Temperature rising. By Bob Hooton

OldBlackDog

Well-Known Member
Temperature Rising
UncategorizedComments: 0

The giveaway of our salmon and steelhead resources to 5% or less of our population to reconcile the perceived sins of our forefathers and apply whatever it is our federal and provincial governments think the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People means is headed for chaos. In the world of the present, any criticism of our First Nations and how they conduct fisheries with the full blessing of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is automatically interpreted as unwarranted and biased at best but, more commonly, racist. Consider the following and decide for yourself who deserves to be in the crosshairs.

From well before the appearance of the 2018 chinook returns along the BC coast DFO has held there is a serious conservation concern. That precipitated a variety of restrictions in different times and places. For Skeena River origin stocks the conservation measures were most severe for the recreational anglers who are still forbidden from angling for salmon. Commercial fisheries in the Skeena approaches were also shut down completely for most of the chinook immigration period. Meanwhile, little known to most people, there was a special arrangement negotiated between DFO and the Skeena FNs such that the average (reported) chinook catches over the five year period of 2012-2016 inclusive was allocated to them for 2018 as Food, Social and Ceremonial fish. The figures I have indicate that five year average was 3,680 with no mention of any distinction between adult and jack chinook. (The reported FSC catch of chinook in 2017 was 4,713, again with no mention of an adult:jack split.) Is it unreasonable to ask why there was any allocation at all if conservation was the issue driving closure of all those other fisheries? Why would none of this allocation arrangement surface during all the pre-season machinations about conservation and DFO’s insensitivity toward any softer measures to accommodate, for example, a minimal impact chinook catch and release fishery for anglers. Such a fishery wouldn’t have produced 2% of that number of dead chinook? What happened to DFO’s justification for a complete angling closure on the premise they couldn’t take the necessary conservation measures re the FN fishery if there was a catch and release recreational fishery?

Fast forward to a July 31 update from the “Gitksan Watershed Authorities” (GWA). That is the FN group that speaks for the mainstem Skeena and its tributaries from a few kms upstream from Terrace to the headwaters. The Bulkley beyond Hagwilget and the Babine beyond the Nilkitkwa Lake outlet belong elsewhere. The GWA report states that 4,325 adult chinook and 1,268 jack chinook were caught by their set net fishery alone. Contrast that with that quietly negotiated chinook quota of 3,680 (for the combined Skeena FNs, not just the GWA?). Then throw in the GWA report of continuing good fishing for sockeye with the best yet to come, a proposal for an in-river “economic opportunity” fishery, demand that DFO consult them before considering any recreational fishery for sockeye and condemnation of any recreational fishery for pinks and coho.



Screenshot-2018-08-03-12.51.42.png

The GWA bulletin. Note the lack of mention of any harvest of species other than chinook. Apparently all those steelhead passing DFO’s test fishery went somewhere else. Sockeye fishing is “healthy” though, with the best yet to come.


The commercial fishery down at the mouth of the Skeena is in full bloom now that the sockeye escapement threshold has been achieved. Add to that special FN fisheries involving the same gill net vessels that operate as regular participants in any commercial fishing opening. Then think about the following rules we’re told apply to gill netters participating as commercial fishermen in the rivermouth openings and contrast them with what occurs up the river beyond the commercial fishery.

Prior to August 1 the rules (i.e. conditions of license) applicable to commercial gill netters who concentrate in that well known corridor where steelhead catches are consistently highest (i.e. sub-areas 4-12 and 4-15) were covered in two sentences in DFO’s fishery announcement bulletins: “All gill net fisheries in Areas 4 and 5 are being conducted with non-retention and non-possession of Coho, Chum, Chinook and Steelhead. None of these species may be aboard a vessel that is engaged in fishing unless they are being revived in the revival tank immediately prior to release.” On August 1 the same gear types in the same areas begin the season labelled the selective gill net fishery. Remember, typically, half of the Skeena steelhead return has already been subjected to these never enforced rules by July 31.

