Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Dan Davidson

FIRST NATION ASKED TO MOVE OUT – The Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in subdivision is seen from Crocus Bluff in 2014. There have been additional buildings erected since this photo was taken, as well as extensive site preparation for a planned addition.

Klondike miners want families and homes uprooted

Two Klondike-area miners have demanded that the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in (TH) First Nation remove families, homes and infrastructure from the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in subdivision so the area can be mined.

By Dan Davidson on September 9, 2016

DAWSON CITY – Two Klondike-area miners have demanded that the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in (TH) First Nation remove families, homes and infrastructure from the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in subdivision so the area can be mined.

Since 2001, the Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in have been establishing a substantial subdivision in their residential settlement lands just north of the Ogilvie Bridge over the Klondike River.

The Tr’ondëk subdivision is part of the land claims settlement classified as C-4, so the subdivision tends to be locally known as C-4.

This is quite ironic, since the growth in the number of homes in the area has been nothing short of explosive over the 15-year period.

There are currently 31 buildings on the site, a mixture of single-family and multi-family dwellings that house some 40 families.

Aside from the buildings are the sewer, water and power infrastructure, and the landscaping associated with people’s homes.

In addition, TH spent last summer preparing the ground and laying in the infrastructure for a planned expansion of the subdivision. The area is also the site of various storage and work buildings at the south end of the lot.

In late June, TH was issued a July 15 deadline by the claim holders, Michel Vincent and Mike Heydorf, to remove all buildings, power lines, sewer and water lines, survey stakes and any other possessions from C-4.

TH advised the claim holders they would have to conform to the provisions of the Yukon’s mining legislation.

That includes requirements to provide security and compensation, before any mining activities could be undertaken.

Just where all those buildings could be relocated until after the mining was completed, and where the people who reside in them could live, in a town that is chronically short of housing, are among the more obvious issues.

In mid-August, TH was notified that the Yukon Surface Rights Board had received an application from the miners requesting an “order” that would compel the First Nation to comply with the request to vacate the land.

Just how such a demand will be viewed when it bumps up against the Umbrella Final Agreement and the local land claims final agreement is another major issue.

The First Nation said Thursday it does not intend to co-operate with this demand, should the Surface Rights Board accede to the miners’ request.

Chief Roberta Joseph cites this as just another reason why the territory’s mining legislation needs to be brought up to date.

“We are optimistic we’ll succeed in saving our residential neighborhood and retain our settlement land that we fought so hard for,” Joseph said in a statement.

“But the fact this conflict exists in the first place is yet another indication we need renewed mining legislation and regulations that reflect modern values.”

Joseph also noted the Klondike Plateau is covered in mining claims.

Consequently, other residents could find themselves in this situation, she said in the statement.

The area was historically mined in the early 1900s, with construction of the neighbourhood beginning in 2001.

TH has invested an estimated $10 million to $15 million in planning, development, and construction of the subdivision over the last 15 years.

It did so after rebuilding the land in question from the tailings that were left from the mining era.

More housing construction was planned for next summer.

Comments (26)

Up 18 Down 12

Politico on Sep 14, 2016 at 3:20 pm

Good to see the YP lurkers sneaking out for a quick pot shot and scurrying back to their sewers. If you had crawled out yesterday you would have seen both party leaders addressing the issue. How many years the YP been in power and nothing done. Nice try blaming the opposition but they don't run the government. Just giving credit where credit is due.

Up 13 Down 17

Where is the NDP and liberal comments on this project. on Sep 14, 2016 at 1:34 pm

Liberals and NDP where do you stand on this issue? You have lot's to say on other projects. Blame YP for every problem in the Yukon. It is interesting that this came up under a Yukon liberal government and they put it under the carpet.

Up 12 Down 6

Dee on Sep 13, 2016 at 8:21 pm

I think the Yukon Waters Act needs updating. It seems Conflicting in some areas to the Final Agreements? Maybe a whole review of Yukon Government Acts need to be done. The Constitution of Canada is the rule of the land and the Agreements are protected under the Constitution.

Up 14 Down 8

Dee on Sep 13, 2016 at 6:10 pm

The whole purpose of fn signing agreements with the gov was to provide recognized rights and protection to ensure future generations would be able to practice traditional lifestyles if they so chose to do so. I think the mining legislation needs to be updated regarding homeowners and all category B lands and site specific lands should be all changed to Category A Lands. Will the Liberal Party have what it takes to do this? First Nations own these lands and have given up large portions of land to make agreements with the government, only to have someone to tell them to get off the land.... seems like a pretty crooked deal to me...

Up 22 Down 21

Max Mack on Sep 13, 2016 at 4:51 pm

"Outdated" laws? So, I should be able to build my home irrespective of existing surface or sub-surface rights and then deny the rights-holders the economic benefits they would have been able to derive from their legally acquired rights?

