Print

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

[IronNoggin]

And a Paradigm Shift in the Allocation Policy Goes Hand in Hand:

A group of West Coast First Nations has won the right to harvest and sell fish commercially after a 12-year court battle.

In the 400-page judgment, Humphries sets out the parameters for the Indigenous fisheries involving species including a variety of salmon, groundfish, crab, prawn and shellfish.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-224196-3-.htm#224196

Here follows the Minister's full statement. The most significant decision is NOT the court case, rather it is the Minister's reference to changing the allocation policy as soon as possible. Placing FN Commercial rights above all others except FN FSC rights is a paradigm shift, and there aren't any more fish to go around... meaning many will soon be off the water to pay the cost of "reconciliation"...

https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-oceans/news/2018/04/statement-from-the-minister-of-fisheries-oceans-and-the-canadian-coast-guard-following-the-bc-supreme-court-decision---ahousaht-indian-band-and-nat.html

Paragraph 1267 of the Judgment for reference:

Result

[1267] I have set out several areas of unjustified infringements arising from the licencing regime above, in the section Aspects of Infringement and Justification Applying To All Species, as set out above. The following conclusions are specifically applicable to the salmon fishery:

The Salmon Allocation Policy insofar as it accords priority to the recreational fishery over plaintiffs’ right-based fishery for chinook is not justified;

Canada’s allocations for AABM and ISBM chinook, insofar as they have been set based on giving priority to the recreational fishery pursuant to the Salmon Allocation Policy, are not justified;

The use of PICFI to provide salmon licences to the plaintiffs is justified, but the mitigation policy itself, in the event of an inability to allocate sufficient chinook to the plaintiffs through PICFI alone, is not justified;

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/06/2018BCSC0633.htm

Salmon, and other saltwater species fishing as we knew it, have just met their painful demise. 

Sadly,
Nog

[IronNoggin]

Salmon Allocation Policy

(917) Canada’s position from the beginning of the Negotiations has been that the plaintiffs have been given a commercial right of unknown scope; that is, the right takes its character from the word “commercial”. However, I agree with the plaintiffs that the right is an aboriginal fishing right. Its essential character is as an aboriginal right. Because it is also a commercial right, Gladstone states clearly that it is not an exclusive right, and does not extinguish the right of public access to the fishery. Nevertheless, as an aboriginal right, it has priority over the other sectors, after FSC and treaty rights (limitations the plaintiffs acknowledge), as long as the other factors in Sparrow are properly balanced.

(925) However, the fact that the declared aboriginal right is to fish and sell fish into the commercial marketplace does not lessen the priority to be accorded to the aboriginal right -- it does not allow Canada to start out on the allocation process by treating the plaintiffs’ fishery as simply another commercial fishery. To accord priority to the recreational fishery over the plaintiffs’ aboriginal commercial fishery is not justified.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/06/2018BCSC0633.htm

[Tylsie]

Is no one surprised or does seem to understand what this means. This decisions literally created a new type of user group; First Nation Commercial Fishery! This is distinct from FSC and Non-Native Commercial Fisheries snd sport fishing, trumping all but FSC

The law now "officially" follows a ranking of:

1 - Conservation (which, though it legally out ranks FSC, no one is willing to put this in writing so is a mute point is absolutley meainingless; see Cultus Lake Sockeye and Thompson River Steelhead as notable examples)

2 - Food/Social/Ceremonial

3 - First Nation Commercial Fishery (which this court decision regards as seperate from Non-Native Commercial with its own Quotas which must out rank and should be taken Sportfishing)

4 - Non-Native Commercial Fishing (which has continually had quotas and licenses stripped or bought back to the point most can't make a living doing it anymore. They have been and may continue to be the hardest hit. I truly hope some can still make a living)

5 - Sport Fishing (what ever is left of the quota after the Orcas and seals are saved, FSC catches are obtained, the New Native Commercial Fishery has had its say and only if there is anything left after remaining Commercial guys have gotten theirs)

Have a great weekend everyone!

[IronNoggin]

Yep. That pretty well sums up what this latest development means in a nutshell. Game Over for most. 

Non-Native Commercial Fishing (which has continually had quotas and licenses stripped or bought back to the point most can't make a living doing it anymore. They have been and may continue to be the hardest hit. I truly hope some can still make a living)

I am an Area G (WCVI) Troller as many here know.
Our quota has now been shaved down to about a week's catch. For the entire year.
The balance was freely given to the FN's.
There is no way any of us can survive on what is left. It is over.
I find myself destitute at the age of 60. As does every single other member of our fleet.
Upset" is a gross understatement.

There is simply nothing left to strip away from us any more.
Those of you who giggled while we watched our livelihood being intentionally stripped away and handed off to another sector simply based on race can cease your giggling now. For you very much are the next target.

Sad Times...
Nog

[stsfisher]

Did I read somewhere in those transcripts this effects a 9 nautical mile strip within this nations territory? From beach out 9 nautical miles, do we now how many miles of shore line this effects?, I was not able to find that portion yet?
Yes I did answer my own question: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/06/2018BCSC0633.htm#SCJTITLEBookMark608
 

[IronNoggin]

Did I read somewhere in those transcripts this effects a 9 nautical mile strip within this nations territory? From beach out 9 nautical miles, do we now how many miles of shore line this effects?,

Race based fishing opportunities have been given to various bands well outside of the Court Defined Area (CDA) for years already.
Despite what you might read into the sections you cited, there is no way this new commercial right of harvest will be confined within that corridor. Reality.

