"British Columbia First Nation" ?

Charlie

Well-Known Member
So, in response to one of our favorite forum member comments I decided to find out just what First Nations (TFN) was doing for the protection and conservation of the BC salmon fishery. While I could not find much of anything being done in the form of protection, conservation, or restoration, I did find some interesting insights and facts regarding their current agenda. You might find this of interest?

Do you know what is really transpiring? They have established a "First Nations Fishery Council" This appeared to be a good thing initially; in that TFN is building an organization similar to that of our " Nortwest Indian Fisheries Commission, at least one would think? But, as you read through their website, there are parts that is really starting to get scary! http://www.fnfisheriescouncil.ca/

Here is a quote right from their first newsletter of September 2008, which is called the "September Communiqué", "This is an important time for First Nations in British Columbia. Once again, we are facing threats that put at risk our ability to access our traditional fisheries for the sustenance and well-being of our communities. The Council has been working with communities over the last six months to help improve communications and to build the infrastructure and capacity of First Nations in B.C. to respond to the challenges we face."

Now if one goes into their, "The B.C. First Nations Fisheries Action Plan". Here is the introduction:
"Fisheries in British Columbia are in a period of transition as a result of increasing demands and pressures on the resource and shifts in government policy to try to respond to these and other issues. This includes First Nations seeking increasing shares in the fishery and greater involvement in management and decision-making, pursuant to their Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights. However, First Nations in BC have lacked a strong, collective vision and strategy to achieve progress on these goals, and to address the wide range of other regional and provincial fisheries issues. As a result, First Nations often find themselves reacting to issues that arise from government decisions on policy, legislation and programs, as well as actions and decisions taken by the commercial, sport and recreational fishing sectors or others.

In 2004, the First Nation Panel on Fisheries, co-commissioned by the BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission and the First Nations Summit, released “Our Place at the Table – First Nations in the BC Fishery”. This report outlined a vision, goals and principles for changes in management and allocation in the BC fishery, based on hearings in First Nation communities around the province and over 50 submissions.

On October 4-6 and November 29, 2006, BC First Nations gathered together to build upon this previous work and to commence a broad dialogue about common fisheries issues. This BC First Nations Fisheries Action Plan is a result of those Forums. It provides First Nations with a solid foundation for future action; however, it is only a starting point. Further work and discussion is required to create a BC First Nations Fisheries Council, which will engage with First Nations in implementing a detailed workplan based on the actions set out in this document."

Oh, and it gets better as you read farther, and I quote, "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,
• immediate transfer of a minimum of 50% of all fisheries to First Nations,

• 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."

Now the "GRAND FINALE", look at their goals, and I again quote, " First Nations in BC have established the following seven goals for the Pacific fishery:
1. That we have healthy ecosystems that are resilient to change.
2. That, within the limits of healthy ecosystems and species, First Nations have the ability to use species and habitat to nourish their people for food, social, spiritual, educational and ceremonial purposes.
3. That within the limits of healthy ecosystems and species (and once the second goal is achieved), that First Nations have the ability to generate enough economic wealth from a diversity of resources and uses so that families and communities are healthy.
4. That within the limits of healthy ecosystems and species (and once the second goal is achieved), that First Nations have the ability to share their resources and wealth with respectful neighbours and guests, and that this sharing is reciprocated.
5. That First Nations, federal and provincial governments jointly manage aquatic species and ecosystems, and that those involved in the use and enjoyment of aquatic species and ecosystems have the responsibility and ability to meaningfully contribute and share their knowledge, experience, and energy towards achieving the above goals.
6. That First Nations, federal and provincial governments, with the help of others, ensure aquatic species and ecosystem users and managers are held accountable if they are not respectful of the above goals.
7. That there is a high degree of certainty that we can continue to achieve these goals over time.