This story is cleverly crafted and gives a very one-sided perspective.

TH knew of the existing claims and then proceeded anyway, perhaps hoping that this would go to court and a certain judge would rule in their favour again.

Since TH seems to have plenty of cash at its disposal, perhaps TH can compensate the existing rights holders. That would end this dispute, but I suspect TH is not interested in a fair settlement.

Up 28 Down 20

Mark Sanders on Sep 12, 2016 at 4:58 pm

So the FN did not consider the area beneath where mining previously occurred and they are expected to pay millions to the miners or spend millions moving their homes.

What nonsense. How many times does colonialism and outdated laws expect FN people to move. Let's stop the insanity and pay the miners $50 per claim for a few cold beer.

Up 18 Down 5

Jack O on Sep 12, 2016 at 3:34 pm

@proscience greenie. I was pointing out that your comment was very flippant about an issue that affects all land owners in the Yukon. It is not a TH or Yukon First Nation issue. Anyone's private property can be staked and then the "miner" could demand you move your property so he could mine or demand that he be paid compensation. It is not realistic to state that the mining issues should have been resolved before any construction - since there are claims staked throughout the Yukon for all sorts of reasons, including mining (but also to provide tenure for roads and driveways, people looking to build a residence, etc.) and new claims could also be staked after construction under the territorial laws. The fundamental issue: the old and broad rights of "miners" under territorial legislation is often twisted and manipulated by some who are not acting in good faith and solely want to make a quick buck without actually doing any mining. Perhaps you are missing the big picture [again].

Up 26 Down 9

Dawson on Sep 12, 2016 at 12:51 pm

Setting aside existing claims, still today this government continues to support legislation and regulations that allow my residential property to be staked, only creating more of these problems for the future. Such staking was done just this summer. I don't see why one should have to buy them out and anyway it could very well just repeat the very next day without a change in the law.

My neighborhood and its trails are covered in the detritus of this activity. Abandoned fuel, garbage, rotting game meat, human excrement and more.

A small element lives a lifestyle that exploits the loopholes in these 100+ year-old rules with impunity creating much distress for others. The regulations can be modernized without impeding any of the 'real' mining activity that is supporting livelihoods.

But the Yukon Party has refused to do so.

Up 15 Down 13

ProScience Greenie on Sep 12, 2016 at 7:17 am

So Jack O, for pointing out the land tenure issue should have been dealt with prior to construction of the homes to avoid legal troubles you wish ill on me and mine. You must be in the progressive movement. I also don't do municipalities Jack O.

IMO these two miners are not acting in an honourable miner-like way but again, these matters should have been dealt with some years ago by all parties. Especially with the vast army of civil servants we employee to deal with this stuff. Due diligence helps keep things out of court.

Not sure what changes to the mining acts will do for cities and municipalities that developed around existing mining camps BnR, where the claim posts and property pins are already in the ground. Buy the miners out at fair price I guess if the claims cover legitimate deposits. A bigger legal matter than most realize I'm told when it comes to existing claims.

Up 20 Down 10

@Jack Z on Sep 11, 2016 at 11:02 pm

@yukon nomad. What do you mean "the miners have every right to request the removal and TH in it's wisdom with numerous consultants and imported staff should have recognized their rights to the land was very shallow and any development could potentially be at risk." Your statement is 100 percent incorrect. Please spend some time to learn about the territorial placer legislation and the land claim agreements before you try to write anything else. Your lack of knowledge is not helpful.

Up 38 Down 10

There is no gold there under ground, however above ground.... on Sep 10, 2016 at 5:28 pm

The area has been mined, so maybe there is a little bit of gold, let's say 1mln worth, and after a lot of work you earn 100k. But now above ground somebody built for 10mln. So I think these "miners" are betting on the people who built here are willing to pay to keep their houses. That is a great new way of gold mining....

Up 23 Down 59

jc on Sep 10, 2016 at 10:04 am

Theres millions of dollars under those homes. The question should be, why doesn't the FN mine it out? Would that not contribute to their own welfare? Time for them to mine out their own territorial lands and support themselves. It would also give them a sense of dignity and pride.

Up 47 Down 15

Mark Sanders on Sep 10, 2016 at 12:39 am

The Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in will stand tall and protect their substantial subdivision.

A few years ago their was a black Thursday (or some other day of the week) to protest DFO actions. There should be a similar protest in Dawson, Mayo and Whitehorse to protest the arrogance of the miners in this situation.

Roberta is doing well in this situation, Dawson City is being treated like a developing country by the miners, its time to reel them in.

