Initial 2019 Five Nations Multi-Species Fishery Management Plan

IronNoggin

Well-Known Member
Of interest to anyone who fishes the WCVI.

"
We are writing to inform you about the Initial 2019 Five Nations Multi-species Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Ahousaht, Ehattesaht, Hesquiaht, Mowachaht/Muchalaht, and Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations. Please find attached this FMP that was developed pursuant to the reasons of the British Columbia Supreme Court of April 19th, 2018, and the Court Order entered on November 1st, 2018 in Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 633. This is the first FMP designed by DFO for the Five Nations.

The objective of the FMP is to outline a draft for consultation purposes of fishing opportunities that DFO will provide the Five Nations in 2019 to exercise their rights to harvest salmon, groundfish, crab, and prawn in the Court Defined Area (CDA). This initial draft identifies a plan for the Five Nations to exercise their Aboriginal rights to fish and sell fish. DFO may adjust the contents of this initial FMP further to consultations.

DFO will be hosting a Multi-stakeholder meeting on Monday January 21st, 2019 from 9:30am -3:30pm, at the Tigh-na-mara Resort in Parksville B.C., and via Webex. We invite you to attend this meeting to discuss and receive feedback on issues that arise from your review of the initial FMP.

DFO would like to ensure that stakeholders, such as applicable commercial advisory processes, fisheries associations, recreational fisheries, etc., have been informed and provided opportunities to share their comments and questions regarding the Initial Plan and adjustments are made as appropriate.

Over the coming months, DFO will also be seeking input and views from BC and Yukon First Nations, as well as the recreational and commercial fishing sectors, regarding both scope and development of a collaborative process for a review of the Salmon Allocation Policy. DFO proposes to engage all parties in a way that respects the Nation to Nation relationship with Indigenous peoples and considers all interests in such a way as to advance reconciliation and a sustainable integrated fishery in BC.

If possible, please RSVP to the January 21st meeting by January 7th, 2019 by emailing tara.sawatsky@dfo-mpo.gc.ca, and let us know if you and/or a representative(s) would prefer to attend in person or via Webex. If you would like further information in the meantime, please contact Tara Sawatsky (604-666-6907).

DFO is seeking comments on the initial FMP by February 1st, 2019. Following consultations, DFO will review the input received and finalize the FMP by March 31st, 2019.

Yours sincerely,

for

Andrew J L Thomson

Regional Director | Directeur régional
Fisheries Management Branch | Direction de la gestion des pêches
Pacific Region | Région du Pacifique
Fisheries & Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada"
...........................................................

First time I have ever tried linking in this fashion. If it works, the Draft FMP should be accessible by clicking:

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:8b98e9eb-9204-4513-8302-6a4fdf1ad6ea

Cheers,
Nog
 
Seems rather wonky and slow to load on this end...
Anyone who wishes a copy of said draft simply pm me with your email address & I will forward to you.

Cheers,
Nog
 
I think I got It to work,

I would comment further but apparently I have an "axe to grind" on this subject


Thanks for the post Nog, good information
 

Attachments

  • Initial 2019 Five Nations Multi-Species Fishery Management Plan - Nov. 3...-1.pdf
    2 MB · Views: 13
There is one section tho that I would like clarification on Where is their Halibut TAC coming from?

Paragraph 8 (g) Addressing the General Unjustified Infringement in Priority in Allocation

The Court also found that Canada unjustifiably infringed the Five Nations’ exercising of their rights by giving priority in allocation to the recreational fishery over their rights.
To address this unjustified infringement, DFO proposes the following remedy:
Where possible, DFO will, as a general principle take, the Five Nations’ commercial allocations as shares of the Canadian Total Allowable Catch (CTAC) (i.e. after FSC and First Nations Treaty Allocations) in fisheries that have a CTAC. By taking their share from the CTAC instead of the commercial TAC, DFO provides the Five Nations with access that is not affected by the access provided to the recreational fishery.

