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.

BTW we do have a right to fish and hunt in BC according to the The Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act, SBC 2002, c 79. It's law and you can find it here.

AI is mean today

Overview of the Hunting and Fishing Heritage Act, SBC 2002, c 79
This is a short, symbolic provincial statute in British Columbia, assented to on November 26, 2002. It consists of a single operative section (section 1) and a preamble of "whereas" clauses that recognize the cultural and practical value of hunting and fishing. The full text is publicly available on the BC Laws website and CanLII.
Key Provisions

Section 1: "A person has the right to hunt and fish in accordance with the law."
This is the entire substantive content of the Act. It affirms that hunting and fishing are legitimate activities but explicitly ties any "right" to compliance with existing laws and regulations (e.g., the federal Fisheries Act, BC's Wildlife Act, and related regulations on licences, seasons, quotas, and conservation).
Preamble Highlights (non-binding but illustrative of legislative intent):
Hunting and fishing are "an important part of British Columbia's heritage" and "form an important part of the fabric of present-day life."
Hunters and anglers "contribute to the understanding, conservation, and management of fish and wildlife."
These activities "should be recognized as legitimate forms of recreation and as legitimate tools with which to effectively manage the fish and wildlife of British Columbia."


Does It Create a Guaranteed Share or Allocation for Recreational Fishermen?
No. This Act does not impose any legal obligation on the Crown (federal or provincial government) to allocate a specific share, quota, or portion of fish to recreational (or any other) users. Here's why, in the context of our ongoing discussion:

It's Declaratory and Symbolic, Not Enforceable:
The "right" in section 1 is qualified by "in accordance with the law," meaning it doesn't override or expand existing regulations. You still need a licence, must follow bag limits, seasons, and closures, and have no veto over government decisions on resource allocation.
Courts treat such statutes as statements of policy or heritage recognition, not as creating new property rights or entitlements in public resources like fish (which, as we discussed, are Crown-owned). No BC or Canadian case law interprets this Act as granting a fixed recreational quota—it's been cited in minor policy discussions but never successfully in challenges to fishery allocations.

No Impact on Allocation Priorities:
As confirmed by Supreme Court precedents (e.g., R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723), the Crown retains full discretion to prioritize conservation, Indigenous rights, and then allocate remaining resources among sectors (commercial, recreational, etc.) as it sees fit. This Act doesn't alter that hierarchy or mandate a minimum recreational share.
In practice, recreational fishing opportunities in BC are managed through the Freshwater Fishing Regulations Synopsis (provincial) and federal DFO tidal regulations, which can change annually based on stock assessments—without any statutory floor for recreational access under this Act.

Related Developments and Context:
Amendments: There have been unsuccessful private member's bills (e.g., Bill M 214-2019 and M 211-2018) to tweak section 1 by adding "subject to conservation and public safety law," but these didn't pass and wouldn't have changed the core meaning.
Broader "Right to Roam" Proposals: Bills like M 223-2017 (Right to Roam Act) proposed expanding public access to waterways for "lawfully fishing with rod and line" and even repealing this Act, but they also failed. These highlight ongoing political interest in recreational access but confirm it's not a guaranteed right.
Comparison to Other Jurisdictions: Similar laws exist elsewhere (e.g., Alberta's Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Heritage Act, which also just affirms rights "within provisions of the law"). They're heritage nods, not quota guarantees.


Bottom Line for BC Recreational Anglers
This Act is a feel-good recognition of fishing's cultural role—it validates your interest in the sport but doesn't give you (or recreational users collectively) any enforceable claim to a "share" of the fish. If DFO or BC reduces recreational quotas for conservation or other reasons, you can't point to this statute in court to demand otherwise. For real influence on allocations, advocacy through groups like the Sport Fishing Institute of BC (SFI) or direct input to fisheries consultations is more effective than relying on this 2002 heritage declaration.
If you're looking for the latest 2025-2027 fishing regs or licence info, check the BC government's Freshwater Fishing Synopsis or DFO's site. Let me know if you want details on a specific fishery!

No, there is no law in Canada or British Columbia that obliges the Crown (federal or provincial government) to give any specific share, quota, or amount of fish to recreational (sport) fishermen.
The fact that fish are “public property owned by the Crown” actually works against the idea of a guaranteed recreational allocation. Here’s why:
1. The Crown has absolute discretion over how to allocate the public resource
The Supreme Court of Canada has been crystal clear on this point after point:

“The right to allocate the resource and to determine who may enjoy access to it is vested in the Crown as trustee for all Canadians.”
(Comeau’s Sea Foods Ltd. v. Canada, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 12 at para. 37)
There is no property right or entitlement for any group (including recreational anglers) to a fixed percentage of the fish.
(R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Ahousaht Indian Band v. Canada, 2021 BCCA 150)

2. The only constitutionally guaranteed priority is:

Conservation first
Aboriginal food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) rights
Treaty rights (where they exist)
After those are satisfied, the Minister has complete discretion to divide the remaining fish between commercial, recreational, or any other use — or even to close a fishery entirely.

