Print

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

[Rodney]

http://www.cknw.com/news/news_local.cfm?cat=7428654912&rem=30978&red=80165423aPBIny&wids=410&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm

[Fish Assassin]

"Not giving the Aboriginal fishery the priority which is guaranteed by the Constitution".  What a joke ! Two million sockeyes goes missing. Any guesses where they disappear to ?

[Gooey]

Seriously, how can we expect DFO to do anything in terms of enforcement when the F******G courts just throw it all out?  While I think they could do a lot more in terms of enforcement, whats the point if there are no penalities for people who break the law.

Does anyone know the specific details?  Did the aboriginals have NO fisheries at all that year?  If they and the commercial guys had nothing then really we shouldnt have fished either.

My guess is that they probably did have a quota/allocation so how the hell can the case get thrown out if they had already access some of that run and they were poaching ADDITIONAL fish beyond their allocation? 

[buck]

Gooey

Allocation or quota of sockeye for natives is a given--- but who's counting what their taking ? Again the fox is looking after the chicken coop. Two million missing sockeye again, not a surprise. If you have a problem with drift netting just legalize it and the problem will be much better to manage. Oh, then there's the ceremonial fisheries that only occur in August, Sept, and October.

[BwiBwi]

And the FN had their shop at the sox before the recreation did, was it not? What is the court talking about?

[Gooey]

Buck, Lets stick to the facts.  DO you know IF the natives had an allocation that year?  If its a given, tell me how much it was and how much they actually got.  If we know that then we can then focus on the problem....the COURTS. 

Like BwiBwi pointed out, IF FN had their fair take and were then closed down then they were breaking the law during the protest fishery as their constitutional right been met in a prior harvest.

[Nostro]

I think the Courts have again fallen for committing 2 wrongs to make 1 right.
It is immaterial if the FN had or not had their quota at the time of the crime. Fishery was closed.Period.
By allowing to disobey the law, the Courts have effectively said that breaking the law is OK if you have the right reason. Imagine if we all did that.

[Gooey]

Thats were you are wrong Nostro.  Our constitution GAURANTEES access to fish for first nations.  The ONLY thing which can keep them from fishing is conservation issues.   

If the sporties have an allocation, first nations MUST have had one first - its their constitutional right!  So some questions to consider:
- did they have an allocation that season
- did they catch their quota that season or not
- did the fish caught in this protest fishery surpass what they were  allocated that season
- were there any additional openings later that year that could have provided more legal fishing opportunities

I think the courts let us down but I don't have enuff facts to say that with 100% certainty.

Bottom line is that these cases get thrown out all the time so where do the courts  leave DFO: in a position where first nations treats them like an old reserve dog (all bark and no bite) so it gets kicked all around town.  Until the courts start working with DFO then this pattern will continue.  Hopefully the new conservative government will take a more proactive, NO BS approach.  With the judicial inquiry they are calling, the tide may be turning.

[Nostro]

Found the following in the DFO Press Releases for 2000:

First Nations

Normal opportunities are anticipated in most areas of B.C. for First Nations to harvest salmon for food, social and ceremonial purposes. In southern B.C., pilot sales fisheries, where aboriginal communities are authorized to sell specified amounts of fish subject to conservation needs and to agreed monitoring, enforcement and management regimes, are expected in the Somass River system. Due to low forecast returns of Fraser River sockeye in 2000, the management plan does not include any pilot sales opportunities for First Nations on the Fraser River. This will be reviewed in-season based on the actual abundance of sockeye. In northern B.C., Excess Salmon to Spawning Requirement (ESSR) fisheries may occur when salmon stocks have entered their river of origin after passing through the various fisheries and are at a level in excess of their spawning requirements based on habitat or hatchery spawning capacity. An ESSR fishery is expected for sockeye on the Skeena River.

Fisheries in the Nass will be managed in accordance with the Nisga’a Treaty.

[Gooey]

it would be great to know what amounts were caught, when it was caught and when this "protest fishery" took place.

[Rodney]

Native fishers seek more say in Fraser River fishing plans

By Robert Freeman
The Progress
rfreeman@theprogress.com
Feb 28 2006

Federal fisheries harvesting plans “imposed” on First Nations won’t be accepted this year in light of a B.C. Supreme Court ruling last week that overturned lower-court convictions against four Cheam fishermen, says Grand Chief Doug Kelly, a member of the First Nations Summit political executive.

He says the Sto:lo Tribal Council will again follow its own fishing plan this year, setting out fishing times, conservation objectives and gear restrictions.

“That’s going to be our game plan this year,” he says.

Kelly says the FNS has put senior federal fisheries officials on notice that the department’s current management practices are “inadequate” in terms of consultation and accommodation.

Federal fisheries officials could not be reached for comment, but a spokesperson said yesterday that the loss of the court case on appeal is being reviewed for possible implications on this year’s fishing plans.

Cheam Chief Sid Douglas says the case “proves the department needs to work with us to develop a working relationship instead of sitting in court all the time.”

There are several more court cases pending against Cheam fishermen, he says.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Johnston overturned the lower-court convictions last week against Kelly Ann Douglas, Todd Kenneth Wood, Fred Quipp Jr. and Howard Glynn Victor. The four were convicted in 2000 after a “protest” fishery on the Fraser River. The river was closed by federal fisheries officials to native fishermen, but a marine sport fishery was permitted at the same time.

Justice Johnson found the Crown failed to prove the closure of the river to native fishermen was justified, and that it did not accord the aboriginal fishery the priority it is guaranteed by the Constitution and the earlier “Sparrow” decision reached by the Supreme Court of Canada.

“Where the Crown through the DFO has restricted the legal ability of aboriginal people to fish for sockeye salmon ... the Crown through the DFO cannot permit non-aboriginals to catch and keep some of those same fish without full and proper consultation,” Justice Johnson wrote in his reasons for judgment. “That was not done here, and it offends the honour of the Crown.”

Kelly says the four Cheam fishermen were “treated as criminals for asserting rights” and that the court victory “strengthens the ability of First Nations to change the way DFO manages First Nations fisheries.”

He also says former Cheam Chief Sam Douglas, another “rights warrior” for aboriginal people, was honoured at a special ceremony last week.

“I’m sure Sam was smiling from whatever river he is fishing on the other side,” Kelly says.

http://www.theprogress.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=39&cat=23&id=598585&more=