Paragraph 9 (e). Setting an allocation for Halibut that would give priority in allocation to the recreational fishery, but the practical effect of this has to be examined in a specific context, if one arises

Where possible, DFO will as a general principle take the Five Nations’ commercial allocations as shares of the Canadian Total Allowable Catch (CTAC) (i.e. after FSC and First Nations Treaty Allocations) in fisheries that have a CTAC. By taking their share from the CTAC instead of the commercial TAC, DFO provides the Five Nations with access that is not affected by the access provided to the recreational fishery.
This approach will address the potential for unjustified infringement, asset out at paragraph 9(e) of the Order.
 
Dark clouds on the horizon. Does not meant it has to rain but it surely has the potential for an unpleasant storm!
 
There is one section tho that I would like clarification on Where is their Halibut TAC coming from?

Paragraph 8 (g) Addressing the General Unjustified Infringement in Priority in Allocation

The Court also found that Canada unjustifiably infringed the Five Nations’ exercising of their rights by giving priority in allocation to the recreational fishery over their rights.
To address this unjustified infringement, DFO proposes the following remedy:
Where possible, DFO will, as a general principle take, the Five Nations’ commercial allocations as shares of the Canadian Total Allowable Catch (CTAC) (i.e. after FSC and First Nations Treaty Allocations) in fisheries that have a CTAC. By taking their share from the CTAC instead of the commercial TAC, DFO provides the Five Nations with access that is not affected by the access provided to the recreational fishery.

Paragraph 9 (e). Setting an allocation for Halibut that would give priority in allocation to the recreational fishery, but the practical effect of this has to be examined in a specific context, if one arises

Where possible, DFO will as a general principle take the Five Nations’ commercial allocations as shares of the Canadian Total Allowable Catch (CTAC) (i.e. after FSC and First Nations Treaty Allocations) in fisheries that have a CTAC. By taking their share from the CTAC instead of the commercial TAC, DFO provides the Five Nations with access that is not affected by the access provided to the recreational fishery.
This approach will address the potential for unjustified infringement, asset out at paragraph 9(e) of the Order.

Government allocated 40,000 lbs to them in a different agreement. It is a pain in the butt as the 40,000 is set and does not fluctuate like the rest of the TAC so there is math done every year on that. Then there is PICFI Fish If the bands put a plan in. I would be more concerned about having areas closed to the majority of Canadians.
 
Government allocated 40,000 lbs to them in a different agreement. It is a pain in the butt as the 40,000 is set and does not fluctuate like the rest of the TAC so there is math done every year on that. Then there is PICFI Fish If the bands put a plan in. I would be more concerned about having areas closed to the majority of Canadians.

What areas?
 
Going to be interesting exercise for sure. The allocation policy re-write is next up after this. One possible good outcome could be establishing hard and accountable harvest numbers that are managed in a controlled fishery where catch reporting and conditions of license have to be met. The trial judge did set down some court ordered conditions that all parties have to meet.
 
Going to be interesting exercise for sure. The allocation policy re-write is next up after this. One possible good outcome could be establishing hard and accountable harvest numbers that are managed in a controlled fishery where catch reporting and conditions of license have to be met. The trial judge did set down some court ordered conditions that all parties have to meet.

Unless the five nation fishing plan becomes the all first nation fishing plan.

WCVI they took the extra quote basically from area G.

Most areas don’t have a commercial quote to take the quota from it will come from the sport quota.

Our only out is going to be a mark selected fishery.
 
Unless the five nation fishing plan becomes the all first nation fishing plan.

WCVI they took the extra quote basically from area G.

Most areas don’t have a commercial quote to take the quota from it will come from the sport quota.

Our only out is going to be a mark selected fishery.

Lovely
 
This scares me even more than the whale stuff to be honest.

