More bad news for the Nootka Sound fishery?

[.264winmag]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/224196/Commercial-fishery-granted

Be interesting to see what kind of quotas' and species' they get. Was hoping Ferrer was gonna be open longer this year, I doubt it now...

[Piperdown]

A long 400 page judgment, but this is where the rubber meets the road, and why you see the Minister ramping up efforts to immediately amend the Salmon Allocation Policy. Those fish have to come from somewhere, and it is clear DFO is not justified in using Area G buy backs "when they come available" and then transferring those over to FN's under the ATC program. DFO will have to move the allocation regardless of any success doing voluntary buy backs - ergo, at least initially, expect to see the rec sector to take a hit is how I read the tea leafs. Hope I'm wrong!!!

See paragraph 1267 of the judgment for reference...there's more than I have quoted if you care to read it

Result

[1267] I have set out several areas of unjustified infringements arising from the licencing regime above, in the section Aspects of Infringement and Justification Applying To All Species, as set out above. The following conclusions are specifically applicable to the salmon fishery:



the Salmon Allocation Policy insofar as it accords priority to the recreational fishery over plaintiffs’ right-based fishery for chinook is not justified;
Canada’s allocations for AABM and ISBM chinook, insofar as they have been set based on giving priority to the recreational fishery pursuant to the Salmon Allocation Policy, are not justified;
the use of PICFI to provide salmon licences to the plaintiffs is justified, but the mitigation policy itself, in the event of an inability to allocate sufficient chinook to the plaintiffs through PICFI alone, is not justified;

[303savage]

However, Nuu-chah-nulth president Judith Sayers says that if the government is serious about implementing their rights, it should let the bands begin fishing immediately.

I'm all for native rights, I'm not for them using our technology while exercising those rights. They didn't have firearms, motorized transportation etc so why can they call it native rights while using our technology.

[Downtown]

I'm all for native rights, I'm not for them using our technology while exercising those rights. They didn't have firearms, motorized transportation etc so why can they call it native rights while using our technology.


Sorry Bud, but they had the Indian Motorcycle :lol:

Cheers

[Pemby_mess]

I'm all for native rights, I'm not for them using our technology while exercising those rights. They didn't have firearms, motorized transportation etc so why can they call it native rights while using our technology.

"Our technology"? I don't think you'll get very far intellectually with that line of thinking. Most agreements were made after FN had fully adopted the use of firearms, and before the use of motor vehicles for example. So you'd have to be pretty specific about where you may want to draw lines between "our technology" and "their technology". There's been nearly 500 years of cultural integration in some form or another - so those lines might get pretty fuzzy when one considers how far all of us have come together, technologically.

Their traditional right to hunt and fish, has been a central fixture of every negotiation, since the beginning of European - FN relations. I am not aware that there has ever been an instance where some future technology was stricken from those rights. In fact, thinking this way, changes the entire character of the right in the first place. Since FN did participate in the progression of technology before, and alongside European expansion, At what stage of the technological progression do you the limit the continuation of that process?

It kind of ignores the reason to both have the rights in place, and the reasons for developing technology at all. Humans adopt technology from other groups of humans to stay competitive; both over nature itself and over other groups of humans. In fact, the hunting and fishing rights FN received through negotiation were actually the consessions they made for continuing access to European technology in the first place.

So, logically; if you're going to strip them of one of the contract's primary benefits (trading technology), they should be able to strip Europeans of their consideration in the same contract (productive/beneficial use of the land)

[Weatherby Fan]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/224196/Commercial-fishery-granted

Be interesting to see what kind of quotas' and species' they get. Was hoping Ferrer was gonna be open longer this year, I doubt it now...

They are going to get it all, don’t kid yourself, salmon, shellfish, bottom fish, prawns, shrimp, Halibut you name it and the tax payer is going to pay for anything they need to harvest it, ie boats nets traps etc !

[Keta1969]

They are going to get it all, don’t kid yourself, salmon, shellfish, bottom fish, prawns, shrimp, Halibut you name it and the tax payer is going to pay for anything they need to harvest it, ie boats nets traps etc !

Got to agree with you Don, and the rest of the coastal bands are lining up now that there is precedent set. It's going on anyway but it'll ramp up now. Commercial fishermen could see what was coming 30 years ago but no one listened especially not the courts.

[S.W.A.T.]

Why are they considered a food fishery and I'm a sport fisherman. I fish/hunt for food and my family has done so for generations here in Canada and in Europe before the ling boat ride.

[Brew]

If it’s for food fishery it should be done with rods and reels not nets and trollers. Native bands should not be aloud to sell fish period and anyone caught buying fish from natives should be given huge fines.

[tigrr]

Greed drives a lot of things in this world. It is not about sustenance anymore. Ask any chief making $300000 to be a chief over 150 band members. A band councillor making $150000 plus perks like a new Cadillac.

Now throw in the coast and all the fisheries. Soon to be big plots of land. Glad I'm 58 not 28. Another sad part is the young people accept it, no questions asked. I get hoarse now at meetings.

[weatherby_man]

Have to spend your money where you want, and dont spend it where you dont want to, whether thats supporting a boycott of a manufacturer, making some lifestyle choice, or having issues with where/how the product originates. Thats the only way to make a statement of any kind that has an impact on the monetary requirements of a seller. Unfortunately with some getting handouts that circumvents some of the pain of boycott, but not all. Other than that requires commitment at the expense of your own person, taking time to protest, organizing resistance, even using the courts, etc.. I've gotten pretty choosey on what I buy, where it originates, what kind of company and who is providing the service. You cant do it for absolutely everything but you certainly can for major and planned purchases. I'm fine with whatever names, innuendo, or insults come my way but I'm quite content supporting who I choose when I spend my hard earned money. Long story short, for instance I dont buy fish anymore unless I know who caught it and where it came from.