Important mtg about chinook fishing in Victoria
- Thread starter Governor
- Start date
Deewar25
Well-Known Member
wolf, regarding your rant about attendance, I thought it was pretty good considering the meetings aren't really 'advertised' (from what I see anyway). Besides email chain, word of mouth, and posting here, how does the word get out to all the other fishers? I bet if we took out an ad in the TC advertising the season at risk in the sports section, or perhaps convince DC Reid to advertise it in his article, or get the Zone, CFAX, and the Q to advertise (likely for free), or even placing an ad in usedvictoria, we would likely get a whole pile more (although would have likely been embarrassing with not enough space at that venue!) Perhaps something to consider IF there would be an additional meeting with DFO in attendance before the summer.
Most people, even fisherman I talk to about this don't even know what the SFAB is...so, get the word out and I think the response will be much stronger!
Most people, even fisherman I talk to about this don't even know what the SFAB is...so, get the word out and I think the response will be much stronger!
Pure and simple this is a conservation issue. However one group doesn't seem to have to suffer along with us. I asked Mr Grout after the meeting if the department had a number at which if reached the FN fishery would have to stop. No answer. Left me to believe that they will continue to fish until the number 0 fish is reached. Maybe we should all be investing in near future hydro electric projects on the Fraser.
If your earlier comment refers to Chris who chaired the Victoria SFAB meeting last Wednesday night, here is my response. Please all know I never used the term "white man" and that was not what was written in the letter either. So let's get that cleared up right away! The letter I read an extract from is copied below (the two key points in blue). While this is the text and not a scan of the letter I believe it to be authentic.
March 30, 2010
Honourable Gail Shea
Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Parliament Buildings, Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Shea
We are writing with respect to UBCIC Resolution 2010-02, Requested Support for Protection of the Early Timed (spring) Chinook which was carried at the Union of BC Indian Chiefs Council on March 18, 2010 (enclosed).
The UBCIC recognizes that the situation of the early spring Chinook in the Fraser River is critical and cannot sustain further pressure from fishing. Therefore, the UBCIC strongly urges the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to uphold their federal fiduciary responsibility to both First Nations and the fish, and stop all non-Aboriginal fisheries that could affect these stocks until the stocks have recovered and there is sufficient data available to manage these stocks sustainably.
The UBCIC Chiefs Council will encourage all First Nations in the approach areas and Fraser River to cease fishing on these stocks for this year in order to encourage recovery and expects DFO to mirror this moratorium by stopping all non-Aboriginal fisheries.
On behalf of the UNION OF BC INDIAN CHIEFS
Grand Chief Stewart Phillip
President
Chief William Charlie
Vice-President
Chief Bob Chamberlin
Secretary-Treasurer
Cc:
UBCIC Chiefs Council
Intertribal Treaty Organization
BC First Nations Fisheries Council
God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
And just so everyone is clear, my earlier post was a letter from the Union of BC Indian Chiefs to DFO Minister Shea strongly urging the Minister act as they request. It is political lobbying. To the best of my knowledge DFO has not formulated a response yet.
So if you anglers are awake out there and have your radar turned on ... get this message ... people lobby government to protect what is important to them. Is salmon fishing in June and perhaps even part of July important to you? What are you personally doing? How are you organizing with fellow anglers your response or how are you personally going to let government know your position? And how are you anglers from areas outside Victoria/Juan de Fuca going to stand by your Victoria fishing colleagues?
Wolf is correct - don't come a cryin' when the decisions already been made. Rarely do we recover lost fishing opportunity once it has been closed.
Gov
God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
So if you anglers are awake out there and have your radar turned on ... get this message ... people lobby government to protect what is important to them. Is salmon fishing in June and perhaps even part of July important to you? What are you personally doing? How are you organizing with fellow anglers your response or how are you personally going to let government know your position? And how are you anglers from areas outside Victoria/Juan de Fuca going to stand by your Victoria fishing colleagues?
Wolf is correct - don't come a cryin' when the decisions already been made. Rarely do we recover lost fishing opportunity once it has been closed.
Gov
God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
Lipripper
Active Member
Dear Minister Shea
We are writing with respect to Resolution 2010-02, Requested Support for Protection of the Early Timed (spring) Chinook which was carried at the Union of BC peoples Council on March 18, 2010 (enclosed).
The citizens recognize that the situation of the early spring Chinook in the Fraser River is critical and cannot sustain further pressure from fishing. Therefore, the citizens strongly urges the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to uphold their federal fiduciary responsibility to both citizens and the fish, and stop all Aboriginal fisheries that could affect these stocks until the stocks have recovered and there is sufficient data available to manage these stocks sustainably.
