Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: nosey on May 01, 2008, 04:17:43 PM
-
On page A21 of todays Province newspaper in an article about th FN rationing of dwindling sockeye stocks it states, "Bill Otway of the Sportfishing Defense Alliance threatened that his group would "go fishing and closures have no basis in fact"
This to me is the final proof that Mr. Otway although his intentions may be honerable is nothing more than a raving publicity hungry idiot. We, as sports fishermen do not need any more bad publicity from people like Mr Otway stating that we will defy laws and further endanger threatened runs of fish. Anyone from this forum that contributes money to the FDA should seriously think twice before writing out that check, this money doesn't go to enhancement or any form of conservation whatsoever, it goes to a bunch of fat lawyers supposedly representing sports fishers rights. Well I don't know about our rights but I do know ignorant statements like the one in the paper today in times of extreme conservation concerns will destroy any public sympathy that could possibly exist to wards our concerns. How the hell would it look if a bunch of hunters got together and made the statement that "well the Fons are hunting endangered mountain sheep out of season we think we'll just go shoot a bunch too."
Please if you are a member of the SDA call for Mr. Ottawas resignation, or at least put a gag an him, he is a fool and will make everyone packing a fishing rod look bad in the eyes of the general public and every conservation minded citizens of BC if allowed to ramble on unfettered within hearing range of the media.
-
get up to speed on the Sockeye run and the numbers coming back.
No where was conservation mentioned by DFO. SO why are you saying there is?
-
Do you think for a minute the natives will not net for sellable sockeye?
-
Here is the article for all to digest. Bill's statement seems to be badly worded and in some cases when you are interviewed by a reporter what you say is not reported in the story correctly. In all respect to Nosey I cannot believe Bill would advocate going fishing at any time if there is a conservation concern.
B.C. native bands being asked to ration sockeye salmon
By John Bermingham, The Province
Published: Wednesday, April 30, 2008
B.C.'s native bands are being asked to ration sockeye salmon this summer because of an expected poor run.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada has asked all 94 bands that fish Fraser sockeye to come up with a plan to share a smaller overall catch.
Fisheries experts are predicting anything from 1.8 million to 2.8 million salmon this year, compared with the usual 4.4 million.
FOC's Lower Fraser director Mel Kotyk said there's not enough fish left over, once 1.3 million salmon are allowed to go back to their spawning grounds. "At that number, it's unlikely we'll be able to meet the First Nations' food needs," he said yesterday.
First Nations bands have been meeting with FOC and each other to agree on a sharing plan.
Kotyk said FOC will enforce the plan, from issuing fishing licences to monitoring fishing activity.
"If there is any kind of deviation from that, our fisheries officers are also out there and can take enforcement action," including seizing nets, he said.
Ernie Crey of the Sto:lo Nation fisheries program, representing a dozen bands who fish the Lower Fraser River, said the sockeye will be given first to women, children, the elderly and the disabled.
"There's a lot of anxiety, and a great deal of concern," said Crey. Sockeye is the main staple protein for families.
Bill Otway of the Sportfishing Defence Alliance threatened that his group would "go fishing and closures have no basis in fact."
jbermingham@png.canwest.com
-
Sorry about the typo's, OBD, I'll do a little better proofreading on my entries in the future. Are you saying that there is no conservation concerns with this years coming run of sockeye? If that's the case maybe I'm not the one one that needs to "get up to speed". As for Mr. Otways statement, it is pretty hard to misquote him "threatening" that his group would "go fishing" one of his methods to attract media attention and solicit funds to pay to the lawyers the FDA employs has been in the past to abuse the courts of our province with "protest fisheries". The majority of the people in BC don't fish and they don't appreciate paying for valuable court time so some special interest group (what they see us as) can abuse the system by using it as a political forum. As Chris and a lot of others realize we are in a bit of a public relations battle to retain our right to fish and I sincerely think the prosecuting attorney did the sports fishers of BC a favor when they dropped the charges against Mr. Otway the last time he killed a sockeye illegally. Taking him to court and letting him rant on in public about how the natives were allowed to fish in a fishery they had partaken in for ten thousand years while we sports anglers were closed out of it after being fishing for sockeye for four whole years would have made us all look like a bunch of racist fools.
I sincerely hope he was misquoted on this matter, but if he wasn't then I hope that anyone following him onto the river fishing during a closure gets their stupid asses busted, their fishing rods confiscated, their boats sunk and the tires slashed on their pickups.
