada Journal of Anthropology, Vol. IV, No. 4, 

1975, pp. 23-35 

50

Evidence on the Adequacy of First Nations Consultation - BC Hydro ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?