Up 19 Down 23

Yukon Nomad on Sep 9, 2016 at 11:53 pm

This is interesting given that TH has signed a SGFA accepting only surface rights to that category of land. I wonder what the membership thinks now since the Leadership of the day were in support of the contents of their agreement.
Given that, the miners have every right to request the removal and TH in it's wisdom with numerous consultants and imported staff should have recognized their rights to the land was very shallow and any development could potentially be at risk.
Maybe this is one of the reasons why the Kaska and White River decided not to accept a SGFA?

Up 20 Down 16

Yukoner on Sep 9, 2016 at 10:43 pm

How long have the claims been registered? If it was before the subdivision was built then I would say they have a fair argument.. if it was after they are probably still owed some compensation, and should have never been allowed to be staked.

Up 37 Down 10

Jack O on Sep 9, 2016 at 9:51 pm

@ProScience Greenie: what do you mean "all parties are at fault for not doing their homework before building"? TH is at fault? I hope that someone stakes your residence within a municipal boundary, then tells you to move your house so that they can mine your property. This is pure extortion.

Up 42 Down 9

Dawson on Sep 9, 2016 at 9:24 pm

By not updating our essentially 19th Century mining laws or implement the Final Agreements in the spirit in which they were intended, the Yukon Party has fostered an 'anything goes' environment for this industry that is simply encouraging ever more speculative and unlikely projects to be brought forward in the heart of Dawson. Someone in the Yukon Party or these folks representatives at the Klondike Placer Miners Association needs to step bravely forward and make it clear that there are indeed some 'red lines' for proposals that are not of benefit to, or acceptable to, modern society. It is a sad shame that the rest of a solid local industry out in the creeks is tarnished by these elements and set back in building their relationships with the First Nation. Their peers should have the courage to call them on it but I am very sure they will not.

I look forward to hearing the Yukon Party Klondike candidate defend this approach on the doorsteps of these houses and the rest of Dawson. Good luck, it's going to be a tough ride.

Up 33 Down 9

Matt on Sep 9, 2016 at 7:28 pm

Give the 2 Mikes an IQ test.... end of story.

Up 48 Down 5

Pure shakedown on Sep 9, 2016 at 6:10 pm

Mr. Vincent took the same dispute to the Surface Rights Board in 2002, but couldn't be bothered to follow up. Check out the Board's online archive - it's all there in black and white. A serious miner wouldn't have slept on his rights for the last 14 years while TH made productive use of the land it owns.

Up 38 Down 9

BnR on Sep 9, 2016 at 5:40 pm

PSG
All parties were at fault? How so? This is typical of our legislation. This is TH traditional territory, and it could be A or B selection land, not sure without looking. Regardless, they are well within their rights to build there. The subsurface rights are owned by the claim holders. This illustrates, as others have pointed out, how absurd our (and other provinces) legislation is. Say you live out in Sima, someone could own the sub surface rights, and if they compensate you, can kick you off so they can mine. Someone needs to take these two miners aside and give them a talking to. This action will put TH/miner relations back eons. TH has always been pretty cooperative with respect to mining activities.
Way to go fellers.

Up 16 Down 24

June Jackson on Sep 9, 2016 at 5:37 pm

People get kicked out of their homes all the time.

Just lately a bunch got kicked out of Casa Loma... that being said.. no..it isn't right, it wasn't right for them, and it isn't right for these Dawson folks.
But then, why didn't FN look into all this before they started building? Why wait this long to try and enforce the act?

Up 31 Down 7

Alice Cyr on Sep 9, 2016 at 5:04 pm

And while the mining laws are being updated do insist that the mine and/or miners are held fully responsible for their own clean-up costs. How many Faros must the taxpayers pay for?

Up 87 Down 35

sierra@klondiker.com on Sep 9, 2016 at 4:43 pm

Tell them to hit the road. Those people were there first. Remove 31 houses? I think not. Bet those miners are outsiders!

Up 99 Down 31

BB on Sep 9, 2016 at 4:16 pm

Fantastic! Thank you so much Ike and Mike, for demonstrating how destructive the existing mining laws are to Yukoners, including the First Nations.
Great work. A thorough overhaul of our ancient and ridiculous mining laws is overdue, and you two are showing everyone why.

Good work Chief Joseph! Go get 'em!

Up 44 Down 84

ProScience Greenie on Sep 9, 2016 at 3:49 pm

Nothing to do with any mining act. All parties are at fault for not doing their homework before building. What were they all thinking?

Up 103 Down 31

Politico on Sep 9, 2016 at 3:29 pm

Looks like another expensive lawsuit brought to you by a pro-mining government that refuses to bring the mining laws into the 20th century. If the mining industry wanted to give itself a black eye these two have done it. Kicking people out of their homes, really!

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.