In case anyone is wondering I am not a big fan of "protest fisheries" by any user group, I do not care whether it is the Honerable John Cummins leading the commercials, Ernie Crey leading the natives or Bill Otway leading the sports fishermen, it doesn't matter which group is doing it they just wind up looking good to themselves and bad to the public in general.
-
Again, this is all about the F/N having to share among themselves.
( Ernie has difficulty getting to the grocery store, so no protein for him).
This is due to some of the F/N almost wiping out this run.
Conservation is not a concern yet, however the fish have not arrived so we will await this decision.
By the way fish are political in a huge way, just look at Ernies remarks.
It is not going to change now or in the future.
-
....this is all about the F/N having to share among themselves.
Nice try @ derailing the thread but this is about whether or not Otway said what the paper said he did.
From the brevity of the quote I can see it probably wasn't in context but the words as printed seriously hurt SDA's credibility.
Time for him/his organisation to issue a clarification or suffer the indignity of being associated in the public mind with law breakers.
-
It would be unconscionable for any sport fisher to take a sockeye with estimated runs this low.
The estimates have been optimistic for many years and a year like this could effectively mean the end sockeye in this year of the cycle.
-
This is due to some of the F/N almost wiping out this run????
Up until just recently the commercial fishery took up to 90% of the Fraser River sockeye that were killed, totally extinguishing many of the runs and pushing others to the brink of extinction, I can still remember when the commercials were allowed in the river every week from early June until late September, it was probably one of the most wastefull and poorly managed fishery in the history of the world, it ranks right up there with the east coast cod fishery. Some of the fn's have contributed to delivering the final blow to some of these runs but they are definitely not the ones that put the runs in such a fragile state in the first place.
Once again this thread is about the leader of an organization that is supposed to represent the best interests of sports fishermen being quoted in the paper saying something that makes us look like a bunch of poachers and law breakers.
I, for one would like to see an organization that represents the best interests of the fish not of the people trying to kill them, everyone seems to think they have a "right" to kill the sockeye, are we going to continue on with this senseless name calling, finger pointing and saber rattling until every sockeye is gone and then all blame the other guys for killing them.
As for that article not being about conservation concerns it was all about the FN's surviving on a reduced quota of fish for this summer, I believe that is about conserving the remaining fish.
The commercials don't like being cut out of the fishery, the sports fishermen are unhappy about it and the natives are definitely not pleased about their allotment being cut back.
I still stand by my original statement that the quote by Mr. Otway in the paper, whether taken out of context or not make us as sports fishermen all look bad in the eyes of the general public and he should be held accountable for the damage he has done to our credibility.
If the SDA does not print some sort of retraction or clarification of that quote it may be a good idea for everyone that doesn't support it to write a letter to the newspaper stating "I am a sports fisherman and the SDA does NOT represent me" or something of that manner.
-
That piece looks very weak and suspect to me...three different sources talking about different aspects of what could or couldn't be the same topic...I don't know.
I think its safe to say that if Bill's comment was in context to the 2008 sockeye run, then we would all agree its a pretty stupid and ignorant comment to make.
There is no context given there though...it could be an old quote (referring to another closure) or it could be in reference to the late summer run of chinook??? Who knows?
The river is closed now to protect the early run of chinook so if DFO kept the river closed for the late run then I think that Bill's comment in relation to that would make sense. We all know that if the sporties are fishing for ANYTHING, the FN use that as an excuse to go after sockeye. If DFO shuts down our mid/late summer chinook fishery just to help placate the native and keep them off the sockeye then I would support a CHINOOK protest fishery.
Bottom line is I don't trust most things I don't see with my own eyes or hear with my own ears - especially stuff like this in the media.
No doubt SDA needs to do some damage control now.
-
careful with what you read in the province newspaper... we had all of our words turned around once and we did not even talk to reporters...
BTW the river may be closed to us but last saturday they were fishing hard in the canyon...
-
After reading the replies on this matter it seems that all of you just want to give in !! The SDA is the only voice sporties have !! if it wasn't for them Sporties would probably have NO fishing opportunities !!!
This is OUR country, we live here , work here ,pay taxes here !! if us sporties have NO opportunity to fish for Sockeye then NOBODY should have the right to fish for them !!! what kind of BULL$hit is this ???
We as fishermen need a Voice to stand up for what little rights we have left !! the SDA is doing this while the rest of us hide behind our keyboards !! and then bash the one group that is trying to help us, give your heads a shake !!!
