Anyone see this "commentary" in the Vancouver Sun today?
- Thread starter Pippen
- Start date
juandesooka
Active Member
He had a similar rant this time last year about the rec halibut issue and the greedy self-interested "sports commercial" sector that he sees as the root of the problem. I emailed him back with my thoughts, and was surprised to get back a reasoned response from him personally. Reasoned but still fundamentally disagreeable -- we agreed to disagree and left it at that. So, if looking for some satisfaction, I recommend emailing him directly.
juandesooka
Active Member
PS one of the online comments to that article is worth reading:
mooha_99
4:07 PM on 3/26/2012
Interesting that again Mr Hume you suggest that recreational anglers are to blame. Haven't been out fishing for while? I suggest you taker a drive up the Fraser and see if you can even count the number of nets ( often unattended) on the river. All day, everyday. As usual you downplay the effect of this politically sanctioned slaughter, and point the finger at sports anglers.
If you want to cut out sports angling, who will be paying for the habitat restoration, enforcement and hatcheries that are currently funded not only directly via licence fees, but through taxes collected on everything anglers purchase? And the lost jobs?
What is the allocation to EACH person in EACH band along the Fraser? If similar to Tsawassen that would be 60 springs EACH.
That has no impact on the stocks at all, right?
mooha_99
4:07 PM on 3/26/2012
Interesting that again Mr Hume you suggest that recreational anglers are to blame. Haven't been out fishing for while? I suggest you taker a drive up the Fraser and see if you can even count the number of nets ( often unattended) on the river. All day, everyday. As usual you downplay the effect of this politically sanctioned slaughter, and point the finger at sports anglers.
If you want to cut out sports angling, who will be paying for the habitat restoration, enforcement and hatcheries that are currently funded not only directly via licence fees, but through taxes collected on everything anglers purchase? And the lost jobs?
What is the allocation to EACH person in EACH band along the Fraser? If similar to Tsawassen that would be 60 springs EACH.
That has no impact on the stocks at all, right?
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately Stephen Hume is a highly regarded and well-read journalist. His opinion is shared by many - I work with them ("hunters and fishermen are barbaric, red-neck relics of a bygone era!"). Precisely the reason we sports fishermen must be a lot more aware of the "landscape" before expressing our humbrage at proposed conservation measures or advancing our illusion of entitlement. It may be the time to speak softly and suck some of this up. Every action creates a reaction and we could have a whole lot more to lose if we attract much more negative attention.
As much as we do not like what goes on, attacking F.N. "cultural practices", rightly or wrongly, is not helpful. It only reinforces the perception that is common among urban-dwellers (voters): that we are insensitive red-necks concerned only with our narrow self-interests.
Last edited by a moderator:
fishin_magician
Well-Known Member
Stephen Hume has written an article which is hardly called reporting. He has written an editorial. Mr. Hume is an osterich who is uninformed and has scribbled some drivel on a notepad, typed up some "prose" and then fired it off to his editor who is as equally uninformed as him.
trendsetter
Active Member
I agree. I found a ghost fishing net on the Fraser last season that was killing salmon, I witnessed FN dumping garbage bags of unused salmon into the Fraser. And that was just a small section of the river that I frequent. Imagine what damage is being done for 100km up river from the ocean?
Issues of poaching, abuse of the stocks and habitat need to be addressed before cuts are made to sport fishing. Sport fisherman by and large are conservation minded at least in my experience.
beemer
Well-Known Member
I am with Foxsea , attacking First Nations is just a plain bad idea. To the non-fishing public FN have inherent fishing "rights" no matter how poor those rules are or are enforced. Why not support FN and try to get them onside with us?
beemer
fishin_magician
Well-Known Member
Beemer, let me get this straight. You're saying Mr. Ernie Crey is going to get those nets out of the Fraser and cut back FN peoples share of the catch in the same proportions as the proposals before the Sporties from Sidney to Sooke?