The rules that kick in all of a sudden on August 1 are supposed to address conservation. At that point its all about half length nets, short sets, mandatory re-circulating pump recovery tanks with detailed flow through requirements for water volume, etc. The rules description in the DFO bulletin takes up almost a page! Further: “There will be observers present in the fishery. All vessel masters must take an observer on board if requested to do so by a representative of the Department. The commercial gill net fleet is reminded that the compliance of this selective fishery is critical to their future access to Skeena Sockeye.” Sounds great on paper but there is reality afoot. A participant in a conference call with DFO’s management staff on the same day the above announcement was made reports that DFO admitted it could not afford to deploy observers. Besides, they said, there was no conservation concern for steelhead nor coho so it wasn’t that important anyway. Smoke and mirrors all over again and again.

Dear DFO: Show us one shred of evidence your officers have ever charged and convicted a north coast gill netter for non-compliance with any of your conditions of license respecting steelhead. How about those mandatory steelhead catch reports that are readily exposed as gross underestimates but are never challenged? Needless to say there has never been a gill net fishery curtailed or constrained for anything to do with steelhead. Then we go up the river and enter that GWA territory where set nets and drift nets are the order of the day. Anyone who thinks there is anything selective about those nets, or gill nets in general, is terribly misinformed. Try looking at the catches of DFO’s Albion test fishery for Fraser River chinook for evidence. There we have a large mesh gill net operated by an experienced contractor who is constantly under a microscope in terms of methodology and results. The records show that net catches as many or more sockeye as chinook even though it is designed and operated to target large chinook.

The take home message in all of this is a GWA member can fish (if licensed) as a commercial fisherman down around Prince Rupert one day and the rules appear tight but are never enforced. The next day that same person can be one of the exclusive participants in a demonstration or economic opportunity fishery with rules that are even less likely to ever be enforced. After all that, the same person can head upstream to his/her territory and fish a gill net with no rules whatsoever. And DFO is telling us those selective fishing rules at the rivermouth are saving fish. For who?

A few questions I can’t help but ask. Who is paying for the activities of the GWA? Where is it written that salmon and steelhead resources are the exclusive property of First Nations? Why is there no non-FN voice in the room when allocation decisions are being made? Why should the non-FN community continue to pay taxes and license fees to have what it believes to be public resources managed for all when those resources and access to them is being ripped away at an unprecedented rate? When is conservation conservation?
 
There is ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY in FN fisheries or Wildlife. They do not have to report any TRUE numbers and are completely under different rules when it comes to what's legal and what's not.

A fine Example...... Fraser a River Chinook in crisis....... Shut ER down for recreational and commercial to SAVE THE KILLER WHALES.

In the mean time......... On Craigslist ........ Wild Chinook or King Salmon from the Fraser River for Sale.

What a PATHETIC excuse for management.

Both our PROVINCIAL and FEDERAL GOVERERNMENT are CAUSING RACISM............

ONE LAW FOR ALL.........

they will kill and sell from hunting and fishing till all gone. Then still, blame ol Whitie. As said ...... PATHETIC .
 
I am so glad i did not have any children, i could see this happening many many years ago, there will be nothing left for future generations, so sad but so true
 
Capilano more fake news?

So once again in your haste to post a lackluster response, you failed to notice - or completely ignored the fact that my previous statement of "fake news" was attributed to the fake CL listing - and not about the DFO warning (which again, I agree with the warning) on illegal salmon sales. So may be next time, get your facts straight before attempting to troll me for a response. And speaking of trolling. I really hope in real life that you, Captain Matlock, are better at trolling for salmon, then you are here in this forum, trolling for attention.

And lastly to set the record straight and to erase any doubt from your, perhaps confused thinking.

I respect FN constitutional rights for fishing. Do I agree with all of it? No - However, the legal system has undeniably made it very clear that those rights are not going to be extinguished anytime soon.