The average jo will be encouraged in the approach areas and Fraser River to cease fishing on these stocks for this year in order to encourage recovery and expects DFO to mirror this moratorium by stopping all Aboriginal fisheries.
THERE! I fixed it
We are writing with respect to Resolution 2010-02, Requested Support for Protection of the Early Timed (spring) Chinook which was carried at the Union of BC peoples Council on March 18, 2010 (enclosed).
The citizens recognize that the situation of the early spring Chinook in the Fraser River is critical and cannot sustain further pressure from fishing. Therefore, the citizens strongly urges the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to uphold their federal fiduciary responsibility to both citizens and the fish, and stop all Aboriginal fisheries that could affect these stocks until the stocks have recovered and there is sufficient data available to manage these stocks sustainably.
The average jo will be encouraged in the approach areas and Fraser River to cease fishing on these stocks for this year in order to encourage recovery and expects DFO to mirror this moratorium by stopping all Aboriginal fisheries.
THERE! I fixed it
Charlie
Well-Known Member
X2
It has "NOTHING" to do with "Constitution Rights"… it is “ALL” lobbying “contractual” under “teaties”! The Supreme Court knows that, DFO knows that, and First Nations knows that. This is “VERY” much “POLITICAL”… DFO has the authority under the “Fisheries Act” to shut it down, PERIOD! If it is shut down for one, it should be shut down for “ALL”!
Personally, I would really love and be really interested in reading the Canada “Justice” guidance given to DFO… which has been “classified” and has not/is not, even disclosed to the “House”???? If First Nations has a "treaty" in place, there "could be" a "contractual" right giving them preference, but... "NO" treaty... "NO" preference, and "NO" additional "RIGHTS"!!!!
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2006/mar02-eng.htm
wolf
Well-Known Member
CHARLIE What you put up is VERY HELPFUL that info is golden and will be put in my letter.
Funny an american has to find such info and fight our battle once again for us..thanks
What we have to do is write a letter to the minister herself again just like the way we did for halibut, then send it to the offical oppostion as they love this sort of stuff.
But you have to play their game and not put blame on her or FN.
And ask solid questions!!!! im going to draft up a letter within a day or 2.
Kelly your good at writing this sort of stuff. if people on this forum have good constructive commets or questions plese post as lets all work together in drafting up a letter and bog her down with as many letters as we can to the point where the minisiter is going to say enough already.
We have to find legal stuff to put in this and anything regarding canadien charter of rights etc so if anybody knows anything regarding this please post as im sure myself and Kelly and a few others will get something going and put our heads together and write it up so all we have to do is copy and paste then sign your name on the bottom and send it off to the fisheries minister.
We are getting picked on area 19/20 for some unknow reason and im sure if we dont attack this now it will spread to other ares as well we need to stand up now or we have a chance of losing other areas as well maybe the whole island you never know with this government as I put up earlier we are the 5th one down in taking these fish hell even the USA takes more at 1.9 % why us ??? I dont get it.
cmon guys lets work together and fight this and send off letters before the end of this week.
Wolf
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
Funny an american has to find such info and fight our battle once again for us..thanks
What we have to do is write a letter to the minister herself again just like the way we did for halibut, then send it to the offical oppostion as they love this sort of stuff.
But you have to play their game and not put blame on her or FN.
And ask solid questions!!!! im going to draft up a letter within a day or 2.
Kelly your good at writing this sort of stuff. if people on this forum have good constructive commets or questions plese post as lets all work together in drafting up a letter and bog her down with as many letters as we can to the point where the minisiter is going to say enough already.
We have to find legal stuff to put in this and anything regarding canadien charter of rights etc so if anybody knows anything regarding this please post as im sure myself and Kelly and a few others will get something going and put our heads together and write it up so all we have to do is copy and paste then sign your name on the bottom and send it off to the fisheries minister.
We are getting picked on area 19/20 for some unknow reason and im sure if we dont attack this now it will spread to other ares as well we need to stand up now or we have a chance of losing other areas as well maybe the whole island you never know with this government as I put up earlier we are the 5th one down in taking these fish hell even the USA takes more at 1.9 % why us ??? I dont get it.
cmon guys lets work together and fight this and send off letters before the end of this week.
Wolf
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
Charlie
Well-Known Member
I guess I agree, with Charlie White, Alexandra Morton, and all they others... it is not "your battle", it is "ours"!
If you are going to write a letter regarding the management of the fishery... by all means! DFO would be "by law" the responsible agency!
