Hey folks, looking for some input here - needs some background, though, before I get in to the question.
In Canada, and especially in Alberta, "native reserves" or First Nations are independent entities on a quasi-federal level. Technically they are "within" the province they're surrounded by, but they enjoy several special considerations as well. Back when I was an admin, I had every First Nation and Métis Settlement (a similar kind of entity unique to Alberta) created as separate counties. Now, there is a drive to do away with a number of these since they have no true municipal presence and exist in name only (kind of like a neighborhood in a city - they have no unique elements relevant to radio communications, per se).
There is a ticket in Mantis to get this work and other county changes in Alberta done - been over a year, but it's still present and waiting to be actioned, at http://mantis.radioreference.com/view.php?id=1131.
Where the question comes up is, there are some First Nations reservations which have two or more areas that are quite a distance apart from one another. An example in my neck of the woods is the Stoney Nakoda First Nation, listed in the RRDB as "Nakoda Reserve". Along with the main reserve, there is a small region a hundred or so miles away which is technically part of the Stoney nation, but is known as the "Eden Valley Reserve" (also in the RRDB under that name - and due to be eliminated in the above Mantis ticket). Eden Valley is essentially a village - there is no separate municipal government, etc., for this region. It is managed as part of the Stoney nation.
Between myself and a current admin, we elected to eliminate the unnecessary/extraneous reserves, and the consensus seems to be that any relevant data in the RRDB would be moved to the nearest adjacent county that still remains in the DB. However, this doesn't seem right in the case of Eden Valley, as an example (I imagine there are others in the province). Eden Valley is not part of the Foothills county nor is it managed from there.
Ultimately my question is - would it be reasonable to put (submit) the Eden Valley data into the Stoney nation DB entity ("Nakoda Reserve"), with unique geographic coordinates representing the vastly different location in comparison to where "Nakoda" is? Or should Eden Valley remain as a separate county in the RRDB?
A somewhat related situation exists in another part of Alberta, but in reverse. Four "reserves" - Ermineskin Cree Nation, Samson Cree Nation, Louis Bull Nation, and Montana Nation - are all geographically adjacent, and treated and administered as one entity, in the town of Hobbema, which, to make matters even more complicated, is also considered to be partly in the county of Ponoka. I don't believe that all the four reserves should be eliminated, but I'm not sure if they should all stay either. Currently they all exist in the RRDB and have at least some similar data in each (but not unique, conflicting data - for example, the police frequency is same in each "county" that it's listed in). Would it be more appropriate to create (or rename one of the existing "counties") "Four Nations" (a common local appellation for the four reserves) and have some kind of text explaining the four nations within?
This all needs to be raised and addressed, in my opinion, because counties and native reservations/first nations in Canada don't fit the model that the American counterparts do. As mentioned above, reserves/nations don't necessarily have a connection to the geographically nearest county or other municipal entity, which I'm led to believe is not unusual in the US.
In Canada, and especially in Alberta, "native reserves" or First Nations are independent entities on a quasi-federal level. Technically they are "within" the province they're surrounded by, but they enjoy several special considerations as well. Back when I was an admin, I had every First Nation and Métis Settlement (a similar kind of entity unique to Alberta) created as separate counties. Now, there is a drive to do away with a number of these since they have no true municipal presence and exist in name only (kind of like a neighborhood in a city - they have no unique elements relevant to radio communications, per se).
There is a ticket in Mantis to get this work and other county changes in Alberta done - been over a year, but it's still present and waiting to be actioned, at http://mantis.radioreference.com/view.php?id=1131.
Where the question comes up is, there are some First Nations reservations which have two or more areas that are quite a distance apart from one another. An example in my neck of the woods is the Stoney Nakoda First Nation, listed in the RRDB as "Nakoda Reserve". Along with the main reserve, there is a small region a hundred or so miles away which is technically part of the Stoney nation, but is known as the "Eden Valley Reserve" (also in the RRDB under that name - and due to be eliminated in the above Mantis ticket). Eden Valley is essentially a village - there is no separate municipal government, etc., for this region. It is managed as part of the Stoney nation.
Between myself and a current admin, we elected to eliminate the unnecessary/extraneous reserves, and the consensus seems to be that any relevant data in the RRDB would be moved to the nearest adjacent county that still remains in the DB. However, this doesn't seem right in the case of Eden Valley, as an example (I imagine there are others in the province). Eden Valley is not part of the Foothills county nor is it managed from there.
Ultimately my question is - would it be reasonable to put (submit) the Eden Valley data into the Stoney nation DB entity ("Nakoda Reserve"), with unique geographic coordinates representing the vastly different location in comparison to where "Nakoda" is? Or should Eden Valley remain as a separate county in the RRDB?
A somewhat related situation exists in another part of Alberta, but in reverse. Four "reserves" - Ermineskin Cree Nation, Samson Cree Nation, Louis Bull Nation, and Montana Nation - are all geographically adjacent, and treated and administered as one entity, in the town of Hobbema, which, to make matters even more complicated, is also considered to be partly in the county of Ponoka. I don't believe that all the four reserves should be eliminated, but I'm not sure if they should all stay either. Currently they all exist in the RRDB and have at least some similar data in each (but not unique, conflicting data - for example, the police frequency is same in each "county" that it's listed in). Would it be more appropriate to create (or rename one of the existing "counties") "Four Nations" (a common local appellation for the four reserves) and have some kind of text explaining the four nations within?
This all needs to be raised and addressed, in my opinion, because counties and native reservations/first nations in Canada don't fit the model that the American counterparts do. As mentioned above, reserves/nations don't necessarily have a connection to the geographically nearest county or other municipal entity, which I'm led to believe is not unusual in the US.