Reality check! IT'S A PLOY so that they can take more fish! DFO has neither the money nor wherewithal to DEAL WITH THE ISSUE. Race based fisheries are the precise problems before this fishery. That is, in my opinion, the real issue before this fishery. DFO really doesn't have the data to back up their claims. Some on the SFAB will call me uninformed for saying this, but it's true and they can't prove it otherwise but I can, because I know that their sampling sucks. To extrapolate data 5 or more years into the future is ridiculous. The official number of Chinooks taken in Fraser Fisheries for FN peoples is one thing. What the actual number taken is, is another number substantially higher. It has been documented on a Freshwater website in the lower mainland. The evidence is before everyone, the problem is, no one wants to really look at the issue. I've worked on several docks on the south coast and put more than a few Chinooks on cleaning tables myself. I can honestly say that DFO hasn't ever been there to sample the catch. So, are they saying they know what stocks of fish we have bonked? I have a HARD TIME believing that. Last time I checked, fish had fins and tails...and they swim.
Last edited by a moderator:
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Don't get me started on "Second Nations" fishing...this is one of the main drivers behind my want to get into politics...equal rights for all, not special practices...how long do they expect to be getting special rights for things that happened in the distant, distant past? African Americans in the states were treated just as bad if not worse and they get nothing...there are tens of groups that are minorities that had prosecution against them, and they get nothing now as well...handouts are not the way to go about doing things.
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
And Beemer said: "I am with Foxsea , attacking First Nations is just a plain bad idea. To the non-fishing public FN have inherent fishing "rights" no matter how poor those rules are or are enforced. Why not support FN and try to get them onside with us?"
Both of your comments are articulate and very insightful. By embracing conservation for all who use and enjoy the resource, and inviting all parties and interests to act in concert, the resource has a future. That is a simple yet effective strategy that the non-fishing members of the public will embrace and the politicians cannot refute. Assigning blame, finger pointing and speaking of entitlements is not the answer. If the resource can be saved, it can then be shared. Work together to identify issues and solutions, as complex as they may be.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Property ownership is key for natives to increase their wealth, yet many of the national band member counsellors are against it...too much responsibility probably
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Hey Brother:
You have a vision I can believe in! Hope we can all get on to that path. (...and wish I could have said it as well.)
juandesooka
Active Member
FYI, Hume's prior article on halibut wars in 2011 http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=25809.30
Same general theme ... paint the "sports commercial" sector as the villains ... though that one was even worse, as halibut is not a conservation issue, directly about allocation. The Fraser chinook issue is more conservation related, though still an allocation issue as well.
I am the first to cringe when I hear FN bashing, but the nets across the Fraser are the 800 pound elephant on the table that no politician wants to talk about. At best, it's a big chunk taken in a troubled time ... but at worst, it is a disaster ... mechanized net poaching can easily take out an entire run.
This compared against 2 wire-tagged chinook caught in JDF, 4 or 5 years ago, as the basis for a closure? While fishing is open on the ECVI, in Vancouver, and right in the Fraser itself? Madness.
Or not madness, really, but a willfully blind political game ... way I see it, rec fishers in JDF for last few years have been pawns in a political chess match with the FN. They can point to JDF as a conservation measure implemented, even if it has virtually no impact, and use that as leverage to fight for further reductions. This year looks to be even more of the same.
I think most rec anglers would agree that if the resource is in trouble, we should all band together and do what we can to fix it. But when you're told that it's in trouble, so YOU better stop fishing, but your neighbour downstream gets to keep on fishing ... how does that seem an equitable solution?
This is an ugly situation, and it is only going to get uglier, as the gamesmanship increases.
Same general theme ... paint the "sports commercial" sector as the villains ... though that one was even worse, as halibut is not a conservation issue, directly about allocation. The Fraser chinook issue is more conservation related, though still an allocation issue as well.
I am the first to cringe when I hear FN bashing, but the nets across the Fraser are the 800 pound elephant on the table that no politician wants to talk about. At best, it's a big chunk taken in a troubled time ... but at worst, it is a disaster ... mechanized net poaching can easily take out an entire run.