Absolutely, play their game! DO NOT put this all on DFO or First Nations! Shea is only doing what "she" has been "mandated" to do, period! But, don't forget...DFO very much takes its guidance from "OTTAWA"... as in, get them on your side! First Nations (largest "political group" in Canada and are only doing what they are supposed to... represent "their" tribes!
Your 'Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' is very specific, you need to read it? Especially the part who 'Canada' recognizes?
Can you say... Pacific Salmon Treaty? Do some research? The Fraser Sockeye was very much there and probably more than anything - set off the U.S. - Canada 'Salmon War'!
X2!!!!!!!!!
If this is a "conservation" issue... I am "all" for it... "SHUT IT DOWN... FOR ALL!
May, I suggest starting here:
If you want to see something really sad? Go here and start reading this 'single' hatchery produces about one half of DFO's total production:
http://www.fws.gov/gorgefish/springcreek/
wolf
Well-Known Member
Well im going to start getting down to it tommorow and draw something up but ill need ideas as well..
Im just saying we need to get involved and start doing this or it WILL be gone WE all need to get on page if you enjoy going fishing and I know there is alot of us we have to do this together nobody else is going to do it for us time to get involved boys!!!!!
Wolf
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
Im just saying we need to get involved and start doing this or it WILL be gone WE all need to get on page if you enjoy going fishing and I know there is alot of us we have to do this together nobody else is going to do it for us time to get involved boys!!!!!
Wolf
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Feel free to use the following in any part, or in whole - as you see fit! I would highly suggest you get your MP involved here and copy any letter to them?
Cheers,
The Fraser River and its estuary is a significant ecosystem. Produced by the joining of the Fraser River, and its estuary with the Strait of Georgia and the Pacific Ocean. It is very important to “all” stakeholders, even we Sportfishing who only have a total catch of 1.2% of the Chinook fishery. We are starting to see a parallel with the Rivers Inlet ecosystem which completely “collapsed” in 1999 and we certainly do not want, nor can we afford this to happen with the Fraser River estuary. Do we know why and what is being done to stop this collapse?
1. Fraser First Nations - 24.0%
2. Nicola Mouth Sport – 3.2%
3. Georgia Strait - 2.0%
4. USA - 1.9%
5. Fraser River Sport - 1.4%
6. Juan de Fuca area 19/20 – 1.2%
7. NBC Troll - .08%
8. Albion Test Fishery - .08%
It certainly appears from the numbers provided by DFO, the First Nations would be and are more than responsible for the demise of our Fraser River Chinook fishery, but when looking a little closer -The above percentages represent 35.3%, what is happening to the other 64.7% of the returning run, which appears uncounted for? So, before we start pointing fingers at commercial overfishing, Aboriginal overfishing, Logging, dredging of gravel spawning beds, can we at least account for the “missing” fish?
Where is “FREMP”?
In 1985 to create the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) to coordinate the complex governance system existing within the estuary, a number of agencies came together. The six partners are: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, North Fraser Port Authority, Fraser River Port Authority, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. FREMP was designed to bring together the people with decision-making authority over the estuary (including the entire Fraser River Basin) and integrate policies and programs that affect the river. The Municipalities, First Nations and other interests are involved in FREMP. Are they not making recommendations concerning the ecosystem?
http://www.bieapfremp.org/main_fremp.html
Where is AFS?
The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) was put in place in 1992. The AFS applies where DFO manages the fishery and land claims settlements have not already put in place a fisheries management framework. The AFS assists DFO in managing the Aboriginal component of the fishery by negotiating mutually acceptable and time-limited fisheries agreements with Aboriginal groups. Where DFO reaches agreement with an Aboriginal group, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans issues a communal licence to the Aboriginal group that reflects that agreement. Where agreement cannot be reached with an Aboriginal group, the Minister issues a communal fishing licence to the community that reflects prior DFO consultations with the group - one that contains provisions the Minister believes are consistent with the Sparrow decision and subsequent decisions. The licence allows the group to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
“In Marshall, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the treaty right to hunt, fish, and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood based on local treaties signed in the 18th century. In other words, communities fishing under these treaties may sell their catch. The Court affirmed that the Treaty right is a regulated right and that regulation of this Treaty right may be justified for the purposes of conservation or other compelling and substantial objectives. The federal government has the authority and responsibility for regulating the fishery, with conservation as the key consideration. The Court also encouraged the government and First Nations to negotiate rather than litigate to resolve issues around the treaty rights.” We ask, are these not working and are they being enforced?
In summary, the Sparrow doctrine requires a court to answer three main questions:
Is there an aboriginal or treaty right?
If so, does the regulation or legislation in question interfere with this right?
If there is infringement of a right, is the infringement justified?
