Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
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
Re: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
As long as there is a provision for FN to have a priority to the fish over other non-FN individuals (I don't want to use the term sport fishing), government will
have legal means to screw us over.
They can, and probably will, use FN to police these closures. Good identity politics if you are in power.
The only way I see this positively resolving is people just ignore it and fish anyway.
Show up in great numbers and watch each other's backs.
Re: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
Quote:
Originally Posted by
adriaticum
As long as there is a provision for FN to have a priority to the fish over other non-FN individuals (I don't want to use the term sport fishing), government will
have legal means to screw us over.
They can, and probably will, use FN to police these closures. Good identity politics if you are in power.
The only way I see this positively resolving is people just ignore it and fish anyway.
Show up in great numbers and watch each other's backs.
Adriaticum, who are you? I really don't need to know, but your posts are always spot on.
And couldn't agree more, but I have my doubts we'll congregate to fight this thing should come it to pass.
We aren't at the tipping point with FN yet.
Re: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
Quote:
Originally Posted by
adriaticum
As long as there is a provision for FN to have a priority to the fish over other non-FN individuals (I don't want to use the term sport fishing), government will
have legal means to screw us over.
They can, and probably will, use FN to police these closures. Good identity politics if you are in power.
The only way I see this positively resolving is people just ignore it and fish anyway.
Show up in great numbers and watch each other's backs.
If you were in Canada in 1990 you'd remember the Sparrow case
R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 was an important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the application of Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Court held that Aboriginal rights, such as fishing, that were in existence in 1982 are protected under the Constitution of Canada and cannot be infringed without justification on account of the government's fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....e/sparrow-case
Unless you find a way to reverse the Sparrow decision, it stands.
In Washington State the Boldt decision had similar consequences.
On February 12, 1974, Federal District Judge George Boldt dramatically altered the Puget Sound salmon fishery. Boldt ruled that, under the terms of 1854-56 treaties, certain Indian groups had retained title to 50 percent of the western Washington State salmon resource. In making this interpretation, Boldt overturned the ground rules that had structured the development of the commercial salmon fishery in the state, managed as a common-property resource of the citizenry since statehood. Following the Boldt Decision, the salmon fishery was divided into two commercial fisheries: the "all-citizen" fishery and the "treaty-tribe" fishery.
Re: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Moose63
Adriaticum, who are you? I really don't need to know, but your posts are always spot on.
And couldn't agree more, but I have my doubts we'll congregate to fight this thing should come it to pass.
We aren't at the tipping point with FN yet.
I'm just Surrey riff-raff :lol:
Re: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MontyLake
If you were in Canada in 1990 you'd remember the Sparrow case
R v Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 was an important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the application of Aboriginal rights under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Court held that Aboriginal rights, such as fishing, that were in existence in 1982 are protected under the Constitution of Canada and cannot be infringed without justification on account of the government's fiduciary duty to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia....e/sparrow-case
Unless you find a way to reverse the Sparrow decision, it stands.
In Washington State the Boldt decision had similar consequences.
On February 12, 1974, Federal District Judge George Boldt dramatically altered the Puget Sound salmon fishery. Boldt ruled that, under the terms of 1854-56 treaties, certain Indian groups had retained title to 50 percent of the western Washington State salmon resource. In making this interpretation, Boldt overturned the ground rules that had structured the development of the commercial salmon fishery in the state, managed as a common-property resource of the citizenry since statehood. Following the Boldt Decision, the salmon fishery was divided into two commercial fisheries: the "all-citizen" fishery and the "treaty-tribe" fishery.
I wasn't here in 1990, but I do know that the only way to change laws to favour the public, is to have them be forced by the public.
(Kinda like what the american protests are doing right now)
Politicians don't change laws in public's interest.
To challenge a law you primarily need to be well organized.
You have to have a plan which begets support which begets money.
If you had 500 fishermen show up to a protest fishery, you know they won't be able to arrest 500 people.
And those 500 people have to ensure that no single person gets arrested.
They have to act as a unit.
We have to decide if Canada is a country of equal rights for everyone, or some are more equal (equaller) than others.
Indigenous people think that government is their friend, because it's favoring them right now, but they quickly forget what institutionalized decisions do to various groups if they are not fair and based on principles of equal rights for everyone.
What we need to do is make indigenous people and outdoors men understand that they are natural allies in this game of politics.
It's difficult to talk to indigenous leaders right now because they are riding high on their recent successes and their resentment of the non-indigenous population is still high because of historical wrongs.
But the time will come when indigenous leaders realize that government is not their friend and we are not their enemy.
Sooner is better than later.
I am starting to see information surfacing that indigenous groups are being screwed by environmental groups and now you have this resentment building up.
Environmental groups have used indigenous folks as a tool to accomplish their goals.
Re: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
Won’t be long for the white lives matter protest to happen in bc.
Re: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
Racial discrimination. Hey, wait a minute. It discriminates against white peoples therefore it is not racial.
Re: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
I am always so disgusted in seeing the press and Pierre's Idiot Child talk about how we have to eliminate Systemic racism in Canada and yet his father entrenched it into the Canadian Constitution, 1982. Until you eliminate the separation of rights based on race, you will never eliminate racism.
Re: Who Owns The Fish - Bob Hooton
Quote:
Originally Posted by
finaddict
I am always so disgusted in seeing the press and Pierre's Idiot Child talk about how we have to eliminate Systemic racism in Canada and yet his father entrenched it into the Canadian Charter of Rights. Until you eliminate the separation of rights based on race, you will never eliminate racism.
Great insight finaddict. This is Precisely the crux of the matter.
PT can be openly accused of apartheid. JT is continuing his father’s legacy.
JT has a penchant for referencing to Harper all the time. Harper wanted to eliminate special deals for First Nations. His first step was the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. Making them more accountable to the taxpayers who fund them. Down the road, 2025, he intended them to be self sufficient, in other words like the rest of us.
JT is the pandering Prime Minister.