>:( >:( >:( >:(
TH
-
Well put TrophyHunter, it's about time regular fishermen & women get a solid voice, if there is a commercial opening, then it stands the run is strong enough for the rest of us "sporties". Don't quote me, but I would be willing to bet, of ALL the groups pursuing the Sockeye, sport fisherman put the least amount of strain on this run.
Seems to me, the priorities are backwards on who is allowed to fish this run? In fact, I am completely offended when I see Sockeye for sale in Save-on or Safeway, but we have been banned from catching them. If they are not in the river in any kind of numbers, it stands that the run is also being depleted in the ocean, BEFORE it even reaches the river...or am I being too far reaching in my thinking here? STOP THE MADNESS, if the run is endangered, the run is endangered, it not just endangered to some, but not others, what kind of madness is this!!?!?!?!?!
-
unless a fish is labeled as local, then it could be from anywhere...just because you see a sockeye in save on, doesnt mean its local.
In fact a large chain like safeway or save on, I would expect them to be buying alaskan sockeye. The runs there are strong so supply would be more consistent and reliable.
I dont think our commercial fleet even have a sockeye opening last year (in the mouth or the river)?
-
Anybody that reads the crap that Otway writes in BCoutdoors would call for his resignation anyways!
I wouldn't put it past the guy to say something that stupid, but thats based only on some of the things I've read from him in the past.
-
Actually, I have heard on numerous occasions, the Overweighty food group (SP?) makes large purchases of sockeye from bands in Alberta, I guess the traditional trading territory is rather large. I disbelieved this the first few times I heard it, but then I realized the truckloads of salmon leaving B.C. goes somewhere. Someone please tell me this has no merit or truth to it!!!!
-
To answer your ? about wether the Overwaitea Food Group buys F/N fish is totally untrue. Because they get all their sockeye from the Copper River in Alaska.
-
After reading the replies on this matter it seems that all of you just want to give in !! The SDA is the only voice sporties have !! if it wasn't for them Sporties would probably have NO fishing opportunities !!!
This is OUR country, we live here , work here ,pay taxes here !! if us sporties have NO opportunity to fish for Sockeye then NOBODY should have the right to fish for them !!! what kind of BULL$hit is this ???
We as fishermen need a Voice to stand up for what little rights we have left !! the SDA is doing this while the rest of us hide behind our keyboards !! and then bash the one group that is trying to help us, give your heads a shake !!!
>:( >:( >:( >:(
TH
You can complain on message boards all you like.
The absolute truth to the matter is that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld natives right to fish for ceremonial and food purposes as first priority for fish stocks.
Until this is overturned your outrage does not matter. Sport fishermen are NOT highest priority on fish and likely they never will be.
This does not give natives the right to sell fish, and the only solution to this problem is enforcement.
As stated before, this thread is not about natives - it is only about the head of the SDA advocating illegal activity.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Only future generations will suffer.
-
After reading the replies on this matter it seems that all of you just want to give in !! The SDA is the only voice sporties have !! if it wasn't for them Sporties would probably have NO fishing opportunities !!!
This is OUR country, we live here , work here ,pay taxes here !! if us sporties have NO opportunity to fish for Sockeye then NOBODY should have the right to fish for them !!! what kind of BULL$hit is this ???
We as fishermen need a Voice to stand up for what little rights we have left !! the SDA is doing this while the rest of us hide behind our keyboards !! and then bash the one group that is trying to help us, give your heads a shake !!!
>:( >:( >:( >:(
TH
You can complain on message boards all you like.
The absolute truth to the matter is that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld natives right to fish for ceremonial and food purposes as first priority for fish stocks.
Until this is overturned your outrage does not matter. Sport fishermen are NOT highest priority on fish and likely they never will be.
This does not give natives the right to sell fish, and the only solution to this problem is enforcement.
As stated before, this thread is not about natives - it is only about the head of the SDA advocating illegal activity.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Only future generations will suffer.
The only way things ever change is when someone does something to change them, through history the one with the biggest voice has always been able to make the biggest difference, maybe this thread was not about natives or comm fishermen but in order to understand why SDA would do something like this you have to examine their reasoning..... it is quite obvious to me why they said what was quoted !!
You are quite right when you say that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld natives right to fish for ceremonial and food purposes as first priority for fish stocks, this doesn't mean it is right !! and it also doesn't mean that it can't be changed !! Our government has made many many many bad decisions in the past and they continue to do so on a daily basis, I think that the SDA is saying what many of us want to say.... not just saying it but trying to do something about it !! this is how change takes place one small step at a time, I for one am sick and tired of hearing the same crap over and over every year, I 100% disagree with how the Government of Canada has chosen to deal with our fisheries, I 100% disagree that any citizen of Canada should have any rights that tower over anyone else whether you are Native or not !!