The Supreme Court noted that aboriginal people have the burden of proving the existence and infringement of their rights. The Crown, on the other hand, has the burden of proving justification; that is, it must demonstrate that the legislative measures are both valid and justifiable. The Supreme Court suggested that, in light of the government’s fiduciary duty towards aboriginal people, it must limit the exercise of its legislative authority. The Court also specified that the final outcome would depend entirely on the findings of fact in a specific case. That essentially means that aboriginal rights will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
B. Van Der Peet
The majority highlighted several guiding factors that a court must consider in its assessment of aboriginal rights, including:
the perspective of aboriginal peoples themselves,
the precise nature of the claim being made,
the central significance of the practice, custom or tradition to the aboriginal society in question,
the relationship of aboriginal peoples to the land, and
the distinctive societies and cultures of aboriginal peoples
In light of these guiding principles, the majority felt it must defer to the trial judge’s findings of fact, since there were no palpable or overriding errors on his part. It therefore accepted his conclusion that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the exchange of fish for money or other goods was an integral part of the distinctive Sto:lo society that had existed prior to European contact.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp428-e.htm#A.
Concerning the Union of BC Indian Chiefs letter to DFO Minister Shea strongly urging the Minister act as they request. We believe that is only an act of “political lobbying”. Nothing more – nothing less! There is nothing in the above references indicating otherwise, unless it is "our" rights in question? It has "NOTHING" to do with any "Constitution Rights"… it is “ALL” lobbying. Their “contractual” rights under any “treaties” is secondary to "conservation"! Taken directly from DFO website, “In the Sparrow decision, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that where an Aboriginal group has an Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, that right has priority, after conservation, over other uses of the resource. The Court affirmed that the Government can regulate the exercise of this right.” In essence the Supreme Court affirmed, if any of the First Nations has a "treaty" in place, there "could be" a "contractual" right giving them preference, but if "NO" treaty, "NO" preference, and "NO" additional "RIGHTS"! We are sure the Supreme Court, DFO, First Nations "all" know this, and "WE" know this also!
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2006/mar02-eng.htm
In conclusion, it seems before we agree to take away any specific stakeholder Fishery, sport or otherwise - we ask DFO to investigate and determine why the ecosystem is collapsing? As the management arm of the federal government, DFO has the “final” authority and responsibility for regulating, with conservation as the key consideration. We strongly urge DFO to examine this issue and "step-in" or "step-out (as Rivers Inlet in 1992) to prevent this collapse.
If needed to protect this important ecosystem... We encourage DFO to take the necessary steps, but if needed shut it down for “ALL”! Shutting down a Sport Fishery of 1.2% can hardly be justified while allowing another stakeholder to continue that would only increase their 24% ("not" counting what has or is being taken unauthorized or unlawfully) to 100%! By the way, is this "our" missing fish?
Cheers,
The Fraser River and its estuary is a significant ecosystem. Produced by the joining of the Fraser River, and its estuary with the Strait of Georgia and the Pacific Ocean. It is very important to “all” stakeholders, even we Sportfishing who only have a total catch of 1.2% of the Chinook fishery. We are starting to see a parallel with the Rivers Inlet ecosystem which completely “collapsed” in 1999 and we certainly do not want, nor can we afford this to happen with the Fraser River estuary. Do we know why and what is being done to stop this collapse?
1. Fraser First Nations - 24.0%
2. Nicola Mouth Sport – 3.2%
3. Georgia Strait - 2.0%
4. USA - 1.9%
5. Fraser River Sport - 1.4%
6. Juan de Fuca area 19/20 – 1.2%
7. NBC Troll - .08%
8. Albion Test Fishery - .08%
It certainly appears from the numbers provided by DFO, the First Nations would be and are more than responsible for the demise of our Fraser River Chinook fishery, but when looking a little closer -The above percentages represent 35.3%, what is happening to the other 64.7% of the returning run, which appears uncounted for? So, before we start pointing fingers at commercial overfishing, Aboriginal overfishing, Logging, dredging of gravel spawning beds, can we at least account for the “missing” fish?
Where is “FREMP”?
In 1985 to create the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) to coordinate the complex governance system existing within the estuary, a number of agencies came together. The six partners are: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, North Fraser Port Authority, Fraser River Port Authority, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. FREMP was designed to bring together the people with decision-making authority over the estuary (including the entire Fraser River Basin) and integrate policies and programs that affect the river. The Municipalities, First Nations and other interests are involved in FREMP. Are they not making recommendations concerning the ecosystem?
http://www.bieapfremp.org/main_fremp.html
Where is AFS?
