Aboriginal Fisheries FR opening this past weekend

[Peahead]

I guess DFO doesn't see this loss of 9 -10 million Sockeye as too catastrophic. Or is it just pressure from Ernie Crey. I know this is very politically incorrect to say but it does surprise me that despite the FN (food and ceremonial fishery) having first rights to our Sockeye.....doesn't it seem wrong that drift net fishing was open to natives all weekend on the river from Port Mann Bridge to Sandheads from friday to Sunday evening this weekend ? FN food and ceremonial rights comes AFTER conservation, last time I checked.
Guess those Sockeye I released while trolling in the saltchuck ( I thought was for conservation purposes) last week, ended up in a FN net this past weekend. I never really thought that I am releasing those Sockeye because they aren't mine and that they belong to the FN. I release them so FN can get their food fish. Hmmm ....but then, I am offered to buy them back ...

[profisher]

But you will notice on the sockeye commission notices that there is no opportunity at this time for recreational or commercial fisheries...and that FN fisheries are being "CURTAILED". What the hell does that mean...seams to be just a buzz word...that allows them wiggle room. Define curtailed! How many days fishing last year..how many this year? How much curtailing of poaching is happening this year over others. DFO officers should be out in force and prosecuting illegal activity by ANYONE! No one should be taking sockeye at this time. If the sockeye disappear or get listed as endangered, I'll sleep at night.

[spring time]

now were they fishing for springs or sockeye. what was the mesh size that they were allowed to use

[profisher]

Last year DFO gave the bands (I'm sure under pressure from them) for extra time because of a shortage of sockeye. They had openings in October! So again we stay away from Thompson coho for ten years (and still counting) and DFO allows them nets in October. Guess they only took the clipped ones.

[fish4all]

food my ass.... my neighbour was aproached to catch food fish for 3 of the vancouver bands. He was to be paid $3/fish...sockeye only. with 3 pinks to each sockeye they were asked to throw back 30,000 pinks for 10,000 sockeye. there is more than enough pinks to feed the bands but dfo has made a mess of the food fishery as well.

[The Fish Assassin]

Fish4all FYI historicly pinks in the river where caught to feed our dogs... And I havn't seen any Sockeye from my Band now for 3 years and counting. Looks like I will have to look at other species to fill my freezer for the winter.



Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin

Fish4all FYI historicly pinks in the river where caught to feed our dogs... And I havn't seen any Sockeye from my Band now for 3 years and counting. Looks like I will have to look at other species to fill my freezer for the winter.



Take only what you need.


FA
I guess i am an underprivledged Canadian here then. I hate to admit it but i have stooped to the level of your dogs and have eaten a pink. Why...because the sockeye are in trouble and that is what is available.
So while the rest of Canada is not allowed to touch a fraser Sockeye you feel it is ok to still harvest them for your own use..
You play the racecard as often as possible,about privledge, but this one takes the cake. You are saying that it is ok to throw away 30000 edible pinks that most people would die for because they are beneath you..wtf.. If this is what you call "Take only what you need" then man shake your head because the needs have turned to "wants".

[ratherbefishing]

FA is not worth your time here gents...

The unfortunate reality here appears to be short term gain (i.e. POLITICS) over long term sustainability of the fish. Too sad...

[spring time]

the reason they don't take the pinks is there is no market for them everybody wants a sockeye. when save on foods has them for 2 bucks a fish the natives can't sell them. hey fa if you haven't seen a fish in three years then what does your band do with them every band has been fishing within the past years and to clarify what band or we talking about.

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by spring time

the reason they don't take the pinks is there is no market for them everybody wants a sockeye. when save on foods has them for 2 bucks a fish the natives can't sell them. hey fa if you haven't seen a fish in three years then what does your band do with them every band has been fishing within the past years and to clarify what band or we talking about.

Here you go! Here is a "short" history concerning FA's band! I all ready had it typed and ready to post on another thread, but he doesn't seem to want respond there anymore?

The Songhees or Songish, also known as the Lekwungen or Lekungen, are an indigenous North American Coast Salish people who reside on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia in the Greater Victoria area. There is evidence of a fortified village existing at Finlayson Point in Beacon Hill Park prior to the arrival of Europeans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The Songhees' traditional foods included salmon, shellfish, whale, deer, duck, berries, camas root and herbs. The Coast Salish traditionally lived in bighouses.

Now known as: Songhees First Nation
Location: On Esquimalt Harbour, in Victoria. Main community is on New Songhees Indian Reserve #1A. (Three reserves on 137.8 hectares.)

Number of Band Members: 473 (Source: Registered Indian Population by *** and Residence May 2007, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)

Songhees First Nation, a member of The Te'mexw Treaty Association (TTA), entered the treaty process in July 1995, and is in Stage 4 of the six-stage process, negotiating an agreement in principle.

TTA members are a party to the Douglas Treaties, a series of 14 land purchases from aboriginal people around Victoria, Saanich, Sooke, Nanaimo and Port Hardy, made between 1850 and 1854, by James Douglas, chief factor of Fort Victoria and governor of the colony of Vancouver Island. While the Douglas Treaties addressed land and harvesting rights, the modern comprehensive treaty currently being negotiated between Canada, BC and TTA, deals with a wide range of issues that include governance, land, resources and fiscal matters. TTA negotiations are making steady progress and have successfully resolved a number of difficult issues.

In March 2007, The Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations memberships ratified by a large margin a settlement that resolves a reserve-based specific claim on the site of the British Columbia Legislature in Victoria. The settlement, which was initialed by Canada, BC and the First Nations in November 2006, relates to a lawsuit filed in 2001 which alleged that Canada and British Columbia breached certain duties owed to the First Nations. The claim alleged that the land was originally set aside as an Indian reserve in 1854 by Governor James Douglas, who then took it back for the site of the Legislature without obtaining a surrender of the reserve. The First Nations are now awaiting ratification by the Government of Canada so the agreement can come into effect. Once ratified, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations will equally share a financial settlement of $31.5 million and can purchase land out of the settlement funds.

In May 2006, Songhees First Nation received a $341,800 major capital grant from the provincial government to create 33 new quality child care spaces for Aboriginal families. The funding was also used for the construction of an addition to an existing child care centre.

In November 2005, Songhees First Nation and the Government of Canada signed a Settlement Agreement respecting a specific claim of 1.13 acres of land. The agreement includes the land and $1,240,000 in compensation.