This compared against 2 wire-tagged chinook caught in JDF, 4 or 5 years ago, as the basis for a closure? While fishing is open on the ECVI, in Vancouver, and right in the Fraser itself? Madness.
Or not madness, really, but a willfully blind political game ... way I see it, rec fishers in JDF for last few years have been pawns in a political chess match with the FN. They can point to JDF as a conservation measure implemented, even if it has virtually no impact, and use that as leverage to fight for further reductions. This year looks to be even more of the same.
I think most rec anglers would agree that if the resource is in trouble, we should all band together and do what we can to fix it. But when you're told that it's in trouble, so YOU better stop fishing, but your neighbour downstream gets to keep on fishing ... how does that seem an equitable solution?
This is an ugly situation, and it is only going to get uglier, as the gamesmanship increases.
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
The horse you're flogging died long ago:
Since the entrenchment of section 35 in the Constitution Act of 1982, Canadian courts have made a number of rulings that acknowledge the comprehensive nature of Aboriginal rights as they relate to fisheries for food, social and ceremonial purposes. Such fisheries are often referred to by the acronym FSC. In addition, there continues to be an evolution in law pertaining to First Nations and commercial harvesting rights. Section 35 states in part that “the existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and confirmed.”
A series of cases affirmed this right, but the decision in Regina v. Sparrow is generally felt to have set the tone. In that decision, rendered in 1990, it was found that a “fiduciary relationship” existed between the Crown and aboriginal peoples as far as fisheries were concerned, and that aboriginal interests took precedence over others. This did not mean that aboriginal rights always had priority. Conservation remained the first and overriding objective. However, once conservation concerns were met, the aboriginal right to fish for FSC purposes superceded all others. Various court decisions after Sparrow, including a trio of decisions in 1996 called Regina v. Van der Peet, Regina v. NTC Smokehouse and Regina v. Gladstone re-affirmed this right, which is now generally accepted to apply not only to a priority right to fish, but to a right to fish for certain fish stocks in certain places.
Another significant legal decision of importance to an understanding of aboriginal rights and title is Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. Rendered in 1997, the Delgamuukw decision stated that government must demonstrate that both “the process by which it allocated the resource and the actual allocation of the resource” itself, takes into accounts the priority interests of the holders of aboriginal title. In a 2004 report to a First Nation Panel examining fisheries issues, Brenda Gaertner, a lawyer specializing in aboriginal law, noted that the Delgamuukw decision would continue to have a profound influence on issues applying to fisheries.
“ . . . the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (“DFO”) must ensure that First Nations are consulted in decision-making about the allocation of the resource, and that the actual allocation of the resource accommodates the priority of Aboriginal peoples. This requires that First Nations be consulted on the full range of allocations of the fisheries resources, beyond just issues of allocations for primary food, social and ceremonial purposes.
Whether you like it or not, that's the way it is - unless you want to challenge the Supreme Court of Canada.
Last edited by a moderator:
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
Our vision bother - and you did say it, and just as well!
Saxe Point
Well-Known Member
Once again Foxsea, I am impressed. Where were you when I was trying (on another thread) to make a small, simple, but important point to prompt some reflection on our perspectives? I am kidding of course... But note the striking parallel in our respective responses! You provided the comprehensive version! Here's mine from the earlier thread:
Quote Originally Posted by Fishmyster
You're right the sportfisherman doesn't need the fish the same as the first nations. Sportfishermen actualy eat the fish they catch! First Nations fishers sell the fish and buy pop and chips silly. Where have you been living lately?? This is a touchy subjest because the average taxpaying sportsman in this country is getting jacked out of the resource. While getting jacked, these people that contribute the most, are expected to be the conservative with thier harvest. Once we are all broke from the govt sucking all the finacial life out of us and giving it to all the chosen ones do you think it would be fair for all of us to go sustainance fishing?
