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