Reference: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/temexw/default.html

"Take only what you need"? Looks to me like " he and they" have already taken more than needed!

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:Here you go! Here is a "short" history concerning FA's band! I all ready had it typed and ready to post on another thread, but he doesn't seem to want respond there anymore?

The Songhees or Songish, also known as the Lekwungen or Lekungen, are an indigenous North American Coast Salish people who reside on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia in the Greater Victoria area. There is evidence of a fortified village existing at Finlayson Point in Beacon Hill Park prior to the arrival of Europeans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The Songhees' traditional foods included salmon, shellfish, whale, deer, duck, berries, camas root and herbs. The Coast Salish traditionally lived in bighouses.

Now known as: Songhees First Nation
Location: On Esquimalt Harbour, in Victoria. Main community is on New Songhees Indian Reserve #1A. (Three reserves on 137.8 hectares.)

Number of Band Members: 473 (Source: Registered Indian Population by *** and Residence May 2007, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)

Songhees First Nation, a member of The Te'mexw Treaty Association (TTA), entered the treaty process in July 1995, and is in Stage 4 of the six-stage process, negotiating an agreement in principle.

TTA members are a party to the Douglas Treaties, a series of 14 land purchases from aboriginal people around Victoria, Saanich, Sooke, Nanaimo and Port Hardy, made between 1850 and 1854, by James Douglas, chief factor of Fort Victoria and governor of the colony of Vancouver Island. While the Douglas Treaties addressed land and harvesting rights, the modern comprehensive treaty currently being negotiated between Canada, BC and TTA, deals with a wide range of issues that include governance, land, resources and fiscal matters. TTA negotiations are making steady progress and have successfully resolved a number of difficult issues.

In March 2007, The Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations memberships ratified by a large margin a settlement that resolves a reserve-based specific claim on the site of the British Columbia Legislature in Victoria. The settlement, which was initialed by Canada, BC and the First Nations in November 2006, relates to a lawsuit filed in 2001 which alleged that Canada and British Columbia breached certain duties owed to the First Nations. The claim alleged that the land was originally set aside as an Indian reserve in 1854 by Governor James Douglas, who then took it back for the site of the Legislature without obtaining a surrender of the reserve. The First Nations are now awaiting ratification by the Government of Canada so the agreement can come into effect. Once ratified, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations will equally share a financial settlement of $31.5 million and can purchase land out of the settlement funds.

In May 2006, Songhees First Nation received a $341,800 major capital grant from the provincial government to create 33 new quality child care spaces for Aboriginal families. The funding was also used for the construction of an addition to an existing child care centre.

In November 2005, Songhees First Nation and the Government of Canada signed a Settlement Agreement respecting a specific claim of 1.13 acres of land. The agreement includes the land and $1,240,000 in compensation.

Reference: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/temexw/default.html

"Take only what you need"? Looks to me like " he and they" have already taken more than needed!

Each one of these settlements was a long drawn out process through the courts. Each Band memeber to date has recieved a payment of $2000.00 broken down into 2 $1000.00 payments. That is the extent of what we have been granted. Hardly fits what I would call a handout, but more of a portion of what we are entilted to by your laws. I'm sure you are learing a little bit (if you are reading what you are copy and pasteing into your posts), but if you want me to fill you in on the rest, let me know.

Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin


quote:Here you go! Here is a "short" history concerning FA's band! I all ready had it typed and ready to post on another thread, but he doesn't seem to want respond there anymore?

The Songhees or Songish, also known as the Lekwungen or Lekungen, are an indigenous North American Coast Salish people who reside on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia in the Greater Victoria area. There is evidence of a fortified village existing at Finlayson Point in Beacon Hill Park prior to the arrival of Europeans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The Songhees' traditional foods included salmon, shellfish, whale, deer, duck, berries, camas root and herbs. The Coast Salish traditionally lived in bighouses.

Now known as: Songhees First Nation
Location: On Esquimalt Harbour, in Victoria. Main community is on New Songhees Indian Reserve #1A. (Three reserves on 137.8 hectares.)

Number of Band Members: 473 (Source: Registered Indian Population by *** and Residence May 2007, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)

Songhees First Nation, a member of The Te'mexw Treaty Association (TTA), entered the treaty process in July 1995, and is in Stage 4 of the six-stage process, negotiating an agreement in principle.

TTA members are a party to the Douglas Treaties, a series of 14 land purchases from aboriginal people around Victoria, Saanich, Sooke, Nanaimo and Port Hardy, made between 1850 and 1854, by James Douglas, chief factor of Fort Victoria and governor of the colony of Vancouver Island. While the Douglas Treaties addressed land and harvesting rights, the modern comprehensive treaty currently being negotiated between Canada, BC and TTA, deals with a wide range of issues that include governance, land, resources and fiscal matters. TTA negotiations are making steady progress and have successfully resolved a number of difficult issues.

In March 2007, The Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations memberships ratified by a large margin a settlement that resolves a reserve-based specific claim on the site of the British Columbia Legislature in Victoria. The settlement, which was initialed by Canada, BC and the First Nations in November 2006, relates to a lawsuit filed in 2001 which alleged that Canada and British Columbia breached certain duties owed to the First Nations. The claim alleged that the land was originally set aside as an Indian reserve in 1854 by Governor James Douglas, who then took it back for the site of the Legislature without obtaining a surrender of the reserve. The First Nations are now awaiting ratification by the Government of Canada so the agreement can come into effect. Once ratified, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations will equally share a financial settlement of $31.5 million and can purchase land out of the settlement funds.

In May 2006, Songhees First Nation received a $341,800 major capital grant from the provincial government to create 33 new quality child care spaces for Aboriginal families. The funding was also used for the construction of an addition to an existing child care centre.

In November 2005, Songhees First Nation and the Government of Canada signed a Settlement Agreement respecting a specific claim of 1.13 acres of land. The agreement includes the land and $1,240,000 in compensation.

Reference: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/temexw/default.html

"Take only what you need"? Looks to me like " he and they" have already taken more than needed!

Each one of these settlements was a long drawn out process through the courts. Each Band memeber to date has recieved a payment of $2000.00 broken down into 2 $1000.00 payments. That is the extent of what we have been granted. Hardly fits what I would call a handout, but more of a portion of what we are entilted to by your laws. I'm sure you are learing a little bit (if you are reading what you are copy and pasteing into your posts), but if you want me to fill you in on the rest, let me know.

