Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RalphH]

I don't fish in saltwater much or better said rarely.

My understanding the case law is mostly the Ahoushat case which applies to the north western waters of Vancouver Island

Here are some summaries I collected on that case:

" ... a right to “a small-scale, artisanal, local, multi-species fishery, to be conducted in a nine-[nautical] mile strip from shore, using small, low-cost boats with limited technology and restricted catching power and aimed at wide community participation.” She also found that:

the right is multi-species; therefore it is the totality of the fishery that is relevant, not one particular allocation of a species;
the right is not unrestricted;
the right is not exclusive;
the right is not to an industrial fishery;
the right is not to accumulate wealth; and
the right does not provide a guaranteed level of income, prosperity, or economic viability"

these rights are part of their aboriginal rights and not an "economic opportunity" right


it was also found that reserving Chinook and Coho for the recreational fishery was not consistent with the existence of aboriginal right to fish.


a case summary is here:

https://www.mandellpinder.com/ahousaht-indian-band-and-nation-v-canada-attorney-general-2018-bcsc-633-case-summary/

[wildmanyeah]

I don't fish in saltwater much or better said rarely.

My understanding the case law is mostly the Ahoushat case which applies to the north western waters of Vancouver Island

Here are some summaries I collected on that case:

" ... a right to “a small-scale, artisanal, local, multi-species fishery, to be conducted in a nine-[nautical] mile strip from shore, using small, low-cost boats with limited technology and restricted catching power and aimed at wide community participation.” She also found that:

the right is multi-species; therefore it is the totality of the fishery that is relevant, not one particular allocation of a species;
the right is not unrestricted;
the right is not exclusive;
the right is not to an industrial fishery;
the right is not to accumulate wealth; and
the right does not provide a guaranteed level of income, prosperity, or economic viability"

these rights are part of their aboriginal rights and not an "economic opportunity" right


it was also found that reserving Chinook and Coho for the recreational fishery was not consistent with the existence of aboriginal right to fish.


a case summary is here:

https://www.mandellpinder.com/ahousaht-indian-band-and-nation-v-canada-attorney-general-2018-bcsc-633-case-summary/

my recall is that has now been overturned and the fishery is now dominated by large commercial fishing boats in a few band members hands

https://indiginews.com/news/nuu-chah-nulth-leaders-celebrate-legal-victory-for-commercial-fishing-rights/

The decision upholds parts of a 2018 B.C. Supreme Court ruling that found Canada has infringed on the five nations’ rights to harvest and sell fish. It also removes limitations placed during that lower court ruling around the scale of the fisheries – including what size and type of vessels can be used.

[RalphH]

That's right - the BC Court of Appeals (2021 BCCA 155) rescinded some of those restrictions.

" ... a right to “a small-scale, artisanal, local, multi-species fishery, to be conducted in a nine-[nautical] mile strip from shore, using small, low-cost boats with limited technology and restricted catching power and aimed at wide community participation.” She also found that:

the right is multi-species; therefore it is the totality of the fishery that is relevant, not one particular allocation of a species;
the right is not unrestricted;
the right is not exclusive;
the right is not to an industrial fishery;
the right is not to accumulate wealth; and
the right does not provide a guaranteed level of income, prosperity, or economic viability"


still it does not authorize an exclusive right to fish as far as I can find. As neither party elected to take an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, I don't see any legal support for making those waters or any others in BC exclusively for FN fisheries.

I don't know what fisheries vessels operate under this regime or who owns them.

[wildmanyeah]

As I recalled from the five Nations IFMP. The five nations FN commercial tac comes out of the Canadian tac. If I remember right the Canadian tac is after FSC. So it is a higher priority

The issue is if every First Nations wants a similar commercial fishery it would use up all the Canadian tac.

Basically Leaving nothing for rec fisheries.

An example locally is katzie First Nations they have a pretty sizeable commercial fishing gilnet fleet.

In river rec hatchery fisheries I think would avoid most of the restrictions. Like vedder

But Harrison, Fraser 4-1 chinook would
Be closed. Not that they are
Not all mostly closed now. With the expectation of the Thompson River rec fishery.

The Thompson 4-1 also used to get hit really hard by commercial trollers north of Haida. So surely Thoes FN commercial boats would also get a piece.

You see I’m Rambling but it’s not hard to see not much pie would be left.

FN could also just charter a vessel to catch their new found quota.

So It really could become pay to play



 

[wildmanyeah]

DP

[dobrolub]

.

[Plshelpnoobhere]

Not reading all that AI slop posted above.

Realistically, how will this affect the regular fisherman joe like me, who likes to fish the local rivers (cap, halis, etc) and take a few fish per weekend home for food?

[wildmanyeah]

Its unclear how it would effect, hatchery terminal fisheries.

IT will probably be the same, but if commercial/FN intercepts higher in the ocean and mainstem then the fishing success may be lower.

[RalphH]

Perhaps Wildman can correct me if I am in error, but as I understand the Salmon Allocation Plan does not specify the number of fish each sector gets, that's done in the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP)issued early in each year. That's where the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is set. Much of the current situation is driven by the Ahousaht ruling. They clearly want access to salmon particularly chinook. Irony is that much of that stock on the West Coast of the Island are fish from US hatcheries. The situation isn't much different in the Salish Sea/ Georgia Strait. Lots of those fish comes from US hatcheries. We still have troubled wild stocks in both regions. Very few chinook stocks on the south coast are in decent shape. Not that different for coho either.

You can look south of the border for an example of an allocation. Basically in Washington, Oregon and California the "Indians" get about 50%, which they can sell, everybody else gets the other half. That  has been set in stone for 40 to 50 years now. As far as I am concerned that was/is a pretty good deal versus the situation we live with now where we don't know what the sport sector may get out past 5 years or so.

One last point, wild or hatchery makes no difference, it's all part of the same pie which gets cut into 3 slices of varying size.

[wildmanyeah]

I haven't looked into it for a couple of years now but I Believe its its split into the ISBM and ASBM, Governed by the PST for Coho and chinook between US and Canada, ultimately though it falls to DFO to manage and the split % is put into the IFMP.

ISBM and ASBM Definitions

ISBM (Individual Stock-Based Management): This management approach focuses on the conservation and harvest of individual, specific salmon stocks within their native river systems or specific marine areas. The goal is to manage each population separately based on its unique status and abundance, often used for wild or specific local populations.

ASBM (Aggregate Abundance-Based Management): This method manages fisheries based on the total or aggregate abundance of several different salmon stocks mixed together in a large marine area. It uses combined data to set fishing limits, which can be a point of debate regarding the protection of weaker, individual stocks that might be caught incidentally.

The Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) describes an Individual Stock Based Management (ISBM) fishery regime that is abundance-based and constrains to a numerical limit the total catch or the total adult equivalent mortality rate for specific stocks within a jurisdiction’s fisheries. ISBM management regimes apply to all Chinook salmon fisheries subject to the PST that are not AABM fisheries or terminal exclusion fisheries. Several fisheries within British Columbia (BC) are under ISBM fishery management and all PST fisheries south of the border between BC and Washington State are under ISBM fishery management.