Thompson River Poacher

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by IronNoggin, Dec 30, 2017.

  1. IronNoggin

    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???

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

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

    Sad beyond belief...
    Nog
     
  2. Whitebuck

    Whitebuck Active Member

    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....
     
  3. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Well-Known Member

    How many died to gillnets?
     
  4. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    And that is somehow supposed to excuse this type of behavior??
    Really??? :(

    Wondering...
    Nog
     
    Whitebuck likes this.
  5. Whitebuck

    Whitebuck Active Member

    FN netting everyday from Sept till mid November....one can only guess...
    What are you trying to say?
     
  6. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Well-Known Member

    The First Nations of the upper Fraser are some of the best we have in B.C. They work with DFO the best and are constantly screwed by lower Fraser river natives who don’t practice any restraint who on avg have over 200 gill nets a year seized by DFO and you want to attack them in a post.

    Get real
     
  7. Whitebuck

    Whitebuck Active Member

    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!
     
    The Jackel and IronNoggin like this.
  8. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    How about YOU "Get Real"?
    The steelhead population is in EXTREME trouble, likely about to hit the endangered species list, and you try and justify a poacher's actions against them, based on the fact he is FN? Just WHO is the racist now??

    Shaking the ol' noggin again...
    Nog
     
    kevind and Whitebuck like this.
  9. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Well-Known Member

    I don't think it's acceptable but a lynch mob post on this forum is a little much in my opinion
     
    agentaqua likes this.
  10. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    I would post the exact same irregardless of the poacher's racial background.
    Poachers should be called out for their actions.
    This one quite decidedly so...

    Nog
     
  11. Dave

    Dave Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  12. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Well-Known Member

    Take FN out of your statement and ill delete all my posts
     
  13. Derby

    Derby Well-Known Member

    I do have one question.. under the bands treaty rights does this give them the right to harvest fish for food & cemmonial purposes?
     
  14. Dave

    Dave Well-Known Member

    Do you really want to find out?
     
  15. Derby

    Derby Well-Known Member

    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 ...
     
    agentaqua likes this.
  16. Admin

    Admin Admin Staff Member

    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.
     
  17. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Well-Known Member

    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/
     
  18. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    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
     
    Dave H, trophywife, bones and 2 others like this.
  19. Derby

    Derby Well-Known Member

    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: Dec 30, 2017
    Birdsnest likes this.
  20. Whitebuck

    Whitebuck Active Member

    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.
     
    BCRingo and Derby like this.

Share This Page