I also do not support any type of illegal fishing - not matter what user group and their self proclaimed, righteous beliefs. I have done the RAPP and reported to DFO, poachers from all walks of life , I see any person poaching, I report without delay.


End of discussion.
 
Capilano is right - Hooton is either extremely ignorant about Canada and case law - or he is intentionally stirring the pot with his bias and racism to connect with his loyal readership. Hard to believe in today's information age that hooton can't simply look-up case law on CanLii and read what the judges actually said: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/sort=decisionDate&text=aboriginal fishing rights

The fact hat he didn't even mention case law - a pillar of our justice system - speaks volumes about his bias - or ignorance - I am unsure which it is. It is similarly hard to believe that he is also ignorant of the fact that case law and the subsequent rulings by numerous judges stems from the Constitution Act 1982 - the Act where all the other Acts and Laws derive their authority & legitimacy.

It's a pretty significant oversight to deliberately ignore these legalities - but instead claim any aboriginal fishing rights are merely to: "reconcile the perceived sins of our forefathers". Talk about fake news.

It is instead about the "honour of the Crown": - something we are all supposed to live under.

There has been quite a bit of case law since Sparrow. You can browse it at: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/text=aboriginal case law

In addition, the fairly recent Tsilhqot’in Decision (courts being an integral part of our legal system) laid the foundations about proving land claims and hunting rights:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14246/index.do

Might be worth having a read for some - to understand the dynamics of First Nations land claims, and rights and title... especially this excerpt:

"Aboriginal title flows from occupation in the sense of regular and exclusive use of land. To ground Aboriginal title “occupation” must be sufficient, continuous (where present occupation is relied on) and exclusive. In determining what constitutes sufficient occupation, which lies at the heart of this appeal, one looks to the Aboriginal culture and practices, and compares them in a culturally sensitive way with what was required at common law to establish title on the basis of occupation. Occupation sufficient to ground Aboriginal title is not confined to specific sites of settlement but extends to tracts of land that were regularly used for hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting resources and over which the group exercised effective control at the time of assertion of European sovereignty."

AND - incorrectly - as claimed by Hooton - aquatic harvesting & aboriginal rights, and control of traditional territories - are very much not "race-based", but rather based on history and exclusion/control - as spelled-out in the case law, which you can reference and read for yourself. I would encourage everyone to take advantage of our access to those courts decisions and read them since it affects how we manage our fish stocks.

The Indian Act - on the other hand - is very much "race-based" - and First Nations did not have a say in either the development, approval nor implementation of that Act. So-called "Indians" in Canada were only allowed to hire legal council in 1951, to vote in 1961 - and it's only since the reparation of the Constitution in 1982 - did they have their rights affirmed - and have been able to use s. 35 in the Courts, starting with Sparrow. See: http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/the-indian-act.html

It's hard to know where even to begin with Hooton's op ed on his blog - there are SO MANY glaring and obvious errors and unsubstantiated wild claims - that I can only assume that nobody but the least informed and most emotionally driven could attach any weight to his drivel.

Just a few more examples - his population numbers are spread across Canada and do nor reflect jurisdictional nor governance boundaries - while court rulings do reflect these boundaries.

In particular - First Nations on the West Coast in many municipalities often reach 50% of the population or more - and those boundaries of First Nation aboriginal rights to harvest are instead based often on asserted Traditional Territory with a history of exclusion and usage - something Hooton seems to avoid discussing.

Thanks OBD for posting Hooton's rant so at least his in admissions and errors can be highlighted to the readership on this forum.
 
This is probably Hooton's 5 of 6th rant about First Nations. Many that have been involved in industry like Hooton over the last 40 years have come to much of the same conclusions.

His concerns are mainly that the government has no control over the harvest and sale of salmon from First Nations and if they do they simply just don't care. He also has some of the same concerns about recreational fisheries, no accountability, Industrial scale operations out of lodges on the Skeena and in the ocean ect...He compares the modern day recreational fisheries to replacing some of the old commercial fleet.