The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) was put in place in 1992. The AFS applies where DFO manages the fishery and land claims settlements have not already put in place a fisheries management framework. The AFS assists DFO in managing the Aboriginal component of the fishery by negotiating mutually acceptable and time-limited fisheries agreements with Aboriginal groups. Where DFO reaches agreement with an Aboriginal group, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans issues a communal licence to the Aboriginal group that reflects that agreement. Where agreement cannot be reached with an Aboriginal group, the Minister issues a communal fishing licence to the community that reflects prior DFO consultations with the group - one that contains provisions the Minister believes are consistent with the Sparrow decision and subsequent decisions. The licence allows the group to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
“In Marshall, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the treaty right to hunt, fish, and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood based on local treaties signed in the 18th century. In other words, communities fishing under these treaties may sell their catch. The Court affirmed that the Treaty right is a regulated right and that regulation of this Treaty right may be justified for the purposes of conservation or other compelling and substantial objectives. The federal government has the authority and responsibility for regulating the fishery, with conservation as the key consideration. The Court also encouraged the government and First Nations to negotiate rather than litigate to resolve issues around the treaty rights.” We ask, are these not working and are they being enforced?
In summary, the Sparrow doctrine requires a court to answer three main questions:
Is there an aboriginal or treaty right?
If so, does the regulation or legislation in question interfere with this right?
If there is infringement of a right, is the infringement justified?
The Supreme Court noted that aboriginal people have the burden of proving the existence and infringement of their rights. The Crown, on the other hand, has the burden of proving justification; that is, it must demonstrate that the legislative measures are both valid and justifiable. The Supreme Court suggested that, in light of the government’s fiduciary duty towards aboriginal people, it must limit the exercise of its legislative authority. The Court also specified that the final outcome would depend entirely on the findings of fact in a specific case. That essentially means that aboriginal rights will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
B. Van Der Peet
The majority highlighted several guiding factors that a court must consider in its assessment of aboriginal rights, including:
the perspective of aboriginal peoples themselves,
the precise nature of the claim being made,
the central significance of the practice, custom or tradition to the aboriginal society in question,
the relationship of aboriginal peoples to the land, and
the distinctive societies and cultures of aboriginal peoples
In light of these guiding principles, the majority felt it must defer to the trial judge’s findings of fact, since there were no palpable or overriding errors on his part. It therefore accepted his conclusion that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the exchange of fish for money or other goods was an integral part of the distinctive Sto:lo society that had existed prior to European contact.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp428-e.htm#A.
Concerning the Union of BC Indian Chiefs letter to DFO Minister Shea strongly urging the Minister act as they request. We believe that is only an act of “political lobbying”. Nothing more – nothing less! There is nothing in the above references indicating otherwise, unless it is "our" rights in question? It has "NOTHING" to do with any "Constitution Rights"… it is “ALL” lobbying. Their “contractual” rights under any “treaties” is secondary to "conservation"! Taken directly from DFO website, “In the Sparrow decision, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that where an Aboriginal group has an Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, that right has priority, after conservation, over other uses of the resource. The Court affirmed that the Government can regulate the exercise of this right.” In essence the Supreme Court affirmed, if any of the First Nations has a "treaty" in place, there "could be" a "contractual" right giving them preference, but if "NO" treaty, "NO" preference, and "NO" additional "RIGHTS"! We are sure the Supreme Court, DFO, First Nations "all" know this, and "WE" know this also!
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2006/mar02-eng.htm
In conclusion, it seems before we agree to take away any specific stakeholder Fishery, sport or otherwise - we ask DFO to investigate and determine why the ecosystem is collapsing? As the management arm of the federal government, DFO has the “final” authority and responsibility for regulating, with conservation as the key consideration. We strongly urge DFO to examine this issue and "step-in" or "step-out (as Rivers Inlet in 1992) to prevent this collapse.
If needed to protect this important ecosystem... We encourage DFO to take the necessary steps, but if needed shut it down for “ALL”! Shutting down a Sport Fishery of 1.2% can hardly be justified while allowing another stakeholder to continue that would only increase their 24% ("not" counting what has or is being taken unauthorized or unlawfully) to 100%! By the way, is this "our" missing fish?
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Feel free to use the following in any part, or in whole - as you see fit! I would highly suggest you get your MP involved here and copy any letter to them?
Cheers,
The Fraser River and its estuary is a significant ecosystem. Produced by the joining of the Fraser River, and its estuary with the Strait of Georgia and the Pacific Ocean. It is very important to “all” stakeholders, even we Sportfishing who only have a total catch of 1.2% of the Chinook fishery. We are starting to see a parallel with the Rivers Inlet ecosystem which completely “collapsed” in 1999 and we certainly do not want, nor can we afford this to happen with the Fraser River estuary. Do we know why and what is being done to stop this collapse?
