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.
PS one of the online comments to that article is worth reading:
mooha_99
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Right thinking citizens will have none of it, so you better get used to it.
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.