Since Time Immemorial, by Bob Hooton

The point is, the current chinook population is vastly in excess of anything that existed historically.
Good luck proving this one. It is quite likely that the Robertson Creek Chinook enhancement represent the number of Chinook that historically returned to regional streams (other than the Stamp/Somass) in the area historically fished by the FN's in question; the single large hatchery was considered a better option than putting hatcheries on every stream in the area in order to restore Chinook populations nearer to historical numbers. Is this FN catch part of a treaty agreement? If so, does the treaty specify that enhanced Chinook are out of scope?

FYI I consider the Hooten info rasicst & just another post made by a predictable group of forum members making predictable comments on a predictable subject (FN fisheries).
 
Is this FN catch part of a treaty agreement? If so, does the treaty specify that enhanced Chinook are out of scope?

There are only a few treatied First Nations in B.C.. most don’t have treaties. Most First Nations rights come from Supreme Court cases based on law that was written into things like the Indian act, amendment to our constitution, charter of rights and freedom ect..

tsawwassen First Nation's are one of the few that do.
 
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colu...l-back-story-to-the-maritimes-lobster-dispute.






Good luck proving this one. It is quite likely that the Robertson Creek Chinook enhancement represent the number of Chinook that historically returned to regional streams (other than the Stamp/Somass) in the area historically fished by the FN's in question; the single large hatchery was considered a better option than putting hatcheries on every stream in the area in order to restore Chinook populations nearer to historical numbers. Is this FN catch part of a treaty agreement? If so, does the treaty specify that enhanced Chinook are out of scope?

FYI I consider the Hooten info rasicst & just another post made by a predictable group of forum members making predictable comments on a predictable subject (FN fisheries).
 
Good luck proving this one. It is quite likely that the Robertson Creek Chinook enhancement represent the number of Chinook that historically returned to regional streams (other than the Stamp/Somass) in the area historically fished by the FN's in question...

I'd strongly suggest you back away from your keyboard when you really don't understand what you are yapping about. You missed this one by a mile.

Agent: Interesting. Taking the author to task rather than the subject matter is often a signal that you lack the wherewithal to deal with the latter.

Nog
 
Posting a op ed by a author well known for his bias and irresponsible journalism would lead me to believe that the poster lacks the wherewithal to fact check and assess bias and instead wishes confirmation for his own biases. I think it should be standard procedure to assess biases in news sources irrespective of our own views/biases.

I would post alternative & more credible and balanced news sources - but I don't want to derail this thread into another East Coast lobster war thread.
 
Good luck proving this one. It is quite likely that the Robertson Creek Chinook enhancement represent the number of Chinook that historically returned to regional streams (other than the Stamp/Somass) in the area historically fished by the FN's in question; the single large hatchery was considered a better option than putting hatcheries on every stream in the area in order to restore Chinook populations nearer to historical numbers. Is this FN catch part of a treaty agreement? If so, does the treaty specify that enhanced Chinook are out of scope?

FYI I consider the Hooten info rasicst & just another post made by a predictable group of forum members making predictable comments on a predictable subject (FN fisheries).

Every one is aloud their own opinions ,doesnt mean they are correct and we can agree to disagree.

Treaty is a contract, and contracts are tore up every single day,or not adhered to by 1 side or the other.
Time to update and bring the contracts into the present with clear understanding of what both sides are arguing for or against.
What is happening at the moment cannot go on for infinity, there will be more violence if it stands as is.
 
Every one is aloud their own opinions ,doesnt mean they are correct and we can agree to disagree.

Treaty is a contract, and contracts are tore up every single day,or not adhered to by 1 side or the other.
Time to update and bring the contracts into the present with clear understanding of what both sides are arguing for or against.
What is happening at the moment cannot go on for infinity, there will be more violence if it stands as is.


As I am sure you know, FN rights are are part of the constitution and the courts are increasingly siding with them for increased access to resources and the right to benefit from those resources.
 
How did he miss this Nog? What is your take on ericl's theory re historic chinook numbers?

haha that question is so complicated and impossible to actually find out for most systems. I once tried to track it down but it's unbelievably complicated and egg transplants have been going on in BC for 100+ years.

I think I was most shocked at the decline in Chum actually when I spent time going though historical catch statistics.
 
I think eric1s post was on-the-mark - and i'd like to see what references/data Nog has to challenge his post. But not holding my breath on Nog providing references tho...
 
As I am sure you know, FN rights are are part of the constitution and the courts are increasingly siding with them for increased access to resources and the right to benefit from those resources.

The BNAA has been amended in the past and will be amended in the future, most likely after I'm long gone ,but it will be just as the sun will come up again tomorrow
 
The British North America Act (BNAA) of 1867-1975 was updated and replaced by the current Canadian Constitution Act of 1982. The current and evolving FN rights are based upon the Constitution Act and the Supreme Court case decisions. I think it is reasonable to say that there will be more changes coming in regards to FN rights and reconciliation. While it is possible to change the constitution - it is not a quick and easy thing to do for obvious reasons and usually requires a fair bit of comprise to get the required amount of agreement to actually make any changes. The future will be interesting to say the least.
 
It's a complicated issue, eric1 - how we came to be where we are - and what the legalities are - and maybe where we might be headed. I applaud your openness on asking & learning. I wish they taught this stuff in school along the way. Collective amnesia only serves to heighten the tensions & divides.

I notice Nog has still not provided any clarity nor sources for his disagreement with your earlier post.
 
How did he miss this Nog? What is your take on ericl's theory re historic chinook numbers?

It is common knowledge that the historic numbers of chinook (pre hatchery) in the Stamp / Somas system were exponentially lower than those realized after the hatchery was put in place. Anyone with any online research capabilities can easily find volumes of information which note this.

The quaint notion that "regional streams (other than the Stamp/Somass) in the area" contributed sufficient numbers to bring the overall area abundance up to what is seen today is well off the mark. Cous, China, McTush, Franklin Creeks (closest) had and have negligible runs of chinook, if any. The closest two systems that did realize some chinook use are the Nahmint and Sarita Rivers. Even combining those with the historic numbers the Stamp received, the overall production combined pales in the face of that of today.

These are simply facts, not conjecture. Reality.

Many know I was not one of Hooton's fan boys in the past. That said, I do respect his high level of education, and his decades of experience as a hand's on biologist. Methinks that provides him with one hell of a lot more insight and understanding of resource issues than any combination of armchair quarterbacks on a sportfishing site. In this matter, he is correct. Period.

More for you to chew on: https://steelheadvoices.com/?p=2179

Nog
 
Stating "common knowledge" as a defense when you get challenged really doesn't cut it, Nog. It brings no additional confirmation nor scientific vigour to your assertions, IMHO. Having said that - I would expect that the Robertson Creek has substantially increased the size of the runs into the Somass watershed (as you outlined), but as Eric1 posted above: "Good luck proving this one": https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/120400.pdf
chinook.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bob, is one of the only people who actually calls it the way it is. Experience on the ground with these systems is more valuable than a dozen computer/Google experts. I love seeing the people that reply to some of these threads and realize they have no idea what they are talking about, let alone even stepped foot in these areas.

WMY, the chum numbers are absolutely **** poor this year....yet we have nets out mopping up anything returning right now in the Fraser as well as the last week or so in the ocean. The fact that chum are even open in the LM just goes to show you how clueless DFO is to what is actually going.
 
Back
Top