So, in the end - at least I can say, we in the U.S wrote, agreed to, and signed OUR treaties. The language in the U.S. treaties and the B.C. treaties are different, but it does not appear First Nations really cares about that? While I could not find much of anything TFN is doing in the form of conservation, it does appear to me while First Nations priority is not to conserve, but rather it is to take the entire fishery, completely. It is starting to sound that British Columbia will be changing its name to "British Columbia First Nation", at least if they have anything to say about it?

This information comes directly from their website at: http://www.fnfisheriescouncil.ca/

Just so you know there is a difference in the wording of the treaties:
The treaty signed by your bands state: "It is understood, however, that the land itself, with these small exceptions, becomes the entire property of the white people forever; it is also understood that we are at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands, and to carry on our fisheries as formerly."

The treaty "our" tribes signed state: "The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory."

To interpret this article of these treaties, United States District Court Judge Boldt looked at the minutes of the treaty negotiations to determine the meaning of "in common with" as the United States described it to the Tribes, and determined that the United States intended for there to be an equal sharing of the fish resource between the Tribes and the settlers.

Your treaties DO NOT state "in common with all citizens of the Territory", rather it states ,"and to carry on fisheries as formerly"… there is a difference there, just in case you missed it!

Good luck in the Supreme Court, because it appears that is where you are headed!
 
Governments are afraid to oppose F.N. demands because of the potential
racial issues that could arise. :(
We need a gov't that will put the state of the resource first and foremost without caving in to the demands of certain user groups who only want to take more for their own gain.
 
quote:Good luck in the Supreme Court, because it appears that is where you are headed!


You bet!!!

Take only what you need, for a moderate livelihood.

3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg
 
What surprises me is FN is about 1% of the voting nation and yet they bow to them?? why because polititions are dumb as we all know!!

We need to settle all of this soon and look forward instead of back 150 years ago when everyone on here wasnt around but yet we are being punished for it.

my 2 cents

Wolf
 
quote:What surprises me is FN is about 1% of the voting nation and yet they bow to them??

Only after they talk with their legal council. That should tell you something about the rights of that 1%.

Take only what you need.
3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg
 
At one time I thought F.A. was on this site as a sports fisher. Too bad. :(
 
quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin

quote:What surprises me is FN is about 1% of the voting nation and yet they bow to them??

Only after they talk with their legal council. That should tell you something about the rights of that 1%.

Take only what you need.
There you go again! Don't do it unless, you know what you are talking about?? The "rights" you are referring to are already spelled out in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.! [B)]

Canada is very much currently in "treaty" negotiations and I am thinking "both" sides have their share of "legal counsel". It very much sounds like "Canada" is very clear in its position and is doing more than its share for a resolve!

If you notice I said, "Good luck in the Supreme Court, because it appears that is where you are headed!" That has nothing to do with Canada and everything to do with First Nations! I did NOT</u> say First Nations is going to win, as I don't think they will! And, I believe while there will be some co-management of the fishery, which there should be! First Nations will NEVER get control of the fishery and will NEVER get 50% of the TAC! It is NOT in the treaties and Canada is NOT going to put it in there... I think they made that very clear! That is what will be tested in the Supreme Court!

Sense I posted First Nations intentions and status, I should also post Canada's, as it appears you don't know? Here is Canada's current position and status!

"Among other things, Fisheries Chapters in First Nation treaties will articulate a fishing right, may describe the role for First Nations in fisheries management, and may provide for the issuance of commercial licences.

The fishing right will be described in the treaty and will, therefore, be protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Canada is negotiating a fishing right for an area defined in the treaty whereby the First Nation will have the right to harvest fish and aquatic plants for food, social and ceremonial purposes subject to measures necessary for conservation, public health or public safety. Canada seeks to define allocations for species that are the most important to the First Nation or subject to heavy pressure from other users. These allocations, in most cases, would be described by a formula that provides for annual harvests to vary according to annual abundance of the stocks. For species where an allocation has not been agreed in the Final Agreement, Canada seeks to negotiate mechanisms to establish allocations at a later date, if any of the parties feel it is necessary. It is Canada’s interest that all harvesting for food, social and ceremonial purposes of species managed by DFO will be carried out under the provisions of a licence or other document issued by the Minister.

In the treaty, Canada seeks to describe a consultative process between Canada and the First Nation with respect to fisheries management activities conducted by the First Nation. Canada also seeks to clarify the First Nation’s role in management of their treaty fishery, whereby Canada and the First Nation will exchange information on fishing plans. The agreement will make it clear that the Minister retains authority for management of the fisheries resource, but the Minister must exercise that authority in a manner consistent with the treaty. </u>

In recognition of the need for integrated harvest management in many situations, most treaties will include provisions whereby certain information exchange, consultation, or management functions could be performed, with agreement of the parties, at a broader multi-First Nation level if an appropriate multi-First Nation process exists. There may also be provisions in treaties that provide for the First Nation to participate, or be represented, in multi-stakeholder advisory processes."


Harvest Agreements
"Canada seeks to provide treaty First Nations with access to commercial fisheries through a Harvest Agreement. This is an agreement that is negotiated at the same time as the treaty and is referenced in the treaty, but it is not part of the treaty and, therefore, not protected under the constitution. Canada proposes that a Harvest Agreement have a 25 year term renewable at the request of the First Nation.</u> The treaty would give the First Nation greater assurances with respect to the licences and would provide for compensation to the First Nation if Canada terminates the agreement. Harvest Agreements may be as simple as providing for the issuance of licences for regular commercial fisheries. In some cases the agreement may provide for different operational arrangements than the regular fishery to meet community needs; however, the provisions will be designed such that the fishery can be managed through a common regulatory framework with the regular fishery."

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/tapd/tr_arrang_e.htm
 
Remind me never to p*ss off Charlie......... :Dinteresting and informative thread! SS

seaswirlstiper.jpg
 
Maybe FA should head to court first to pay a "missing" cord of firewood before he demands anything else, eh? And by the way, maybe ask the judge if I could use FA's $150K Boston Whaler once in a while on weekends since it was also paid from my tax monies...[xx(]
 
quote:will, therefore, be protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I know about this already.. (thanks for informing the rest of the forum though), seems how my dad was actually sitting at the table during those conferences...

Everything you have stated is "old news" to me, but thanks again for sharing it with the rest. Must have been pretty educational for you though if you actaully read any of the stuff you copy and pasted into your posts.

Take only what you need.
3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg
 
quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin

quote:will, therefore, be protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I know about this already.. (thanks for informing the rest of the forum though), seems how my dad was actually sitting at the table during those conferences...

Everything you have stated is "old news" to me, but thanks again for sharing it with the rest. Must have been pretty educational for you though if you actaully read any of the stuff you copy and pasted into your posts.

Take only what you need.
Well Tonto, then you also know, very soon YOU</u> are going to have to get a license, to fish for that precious "right" you keep throwing in everyone's face and that would be for your "food" & "ceremonial" fishing! Yep, DFO has already stated that... YOU need to look a little closer at the negotiations, because that is coming! But, guess what isn't coming? 50% of the TAC! HAHAHA... and I LOVE IT! :D:D

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy! You can take your sarcasm and racial slurs and ride off in the sunset. But Tonto, you should take a close look at that "high" horse you are riding on… as I think somebody shot it out from under you… while you weren't looking! [}:)]


DSC01311-1-2.jpg
 
quote:Originally posted by Charlie

..But Tonto, you should take a close look at that "high" horse you are riding on… as I think somebody shot it out from under you… while you weren't looking! [}:)]

17.gif
1.gif
 
quote:Well Tonto, then you also know, very soon YOU are going to have to get a license, to fish for that precious "right" you keep throwing in everyone's face and that would be for your "food" & "ceremonial" fishing! Yep, DFO has already stated that...

as formerly doesn't mean with licenece in hand.. roflmao..[:p] Besides that I was in charge of getting all the licences in place 10 years ago for seine boats to go out fishing, how is this any different? It is like a courtesy gesture on our part to get a licence.