Looks like the pile on effect has started, cort define "rights area" salmon for sale. Sound familiar, Wonder where their quota of chinook is going to come from for sale?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-salmon-farming-lawsuit-1.4976042

laim
Relief sought
1. The plaintiff claims the following relief:

a. In respect of eulachon:

i. A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
harvest eulachon for food, ceremonial and social purposes within the
area depicted on the map in Appendix A (the ?Rights Area?);

ii. A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
exchange eulachon for other goods on a limited basis and to harvest
eulachon for that purpose within the Rights Area;

A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
manage the eulachon ?sheries within the Rights Area;

b. In respect of Coho, Chum (aka Chinook (aka ?Spring?), Pink and
Sockeye salmon (collectively the ?Sahnon Species?):

i. A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
harvest the Salmon Species for food, ceremonial and social purposes
within the Rights Area;

ii. A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
exchange the Salmon Species for money or goods on a limited basis
and to harvest the Salmon Species for that purpose within the Rights
Area;


A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
manage the Salmon Species ?sheries within the Rights Area;

c. A declaration that the Defendant has infringed the Dzawada?enuxw?s
Aboriginal rights in respect of eulachon by issuing each of the following
Fin?sh aquaculture licenses (collectively the ?Fin?sh Licences?):

i. License No. AQFF 115202 2016/2022 Burdwood Group, Raleigh
Passage, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;

ii. License No. AQFF 115208 2016/2022 Cecil Island, Greenway

Sound, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;

License No. AQFF 115201 2016/2022 Cliff Bay Simoom Sound
Wishart Peninsula, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;
iv. License No. AQFF 115213 2016/2022 Cypress Hrbr, Harbour PT,
Sutlej Channel, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;
v. License No. AQFF 115309 2016/2022 Glacial Falls, Watson Cove,
Tribune Channel, issued to Marine Harvest Canada Inc.;
vi. License No. AQFF 115209 2016/2022 Maude Island, SE
Broughton 15., issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;
vii. License No. AQFF 115233 2016/2022 Midsummer Island, Spring
Passage, issued to Marine Harvest Canada Inc.;
License No. AQFF 115316 2016/2022 Potts Bay, Midsummer
Island, issued to Marine Harvest Canada Inc.;
ix. License No. AQFF 115214 2016/2022 Sir Edmund Bay, NE Shore
Boughton Inlet, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.; and
x. License No. AQFF 115327 2016/2022 - Wicklow Point, Broughton
Island, issued to Marine Harvest Canada Inc.
d. A declaration that the Defendant has infringed the Dzawada?enuxw?s
Aboriginal rights in respect of the Salmon Species by issuing each of the
Licenses;
e. An order quashing the Fin?sh Licenses; and
f. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.
 
Last edited:
Some of you actually thought this would not happen?


Looks like the pile on effect has started, cort define "rights area" salmon for sale. Sound familiar, Wonder where their quota of chinook is going to come from for sale?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-salmon-farming-lawsuit-1.4976042

laim
Relief sought
1. The plaintiff claims the following relief:

a. In respect of eulachon:

i. A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
harvest eulachon for food, ceremonial and social purposes within the
area depicted on the map in Appendix A (the ?Rights Area?);

ii. A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
exchange eulachon for other goods on a limited basis and to harvest
eulachon for that purpose within the Rights Area;

A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
manage the eulachon ?sheries within the Rights Area;

b. In respect of Coho, Chum (aka Chinook (aka ?Spring?), Pink and
Sockeye salmon (collectively the ?Sahnon Species?):

i. A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
harvest the Salmon Species for food, ceremonial and social purposes
within the Rights Area;

ii. A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
exchange the Salmon Species for money or goods on a limited basis
and to harvest the Salmon Species for that purpose within the Rights
Area;


A declaration that the Dzawada?enuxw have an Aboriginal right to
manage the Salmon Species ?sheries within the Rights Area;

c. A declaration that the Defendant has infringed the Dzawada?enuxw?s
Aboriginal rights in respect of eulachon by issuing each of the following
Fin?sh aquaculture licenses (collectively the ?Fin?sh Licences?):

i. License No. AQFF 115202 2016/2022 Burdwood Group, Raleigh
Passage, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;

ii. License No. AQFF 115208 2016/2022 Cecil Island, Greenway

Sound, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;