1. Fraser First Nations - 24.0%
2. Nicola Mouth Sport – 3.2%
3. Georgia Strait - 2.0%
4. USA - 1.9%
5. Fraser River Sport - 1.4%
6. Juan de Fuca area 19/20 – 1.2%
7. NBC Troll - .08%
8. Albion Test Fishery - .08%
It certainly appears from the numbers provided by DFO, the First Nations would be and are more than responsible for the demise of our Fraser River Chinook fishery, but when looking a little closer -The above percentages represent 35.3%, what is happening to the other 64.7% of the returning run, which appears uncounted for? So, before we start pointing fingers at commercial overfishing, Aboriginal overfishing, Logging, dredging of gravel spawning beds, can we at least account for the “missing” fish?
Where is “FREMP”?
In 1985 to create the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) to coordinate the complex governance system existing within the estuary, a number of agencies came together. The six partners are: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, North Fraser Port Authority, Fraser River Port Authority, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. FREMP was designed to bring together the people with decision-making authority over the estuary (including the entire Fraser River Basin) and integrate policies and programs that affect the river. The Municipalities, First Nations and other interests are involved in FREMP. Are they not making recommendations concerning the ecosystem?
http://www.bieapfremp.org/main_fremp.html
Where is AFS?
The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) was put in place in 1992. The AFS applies where DFO manages the fishery and land claims settlements have not already put in place a fisheries management framework. The AFS assists DFO in managing the Aboriginal component of the fishery by negotiating mutually acceptable and time-limited fisheries agreements with Aboriginal groups. Where DFO reaches agreement with an Aboriginal group, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans issues a communal licence to the Aboriginal group that reflects that agreement. Where agreement cannot be reached with an Aboriginal group, the Minister issues a communal fishing licence to the community that reflects prior DFO consultations with the group - one that contains provisions the Minister believes are consistent with the Sparrow decision and subsequent decisions. The licence allows the group to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
“In Marshall, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the treaty right to hunt, fish, and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood based on local treaties signed in the 18th century. In other words, communities fishing under these treaties may sell their catch. The Court affirmed that the Treaty right is a regulated right and that regulation of this Treaty right may be justified for the purposes of conservation or other compelling and substantial objectives. The federal government has the authority and responsibility for regulating the fishery, with conservation as the key consideration. The Court also encouraged the government and First Nations to negotiate rather than litigate to resolve issues around the treaty rights.” We ask, are these not working and are they being enforced?
In summary, the Sparrow doctrine requires a court to answer three main questions:
Is there an aboriginal or treaty right?
If so, does the regulation or legislation in question interfere with this right?
If there is infringement of a right, is the infringement justified?
The Supreme Court noted that aboriginal people have the burden of proving the existence and infringement of their rights. The Crown, on the other hand, has the burden of proving justification; that is, it must demonstrate that the legislative measures are both valid and justifiable. The Supreme Court suggested that, in light of the government’s fiduciary duty towards aboriginal people, it must limit the exercise of its legislative authority. The Court also specified that the final outcome would depend entirely on the findings of fact in a specific case. That essentially means that aboriginal rights will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
B. Van Der Peet
The majority highlighted several guiding factors that a court must consider in its assessment of aboriginal rights, including:
the perspective of aboriginal peoples themselves,
the precise nature of the claim being made,
the central significance of the practice, custom or tradition to the aboriginal society in question,
the relationship of aboriginal peoples to the land, and
the distinctive societies and cultures of aboriginal peoples
In light of these guiding principles, the majority felt it must defer to the trial judge’s findings of fact, since there were no palpable or overriding errors on his part. It therefore accepted his conclusion that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the exchange of fish for money or other goods was an integral part of the distinctive Sto:lo society that had existed prior to European contact.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp428-e.htm#A.
Concerning the Union of BC Indian Chiefs letter to DFO Minister Shea strongly urging the Minister act as they request. We believe that is only an act of “political lobbying”. Nothing more – nothing less! There is nothing in the above references indicating otherwise, unless it is "our" rights in question? It has "NOTHING" to do with any "Constitution Rights"… it is “ALL” lobbying. Their “contractual” rights under any “treaties” is secondary to "conservation"! Taken directly from DFO website, “In the Sparrow decision, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that where an Aboriginal group has an Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, that right has priority, after conservation, over other uses of the resource. The Court affirmed that the Government can regulate the exercise of this right.” In essence the Supreme Court affirmed, if any of the First Nations has a "treaty" in place, there "could be" a "contractual" right giving them preference, but if "NO" treaty, "NO" preference, and "NO" additional "RIGHTS"! We are sure the Supreme Court, DFO, First Nations "all" know this, and "WE" know this also!