His other major concern is with mix stock fisheries, Steelhead getting over harvested in Fraser river chum fisheries, Steelhead getting over harvested in Port Alberni and Skeena sockeye fisheries.
http://steelheadvoices.com/?p=1100

You have to read all his blogs, He probably has spent more time reading about First Nations rights then most of us as well as being part of many negotiations with First Nations. Sure in this one blog you could say he ignorant but he's touched on all the points that has ever been brought up by both sides in other blogs.

His probably number 1 concern is DFO continues to put harvest ahead of conservation. Still no wild salmon policy and still no use of the Precautionary Principal especially when it comes to Steelhead.

DC Reid agrees with much of what Bob Hooton also writes

http://fishfarmnews.blogspot.com/2018/06/managing-steelhead-into-extinction-bob.html

"enforcement effort in 2017 was the lowest in the past four years. Our man also stated plainly that the enforcement patrols in the Johnstone Strait area were intended to satisfy all comers that the commercial fisheries were “clean” and thus the MSC conditions for certification upheld. Predictably, no significant transgressions were detected so the MSC beat goes on."

This is exactly what Randy Nelson a former director of C&P, as enforcement is known, has said in his book Poachers, Polluters and Politics, 2014. Four years later there still is not enough staff, and they don't do much when they do it."
 
Comprehension is a large part of any conversational dialog. It's important to respond on Q, where relating to ones previous input in relation to valued conversation...with respect, no where have I spelt any form of posture relating to stock or resource numbers, unless you are using slang while relaying your response to my pointed information about human population and percentage ratios?? I dunno? Am I missing something? I want to interpret the human use ratio per fishing sector in British Columbia, so as we all may know and see what the real participation levels are and how the shared resource is actually be utilized as apposed to some of the rhetoric be touted on this website and others on what seems like a daily basis. :)

Good points
 
Thanks for the rational, sensible response StormTrooper.

Catch monitoring and enforcement is a challenge for all our fisheries - and is a separate (but related) issue to the issue of FN harvesting rights - which is where Hooton starts his article - proceeded by a biased and highly inaccurate (and racist) opinion of what he thinks FN harvesting rights are all about.

So serious and inaccurate was that start of his rant IMHO - I can't bother to read the rest of his blog. It is of course his right to spew any BS he wants on his blog - but that's what it is - a blog - not a news article.
 
Anybody who spends time around the resources where these things are happening all agree with what Hooton is saying. However not all FN should be painted in the same picture. Some are actual stewards of the land, unfortunetly not all are.

Well, Whitebuck. Honestly - one of the few things I have ever agreed with you on. Don't let it go to your head though...
 
Capilano is right - Hooton is either extremely ignorant about Canada and case law - or he is intentionally stirring the pot with his bias and racism to connect with his loyal readership. Hard to believe in today's information age that hooton can't simply look-up case law on CanLii and read what the judges actually said: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/sort=decisionDate&text=aboriginal fishing rights

"The highly predictable outcome of any call for improved accountability with respect to the conduct of fisheries by First Nations fishers arrived shortly after my last post. The choice of labels was rather impressive – ignorant, biased, highly inaccurate, racist……. All that for daring to imply that what happens out there on the water does not reflect landmark courtroom decisions or closed door boardroom discussions and agreements between senior government officials (i.e. top guns in our Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and FN leaders. The DFO folk clearly have their reconciliation marching orders but neither the mandate nor the resources to judge the efficacy of those orders once implemented."

http://steelheadvoices.com/?p=1144
 
So...

Even Hooton consciously knew that at least parts of his blog were inaccurate and racist ahead of time (maybe even the inaccuracies I pointed out above in post#7) - and also figured he probably would be held accountable. Not seeing where his confession repudiates his lack of journalistic integrity; or makes his assertions more credible....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top