Typhoon if you are happy with the way things are then I am happy for you!! I for one am not happy and I would suspect that most citizens of this country aren't either... eventually change will have to take place, because if it doesn't there will be no stocks left for anyone.. that is a fact you can take to the bank..
this is not a Jab at you, you can believe and stand for whatever you like, I am just telling you how I see it
TH
-
The Supreme Court of Canada is the final appeal, once you lose in the Supreme Court there is no change to the ruling, if you think that by giving your money to the SDA you are going to change a Supreme Court ruling then you are delusional, if the SDA are leading you to believe that they can overturn a supreme court ruling then you are being defrauded out of your donations
I would imagine that any group that has such a devoted and dedicated following can make a lot of noise if they so choose but if only if the will of the people is with them will they be able to achieve their goals.
If by media spin or an ill conceived protest fishery during times when the people of BC are hearing nothing but bad news about the salmon runs the SDA gives all sports fishers in BC a black eye we will never be able to undo the damage done. One bad public relations blunder and the SDA winds up with them looking as nothing better than a lunatic fringe group and the mainstream fishermen in BC all end up getting tarred with the same brush.
Please remember when it comes time to go to court the natives have constitutionally ingrained aboriginal rights, the commercials are losing their livelyhood, and with the wrong type of PR we sportsfishermen come across as a bunch of rednecks that just want to kill fish for the fun of it.
So Trophy Hunter make all the noise you want to but just remember once you take something to the Supreme Court of Canada and lose you've lost forever and if you're going there with the worse legal team and the worse presentation you will lose for all the fishermen in BC.
And just as an afterthought I don't really think that under present world political situations the judges in Canada are that sympathetic towards groups that take on a name that's reminiscent of some sort of militia group or terrorist organization and makes it's points by acts of civil disobedience.
-
Nosey, go back and look at what Mr.Otway said.
He was saying that the numbers that DFO has used to date show that there is a chance that there can/will be an opening for other than F/N.
So, if that is the case and the numbers show there can be an opening, he is proposing that they might fish to get the case before the courts.
If he/ they were charged and go to court then this opens up the can of worms that DFO does not want opened and that is why they did not charge him/them the last time.
I see that you do not want to do anything at all, and that is your choice.
Mr Otway does not agree with doing nothing, so he will move forward as he stated.
Fishing is now all about politics and that is how the game is being run.
-
Any time you go to court to challenge the status quo you run the risk of losing, this has happened in quite a few court cases involving the First Nations recently, the problem being the when you lose it doesn't involve just going back to the status quo because the FN lawyers are also there challenging it, it involves running the risk of losing what we have now.
A few years back when the Cheam band was charged with illegal driftnetting the SDA was quick to take some of the credit for pressuring the feds into having them charged, when the final verdict came down in 2004 and the Cheam Band won it resulted in ten times the amount of driftnetting on the Fraser River and now it was no longer illegal, resulting in more FN fishing and less fishing opportunities for sportfishermen, Bill Otway and the SDA were suddenly silent ,hiding in a closet with their collective tails between their legs harrumphing like they were in a bad episode of South Park.
If you plan on taking these issues to court remember that your opponents there are just as endignant and sure they are right as you are and if you are going up against the FN's or the commercial fisheries you are fighting against people with almost unlimited resources when it comes to lawyers and many victories going their way historically.
If you want to go to court and fight these issues be prepared to live with results and take a share of the blame if you lose, for rather than expanding on what rights we have now you could wind up losing everything.
What I've been trying to impress here is don't do anything that will turn public opinion totally against the sports fishery, we have in the last few years taken some bad hits in that area already.
I wish that Mr. Otway or a direct representative of Mr. Otway would jump on here and absolutely clarify what he said and in what context it was meant, this whole thread could just be a waste of time.
-
Nosey what groups or clubs do you belong to? And do you ever donate or voice your concerns out loud?
bottom line is more people have to get involved, a few hard working people will make very little difference with everone else sitting on the fence barking what should be done next.
-
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. ;D
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]
-
Sorry Chris, are you saying that because the SDA did something good in 2005 that we should accept Otway advocating poaching as a protest measure?
I sure hope not.
-
People squabbling over a diminishing resource always brings out the worst. Rather than bitch about the sports fishermen not getting a poke at the sockeye (and going as far to say they will fish during a closure), the SDA SHOULD be at the front of the line, advocating a total closure of sockeye fishing on the fraser until the stocks have a healthy rebound if they give a F about the fish and not just the sport... I just don't understand how people can be fighting to "take" their share with the status of the sockeye (and other salmon runs) as they are.