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2006/mar02-eng.htm
In conclusion, it seems before we agree to take away any specific stakeholder Fishery, sport or otherwise - we ask DFO to investigate and determine why the ecosystem is collapsing? As the management arm of the federal government, DFO has the “final” authority and responsibility for regulating, with conservation as the key consideration. We strongly urge DFO to examine this issue and "step-in" or "step-out (as Rivers Inlet in 1992) to prevent this collapse.
If needed to protect this important ecosystem... We encourage DFO to take the necessary steps, but if needed shut it down for “ALL”! Shutting down a Sport Fishery of 1.2% can hardly be justified while allowing another stakeholder to continue that would only increase their 24% ("not" counting what has or is being taken unauthorized or unlawfully) to 100%! By the way, is this "our" missing fish?
Cheers,
The Fraser River and its estuary is a significant ecosystem. Produced by the joining of the Fraser River, and its estuary with the Strait of Georgia and the Pacific Ocean. It is very important to “all” stakeholders, even we Sportfishing who only have a total catch of 1.2% of the Chinook fishery. We are starting to see a parallel with the Rivers Inlet ecosystem which completely “collapsed” in 1999 and we certainly do not want, nor can we afford this to happen with the Fraser River estuary. Do we know why and what is being done to stop this collapse?
1. Fraser First Nations - 24.0%
2. Nicola Mouth Sport – 3.2%
3. Georgia Strait - 2.0%
4. USA - 1.9%
5. Fraser River Sport - 1.4%
6. Juan de Fuca area 19/20 – 1.2%
7. NBC Troll - .08%
8. Albion Test Fishery - .08%
It certainly appears from the numbers provided by DFO, the First Nations would be and are more than responsible for the demise of our Fraser River Chinook fishery, but when looking a little closer -The above percentages represent 35.3%, what is happening to the other 64.7% of the returning run, which appears uncounted for? So, before we start pointing fingers at commercial overfishing, Aboriginal overfishing, Logging, dredging of gravel spawning beds, can we at least account for the “missing” fish?
Where is “FREMP”?
In 1985 to create the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) to coordinate the complex governance system existing within the estuary, a number of agencies came together. The six partners are: Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, North Fraser Port Authority, Fraser River Port Authority, and the Greater Vancouver Regional District. FREMP was designed to bring together the people with decision-making authority over the estuary (including the entire Fraser River Basin) and integrate policies and programs that affect the river. The Municipalities, First Nations and other interests are involved in FREMP. Are they not making recommendations concerning the ecosystem?
http://www.bieapfremp.org/main_fremp.html
Where is AFS?
The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) was put in place in 1992. The AFS applies where DFO manages the fishery and land claims settlements have not already put in place a fisheries management framework. The AFS assists DFO in managing the Aboriginal component of the fishery by negotiating mutually acceptable and time-limited fisheries agreements with Aboriginal groups. Where DFO reaches agreement with an Aboriginal group, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans issues a communal licence to the Aboriginal group that reflects that agreement. Where agreement cannot be reached with an Aboriginal group, the Minister issues a communal fishing licence to the community that reflects prior DFO consultations with the group - one that contains provisions the Minister believes are consistent with the Sparrow decision and subsequent decisions. The licence allows the group to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes.
“In Marshall, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the treaty right to hunt, fish, and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood based on local treaties signed in the 18th century. In other words, communities fishing under these treaties may sell their catch. The Court affirmed that the Treaty right is a regulated right and that regulation of this Treaty right may be justified for the purposes of conservation or other compelling and substantial objectives. The federal government has the authority and responsibility for regulating the fishery, with conservation as the key consideration. The Court also encouraged the government and First Nations to negotiate rather than litigate to resolve issues around the treaty rights.” We ask, are these not working and are they being enforced?
In summary, the Sparrow doctrine requires a court to answer three main questions:
Is there an aboriginal or treaty right?
If so, does the regulation or legislation in question interfere with this right?
If there is infringement of a right, is the infringement justified?
