If you read the 1st few paragraphs of the Sparrow decision listed above at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/609/1/document.do - the judge explains the courts interpretation of this in broadscale. As you read through the rest of the appeals decision - more explicit details as to how that is assessed in detail.
Colville Aboriginal Aquitted for Cross Border Poaching
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
TheBigGuy
Well-Known Member
Logic would seem to dictate that if they are claiming an aboriginal right, that they should have to use traditional aboriginal methods to be entitled to those rights. If not, (in my opinion) they should be subject to the same rules and quotas applied to non-aboriginals.
Weirs would be an excellent method to harvest Salmon in a selective manner without harming non target species. Dip netting was also traditionally used, and I believe it is still practiced today. I am not suggesting their rights to harvest be extinguished if they use non-traditional methods. I am only saying if they choose to use a rifle to hunt, then they should have the same season and bag limits as other hunters. Many non-aboriginals enjoy bow hunting for the extra challenge, even with other modern weapons at their disposal. It would seem to me that if non-aboriginals still hunt using a bow, that natives could easily do so as well if they wanted to be exempt from the hunting regulations applied to others.
There is really no point in arguing the fact, because the courts are never going to change the methods aboriginals are permitted to use. It is simply a commonly held viewpoint among non-natives, that the courts do not share. The courts decide the rules, so others views are totally irrelevant anyways. It's pretty much a moot point, because the courts are never going to change the status quo.
Weirs would be an excellent method to harvest Salmon in a selective manner without harming non target species. Dip netting was also traditionally used, and I believe it is still practiced today. I am not suggesting their rights to harvest be extinguished if they use non-traditional methods. I am only saying if they choose to use a rifle to hunt, then they should have the same season and bag limits as other hunters. Many non-aboriginals enjoy bow hunting for the extra challenge, even with other modern weapons at their disposal. It would seem to me that if non-aboriginals still hunt using a bow, that natives could easily do so as well if they wanted to be exempt from the hunting regulations applied to others.
There is really no point in arguing the fact, because the courts are never going to change the methods aboriginals are permitted to use. It is simply a commonly held viewpoint among non-natives, that the courts do not share. The courts decide the rules, so others views are totally irrelevant anyways. It's pretty much a moot point, because the courts are never going to change the status quo.
Last edited:
The federal government (back then it was the Department of Marine and Fisheries) declared the use of weirs for fishing outlawed in 1877 after getting complaints of aboriginal fishing from cannery owners. Yet - they use weirs on the East Coast to harvest herring and tuna, and a fish fence is a weir. Doubt if that prohibition would stand-up in court today. Go figure, eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Salish_people_and_salmon
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1594272
The weirs were built for herring/mackeral - but the bluefin tuna occasionally follow the herring in (assuming there is herring). They let the tuna fatten-up on herring - make a few calls to Japan - get some bidders out - off goes a $25k+ fish to japan - nice profit. Last few years, there have been reductions in quota numbers for bluefin. Not sure where they are at now with allowable take:
https://novascotia.ca/fish/commercial-fisheries/industry-overview/
http://herringheritage.weebly.com/how-weirs-work.html
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/sar-as/2010/2010_003_e.pdf
Last edited: