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



 

That's right - the BC Court of Appeals (2021 BCCA 155) rescinded some of those restrictions.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

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.

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/

Here is what AI wrote, going to send a personalized version in


Subject: Salmon Allocation Policy Review – Please Maintain Recreational Priority Access to Chinook and Coho Salmon

To: DFO.SAPReviewBC-PASRevueBC.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca 
Pacific Salmon Allocation Policy Review Team 
Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Dear SAP Review Team,

I am a lifelong British Columbia resident and avid recreational angler who fishes primarily for Chinook and Coho salmon in the Strait of Georgia, Johnstone Strait, and the west coast of Vancouver Island. I am writing to strongly urge you to **maintain (and where possible strengthen) the current policy priority that recreational fisheries enjoy for Chinook and Coho salmon** in the modernized Salmon Allocation Policy.

Recreational salmon fishing is not a fringe activity in British Columbia – it is the primary way that the majority of British Columbians and our visitors directly connect with wild Pacific salmon. In 2024–2025 data show:

- Over 250,000 licensed tidal and freshwater anglers in B.C. 
- Recreational salmon fisheries generate approximately **$330 million in annual expenditures** and support **nearly 4,900 direct and indirect jobs** (2025 SFAB submission to the SAP Review). 
- On a GDP-per-fish basis, the recreational sector delivers **8–10 times more economic value** to coastal and interior communities than the commercial sector for the same Chinook or Coho harvested.

Despite this, recreational access to Chinook and Coho has already been severely curtailed in recent years through emergency conservation closures and reallocations. Any further erosion of the existing recreational priority in the new policy would effectively eliminate meaningful public access to these iconic fish for future generations.

I fully support conservation as the first priority and the constitutionally protected food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) and treaty rights of First Nations. After those priorities are met, however, the remaining allowable harvest of Chinook and Coho should continue to be allocated with **recreational access as the clear next priority** over commercial sale – exactly as the 1999 policy currently states and as has been repeatedly affirmed by Ministers since that time.

Rolling back this priority in favor of expanded commercial sale (whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous) would:

- Disproportionately harm small coastal communities that now rely far more on recreational fishing tourism than on commercial fishing; 
- Reduce public support for salmon conservation and habitat restoration; 
- Contradict the federal government’s own stated goals of growing the blue economy and middle-class jobs through tourism and recreation.

I respectfully request that the modernized Salmon Allocation Policy:

1. Explicitly retain recreational priority for Chinook and Coho after conservation and Indigenous FSC/treaty needs; 
2. Commit to stable, predictable recreational opportunities rather than year-to-year discretionary cuts; 
3. Include clear economic criteria in allocation decisions that recognize the vastly higher economic return and job creation of the recreational sector.

British Columbians have paid for salmon recovery through our license fees, the Pacific Salmon Stamp, and the federal recreational fisheries contribution program for decades. Please ensure the new policy continues to give the public a fair and priority opportunity to harvest and enjoy the salmon we have all worked so hard to rebuild.

Thank you for considering my submission. I am available at the contact information below if you require any clarification.

Sincerely, 
[Your Full Name] 
[Your Mailing Address] 
[Your Phone Number] 
[Your Email Address] 
B.C. Tidal Waters Sport Fishing License # _________ (optional but helpful)

I really encourage everyone to do more than make their gripes known here. So please takes the opportunity to expresses your thoughts and feelings as you have here to the email address supplied in the discussion paper at: DFO.SAPReviewBC-PASRevueBC.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca. by January 9th

Otherwise your opinions and concerns won't be considered in the new policy that is adopted.

Thanks Ralph

for sharing, not something you typically weigh in on.

out of curiosity, how would you like to see the policy managed between commercial and rec fishing?

I said at the time BC adopting UNDRIP was a terrible idea. All the comments in the media at the time were that, Yes BC adopted it but it was not legally binding in the wording.

well looks like a judge disagreed, oh jokes un us it is legally binding

https://globalnews.ca/news/11568633/bc-conservatives-david-eby-reconvene-legislature-repeal-dripa/

“The Court of Appeal ruling released on Dec. 5, I believe, meets that threshold.”

On Friday, a court ruling found that the provincial mineral claims regime is “inconsistent” with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The appeal ruling says that the provincial declaration should be “properly interpreted” to incorporate UNDRIP into provincial laws with immediate effect.

“The court found DRIPA gives the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples immediate legal forces across all B.C. statutes, contrary to what the legislatures were told in 2019,” Halford said.

I really encourage everyone to do more than make their gripes known here. So please takes the opportunity to expresses your thoughts and feelings as you have here to the email address supplied in the discussion paper at: DFO.SAPReviewBC-PASRevueBC.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca. by January 9th

Otherwise your opinions and concerns won't be considered in the new policy that is adopted.

Ok, "rights" was not the correct word, should have used restrictions.  2026 coho season will still happen however it will be restricted to one day, Nov 15 2026.  Good luck.  I am tired of hearing about FN BS.  On the news often.  Two stories tonight,  businesses in Richmond can't get the balance of a 35 million dollar loan to finish a commercial building, 7 million into construction and the banks have declined to give them more money to finish because of the cowichan land claim BS...  Pattula bridge renamed to some FN name.  It just does not end.  Wait till they take over the vedder river.  will be a pay to fish river soon. 

I've added the link to the act cited in the last post.

Most of our 'rights' are limited in certain ways and the Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act recognizes this. If you look a bit deeper than an AI search you will find common law long recognized the right. The right is limited by regulations invoked for conservation and other reasons. This has been in place for over 100 years ... I think the first specific act in BC dates to 1901.

If you want to know more about Common Law you can look here: https://legalclarity.org/what-is-common-law-in-canada-and-how-does-it-work/

There has been 800 years of common law since Magna Carta. Common Law is always modified or superseded by acts of Parliament.

Thirty day limits on public input is fairly typical. The Advisory Boards have been kicking this around for a while now and allocation decisions have been made before so don't talk like it is new or a surprise.