Thompson River Poacher

IronNoggin

Well-Known Member
Well, here's one source of the problem...
Even under such dire conditions, it seems that "some" simply do not get it.

The following pictures were posted by a gleeful FN fellow on Facebook), who despite being told the severity of his actions (he did the very same last year) continues to poach away at the steelhead, and rub it in everyone's face that he can. Steward of the land?? Ya Think???

yJePJmZ.jpg


Nkaj5e8.jpg


mgUnbet.jpg


PBzs7XR.jpg


Pictures reportedly taken at mouth of the Nicola and at John's Rock on the Thompson.

Sad beyond belief...
Nog
 
Theres a group of about 7 or 8 FN members that do this all winter long.
Another couple guys that kill them on the upper nicola itself.
Love.to see peoples thoughts on this now that everybody has jumped.all.over this multimedia bandwagon....
 
Wildmanyeah....completely agree with you on the upper Fraser vs lower Fraser.
But if you think this is acceptable, you are part of the problem.
Seeing the stuff you post on FWR it seems once again you are the poster child for people who don’t know wtf they are talking about in regards to this stock!
 
Totally right, this is not acceptable. I agree with wmy regarding the cooperation and respect upper Fraser River bands and DFO have developed, and it’s a real shame some jerk paints an ugly picture for those who truly care about the resource.

I suggest this fellow’s Chief be made aware of this transgression and hopefully this poaching will stop before this ends up in court. We might not like the end result of that.
 
I do have one question.. under the bands treaty rights does this give them the right to harvest fish for food & cemmonial purposes?
 
I'm positive they do have the right & are allowed to excise them... The band has been taking any where from 30 to 60 plus a year since I have been fishing & actively involved in the Thompson River process over 28 plus years, which have failed badly :(.... So I believe the FN cannot be call poachers.... So like it or don't like they have the right to access this fishery...now that being said.. I would say its not in the bands the best interest of the pictures being post on face book .... yes this river is in dam sad shape, makes me sad just thinking about it......but remember to a large percentage of bands they have history & also a connection to these fish, in FN eyes when we catch & release these fish were playing with there food...was there not a catch a & release fishery on the river this year? so how many mort's were there? Guess we really cannot ask the band to for go there treaty rights to save the fish well we sporties took some casts at them in the fall?? food for thought ...
 
I was going to clean up this thread but Derby has summed up the situation with this one very nicely. While you may not agree with the constitution and the rights provided within that document, it is not up for debate here as to whether or not First Nations rights are good, bad or indifferent. If you feel it is necessary to try to effect change, by all means it is within your right to lobby whomever is in a position to make that change happen. I will also remind everyone that we do not allow racial slurs, or generalizations about a particular race, to be posted on this forum. As has been noted before, poachers and law breakers come in all sizes, shapes and ethnic backgrounds so let's avoid labeling people here. And, as Derby pointed out, no law is being broken in this instance if indeed these individuals are exercising their treaty rights.
 
I'm positive they do have the right & are allowed to excise them... The band has been taking any where from 30 to 60 plus a year since I have been fishing & actively involved in the Thompson River process over 28 plus years, which have failed badly :(.... So I believe the FN cannot be call poachers.... So like it or don't like they have the right to access this fishery...now that being said.. I would say its not in the bands the best interest of the pictures being post on face book .... yes this river is in dam sad shape, makes me sad just thinking about it......but remember to a large percentage of bands they have history & also a connection to these fish, in FN eyes when we catch & release these fish were playing with there food...was there not a catch a & release fishery on the river this year? so how many mort's were there? Guess we really cannot ask the band to for go there treaty rights to save the fish well we sporties took some casts at them in the fall?? food for thought ...

Derby all i could find online is this

"According to Wikipedia, R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 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. The DFO Allocation Policy reflects the priority of First Nation's food, social and ceremonial requirements for salmon as an expression of their underlying title and rights. The Allocation Policy refers to the 5 species of salmon but there is no mention of steelhead. Recreational fishing regulations reflect delegated authority via the BC Sportfishing Regulation which permits the Director of the Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Management Branch to vary regulations pertaining to method/gear/bait, no fishing, and quota for freshwater angling in British Columbia. The Province is presently working on a Draft Steelhead Management Plan which provides a set of goals, management objectives and guiding principles for steelhead"

However, as dave pointed out if this was taken to court i would suspect we would not like the ruling. While the recent below ruling is related to hunting its not hard to see it's also related to fishing.


"In his decision, Justice Robert Sewell also found denying Desautel the right to hunt would run contrary to Canada’s goal of reconciliation."

"“In my view, it would be inconsistent with that objective to deny a right to a group that occupied the land in question in pre-contact times and continued to actively use the territory for some years after the imposition of the international boundary on them.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/3938257/...-u-s-indigenous-mans-right-to-hunt-in-canada/
 
... And, as Derby pointed out, no law is being broken in this instance if indeed these individuals are exercising their treaty rights.

And I politely disagree.
Treaty Rights are secondary to Conservation. Period Endo.
There is no lawyer on this earth that can successfully argue this particular stock is NOT a Conservation Concern, and that of the highest magnitude.
Emergency SARA considerations and all.
So, to argue that these actions are simply exercising treaty rights of harvest is completely out to lunch.
They are poaching, regardless of racial history as I noted.

I will be contacting this fellow's Band Council in this regard.
I will be amazed should they not also see it the way I do.
Regardless, I will post their response, when and if received.

Nog
 
You are correct.. If I was a beting man ... no one most likely didn't even approach the band... ...one of the biggest problems in dealing with the Thompson and many other system regarding steelhead ..not that it's new news..the Ministry has dropped the ball period.. I put a whole lot of the sad state where we are on the Ministry or the very least the pervious varies provincial government.. let me know if I can be of help...
 
Last edited:
The majority of the 3 bands within the area will not fish after the salmon closure. Some of the FN in the area are real stewards of the land. Unfortunetly the damage that the few can do is disastrous to a functionally extinct stock.
 
And I politely disagree.
Treaty Rights are secondary to Conservation. Period Endo.
There is no lawyer on this earth that can successfully argue this particular stock is NOT a Conservation Concern, and that of the highest magnitude.
Emergency SARA considerations and all.
So, to argue that these actions are simply exercising treaty rights of harvest is completely out to lunch.
They are poaching, regardless of racial history as I noted.

I will be contacting this fellow's Band Council in this regard.
I will be amazed should they not also see it the way I do.
Regardless, I will post their response, when and if received.

Nog
Looking forward to a response.
Don't hold your breath Nog.
You may need life support:rolleyes:
 
I would agree with u..I remember the local bands up there to be great stewards..... there issue has always been with the bands down low in the Fraser always taking more and never leaving them a fair share of the harvest...and has the Fraser river dries up...even less..a sad state of affairs...
 
Gear type: monofilament verses gill net - is irrelevant in the context of FSC catch rights. It does not mean a FN individual is "poaching" unless the conservation need has been identified and preempts that right - which it may - if this is a species/stock that has an adequate enough stock assessment to tell stock status and that is "of concern" or even more critically - "at risk", and it may take some time to develop the stock assessment data and see trends.

Developing that stock assessment is the provinces purview - as other posters have correctly indicated. My understanding: as poor as it is wrt many federally-regulated salmon stock assessments - the steelhead & resident trout stock assessments are even more unknown. The province may not have adequate stock assessment on this stock/species.

There has been quite a bit of case law since Sparrow. You can browse it at: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/text=aboriginal case law

In addition, the fairly recent Tsilhqot’in Decision (courts being an integral part of our legal system) laid the foundations about proving land claims and hunting rights:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do

Might be worth having a read for some - to understand the dynamics of First Nations land claims, and rights and title... especially this excerpt:

"Aboriginal title flows from occupation in the sense of regular and exclusive use of land. To ground Aboriginal title “occupation” must be sufficient, continuous (where present occupation is relied on) and exclusive. In determining what constitutes sufficient occupation, which lies at the heart of this appeal, one looks to the Aboriginal culture and practices, and compares them in a culturally sensitive way with what was required at common law to establish title on the basis of occupation. Occupation sufficient to ground Aboriginal title is not confined to specific sites of settlement but extends to tracts of land that were regularly used for hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting resources and over which the group exercised effective control at the time of assertion of European sovereignty."

AND - incorrectly - as claimed by one poster - aquatic harvesting & aboriginal rights, and control of traditional territories - are very much not "race-based", but rather based on history and exclusion/control - as spelled-out in the case law, which you can reference and read for yourself. I would encourage everyone to take advantage of our access to those courts decisions and read them since it affects how we manage our fish stocks.

The Indian Act - on the other hand - is very much "race-based" - and First Nations did not have a say in either the development, approval nor implementation of that Act. So-called "Indians" in Canada were only allowed to hire legal council in 1951, to vote in 1961 - and it's only since the reparation of the Constitution in 1982 - did they have their rights affirmed - and have been able to use s. 35 in the Courts, starting with Sparrow. See: http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/the-indian-act.html
 
Last edited:
And I politely disagree.
Treaty Rights are secondary to Conservation. Period Endo.
There is no lawyer on this earth that can successfully argue this particular stock is NOT a Conservation Concern, and that of the highest magnitude.
Emergency SARA considerations and all.
So, to argue that these actions are simply exercising treaty rights of harvest is completely out to lunch.
They are poaching, regardless of racial history as I noted.

I will be contacting this fellow's Band Council in this regard.
I will be amazed should they not also see it the way I do.
Regardless, I will post their response, when and if received.

Nog
 
Back
Top