Take only what you need.
3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg
 
quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin

quote:Well Tonto, then you also know, very soon YOU are going to have to get a license, to fish for that precious "right" you keep throwing in everyone's face and that would be for your "food" & "ceremonial" fishing! Yep, DFO has already stated that...

as formerly doesn't mean with licenece in hand.. roflmao..[:p] Besides that I was in charge of getting all the licences in place 10 years ago for seine boats to go out fishing, how is this any different? It is like a courtesy gesture on our part to get a licence.

Take only what you need.
Let me know how that "courtesy gesture on our part" works out for you! Once DFO get's in your treaty! Oh, and you might want to check how the, "as formerly doesn't mean with licenece in hand" is being modified!

Good Luck! Which again, maybe you don't know as much as you think, as these are already there! Can't wait for that one to be signed! :D:D:D:D
 
LOL they would literally have to hold a gun up to my chief's head before he would sign anything that would impact our rights. That is exactly why we have not signed any fisheries agreements to date. Besides it isn't up to an elected Chief to surrender indivdual rights. The only thing they can have a say in is Communal rights. That is why treaties need to be ratified by the band membership. DFO has limited many First Nations harvests already by signing fisheries agreements with various Bands. For an example Nanaimo First Nation will allow me to fish in thier territory, but I have to follow sport fishing regulations, whereas in Nanoose I can still hunt and fish as formerly. My own band realizes that the rights we have under the douglas treaty are very strong, so we have not modified or watered down our rights at all.

Take only what you need.
3641877346_d9919f98d0.jpg
 
quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin

LOL they would literally have to hold a gun up to my chief's head before he would sign anything that would impact our rights. </u> That is exactly why we have not signed any fisheries agreements to date. Besides it isn't up to an elected Chief to surrender indivdual rights. The only thing they can have a say in is Communal rights. That is why treaties need to be ratified by the band membership. DFO has limited many First Nations harvests already by signing fisheries agreements with various Bands. For an example Nanaimo First Nation will allow me to fish in thier territory, but I have to follow sport fishing regulations, whereas in Nanoose I can still hunt and fish as formerly. My own band realizes that the rights we have under the douglas treaty are very strong, so we have not modified or watered down our rights at all.

Be carefull what you wish for, Tonto? I am not sure TFN wants to provoke, threaten, or take up arms against Canada, do you? I think "they" really hold the cards and "they" might have you a little bit "out gunned"? Keep an eye on you pinto! I here those laser beams can be very deadly?

Wow, let's go back a 100 years or so... and see an "indian" uprising? That would diffentenly be intersting to watch? :D:D:D
 
"Tonto" ? thats a cheap shot , your arguments may be valid but your lack of respect is not appreciated.
Canada did not legislate genocide like the US did against their native peoples , we do not appreciate your inferences.

AL
 
As taxpayers and sportfishers, we should dedicate more to hatcherys that are not placed along native reserves. Why not pull the plug and funding from hatcherys that feed into native reserves and let thier rivers run dry. I would rather have some rivers dedicated to the sportfishers, keep the natives and commercials out. Just a rant, doenst mean #@$@# but ya , its just that feeling you get when one group gets to abuse a resource that is highly valued.
 
Snapper, fyi, the Cowichan River hatchery is for instance on native land and run by the Cowichan band.
 
quote:Originally posted by alley cat

"Tonto" ? thats a cheap shot , your arguments may be valid but your lack of respect is not appreciated.
Canada did not legislate genocide like the US did against their native peoples , we do not appreciate your inferences.

AL

Wow! Tonto is way uncalled for! And your way wrong about Canada on this one. What they did was totally genocidal. The unjust towards the said Indians still goes on today!you just don't hear about it on the news! It's a tragedy.

Hotrod

all rights reserved with prejudice
 
Back
Top