Recreational fishing always comes last in the legal priority order and can legally be reduced to zero if the Minister decides that is appropriate.
3. Real-world examples in BC that prove there is no guaranteed recreational share

2019–2025: Southern Resident Killer Whale protection measures — DFO imposed massive Chinook closures and non-retention rules that effectively eliminated large parts of the recreational salmon fishery in the Strait of Georgia and west coast of Vancouver Island. Recreational anglers challenged it in court and lost (Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association v. Canada, 2022 FC 1682).
2024–2025 Fraser River Chinook: Recreational fishery reduced to almost nothing in many areas to protect weak stocks.
Halibut: Canada’s total halibut quota is fixed by the International Pacific Halibut Commission. DFO routinely changes the recreational percentage year-to-year (it has ranged from ~12 % to ~20 % in recent years) with no legal obligation to keep it at any particular level.

4. What the government does provide (policy, not law)

The federal Recreational Fisheries Vision and BC’s Freshwater Fisheries Program are policy statements that say the government intends to provide reasonable recreational opportunities “where possible.”
These are political promises, not enforceable legal rights. Courts have ruled many times that recreational anglers have no legal standing to demand a specific allocation.

Bottom line for a BC recreational angler

Fish belong to the Crown.
The Crown is legally free to give 100 % of what’s left after conservation and Indigenous rights to commercial fishermen, or 100 % to recreational fishermen, or 0 % to both and just leave the fish in the water.
There is no statute, regulation, or court decision that says recreational fishermen are entitled to any minimum share.

If you want a bigger recreational slice, the only real avenues are political pressure and lobbying the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans — not a courtroom argument about “public property” or the Magna Carta.

my understanding in Canada common law to fish has be improperly cited and there is no common law for the resource



This is an AI summery

In British Columbia (and Canada as a whole), the right to fish is not an unlimited common law right derived from the Magna Carta, nor is it a general public right for all citizens to fish wherever and whenever they want. Here's a clear breakdown of the current legal situation as of 2025:
1. General Public Right to Fish (Non-Indigenous Canadians)

There is no unrestricted common law or constitutional right for the general public to fish in Canada or BC.
Fishing is a heavily regulated activity under federal and provincial law.
The Fisheries Act (federal) and BC Wildlife Act / BC Fishery Regulations control virtually all fishing (freshwater and saltwater).
You need a valid fishing licence (tidal or non-tidal) to fish legally in almost all cases, plus you must follow season, area, species, and quota restrictions.
Fishing without a licence or outside the rules is an offence.

2. Is fishing a “Magna Carta common law right” in Canada?
No. This is a persistent myth, especially in “freeman-on-the-land” or sovereign citizen circles.

The famous Clause 33 of the Magna Carta (1215) stated:
“All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.”
That clause was about removing private fish traps (weirs/kiddles) from rivers to allow free passage of fish — it actually expanded public fishing opportunities in 13th-century England, but it was repealed in England in 1863 and never had lasting effect even there.
More importantly, the Magna Carta clauses that were received into Canadian common law when Britain colonized Canada do not include any clause granting a general public right to fish. Canadian courts have repeatedly rejected this argument:
R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013 (SCC)
R. v. Lewis, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 921
R. v. Sampson (1995), 129 D.L.R. (4th) 77 (BCCA)
Numerous lower-court and BC Provincial Court decisions since the 1990s have called the “Magna Carta fishing right” claim “frivolous and vexatious.”


3. Who DOES have constitutionally protected fishing rights in BC?

Indigenous peoples with proven Aboriginal title or rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 have a constitutionally protected right to fish for food, social, and ceremonial (FSC) purposes, and in some cases for commercial sale (e.g., Sparrow, Van der Peet, Gladstone, Ahousaht, N.T.C. Smokehouse cases).
Five Nuu-chah-nulth Nations on Vancouver Island (Ahousaht et al.) won a 2009–2024 court battle giving them a commercial right to fish and sell most species (subject to ongoing negotiation and regulation with Canada).

Summary for a regular BC resident

You do not have an unrestricted Magna Carta or common-law right to fish.
You must buy a licence, follow the BC tidal/non-tidal regulations synopsis, and respect closures and quotas.

I think given how challenged our salmon fisheries are it is a shame to see time and effort wasted bickering and mud slinging.

What do you mean?

as far as I know, there's 30 days over Christmas for the public to respond and then its off to the minister to make the decisions? Some might say that was done intentionally to limit public feedback. 

I've been told this has been going on since about 2019, The members in that committee had to sign legal documents saying they could not talk or disclose information about it.

I don't see each side making cases for themselves as "mud slinging"
 

It could see reopening of commercial fishing for coho and chinook in areas that have been closed for many years (ie the Strait of Georgia)

Its pretty much already closed due to Fraser spring and summer chinook intercepts, ITs also limited to pass chinook like Fraser summer 4-1 to first nations to meet FSC, FSC by the way they say is not being met.

They could in theory set up limited commercial fisheries ect targeting Campbell river chinook ect. Harrison White commercial fishery also would be a possibility in the fall. IMO it would be FN commercial tho, I don't see the gill net and commercial trollers getting any allocation.

Coho is an interesting one, Hard to target only hatchery Coho with gillnets, First Nations in the past have argued limiting the gear was an infringement on their rights.

FN though want to be able to commercial fish and all by catch goes to FSC or Vice Versa, So they are the best set up to conduct these type of fisheries. Commercial cant allocate their by catch or at risk species intercepts to FSC.