Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs approved Pacific Trail Pipeline in 2015

We have uncovered a statement from the BC Government that indicates the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs approved Pacific Trail Pipeline in 2015. The question now is who these chiefs were, I am sure that might be a closely guarded secret. There are 5 chiefs that run Office of the Wet’suwet’en, but there are 13 Hereditary Chiefs in all, however some positions are currently vacant due to deaths in the family.

“The journey has been challenging for us and hard on our community. Many of our members have been hurt through this process but we now have the resources to come back together and restore our collective strength. Thank you to all the Elders, Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs and passionate community members who voiced their support for our decision. Having your presence in the last, crucial meetings has given Council the confidence to move forward with your support.”

attached is a copy of that document


The Office of the Wet’suwet’en posted this document on their website, without refuting its contents, so clearly there were a number of hereditary chiefs supported this agreement.

There was never a public statement given by the Office of the Wet’suwet’en refuting the support by hereditary chiefs for this project.

At a later date they did produce a letter to CGL that all houses (clans) said no to pipelines, so clearly there was some severe back peddling on a signed agreement.

There is an accusation by the Office of the Wet’suwet’en at a later date that complains about a lack of consultation, however there is ample evidence a lot of consultation took place after and before the above agreement was delivered.

It has the appearance that the 5 chiefs lost control of land claims to elected Wet’suwet’en, and this appears to be the crux of their objection.

It also begs the question, who was behind stripping 3 chiefs of their blankets? Who made that decision, and who carried it out? Who were these 3 chiefs?

Chief Na’Moks said “We’ve stripped the names from three female hereditary chiefs for supporting the pipeline.”

By his own words Chief Na’Moks repeatedly has stated that approval can only be given by hereditary chiefs, and that was done. Stripping them afterwards does not undo a signed deal.

Maybe the problem is that its time some hereditary chief s retire, that they are not cut out for the job. Maybe the position of power has become the source of corruption.


Thanks goes to those who care about the truth to come forward, we very much appreciate your tips. Likewise we fully support the Wet’suwet’en’s right to finally bring much needed funds into the community. If you have any information to share please contact us, we care only that the truth gets out there.



In the event we are using copyrighted material, we are doing so within the parameters of the Fair Dealing exception of the Canadian Copyright Act.

On occasion we may use photos or videos without express permission for education purposes. If we have images on our website that do not incude a copyright users name, it could be for a number of reasons, the first is we might own the image, or it might published under Creative Commons, or we have no idea who owns the image as they may be reader submitted images, please be aware we are not using the images for profit or commercial use, and would be more than happy to give credits and or remove them based on legitimate request.

Fair Dealing is an exception in the Canadian Copyright Act that permits the use of other people's copyright protected work without permission or payment for the purpose of research, private study, education, satire, parody, criticism, review or news reporting.

Please verify if it is NOT a legally embedded photo or video before filing a complaint.

If you are the legitimate copyright owner and object to our usage of the images or want to have credits added, please contact us using our contact page. Please be specific in your description and location to where it is being used. Please supply I with evidence of where it was originally posted legally, and a link to where you claim we are using it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *