B.C. First Nations Fishing Rights - Supreme Court Ruling

[searun]

Still all boils down to what political decisions the Minister will make regarding the Allocation Policy, and in the end we have choices to make. I'm simply suggesting that all the complaining will lead no where, and we should in the alternative invest our energies in exploring ways to work with FN's as opposed to stomping our feet - which won't change anything.

 

[california]

Still all boils down to what political decisions the Minister will make regarding the Allocation Policy, and in the end we have choices to make. I'm simply suggesting that all the complaining will lead no where, and we should in the alternative invest our energies in exploring ways to work with FN's as opposed to stomping our feet - which won't change anything.

Sometimes people need to stomp their feet a bit when a judgement like this comes down despite knowing it won't change anything, forums like this are useful for that venting. I think the thing that is frustrating is the judgement means the FN don't need to work with any non FN person or group. Their position has always been we (non FN) have stolen and destroyed their salmon resource (stolen you can debate, destroyed you can't) and we may (I say may because this will take a year to sort out) depend on their charity to have a sport fishing sector at all. Yes there are political decisions to be made, but now there is a legal decision on what the allocation priorities are for a declining resource. I'm not optimistic FN positions on non FN fishing will change, particularly now they have a legal backup for their claims.

 

[Rockfish]

It is a very complex situation. Not all first nations interests are the same and in some parts of the province such as Vancouver Island the financial interests of first nations and sport fishing are intertwined. Many of the Vancouver Island nations have shown considerable business acumen and have viewed sport fishermen not as competitors for a resource they want to sell, but rather as valued clients and customers.

Sport fishermen pay fees for their boat launches on first nations land. We camp in their camp grounds, keep our boats in their marinas, buy fuel from their fuel docks and buy supplies from their small stores. We rent their large halls for fund raising events and have hired their catering company for our banquets. A large sport fishing cannery/processing plant has recently been purchased by first nations. They can and smoke salmon for sport fishermen with rather substantial fees for doing so.

There is a first nations large residential real estate development taking place with many millions of dollars at stake. If you love to sport fish and want to retire and move here you can sign a long term lease to live in very expensive water front housing, keep your boat in their marina and spend your golden years sport fishing. If you reduce or eliminate sport fishing those multi million dollar first nations projects drop in value.

At the macro level sport fishing on the Island is tied to the tourist trade which is a major driver of business in some of our towns and cities. First Nations have large shopping malls and gas stations etc. which benefit from tourism, and tourism benefits from sport fishing. Beyond ownership/leasing, first nations people are employed in many industries that directly and indirectly provide support to sport fishing and tourism, from restaurants to tackle manufacturing and guiding.

 

[ericl]

I have not read all the decision, but some of it. Sounds to me like these 5 FN bands will be replacing what are now non-FN commercial fishers. This appears to mean that the current Salmon allocation policy will remain as-is with the rec fishery in line after FN non-commercial. I have been sport fishing area G since 1986. Salmon trolling involved lot's of boats for a 6 month season back then. Since then it has become what most reasonable people would call a hobby fishery. I say this based on having commercial fisher persons in the family since the 1920's, having done it myself, and working with people in WA state who had "real" jobs but still commercial trolled Salmon for the 5 or so days they had a season. Back in my Grandfathers day, they would come from WA to fish Pilchards in Barkley Sound; things were wide open. Not intending insult anybody by these statements, but sure that I will, but it is what it is & if you can't see that it is your issue & for the rest of us there are bigger issues in life. This is not a win-win situation. Based on lifestyle, the winners gain more than the losers loose. Lot's more career choices for a non-FN commercial fisher than a FN commercial fisher. The big money is in the Black Cod (which you can't pay me enough to eat). Don't see much impact on Salmon sports fishing.

Sometimes people need to stomp their feet a bit when a judgement like this comes down despite knowing it won't change anything, forums like this are useful for that venting

Is unfortunate but lately that's about all that happens on the forums. I really don't get it; I am 67 y/o old & ex-military so maybe I am just better at taking my lumps but the way many carry-on you'd think their mother's read these forums!!

 

[IronNoggin]

.... This appears to mean that the current Salmon allocation policy will remain as-is with the rec fishery in line after FN non-commercial.

Wrong. The court directed the Fisheries Minister to adjust the allocation policy immediately.
Recreational fishing will list after Conservation, FSC, FN Commercial. Then Sporties.
And the Minister is scrambling to comply.

As for your platitudes regarding those of us directly effected... Easy to say from afar.

Nog

 

[ericl]

As for your platitudes regarding those of us directly effected... Easy to say from afar.

Fair enough. You & I are on the long list of those that have been screwed-over. I feel for people that get screwed over. Being afar, I can place this issue in a different perspective than you, and the impact on me is less than on you.

Here is another view of allocation policy changes:

https://islandfishermanmagazine.com/its-2018-will-the-salmon-allocation-policy-change/

As it stands now, while the area G commercial is in line behind the sports; in the past the commercial share is at least equal to the sports share. As the referenced article states, the effects may not be known for some time.

 

[Floater]

Ahhh, don’t you love the progressive liberal road map to racial harmony?

 

[agentaqua]

It's not the evil "liberals", Floater - anymore than it is the evil "Conservatives". The case and the ruling stems from the Constitution Act 1982 - the Act where all the other Acts and Laws derive their authority & legitimacy.

 

[Floater]

It's not the evil "liberals", Floater - anymore than it is the evil "Conservatives". The case and the ruling stems from the Constitution Act 1982 - the Act where all the other Acts and Laws derive their authority & legitimacy.

Hence the lack of Liberals to fight this racist ruling in court.

I fully acknowledge the history of this country, but I damn sure don’t think these token gestures based on race have anything to do with moving forward in a pragmatic way.

We are either all equal, or we are not. I’m sick to death of identity politics.

What I get a laugh about is the soft bigotry of so called “progressives”. Basically white people with a superiority complex that tend to think of minority groups as lesser beings that need special treatment. They act as if these people can’t make it on their own without the help of the white man.

Maybe we don’t treat First Nations as mentally handicapped people and they play by the same rules as everyone else? Or have I got this wrong?

 

[agentaqua]

Yes you have it wrong, Floater.

The ruling is based on s.35 of the Constitution Act - and the Honour of the Crown - not about what party is in power, currently - although it is up to whomever is in power to implement the courts ruling. You might benefit from reading the Judges' deliberations and rationalism...

 

[Floater]

Yes you have it wrong, Floater.

The ruling is based on s.35 of the Constitution Act - and the Honour of the Crown - not about what party is in power, currently - although it is up to whomever is in power to implement the courts ruling. You might benefit from reading the Judges' deliberations and rationalism...

Why would I have to read 400 pages to try and find the rationalization of treating a specific racial group differently to the rest of the citizens of Canada?

That, to me, is wrong. I find it hard to believe I could be swayed on this, since I actually want to see equal opportunity among us.

 

[fshnfnatic]

Why would I have to read 400 pages to try and find the rationalization of treating a specific racial group differently to the rest of the citizens of Canada?

That, to me, is wrong. I find it hard to believe I could be swayed on this, since I actually want to see equal opportunity among us.

This^^^.I have to agree with you,Floater.And I take great offence to being called out as a racist for saying so.This decision is as "racist" it gets IMHO.

 

[agentaqua]

Why would I have to read 400 pages to try and find the rationalization of treating a specific racial group differently to the rest of the citizens of Canada?...

Well - I understand that it is a lengthy decision - and that reading court rulings shouldn't be done on a full tummy - or an unexpected nap will happen. I haven't yet read all the way thru the text yet neither.

Having said that - if you live/fish in that area - this will affect you. It should be of interest. Not reading the verdict in protest will not nullify the decision. Ignorance is a choice - and easily fixed - if a person wished to. Here's a quick excerpt on what the focus of the case was from the Reasons for Judgment:

[62] The Supreme Court of Canada in Sparrow set out the basic framework for dealing with a claimed aboriginal right. This case concerned a charge of fishing for food fish with a drift net longer than permitted, and thus it was not dealing with a commercial right. The court must determine:


1. Is there an existing aboriginal right?


2. Has the aboriginal right been extinguished?


3. Has there been a prima facie infringement of the right?


- does the legislation in question have the effect of interfering with an existing aboriginal right?


- is the limitation unreasonable?


- does the limitation impose undue hardship?


- does the regulation deny the holders of the right their preferred means of exercising that right?


4. Can that infringement be justified?


- is there a valid legislative objective?


- has the honour of the Crown, which is at stake in dealings with aboriginal peoples, been taken into account?


- has there been minimal infringement?


- is the regulation in keeping with the appropriate priority?


- has the aboriginal group been consulted?

 

[Floater]

My original point is the mere fact a segment of the population is treated differently under our common law. I thought that was what was fought against in recent decades, and rightly so.

Ok, honest question. What right has been infringed upon? The right to commercially benefit from a public resource? I ask that sincerely because that’s how I understand it. Maybe I’m wrong.

If that’s the case, the logical end to that line of thought is pretty dim.

 

[agentaqua]

It's along read, Floater - I'll concede that. But in the ruling - your questions are answered. Reconciliation is about upholding the honour of the Crown - and that is the commonality that we all live under - or are supposed to....

 

[ericl]

It's along read, Floater - I'll concede that. But in the ruling - your questions are answered

Yeah, but you do such an awesome job at answering(true complement BTW); why should we be bothered?

 

[halimark]

The way BC and Canada in a smaller way are "progressing" there will be only 1 outcome. Sport fishing will be extinct very soon, as will hunting, a very small portion of the population will again have sole rights for ALL non industrialized land and its riches in BC, we will pay for access and use or start golfing. Anyone who thinks this is not happening really should look around at the blatant evidence. This will NOT be a Canada I wish to live in.

HM

 

[SpringFever552]

The way BC and Canada in a smaller way are "progressing" there will be only 1 outcome. Sport fishing will be extinct very soon, as will hunting, a very small portion of the population will again have sole rights for ALL non industrialized land and its riches in BC, we will pay for access and use or start golfing. Anyone who thinks this is not happening really should look around at the blatant evidence. This will NOT be a Canada I wish to live in.

HM

I hate golfing

 

[halimark]

Me to, not good at it. Do not see the thrill, smack a ball and go find it to smack again????

There is a shinning light I have not mentioned, all those responsible for our Islands trout are doing an OUTSTANDING job. Small license fees, (my opinion) lots of stocked trout and all lakes I fish seams trout are not hard to find and catch. Favorite is still the bass, paddling kayak, quietly sneaking around the weeds with a fake frog, what a blast when they leap, gulp and slam the lure. Heart racing always.

Maybe in time the FN will claim and get all introduced species as theirs.

HM

 

[agentaqua]

Maybe in time the FN will claim and get all introduced species as theirs.
HM

Isn't that called colonization? That may have already happened...