As fishtofino stated I too don't thing the average sportfisherman or citizen agrees with you."
My response:
What an outrageous and unfair generalization - the hallmark of of a completely ill informed opinion. If there are some who are selling their fish that are for food, social or ceremonial purposes, that is a problem and it should be addressed. But if you are suggesting all First Nation fishers do this, that is a serious allegation that you can't prove and should not make. It's about as fair as saying that all sportsfishermen are scofflaws because some ignore the rules.
Our Canadian Constitution says that First Nations have aboriginal rights and the Supreme Court of Canada says they include fishing rights. Best of luck to you in getting the Constitution amended. Right thinking citizens will have none of it, so you better get used to it.
Like others, you can't seem to separate your emotions from logic. The only point I was making is that a subsistence fisherman "needs" fish in a way that a sportsfisherman does not. No one has refuted this. That a sportsfisherman really likes to keep and eat fish, or that there may be possible abuse of a right to fish, or that there are conservation challenges in managing the resource has nothing to do with the point I was making. If a person is fishing to avoid starving (subsistence), the objective is not sport. One who needs fish for subsistence has a greater moral and ethical claim to the fish than a person who fishes for sport, even if the sportsfisherman likes to keep fish. Surely you can agree with that. If not, we've got bigger problems than fish!
Hindsight
Active Member
Very uneducated comments, I wish you would get your facts first before going public with your feelings. You are in a position that the general public my take your comments as a fact, in which this is far from the truth. No mention of Fish Farms or over Fishing by FN along the banks of the Fraser. ( Salmon Sold Out Of Cars in Chilliwack, Salmon Nets with Rotting Chinook in then, Piles of Salmon Dumped on the Shores freezer burned. FN busted selling Salmon, Illegal Fishing) You put the blame on Sport Fishing sorry, but this is far from the reason these fish are not showing even if that is the case DFO has no stats on these fish since 2006. This is the last year they studied the Dome Creek run. The truth is DFO has no idea what are the numbers are or will be in the future.
DFO would like us to believe that Ocean Survival is to blame not so as this would affect most if not all run’s of salmon in the Pacific, many more run’s are stronger than in the past. It’s the same good news is no news and bad news sells. Fact in Point San Juan River Port Renfrew BC, 5500 hundred Chinook Salmon return in 2009, record return. That mean’s never seen before”” Press was notified were not interested, of course not it was a good news story.
For you to mention low numbers in the USA it really shows that it is time for you to retire, it is well know that Salmon coming back to USA rivers has been at near record levels, in some cases Record levels. At the same time the USA did close some fishing for ALL USERS in some areas. Now I would not state this without FACTS so go to
http://www.cbbulletin.com/417381.aspx
http://www.cbbulletin.com/416425.aspx
Now lets talk Orca’s, the Killer Whale eats Chinook Ya it’s the Prime Rib of the Ocean, but will also eat Dog fish if need be. At the same time these mammals feed on Chinook from all rivers in the Pacific from BC down to California, which are having great returns of these Chinook, Fact the Orca’s use to go up the Columbia River to Feed before the Dam’s. Over the years DFO has taken fish out of the rivers or has mandated other Salmon be raised in the Hatcheries to accommodate Commercial interest’s, First lets just look at what is going on in Sooke BC,
http://www.watershed-watch.org/2012...m-will-cut-off-crucial-flows-for-coho-salmon/
Second is the Nitnat Hatchery which was forced to raise Chum Salmon instead of Chinook for a commercial harvest. Now they did keep raising Chinook but at a much lower rate. Which in turn has a impact on all run’s of Chinook. Orcas still prey on Chinook and do not care from what river, so the Nitnat River use to have 50 to 60 K return each year now that number is down to 23 k well that is allot of Chinook that the Orca's can not prey on and other Rivers will feel the lack of those Chinook been there for prey. Oh like I said for Commercial interest our Tax dollars going to fund a Commercial Fishery ??? It was a public Hatchery doing a great job let them get back to it..