-
Sorry Chris, are you saying that because the SDA did something good in 2005 that we should accept Otway advocating poaching as a protest measure?
I sure hope not.
Not at all and I still feel the article has taken Bill's comments out of context on what he really said.
I think most people just want to see fairness in our laws and they are abided by all fishing sectors. My stance as most readers of my posts know the survival of our fish stocks for the future is the most important thing in all of this.
PS
I am not going to get in a prolonged debate on this and will leave that to the input of others as well as I said earlier I am no longer on the SDA executive
-
The absolute truth to the matter is that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld natives right to fish for ceremonial and food purposes as first priority for fish stocks.
Until this is overturned your outrage does not matter.
All Parliament would have to do is invoke the notwithstanding clause to overturn any of these SCOC rulings if they wished to. So if you want things to change lobby your MP.
Not to mention salmon numbers with rising ocean, river temps, destruction of spawning and habitat areas there is not going to be many salmon left anyway and will never be like the 'old days' again either. Every group whether first nation or sporty needs to realise this and get used to it.
-
So far,no federal government has ever invoked the Notwithstanding clause, and any invoking of the Notwithstanding clause can only have a maximum lifespan of 5 years so this is not a permanent solution. To invoke the Notwithstanding clause a legislature must " pass a piece of legislation that explicitly declares its intention to invoke the Notwithstanding clause. In addition, the legislation must explicitly state which laws are to operate notwithstanding the Charter, as well as which particular rights and freedoms the law will be immune from. These requirements are significant in that they help to ensure that legislatures cannot use the Notwithstanding clause in a stealthy or secretive manner. As the clause must be invoked through legislation, opposition members in the legislature have an opportunity to criticize and draw public attention to the declaration. Moreover, the requirement that the legislation explicitly state the nature of the Notwithstanding declaration helps to ensure that the public is fully informed of the intention and effect of the legislature's actions."
What I'm saying here is don't hold your breath on this one with a minority government in what is possibly an election year it just isn't going to happen, you might as well say all they have to do is fly to the moon and throw moonrocks at the natives it would be about as simple.
It's not a bad idea to lobby your MP though, try sending a letter or two to John Cummins telling him that the sports fishermen want the pecking order changed when it comes to sockeye priorities, I'm sure he and his commercial fishing buddies need a good chuckle once in a while. Seriously though write those letters, our MP's don't know of our concerns unless we voice them.
BTW just as a reply to , the clubs or organizations I belong to or whether or not I voice my opinions out loud have absolutely no bearing on whether or not Mr. Otways comments were harmful to the image of sportsfishermen, it's a cheap political trick if you do not like the message to try to discredit the messenger.
Another point before I head out fishing is this. Just because the DFO dropped the charges against Mr. Otway in his previous protest fishery does not mean that they were afraid to hear what he had to say in court nor does it make his actions right, if you accept this logic you would also have to accept that the actions of John Cummins and his commercial protest fishery in 2004 was right and protest fishery the natives held last year at the Big Eddy in Yale was also right.
For someone to get themselves deliberately arrested so they can use the courts as a public forum is an abuse of our court systems that the taxpayers of Canada have to pay for, the DFO has made the right move by not allowing any of the user groups waste the time of our judiciary system by turning our courts into some sort of media circus. Please remember that the majority of the people paying for our already overworked prosecuting attorneys and judges are not fishermen and they might appreciate it if the courts were reserved for prosecuting real criminals instead of special interest groups looking for free publicity.
Early on in this thread OBD suggested that I learn how to spell then in another entry he went on to say that in an article saying that the DFO were telling the FN's that there was a strong possibility that they would not have enough fish for food and ceremonial purposes that it was possible Mr. Otway translated this to mean there was a possibility for other openings. I'll tell you what OBD I'll learn how to spell if you learn how to read.
I'm not denying that Mr. Otway and the SDA have done some good in the past,what I am trying to impress here is that they have it in their power to do irepairable harm to the sportsfishers of BC by holding or supporting a protest fishery in times of severe conservation concerns, be they real or perceived. One misquote or even a TV interview with just one overzealous supporter could wind up turning public opinion against us forever. If someone as supposedly intelligent as Mr. Otway can be so badly misquoted or misunderstood by the newspaper, can you imagine what Larry the cable guy all dressed in camo out on Peg Leg could be made to sound like by some sensationalist journalist?