Who Owns the Fish?
June 14, 2020UncategorizedComments: 0
Events unfolding in the Skeena River country are a major red flag for anyone paying attention. Our federal government fisheries managers, aka the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, have taken steps to eliminate recreational fishing for salmon in the best chinook fishing areas and times along the Skeena. The measure has nothing to do with conservation as one might expect. Instead it is in response to First Nations demands for exclusive access to chinook.
Provincial managers, aka the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, have been pressured by DFO to invoke a mirror order that would eliminate all fishing (i.e. not just salmon fishing) it the areas of greatest concern. FLNRORD is rumoured to be poised to accommodate DFO.
My personal protest to Premier Horgan and FLNRORD Minister Donaldson is copied below. This is line in the sand time. Do not let these measures be instituted by the province. Nowhere is it written that fish are not a public resource. When conservation is not the issue there can be no justification for the impending exclusion of recreational anglers as is being pursued by all three levels of government.
Dear Premier Horgan and Minister Donaldson:
Gentlemen, as a lifelong resident of British Columbia and a devotee to wild fish conservation and management, I am deeply concerned over the directions being taken by your government relative to First Nations harvest of salmon and steelhead. The fundamental question now looming large is who owns the fish? In recent weeks there has been endless discussion and debate over the federal government’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) regulation measures imposed on recreational fishing for salmon in several of the most popular areas along the Skeena River. DFO has requested what is referred to as a mirror order from the province’s Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development to close fishing for all provincially managed non salmon. Throughout the debate DFO has alleged there is a conservation problem for chinook salmon that must be addressed by elimination of any potential for anglers targeting non-salmon to significantly influence the conservation status of chinook should they happen to catch (and release) one incidentally. However, no scientific evidence has ever been tabled in support of a conservation problem. When pressed on this fact in public forum on June 8th the senior DFO North Coast Division spokesperson admitted its management actions were not based on science or conservation. Instead they were in response to First Nations demands for sole access to the chinook fishery. Therein lies the precedent the Province is asked to support.
Constitutionally protected rights allow First Nations to harvest fish for food, social and ceremonial needs but only after conservation needs have been met. In other words, if there is a conservation problem, no one gets to fish. However, in the topic situation we have a tidal waters recreational fishery harvest of Skeena bound chinook as well as an in-river harvest by First Nations gill netters. So, either constitutionally enshrined allocation priorities are being violated or the alleged chinook conservation problem that calls for elimination of all public fishing in the river is without foundation.
By its actions and admission of June 8th DFO has demonstrated there is no case to be made for chinook conservation. In fact the province is being asked to assemble data from its angling guide data base in hopes that it will illustrate the potential harm done by guided anglers who reported catching chinook in the areas of concern in bygone years. Why does it fall to the province to be engaged in what gives every appearance of an eleventh hour bail out of DFO?
FLNRORD officials in Smithers claim they are embracing the DFO request in order to build collaborative relationships with both DFO and First Nations. That is entirely secondary to the fundamental question of conservation vs allocation.
Given that the requested mirror order has nothing to do with conservation but merely accedes to First Nations demands for exclusive access to popular public fishing areas, what justification can the province offer for eliminating such fishing opportunity? The precedent on the verge of being set here is monumentally significant and your Smithers staff are evidently oblivious to it. Are we now to accept that First Nations demands to exclude public fishers from any area they choose to identify will be endorsed by elected officials? Under what law of Canada do First Nations have such a right? The question of who owns the fish is now a fundamental question your government needs to address.
Your earliest possible response to these most pressing issues and questions is requested.
Yours truly,
R.S. Hooton
cc Bill Bosch, President, BC Wildlife Federation
Jesse Blake, President, BC Federation of Fly Fishers
Brian Braidwood, President, Steelhead Society of BC
https://steelheadvoices.com/?p=2091#more-2091
Author
Topic: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton (Read 1261 times)