It’s a sport and a reason for Kids to get out of the house and enjoy what BC has to offer, as it is for allot of people from BC and around the World. Our Government needs to be committed to the Pacific Salmon. Not by closing a great fishery that will have no impact on the run in question, STOP ILLEGAL FISHING IN THE RIVER FIRST BY FIRST NATIONS.
DFO would like us to believe that Ocean Survival is to blame not so as this would affect most if not all run’s of salmon in the Pacific, many more run’s are stronger than in the past. It’s the same good news is no news and bad news sells. Fact in Point San Juan River Port Renfrew BC, 5500 hundred Chinook Salmon return in 2009, record return. That mean’s never seen before”” Press was notified were not interested, of course not it was a good news story.
For you to mention low numbers in the USA it really shows that it is time for you to retire, it is well know that Salmon coming back to USA rivers has been at near record levels, in some cases Record levels. At the same time the USA did close some fishing for ALL USERS in some areas. Now I would not state this without FACTS so go to
http://www.cbbulletin.com/417381.aspx
http://www.cbbulletin.com/416425.aspx
Now lets talk Orca’s, the Killer Whale eats Chinook Ya it’s the Prime Rib of the Ocean, but will also eat Dog fish if need be. At the same time these mammals feed on Chinook from all rivers in the Pacific from BC down to California, which are having great returns of these Chinook, Fact the Orca’s use to go up the Columbia River to Feed before the Dam’s. Over the years DFO has taken fish out of the rivers or has mandated other Salmon be raised in the Hatcheries to accommodate Commercial interest’s, First lets just look at what is going on in Sooke BC,
http://www.watershed-watch.org/2012...m-will-cut-off-crucial-flows-for-coho-salmon/
Second is the Nitnat Hatchery which was forced to raise Chum Salmon instead of Chinook for a commercial harvest. Now they did keep raising Chinook but at a much lower rate. Which in turn has a impact on all run’s of Chinook. Orcas still prey on Chinook and do not care from what river, so the Nitnat River use to have 50 to 60 K return each year now that number is down to 23 k well that is allot of Chinook that the Orca's can not prey on and other Rivers will feel the lack of those Chinook been there for prey. Oh like I said for Commercial interest our Tax dollars going to fund a Commercial Fishery ??? It was a public Hatchery doing a great job let them get back to it..
It’s a sport and a reason for Kids to get out of the house and enjoy what BC has to offer, as it is for allot of people from BC and around the World. Our Government needs to be committed to the Pacific Salmon. Not by closing a great fishery that will have no impact on the run in question, STOP ILLEGAL FISHING IN THE RIVER FIRST BY FIRST NATIONS.
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
Those are some pretty strong words that you said. They are what you have been preaching is the wrong way to go about things.
I can't believe all the reading between the lines one has to do on this site lately. Cowardly and pathetic really. So many groups trying to snake in there two cents with smoke an mirrors. The JOE fisherman is the only one who speaks his mind and is the one who's tarred and feathered when he does so.
Last edited by a moderator:
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
No probs from this guy with folks speaking their minds and venting. However, if you want to have political influence, tailor the message to the audience - the general public. Your hard line is not sporting and actually alienates the very people that should be our allies.
Now as for "cowardly and pathetic": not respectful or tolerant of other opinions so you chill alternate expression through slander? This is a forum. That implies free and open discussion - you don't have to agree with an opinion but, like parachutes, a mind works best when it's open. It takes guts to put out an alternative opinion to the popular one - and prepare for the attack thats coming from other "sport" fishermen. You guys attack First Nations with harsh generalization, you attack the commercials - guys making a living, you attack environmentalists that care about this resource too, you attack journalists. Who have you left us for support? You come across as unreasonable and disaffected fanatics.
Get your head out of your butt! Few people in B.C. think as you apparently do - except for a couple of cheerleaders here. Rah Rah!
Similar threads
