I no longer sit on the SDA board as I wanted to cut down on the organizations I was involved in but if it was not for the SDA there is a good chance we would not be fishing at all on certain areas of the Fraser.
Before we come down too hard on the SDA I would suggest all re re read some of the posts from the topic: Angling on the Fraser Threatened, Cheam Files Injunction. Below is my first post on the thread which is 14 pages long.
I just got word that the Cheam Band has filed an injunction in Victoria to prevent sports angling on the Fraser River from Dewdney Slough to Herrling Island.
I have not seen the notice yet but will get my hands on it tonight for more details. It is on hard copy and not on e mail.
Am not sure this injunction will be just when FN are fishing or not.
The hearing was thought to go tomorrow but a call was made to the court registry at the Victoria courthouse and it may be heard on Friuday. It seems the Cheam lawyer wants to know how it went on the river last weekend during the 12 hour drift netting and 48 hour set net.
Is this the beginning of the end for us? If not it is certainly the thin edge of the wedge.
I have been in contact with the president of the SDA and we will be represented in some way at this injunction hearing. Also he has given the ok to notify the press so feel free to spread the word, what have we got to lose. It certainly could be a sad day not only for us but for the fish as well that will also suffer greatly. Once again FOC should be questioned that the law presently states these fish are supposed to be for food and ceremonial use only. How many fish does someone need to satisy this?
Time to tighten this up before more opportunity is given I would say.
Another thread that contains the press release on the failed injunction.For Immediate Release: August 10, 2005
At 9:30 this morning, Justice Rice of the BC Supreme Court dismissed an application by the Cheam Indian Band to remove all sports fishermen in boats from a 20 kilometer stretch of the Fraser River during Cheam fisheries.
In his ruling, Justice Rice confirmed that sports fishermen and the Cheam both have a right to be fishing on the Fraser. He ruled that sports fishermen are exercising their public right to fish in an activity they love. Cheam fishermen are exercising their constitutional right to fish for food, but left open the question whether this right extends to fishing with drift nets rather than the traditional set nets.
Justice Rice ruled that although the sports fishing boats which anchor in 3 to 4 feet of water near the beach, “slow down” the Cheam fishery, it does not give rise to an interference in the Cheam fishery unless it prevents the Cheam from achieving their food fish needs.
In their application, the Cheam complained that they would not meet their food fish needs if the sports fishermen were allowed access to the river, but Justice Rice was concerned by the evidence before the Court which indicated that:
The Cheam had a long history of selling food fish illegally. He cited band member Darwin Douglas, who had submitted an affidavit to the court complaining about a lack of food fish, but had testified before the 2004 Fraser River investigation that he sold part of his 2004 harvest illegally;
The Cheam had already enjoyed more than 32.5 days of food fishing in 2005;
No other band fishing in the area had complained about the sports fishermen;
That other bands were apparently able to satisfy their food fish requirements using set nets rather than drift nets, but were still able to sell a substantial portion of their catch through the Sto:lo-only commercial fishery;
That Cheam Band members were fishing illegally outside of the legal DFO openings;
That the Cheam had not provided the court with disclosure about their number of openings, their catches so far this year, their food fish requirements, their surplus catches which had been sold and other evidence necessary for the court to decide this type of injunction application.
Justice Rice also noted the evidence of how conflicts are resolved in the Fraser River community downriver of the Mission Bridge. He cited evidence from Mike Forrest, a mariner and Port Coquitlam city councilor, who stated that commercial and aboriginal fishermen adjusted their fishing practices to share the Fraser River with 20,000 ton container ships, ferries, navigation buoys, barges, log booms and other river traffic and the Cheam could do the same.
In dismissing the Cheam application, Justice Rice concluded that the Cheam would not suffer irreparable harm if the sports fishery continued. Justice Rice issued costs against the Cheam in favour of the two defendants, Phillip Eidsvik, who represented himself, and Bob McKamey who was represented by Chris Harvey, counsel at the firm of McKenzie Fujisawa.
“The message from the court is clear, all fishermen have a right to share the river and the fishery,” said Phil Eidsvik, a spokesperson for the BC Fisheries Survival Coalition.
Eidsvik noted that “Fishermen must accommodate the needs of other users and no fisherman has an absolute right to the river – anglers cannot blockade the entire river, but neither can the Cheam have the entire.”
“This decision should lower the risk of confrontation between anglers and the Cheam in the Chilliwack area because the court has confirmed the right of both groups to be on the river. Neither the sports fishermen, nor the Cheam have a right to the entire river, there is space for both,” concluded Eidsvik.[/b]
Author
Topic: Bill Otway threatens SDA members will go fishing during Closures (Read 8330 times)