Nog

[wildmanyeah]

Kenny will be all over this like he is for Listerine, Pop and Chips. No way the stolo aren't getting a commercial chinook opening. 

There is no way he is going to let a WCVI First Nations Band harvest chinook stock from the Fraser for sale and not get a peace of the action.


[567]     The plaintiffs were also unhappy at having to abide by the restriction put on in August to protect interior Fraser coho -- that is, a five-mile corridor established from the surfline to let this stock pass. Recreational fishermen are allowed to fish in that corridor, which the plaintiffs object to. The plaintiffs are allowed to fish there with their mosquito fleet, but not with their trollers.

OH CAN I HAVE SOME MORE PIE PLEASE

[1142]  Canada put the LTO into context within some of the factors relevant to the Sparrow/Gladstone justification analysis: there are 71 aboriginal groups in British Columbia with a treaty or a treaty claim, and 73 groups with a claim to fish. There are 20 aboriginal groups on the WCVI with communal licences, and 480 such groups in the Pacific Region; there are 76 aboriginal groups on the BC coastline; there are 141 groups with access to Fraser River sockeye. Aboriginal groups hold 41% of the commercial salmon fishery licences, so further mitigation would have to come from non-aboriginal participants. Despite the many interests affected by this fishery, so far the consultation process has been bilateral only.

[Dave]

Kenny will be all over this like he is for Listerine, Pop and Chips. No way the stolo aren't getting a commercial chinook opening. 

There is no way he is going to let a WCVI First Nations Band harvest chinook stock from the Fraser for sale and not get a peace of the action.

I'm not sure he, personally, could handle any more early run chinooks (hint), but the rest of the summer sockeye fishers will start a bit earlier for sure. 
This ruling is very bad news for Fraser River anglers, and I have no doubt this will spill over to tributary rivers in the near future.

[stsfisher]

Race based fishing opportunities have been given to various bands well outside of the Court Defined Area (CDA) for years already.
Despite what you might read into the sections you cited, there is no way this new commercial right of harvest will be confined within that corridor. Reality.

Nog

I won't even get into it, as I know the track record of those who are tasked to over see this judgment.
But I would suggest those that care read the entire transcript for a better understanding of this issue, and the job Canada will be faced with to come up with regulations to this new community based commercial fishery.

Hmmmm. I wonder if this is even news to the commercial giant ( Jimmy Pattison) and his fleet? I bet they won't even be fazed,continuing to take their allocated share on the backs of those who sold their licenses years ago.

[Hike_and_fish]

Its giving preference to one ethnic group over another the very definition of racism ? I think it is.

Just sayin

[Hike_and_fish]

Its giving preference to one ethnic group over another the very definition of racism ? I think it is.

I had to explain to a new Canadian friend of mine that his right to harvest Salmon comes second. He was astonished and asked me why our federal government practices institutionalized racism in 2018.

Just sayin

[RalphH]

There is a difference between granting a right based on racism vs based on the constitution & it's predecessor agreements.

The race based fishery argument has gone through the system and tossed out. Its's a bankrupt argument.

The FN right to access fisheries be it for FCS reasons or for commercial purposes is part of the agreement that formed Canada and BC. The denial of that access was a relic of racism and colonialism from the 19th century displacement of FN people from their land and rights.

[dobrolub]

What defines FNs? Not race? If I share believes and customs of the FNs and I too need fish for FCS reasons can I fish?

The argument that this isn't race based is flawed.

[wildmanyeah]

The FN right to access fisheries be it for FCS reasons or for commercial purposes is part of the agreement that formed Canada and BC. The denial of that access was a relic of racism and colonialism from the 19th century displacement of FN people from their land and rights.

and yet your house lies on FN claimed territory, probably by multiple FN groups. In most of British Columbia Aboriginal title has never been transferred to the Crown. Many native groups, both those that have never signed treaties or those that are dissatisfied with the execution of treaties have made formal Aboriginal land claims against the government.

Government is using Fish as currency in Reconciliation rather then your house and land.

one  reasons canada refused to sign UNDRIP

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the General Assembly on Thursday, 13 September 2007, by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States)

[wildmanyeah]

I know lots of Native people and non Native people who totally understand how this is all wrong, and that things are totally unequal right now. Both sides of this argument benifit in certain ways and get the shaft in other ways. We're all brothers and sisters and until the law reflects that this will continue in some way shape or form. Is there a way to respect the Native peoples rights/history, and at the same time respect equality and recognize the new age that we live in? It's far beyond my comprehension. Nothing good comes from make belief lines on paper that dictate certain people own this and that.

100% agree it's impossible to go back and right all the so called wrong previous governments or people people may have done. I don't see the government transferring commercial fishing license back to the japanese communities.  Where is their reconciliation??  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ed-b-c-s-japanese-fishing-community-1.4041358