The Supreme Court noted that aboriginal people have the burden of proving the existence and infringement of their rights. The Crown, on the other hand, has the burden of proving justification; that is, it must demonstrate that the legislative measures are both valid and justifiable. The Supreme Court suggested that, in light of the government’s fiduciary duty towards aboriginal people, it must limit the exercise of its legislative authority. The Court also specified that the final outcome would depend entirely on the findings of fact in a specific case. That essentially means that aboriginal rights will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
B. Van Der Peet
The majority highlighted several guiding factors that a court must consider in its assessment of aboriginal rights, including:
the perspective of aboriginal peoples themselves,
the precise nature of the claim being made,
the central significance of the practice, custom or tradition to the aboriginal society in question,
the relationship of aboriginal peoples to the land, and
the distinctive societies and cultures of aboriginal peoples
In light of these guiding principles, the majority felt it must defer to the trial judge’s findings of fact, since there were no palpable or overriding errors on his part. It therefore accepted his conclusion that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the exchange of fish for money or other goods was an integral part of the distinctive Sto:lo society that had existed prior to European contact.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/bp428-e.htm#A.
Concerning the Union of BC Indian Chiefs letter to DFO Minister Shea strongly urging the Minister act as they request. We believe that is only an act of “political lobbying”. Nothing more – nothing less! There is nothing in the above references indicating otherwise, unless it is "our" rights in question? It has "NOTHING" to do with any "Constitution Rights"… it is “ALL” lobbying. Their “contractual” rights under any “treaties” is secondary to "conservation"! Taken directly from DFO website, “In the Sparrow decision, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that where an Aboriginal group has an Aboriginal right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, that right has priority, after conservation, over other uses of the resource. The Court affirmed that the Government can regulate the exercise of this right.” In essence the Supreme Court affirmed, if any of the First Nations has a "treaty" in place, there "could be" a "contractual" right giving them preference, but if "NO" treaty, "NO" preference, and "NO" additional "RIGHTS"! We are sure the Supreme Court, DFO, First Nations "all" know this, and "WE" know this also!
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2006/mar02-eng.htm
In conclusion, it seems before we agree to take away any specific stakeholder Fishery, sport or otherwise - we ask DFO to investigate and determine why the ecosystem is collapsing? As the management arm of the federal government, DFO has the “final” authority and responsibility for regulating, with conservation as the key consideration. We strongly urge DFO to examine this issue and "step-in" or "step-out (as Rivers Inlet in 1992) to prevent this collapse.
If needed to protect this important ecosystem... We encourage DFO to take the necessary steps, but if needed shut it down for “ALL”! Shutting down a Sport Fishery of 1.2% can hardly be justified while allowing another stakeholder to continue that would only increase their 24% ("not" counting what has or is being taken unauthorized or unlawfully) to 100%! By the way, is this "our" missing fish?
scott craven
Well-Known Member
would everyone agree that an extention of the restriction on wild fish
over 67cm. be preferable over a total closure ?
perhaps this would be the way to proceed ?
over 67cm. be preferable over a total closure ?
perhaps this would be the way to proceed ?
scott craven
Well-Known Member
would everyone agree that an extention of the restriction on wild fish
over 67cm. be preferable over a total closure ?
perhaps this would be the way to proceed ?
over 67cm. be preferable over a total closure ?
perhaps this would be the way to proceed ?
M
mikesmith
Guest
maybe we need some COWBOYS
M
mikesmith
Guest
maybe we need some COWBOYS
wolf
Well-Known Member
Dont take this the wrong way scott but if you were at the meeting and got all the documentation from it and heard what this guy had to say you definattly wound'nt even make a statement like you just did.
You need to look at it all and see we are getting shafted in the A$$ by DFO plus whens the last time you seen a under 67 cm fish in june??? not very often the avg is 15 to 23 lbs definatlly way over the 67 cm joke.
WOLF
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
You need to look at it all and see we are getting shafted in the A$$ by DFO plus whens the last time you seen a under 67 cm fish in june??? not very often the avg is 15 to 23 lbs definatlly way over the 67 cm joke.
WOLF
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
wolf
Well-Known Member
Dont take this the wrong way scott but if you were at the meeting and got all the documentation from it and heard what this guy had to say you definattly wound'nt even make a statement like you just did.
You need to look at it all and see we are getting shafted in the A$$ by DFO plus whens the last time you seen a under 67 cm fish in june??? not very often the avg is 15 to 23 lbs definatlly way over the 67 cm joke.
WOLF
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
You need to look at it all and see we are getting shafted in the A$$ by DFO plus whens the last time you seen a under 67 cm fish in june??? not very often the avg is 15 to 23 lbs definatlly way over the 67 cm joke.
WOLF
Blue Wolf Charters
www.bluewolfcharters.com
scott craven
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you're right Roy, however if the alternative is a complete closure we're really screwed.
By the way we caught lots of fin clipped fish up to 26 lbs last June.
By the way we caught lots of fin clipped fish up to 26 lbs last June.
Similar threads