Take only what you need.

BY ALL MEANS... PLEASE FILL ME IN! I WOULD REALLY LOVE THAT!

OOPS, MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE SAID, "BY ALL MEANS... PLEASE FILL ME IN!

[High Five]

I hate to get involved here looks like a bloodbath argument. I personally don't think either the aborginal, commercial or recreational fisheries should harvest any Sockeye until we found out why return is so low.

We need to look at what is happening now. If the native band needs food than that is understandable, but they should hravest another abundant species. And you know what the hell is wrong with Pink or Chum salmon? I personally will eat all samlmon., and you know suprisingly I find Chum the best smoking fish. Why won't you harvest? Because spring/coho and sockeye have a higher re-sale value? That is only my opinion take or leave it.

Also if members are selling (and I know some do) or trade fish then the band should be personally liable. I.E. swift fine, and loss of priveledge. That is only fair. Even as a rec. sportsfisher I do pay in to the sytem every year through taxes/lisences, so I should also have a say as well. DFO seems to just give in becuse that don't wnat to sep on anyone's toes.

I personally leave in an area with the Cowichan band, and I really respect that thay arae involved heavily in the community. But you know what is happening this second? The river up here is so low right now you could walk over it, and you would be lucky if it touched your calves.

At the lower estuary the 400-600 endangered chinook that will pass by( if we are lucky) will be picked off slowly by spearfishing until the rain season starts. It happens every year, and no one will stop it!! FA not singling you out on this one. Don't even get me started about the illegal nets I trip on all over the river each year. Doesn't matter if everyone on all sides keeps getting gready we will have no fish left for anyone.

Probably offended a few, but that is my view.

Smiley66

[spring time]

right on smiley 66 could haven't said it better my self

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:Also if members are selling (and I know some do) or trade fish then the band should be personally liable. I.E. swift fine, and loss of priveledge. That is only fair. Even as a rec. sportsfisher I do pay in to the sytem every year through taxes/lisences, so I should also have a say as well. DFO seems to just give in becuse that don't wnat to sep on anyone's toes.

Well what if the band has a treaty right to sell fish? DFO does not want that fight in the courts. It isn't one they would win.

Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[hotrod]

What about Indians who are not Canadians? If you all are into upholding the defacto Douglas treaties then you better take a look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which incidentally is upheld in the 1982 Constitution section 25(a). You see there are agreements in place already! Not all Nisga Indians signed the treaty! Those who truly own the land will have the final authority. Can anyone here produce a deed to the land that shows the bankrupt state of Canada bought it? Just a few things to make you guys think!

[SnapperAttacker]

Something to be brought to light to FA and to the FN people. A note about Sockeye genetics, once the sockeye are depleted from the rivers or extinct it is near impossible to bring them back. Sakinaw lake used to have a healthy run of sockeye, then it crashed, years attempting to transplant different genes of sockeye from elsewhere failed, or have shown little success. So, unless the FN people go back to spearing and gaffing practices to catch Sockeye for personnal use, and not wipe them out in nets (especially once they make it to thier native river), then we could see the collapse of some runs along the fraser, ie: cultus lake, good luck trying to bring that run back with the nets and greed of the sto lo. Anyway, there is a attitude if I cant catch one then neither should you. Seems fair doesnt it. Maybe Jimmy Pattison can sell some commercial licenses to the FN, Id rather see them caught in the ocean than in the rivers.

[High Five]

quote:Well what if the band has a treaty right to sell fish? DFO does not want that fight in the courts. It isn't one they would win.


FA

I never even said you couldn't, and do not get me wrong I do have respect for FN. Again there is the attitude again "me first". Answer me a question since this is a debate.

Do you belive right now this second natives should fish for sockeye or other endangered fish to sell/harvest whatever even though you know run is in jeopardy from possible collapse? Also even though you know that the many recreational/commercial guys you are friends with can't, and are very concerned with teh stock levels?

Just answer that question I am curious.

Smiley66

[The Fish Assassin]

Hell no, No one should be allowed to fish endanged species. I don't get any fraser fish for my FSC this year, (I had to turn to other more abundent species) so as long as there is no sport or commercial fishing opportunites I personally do not think anyone should touch them. If however DFO opens it to sport fishing then they waive the conservation concern.

The bands need to be a little more proactive in there approach to rule breaking natives. Why not ban them from the river if they fish contrary to band rules. There definatly are bad apples in the Native community, who will fish reguardless. I know of a few in various reserves that abuse their right to harvest. But I also know some white people who go out flossing every chance they get. So I would say that is one thing that we do have in common is that the abuse of the resource continues no matter how decimated the run is.

As for charlie and him wanting to know what the First Nations in Canada have done for conservation, well perhaps a history lesson is due..

First Nations are responsible for the conservation, protection and rehabilitation of eco-systems, fish stocks and habitat. Our responsibility to care for the earth comes from the Creator. We have spiritual, cultural and historic ties to all fisheries resources, especially salmon.

Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by hotrod

What about Indians who are not Canadians? If you all are into upholding the defacto Douglas treaties then you better take a look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which incidentally is upheld in the 1982 Constitution section 25(a). You see there are agreements in place already!
From my understanding what you just said is correct except the following?


quote:Not all Nisga Indians signed the treaty! Those who truly own the land will have the final authority. Can anyone here produce a deed to the land that shows the bankrupt state of Canada bought it? Just a few things to make you guys think!

I am not sure that is quite correct? If I am not mistaken the last step needed to give legal effect to the Treaty took place on April 13, 2000, when Parliament passed the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, which was ratified by all the tribes, or am I missing something? http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/nit-eng.asp

FYI, this is "part" of the agreement there is more, but as you were speaking of salmon? The current treaty pretty much spell the fish entitlements out. You should take the time to read it? The whole treaty is here: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/nisgaa/chapters/fisheries.html

GENERAL
Nisga'a Fish Entitlements
1. Nisga'a citizens have the right to harvest fish and aquatic plants in accordance with this Agreement, subject to:
a. measures that are necessary for conservation; and
b. legislation enacted for the purposes of public health or public safety.
2. Notwithstanding that Nisga'a fish entitlements are treaty rights, a Nisga'a fish allocation that is set out as a percentage of the total allowable catch has the same priority in fisheries management decisions as the remainder of the total allowable catch of that species harvested in recreational and commercial fisheries.
3. This Agreement is not intended to alter federal and provincial laws of general application in respect of property in fish or aquatic plants.
4. Nisga'a fish entitlements are held by the Nisga'a Nation.
5. The Nisga'a Nation may not dispose of Nisga'a fish entitlements.
6. Nisga'a Lisims Government may authorize persons other than Nisga'a citizens to harvest fish or aquatic plants in Nisga'a fisheries, in accordance with this Agreement, the Harvest Agreement and Nisga'a annual fishing plans. This authority is not intended to alter the application of federal and provincial laws of general application in respect of foreign fishing vessels in Canadian waters.
Licences, Fees, Charges, and Royalties
7. Canada and British Columbia will not require the Nisga'a Nation, Nisga'a Villages, Nisga'a Institutions, Nisga'a Corporations, Nisga'a citizens, or other persons authorized by Nisga'a Lisims Government to harvest fish or aquatic plants under this Agreement:
a. to have federal or provincial licences; or
b. to pay fees, charges, or royalties
in respect of the harvest for domestic purposes of fish or aquatic plants under this Agreement. This paragraph does not restrict Canada's ability to require licences for the use and possession of firearms under federal laws on the same basis as applies to other aboriginal people of Canada.
8. Persons who sell fish harvested under this Agreement are subject to fees and charges applied to commercial harvesters in respect of the sale of fish or aquatic plants except to the extent that Nisga'a Lisims Government, a Nisga'a Institution, or a Nisga'a Corporation funds or performs the activities for which those fees and charges are levied.
Trade and Barter
9. Subject to Nisga'a laws, Nisga'a citizens have the right to trade or barter among themselves or with other aboriginal people any fish and aquatic plants harvested in Nisga'a fisheries.
Harvesting Under Other Laws and Agreements
10. This Agreement does not preclude Nisga'a Institutions, Nisga'a Corporations, or Nisga'a citizens from harvesting fish and aquatic plants throughout Canada in accordance with:
a. federal and provincial laws;
b. any agreements that are in accordance with laws of general application between the Nisga'a Nation, a Nisga'a Village, a Nisga'a Institution, or a Nisga'a Corporation, on the one hand, and other aboriginal people on the other; or
c. any arrangements between other aboriginal people and Canada or British Columbia.
SALMON
Nisga'a Salmon Allocations
11. In every year in which it is necessary for conservation, the Minister will determine a minimum escapement level for one or more species of Nass salmon.
12. The Minister will not permit any directed harvests of a species of Nass salmon in any year if:
a. there is a minimum escapement level for that species of Nass salmon; and
b. the number of that species of Nass salmon returning to Canadian waters, less incidental harvests, is less than or equal to the minimum escapement level for that species.
13. In any year:
a. if the Minister has not determined a minimum escapement level for a species of Nass salmon; or
b. if the number of a species of Nass salmon returning to Canadian waters, less incidental harvests, is greater than the minimum escapement level determined by the Minister for that species
the amount of that species that the Nisga'a Nation is entitled to harvest will be determined in accordance with Schedule A and paragraph 16.
14. The amount of each species of Nass salmon in the Nisga'a fish allocations set out in Schedule A varies with the size of the total run of that species returning to Canadian waters in each year, as set out in Schedule A.
Overages and Underages
15. Following the fishing season in each year, the Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government will conduct an accounting of that year's harvest of Nass salmon, in accordance with Schedule B.
16. If there is an overage or underage of a species of Nass salmon in any year, the amount of that species of Nass salmon to be harvested in Nisga'a fisheries will be adjusted in subsequent years, in accordance with Schedule B.
17. In every year the Minister will manage all Canadian fisheries that harvest Nass salmon in order to minimize overharvests of each species of Nass salmon.
18. The Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government will endeavour to minimize any overages or underages in each year and to minimize the accumulation of overages and underages in successive years.
Adjustment of Species Composition
19. In any year the Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government may agree to adjust the species composition of the Nisga'a harvest for that year in accordance with the system of equivalencies set out in Schedule C.
20. If a proposed Nisga'a annual fishing plan includes an adjustment under paragraph 19 that will affect a species or fishery under the management authority of the other Party, the Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government will consult with the other Party's representatives on the Joint Fisheries Management Committee, and will notify those representatives of any in-season adjustments.
Harvest Agreement
21. On the effective date, the Parties will enter into a Harvest Agreement pursuant to paragraph 22. The Harvest Agreement does not form part of this Agreement.
22. The Harvest Agreement will:
a. include Nisga'a fish allocations equivalent to:
i. 13% of each year's adjusted total allowable catch for Nass sockeye salmon, and
ii. 15% of each year's adjusted total allowable catch for Nass pink salmon;
b. be for a term of 25 years and be replaceable at the discretion of the Nisga'a Nation every 15 years for a further 25 years;
c. include provisions for the harvest and disposition of fish, determination of overages and underages, harvest monitoring, and fisheries management that are consistent with the similar provisions set out in this Agreement; and
d. include a dispute resolution process and a requirement for fair compensation if the Harvest Agreement is breached by terminating or reducing the Nisga'a fish allocations pursuant to subparagraph (a).
23. The Harvest Agreement will be established under federal and provincial settlement legislation.
24. The Harvest Agreement is not intended to be a treaty or land claims agreement, and it is not intended to recognize or affirm aboriginal or treaty rights, within the meaning of sections 25 or 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
25. The Minister will implement the Harvest Agreement by:
a. issuing licences to Nisga'a Lisims Government; or
b. other means under federal or provincial laws.
26. Fisheries under the Harvest Agreement have the same priority as commercial and recreational fisheries in fisheries management decisions made by the Minister.
27. Fish harvested under the Harvest Agreement may be sold in accordance with the Harvest Agreement.
Harvest of Surplus Nass Salmon
28. In any year, the Minister may determine whether there is a surplus of a species of Nass salmon, and the size of that surplus.
29. The Joint Fisheries Management Committee may:
a. recommend to the Minister procedures for the identification of a surplus and terms and conditions for the harvest of the surplus; and
b. provide advice to the Minister in respect of the size of the surplus.
30. The Minister may permit Nisga'a Lisims Government to harvest some or all of the surplus Nass salmon on reaching agreement with Nisga'a Lisims Government in respect of:
a. the terms and conditions of the harvest; and
b. whether all or part of the harvest will be included in the determination of overages and underages.
Disposition of Salmon Harvests
31. Subject to paragraph 33, the Nisga'a Nation, and its agents, contractors, and licensees authorized by Nisga'a Lisims Government, have the right to sell Nass salmon harvested under this Agreement.
32. For greater certainty, in accordance with paragraph 13 of the General Provisions Chapter, federal and provincial laws of general application pertaining to the sale of fish, in respect of commercial transactions, health and safety, transport, inspection, processing, packaging, storage, export, quality control, and labelling of fish, apply to the sale of all Nass salmon harvested in Nisga'a fisheries.
33. If, in any year, there are no directed harvests in Canadian commercial or recreational fisheries of a species of Nass salmon, sale of that species of Nass salmon harvested in directed harvests of that species in that year's Nisga'a fisheries will not be permitted.
ENHANCEMENT
34. Nisga'a Lisims Government may conduct enhancement initiatives for Nass salmon or Nass steelhead only with the approval of the Minister. This approval will include provisions in respect of the determination of surpluses resulting from an approved enhancement initiative. The Joint Fisheries Management Committee may make recommendations in respect of those initiatives and provisions.
35. In any year, the portion of the return to Canadian waters of chinook, coho, or chum salmon that can be identified as resulting from approved Nisga'a enhancement initiatives in the Nass Area will be excluded from the determination of the Nisga'a fish allocations under paragraph 13 for that year. The Nisga'a fish allocations of these fish are 21% of the chinook, 8% of the coho and 8% of the chum salmon, subject to measures that are necessary for conservation for non-enhanced Nass salmon and non-enhanced Nass steelhead stocks.
36. The Nisga'a Nation has the right to harvest surplus Nass salmon that result from an approved Nisga'a enhancement initiative, in the same proportion as the Nisga'a contribution to the total cost of the initiative. These harvests are not subject to paragraph 16 and are in addition to the Nisga'a fish allocations under paragraph 13 and 35 and the Harvest Agreement.
37. Notwithstanding paragraphs 13, 16, 35, and 36, the Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government may negotiate agreements in respect of the Nisga'a harvests of Nass salmon or Nass steelhead that result from Nisga'a enhancement initiatives.

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by smiley66


quote:Well what if the band has a treaty right to sell fish? DFO does not want that fight in the courts. It isn't one they would win.


FA

I never even said you couldn't, and do not get me wrong I do have respect for FN. Again there is the attitude again "me first". Answer me a question since this is a debate.

Do you belive right now this second natives should fish for sockeye or other endangered fish to sell/harvest whatever even though you know run is in jeopardy from possible collapse? Also even though you know that the many recreational/commercial guys you are friends with can't, and are very concerned with teh stock levels?

Just answer that question I am curious.

Smiley66
Smiley, I REALLY DON'T THINK FA CAN, I don't think he has permission from his tribe and it isn't in "HIS" treaty rights, but rather his tribes! His tribe has the jurisdiction, thank goodness! I am quite sure if he could, he would, "Take it ALL"! I love it! [:0]

Concerning FA's comment on TFN... HERE IS THE "TFN" "VISION"! Right from words of babes!

A parallel First Nation Panel on Fisheries was commissioned to ensure that a First Nations perspective was advanced on
how to manage and allocate the Pacific fishery. The First Nation Panel on Fisheries proposed a vision, goals and principles
for future management and allocation approaches through the lens of recognizing and respecting Aboriginal rights and title
and treaty rights. Its recommendations included:
• immediate steps to ensure adequate First Nation access to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes,
• [u]immediate transfer of a minimum of 50% of all fisheries to First Nations,</u>
• steps by First Nations to resolve intertribal allocations which would encourage them to work together on management
of migratory stocks,
• recognition of First Nations management rights and flexible management systems that accommodate the interests of
First Nations, and
• a moratorium on further individual quota regimes until First Nation allocations are resolved.

[cliffjumper]

I'm waiting for the Chinese to say the "first nations" are actually their genetic offspring, thus they have first claim on Canada... Middle USA is to be split between the Latins & the Chinese.

I've witnessed too much of this "we're custodians of the land and life on it and know best"... and the devastating effects of such arrogance... sort of like the enviros living in their dt Vanc condo taking a brisk walk in the "fresh air" of Stanley Park, shopping at the corner Mac's, telling the family in Blitswhack BC the gasoline surtax & homeheating fuel surtax and hydro surtaxes are neccessary to help us learn to alter our consumption habits, with a zero concept of how or where food comes from. Like all good city kids, they know it grows in cellophane pre-paks, IQF... See... there's the plastic greenhouse, no bugs, pestilence or people...

It's the simplest thing to get city-folks to buy whatever crap determined storytellers want them to believe... (PETA & DIA... two simple, crystal-clear examples) Just talk to a reporter on a slow day... tehy're about as gullible as it gets, and twice as greedy for the notoriety... And, there's got to be, what?, a few thousand lawyers, each hungering for the commissions and reputation from a good, rousing lawsuit?

"Subsistence" fishing & hunting??? "Ceremonial" fishing & hunting??? Yeah, right, twin 250 envinrudes?.. jetboats?.. a scoped .308?.. Invisible mono finemesh nets?.. Back to our roots!

Buy a calf, grow a cow. Dig a pond, grow some fish. Dig some dirt, grow a garden. Not!!! It's demeaning and a lot of work. Better to have DIA build your house, give you new outboards, pass-on the new pick-ups, and build your new bingo palace... After all, the whities are so damned gullible and ridden with guilt for having made something through their efforts... Although that's not the stylin' thing to do these days.

According to a land-claims lawyer involved in the process 127% of BC's landmass is subject to native land-claims.

Indigenous peoples are unique nations unto themselves... But, they also came from someplace else... Hmmm!

The ridiculous, wasteful example of fisheries-management is but a mere tip of the iceberg of fallacies. Look long, hard & honestly in the mirror before you even begin to think I'm about to be called a racsist.

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:"Subsistence" fishing & hunting??? "Ceremonial" fishing & hunting??? Yeah, right, twin 250 envinrudes?.. jetboats?.. a scoped .308?.. Invisible mono finemesh nets?.. Back to our roots!

This has been brought up in the Supreme court many times and the general rule is that First Nations are allowed to use modern equipment to practise thier rights. Got a problem with it? Take it up with the highest court in the land.

Charlie says..


quote:Smiley, I REALLY DON'T THINK FA CAN, I don't think he has permission from his tribe

Well then maybe it might surprise you to find out that I can indeed make a moderate livlihood off fishing and hunting, I would be fully supported by my band if I so desired to do so. My band's theory on it is this, we have an undisputed treaty right to hunt and fish as before settlement. (which includes a commercial fishery) If we do not practise these rights we will loose them. We are trying to negoitate a New Treaty (for what I do not know, as we will undoubtably have to give up something in return) I would be quite happy to remain under the Douglas Treaty which gives me excluseive rights. The fact the the treaty has been broken should be enough to break the contract entirely, in which case all the land Victoria is built on should be rightfully returned to its owner. If this was a contract between two white people you would be dambed sure that it would be null and void with either a huge amount of restitution or the return of property. But for some reason when it is "indians" that get the short end of the stick every just ignores the fact. The government hasn't dealt with the Douglas Treaty issue and they do not want to, it is in their intrest to ignore the exclusive rights and negotiate a new treaty.

Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[hotrod]

Respectively! Like the debate going on here! May I suggest we keep it respectful! Some great points from both side! What is the bottom line that everyone is missiing?[8D]

Not all nisga have a treaty! and I still stand by my quotes charlie!


Hotrod

all rights reserved with prejudice

[The Fish Assassin]

Not sure what your trying to point out to me Charlie? Did YOU read all that stuff? See my father was the Senior DFO liason to the First Nations for over 20 years. He was there at the infant stages of AFS and helped to set it up and implement it. Near the end he was working out of Ottawa as a policy advisor to the deputy minister. I followed everything he did closely. One of the highlights for him was being called up by DFO to be a negotiater at Burnt Church. That was a very difficult situation, with attrocities commited. (Boy could I tell you some stories). My father set up the very first seine boat fishery for FSC fish as well. We fished off of Port Renfrew about 20 years ago and landed a haul of Sockeye for Vancouver Island First Nations. Every year since (except for the last 3) VIFN has been harvesting FSC with seine boats. He had to argue with DFO about it, but in the end he persuaded the powers that be. He worked for DFO , but he took it upon himself to change the way DFO handled First Nations and to point out where infringement of rights may occur. Like I have said before If you post anything that isn't "OLD NEWS" to me I'll be happy to read it, but if the only information you have is what is contained in the links you provided then perhaps you should look beyond that and truly educate yourself.

Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[SerengetiGuide]

Natives deserve more than everyone else apparently...according to FA and his numerous other posts on here. The thing that ticks me off is they are allowed to use modern technology for their "traditional" fishing and hunting rights...what a joke! The way the Natives used to live hundreds of years ago I have complete respect for...it is amazing to think about actually...but now...now it is shameful how they have lost those roots to which they were once so closely tied yet still expect to have all these special rights.

If they were to use spears they carved themselves from trees they found in the woods, I would have absolutely no problem with them getting these extra privileges...but instead they have been tarnished by the face of greed and money...trying to, what in my opinion is worse than poaching, accumulate as many fish as possibly to get the biggest buck they can. Very dissapointing...[B)]



www.serengetifishingcharters.com

http://www.youtube.com/user/canucksfanatic44

[SerengetiGuide]

I'm curious as to why FA thinks he deserves more than everyone else...

www.serengetifishingcharters.com

http://www.youtube.com/user/canucksfanatic44

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by hotrod

Respectively! Like the debate going on here! May I suggest we keep it respectful! Some great points from both side! What is the bottom line that everyone is missiing?[8D]

Not all nisga have a treaty! and I still stand by my quotes charlie!


Hotrod

all rights reserved with prejudice



I believe they have! All four signed the treaty did they not? And believe they signed the "treaty" as outlined... Is that not true"?

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:If they were to use spears they carved themselves from trees they found in the woods

I would but you guys cut down all the trees.


quote:The thing that ticks me off is they are allowed to use modern technology for their "traditional" fishing and hunting rights...what a joke!

As soon as the fish that have been over harvested and mis-managed by the Candian Government are put back , we'd be happy to use tradtional methods.


quote:The way the Natives used to live hundreds of years ago I have complete respect for

That's fine, then leave so we can..


quote:now it is shameful how they have lost those roots to which they were once so closely tied yet still expect to have all these special rights

You better believe it is!!!! Do you know that just a few years ago we gained the "right" to hold potlaches again. They were banned by your government to try to suppress our way of life. Not to mention The Canadian Government Kidnapped our children and took them to camps to try to assimulate them to "the Canadain way of life" Shameful indeed!!!


quote:I'm curious as to why FA thinks he deserves more than everyone else...

So what you want to take that from us too? Your people have already taken everything else from us, and our territories, all we have left is a right to go out and feed ourselves. Which is getting harder and harder to do all the time. It isn't a matter of me thinking I deserve more than anyone else, but rather I think of it as a right I have, that If I don't use will not be there for my children to use.

Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[SerengetiGuide]

I think the line "I would but you guys cut down all the trees." really shows the lack of basis for your arguments FA...yes...there are absolutely no trees you can find to carve a spear...none...we live in a desert...get a grip. And yes I'm aware you may of been slightly facetious. However, it is not that there are no trees for you to use, it is that greed and the oppurtunity to get what you want with less effort instead of getting it with what is right and traditional has taken over.

See..you blame everything on everyone else...it is never your own fault...the conditions that reserves are in (fridges, washing machines, garbage everywhere on front lawns)...not your fault...it's white man and the governments. It's sickening to see how often the race card is pulled these days, 80% of the time it doesn't need to be pulled...also sickening to see how PC everyone "must" be in these times. Having gone to school where I was almost the minority, but not quite...probably 60/40, I've seen that the racism goes both ways...towards the majority just as much (as well as initialized), if not more. But that is just defending yourself right FA? Not your fault...;)[:p] Sad thing is I know many ppl think the same and witness the same...but they can't say it...because they are white...and society can't allow that. There is my rant...done with the topic.

www.serengetifishingcharters.com

http://www.youtube.com/user/canucksfanatic44

[wolf]

Its now 2009 not 1800,s time for us all to change with the times plain and simple WE are all canadiens.

You fa have got to change as well you scream rights ,rights,rights all the time what about our right as a canadien???ever thought of it that way???
If you want to go and hunt and fish for yourself I have no problem but when and not saying you some fn people on the side of the road selling sockeye for 10 bucks a fish and then saying its my "food fish" thats where the problem lies sicking accually all it is, is GREED.

Wolf

[hotrod]

No! Not all of them signed a treaty! In fact most of the Nisgas who signed that treaty have died and the people who are stuck in that agreement regret ever having being put in that situation.So I guess after 100 years of this agreement the people there can start saying " that agreement is old and we don't have to abide by it"

Hotrod


all rights reserved with prejudice

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by hotrod

No! Not all of them signed a treaty! In fact most of the Nisgas who signed that treaty have died and the people who are stuck in that agreement regret ever having being put in that situation.So I guess after 100 years of this agreement the people there can start saying " that agreement is old and we don't have to abide by it"

Hotrod


all rights reserved with prejudice



?? The Nisgas and all four of their clan signed and ratified a new treaty that just took effect on April 13, 2000; Nisgas Final Agreement Act? I believe they were the first to complete the 6 step treaty process? What am I missing? http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/nit-eng.asp

[profisher]

Don't blame the FN individual for selling fish..blame the government. As human beings we all have the same faults..greed is only one of them...give anyone immunity from prosecution for illegal activity and they might take advantage of it...there are many whites who would do the same. Make the laws clear..then enforce them on everyone. If the laws are sound, most will respect them. Those who don't go to jail.

[The Fish Assassin]

I mostly agree with you guys the the side of the road sales have to go. That's why FN's should just be given a part of the commercial TAC, that way they don't offend anyone when they sell fish, that way it can be quality assured, and they could get top dollar for their fish.. $30 each just like Safeway.

I happen to know a few poeple who do sell their share of food fish when it comes to them. It certainly isn't a perfect system, but if you were to get say 20 fish and you dont eat fish, what are you going to do with them, when someone is willling to pay you $200 for them? Let them go bad in your freezer? Most of these people are living well below the poverty line, so $200 might buy some extra food for the house, or pay 1 bill, hardly greed, but more out of need.

Personally I think there nuts for doing it, I would rather have my 20 sockeye than $200 anyday.

Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin

I mostly agree with you guys the the side of the road sales have to go. That's why FN's should just be given a part of the commercial TAC, that way they don't offend anyone when they sell fish, that way it can be quality assured, and they could get top dollar for their fish.. $30 each just like Safeway.


The government has already bought up close to 1/2 the commercial fleet to use to settle land claims. There were close to 400 south coast seine licences when area selection was done and i believe they are down to around 160. This fish still needs to be accounted for. We need proper monitoring and proper accounting. If you want the best value for the fish then shut down the rivers and catch the fish before it hits fresh water. also we need to have a point in each river where no one fishes above it so we can get a true number as to how much fish is making it to the spawning grounds.

It's not rocket science it's DFO getting off their ass and doing their job.

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:The government has already bought up close to 1/2 the commercial fleet to use to settle land claims.

With who? Jimmy Patterson?

Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin


quote:The government has already bought up close to 1/2 the commercial fleet to use to settle land claims.

With who? Jimmy Patterson?



not sure what you mean. Yes they bought some of Jimmy's and other private licenses.

[profisher]

I see there is a 4 day opening on the Fraser for pinks...wonder how many wild Thompson Coho are mixed in?

[Governor]

The tragic part is when Dino suggests that nets used now are selective, so the drift net openings on the Fraser can be justified as they have little to no effect on non-target species. [V]

Yup, Profisher you're absolutely correct, those COSEWIC-listed wild Interior Fraser Coho and the Thompson Steelies too run the gamet in the Corridor of Death before they arrive home. Who knows how many don't make it? [xx(]

At a Sockeye meeting earlier this summer, when Sockeye were closed to all, Dino revealed that from spot checks/surveys they had conducted the previous week in three different places on the lower Fraser the bycatch in the FN nets averaged out at one to one. So with large mesh drift nets to 'selectively' avoid the very few migating Sockeye, an embarassing detail slipped out. It was on average one non-targeted sockeye to one targeted chinook. :(
(I know that wasn't a large survey sample but that was what they reported)



God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton

[Governor]

The tragic part is when Dino suggests that nets used now are selective, so the drift net openings on the Fraser can be justified as they have little to no effect on non-target species. [V]

Yup, Profisher you're absolutely correct, those COSEWIC-listed wild Interior Fraser Coho and the Thompson Steelies too run the gamet in the Corridor of Death before they arrive home. Who knows how many don't make it? [xx(]

At a Sockeye meeting earlier this summer, when Sockeye were closed to all, Dino revealed that from spot checks/surveys they had conducted the previous week in three different places on the lower Fraser the bycatch in the FN nets averaged out at one to one. So with large mesh drift nets to 'selectively' avoid the very few migating Sockeye, an embarassing detail slipped out. It was on average one non-targeted sockeye to one targeted chinook. :(
(I know that wasn't a large survey sample but that was what they reported)



God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton

[profisher]

Yet another FN 3 day opening on the Fraser as I speak...target is pinks. I guess all the Thompson River Coho are holding at the mouth waiting for them to finish topping up on pinks.

[profisher]

And yet another 3 day opening beginning today...6 days in a row!

[fish4all]

The attached was sent to the Province paper following a couple of articles regarding Fraser Sockeye by columnist Brian Lewis. (I have made a couple of small additions so I have resent to the Province). This isn’t a shot at the local Natives. Given the ability to intimidate, harass and exploit the Federal and Provincial Governments, I won’t speculate on who amongst us wouldn't make the most of the situation. From start to finish the bad guys in this crisis are DFO and the people you all vote for.

The fact that we have a biased media is no surprise to anyone. Clearly this bias affects public opinion and makes it easier for DFO to cover-up and abandon their obligation to protect the fish. Again, not a surprise to anyone. What we can’t forget is how the whole corrupt process affects the fish. This is one of the ingredients in the process that has seen a tragic depletion of the fish runs. When we all stand by and watch it happen we are another ingredient.

If you think we get a fair shake from the press, do nothing. If you agree or disagree with our position please tell the Province at:: wmoriarty@png.canwest.com


________________________________________
September 8, 2009
Brian Lewis
Vancouver Province

By email: blewis@theprovince.com

Brian,

What you chose to not write in your articles tells more of a story than what you do write. Trying to tell the story of the lack of fish without telling the whole story goes a long way down the road of being intentionally misleading.

You don't seem to have any problems quoting Ernie Crey's conclusion that the fish runs are diminishing because of the impact of ocean fisheries but you refuse to point out that there have been no commercial fisheries (ocean) on this cycle since 1997. You're quick to quote Alex Rose that we are all to blame "we've done this collectively" but you won’t point out that the only people to kill sockeye on this run since 1997 are Natives (82% of catch), DFO in test fisheries, and recreational fisheries. No problem publishing Rose's statement that "this is all about greed because fish equals money" (conjuring up visions of a bunch of money hungry commercial fishermen hell-bent on killing the last Fraser River Sockeye for a few bucks). But you won’t write that the only money that has been made from this run in the last 12 years is from the sale of Native foodfish.

You’ll identify the white race as the culprit ("when will the white man learn") but you wouldn’t dare infer that Natives as a RACE share the blame. You’ll write that "Crey and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs are calling for a total ban on all Salmon fishing on the Fraser" but you won’t write that on the same day Native leaders were demanding another opening for the coming weekend. (DFO managers confirmed they would like to have all those fish on the spawning grounds). You’ll quote Ernie when he says "the First Nations fishery has had just one two day opening" but you won’t write about Lorrie Muench’s emails to you pointing out that there has been a targeted sockeye fishery going on all summer "Probably the biggest error you made was not looking into the Native chinook fishery and its impact on the sockeye. A Native friend of mine caught and kept over thirty sockeye last weekend (August 8) as bycatch in the targeted chinook fishery" and "That Native friend of mine caught seven chinook and a bycatch of sixty sockeye last weekend (August 15 - 16) in a targeted chinook fishery".

You’ll write that Rose recommends a "full inquiry – one armed with supeona powers" but you won’t write that our Fraser River fishing association has been demanding a judicial inquiry for 15 years (see one of our many letters below). You’ll write that Ernie is calling for a summit but you won’t point out that Chief Doug Kelly lobbied the government to kill our requests for a judicial inquiry.

This whole process goes completely off the tracks when you publish misinformation. In your article Ernie says, "The aboriginal total catch has been about 18,000 fish, compared to a normal year of 400,000 to 500,000". Here is the average Native catch by decade since the 40’s.
1940’s = 58,607 sockeye on average annually
1950’s = 83,993 sockeye on average annually
1960’s = 135,903 sockeye on average annually
1970’s = 208,461 sockeye on average annually
1980's = 420,615 sockeye on average annually
1990’s = 699,907 sockeye on average annually
2000’s = 735,376 (Up to 2006) sockeye on average annually

You may think your articles will somehow help the fish. I know it is difficult to publish anything inferring that Natives could be a part of the problem. Maybe even tougher to destroy the popular myth that greedy commercial fishermen are the problem. I can assure you, printing a bunch of half-truths and politically correct rhetoric isn’t helping the fish.

I assume your paper has told you to avoid writing anything that could be construed as Native criticism. Just a reminder that the journalistic courage and integrity in your articles (or lack of) doesn't only reflect on your paper. It speaks to the kind of journalist and person you are.

[profisher]

Why is it so hard to criticize native bands? Are they not human too with the same faults as the rest of us, or are they somehow special and immune to all the human short comings? If any native person claims he or she is special or different then the rest of the human population...THEY ARE THE RACIST!!!!

[High Five]

quote:Its now 2009 not 1800,s time for us all to change with the times plain and simple WE are all canadiens.

You fa have got to change as well you scream rights ,rights,rights all the time what about our right as a canadien???ever thought of it that way???
If you want to go and hunt and fish for yourself I have no problem but when and not saying you some fn people on the side of the road selling sockeye for 10 bucks a fish and then saying its my "food fish" thats where the problem lies sicking accually all it is, is GREED.

Wolf

X2 with wolf he said it best.

Here is something. Some of my heritage is in Greece on my mother's side. Turkey has taken most lands that some of my family probably owned generations ago. Do I go back there, and claim it back? No I can't that was then this is now.

I am not saying dumping rights to FN, but we need to more reasonable. If a run is suffering it should be shut down to everyone including FN. Especially if it best interest to canadian citizens. Everyone should play by the rules.


Smiley66

[HOOTEY]

X10---you said it!!!

FISH LEGIT OR GET THE **** OFF THE RIVER!

[SnapperAttacker]

You dont have to pay 10$ for a sockeye from the natives anymore...You just wait by thier stands untill dusk when they toss the remaining fish in a ditch, then grab one.

[calmsea]

But never mind that slight greenish tint after it sat all day in the sun [xx(]

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:I am not saying dumping rights to FN, but we need to more reasonable. If a run is suffering it should be shut down to everyone including FN. Especially if it best interest to canadian citizens. Everyone should play by the rules.

Do you not know about FN'S priority access? All you guys have to do is tell DFO you will hang up your rods, then perhaps we could all work together at rebuilding the stocks. Something has to give, the ball is in your court.

Take only what you need.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg?v=0

[profisher]

OK FN no fishing by anyone for 10 years, anyone caught by DFO, straight to jail. We are all together right?

[calmsea]

Never heard of priority for conservation FA? I'd say shut FN fishery down.

[HOOTEY]

Pretty sure the bottom line here is"ANYONE FISHING ILLEGALLY GETS THE BOOK THROWN AT THEM...BUT IF THE DFO ISNT OUT ENFORCING THE LAWS,,,,NO ONE WINS!!!"
Another point if you buy the fish from the FN then were condoning there reckless use of ceremoinial fish for a bottle or what ever!!! Its true have seen it in Chilliwack to the Island...Laws are made for a reason but DFO has to get off their collective asses and do the job!:(

ITS OUR PASSION TO FISH AND GET OUT OF DOORS...PLEASE...FISH LEGAL OR GET OFF THE RIVER!

[HOOTEY]

Pretty sure the bottom line here is"ANYONE FISHING ILLEGALLY GETS THE BOOK THROWN AT THEM...BUT IF THE DFO ISNT OUT ENFORCING THE LAWS,,,,NO ONE WINS!!!"
Another point if you buy the fish from the FN then were condoning there reckless use of ceremoinial fish for a bottle or what ever!!! Its true have seen it in Chilliwack to the Island...Laws are made for a reason but DFO has to get off their collective asses and do the job!:(

ITS OUR PASSION TO FISH AND GET OUT OF DOORS...PLEASE...FISH LEGAL OR GET OFF THE RIVER!