License No. AQFF 115201 2016/2022 Cliff Bay Simoom Sound
Wishart Peninsula, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;
iv. License No. AQFF 115213 2016/2022 Cypress Hrbr, Harbour PT,
Sutlej Channel, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;
v. License No. AQFF 115309 2016/2022 Glacial Falls, Watson Cove,
Tribune Channel, issued to Marine Harvest Canada Inc.;
vi. License No. AQFF 115209 2016/2022 Maude Island, SE
Broughton 15., issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.;
vii. License No. AQFF 115233 2016/2022 Midsummer Island, Spring
Passage, issued to Marine Harvest Canada Inc.;
License No. AQFF 115316 2016/2022 Potts Bay, Midsummer
Island, issued to Marine Harvest Canada Inc.;
ix. License No. AQFF 115214 2016/2022 Sir Edmund Bay, NE Shore
Boughton Inlet, issued to Cermaq Canada Ltd.; and
x. License No. AQFF 115327 2016/2022 - Wicklow Point, Broughton
Island, issued to Marine Harvest Canada Inc.
d. A declaration that the Defendant has infringed the Dzawada?enuxw?s
Aboriginal rights in respect of the Salmon Species by issuing each of the
Licenses;
e. An order quashing the Fin?sh Licenses; and
f. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.
 
It was apparent that this particular case did not satisfy the desires of the 5 nations, and the rules imposed by the Courts decision in order to create an artisan fishery were not the outcome the Nations has hoped for. Being a sharing culture with the new-comers, the Nations appear not to be happy with the continued infringements as they see them set out by the fishery rules imposed by the legal decision. They see it (if I hear them correctly) as the outcome and the Allocation Policy represents not equitably sharing access to the resource. Now we are about to embark on another exercise to address the Allocation Policy, and there are very clear expectations from other stakeholder groups that the priority access enjoyed by the rec fishery to Chinook and Coho is to come to an end. Interesting times, but perhaps as one door closes, another opens...the commercial fishery enjoys priority access to sockeye, pink and chum...those fisheries are looking like a door opening as the pandoras box of allocation opens.
 
All I can say is we all better get out there and enjoy it while we can, our days are numbered when it comes to fishing and hunting. The bleeding hearts and progressives are taking over bit by bit. As our nations slowly get more urbanized and lose their sense of being close to the land they are giving up on what many of us hold dear. Don't worry about the days you miss from work, go out on the rainy iffy days, suck it up while we can.

The world my Grandchild grow up in is going to be very different than the one I grew up in, and not in a good way.
 
All I can say is we all better get out there and enjoy it while we can, our days are numbered when it comes to fishing and hunting. The bleeding hearts and progressives are taking over bit by bit.
I'm not sure how it is bleeding hearts and progressives that you like to blame for everything are at the heart of these issues. the Natives keep winning in the courts, and have while conservative and Liberal governments have been in power. If you want to blame someone blame the original Europeans who never forced the natives into signing treaties. To be fair to them, by the time disease had decimated the native populations they probably didn't see much of a need for treaties, most of the land was no longer occupied so they could do what they wanted.

The world my Grandchild grow up in is going to be very different than the one I grew up in, and not in a good way.
I'd have to think a Native parent in the 1850s would have expressed the same thing, if he/she survived.
 
but perhaps as one door closes, another opens...the commercial fishery enjoys priority access to sockeye, pink and chum...those fisheries are looking like a door opening as the pandoras box of allocation opens.

Do they have priority access or just a bigger share of the CTAC?

Anyways by the looks of it every band in BC is going to want a court defined area or "rights area" where they can harvest on a small scale and sell their catch.

Will be interesting to see what happens because I thought when I was reading the original verdict the SCC was trying to avoid going down that rabbit hole.

will also be interesting to see if anyone is going to try to have intervenor status in this upcoming case.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how it is bleeding hearts and progressives that you like to blame for everything are at the heart of these issues. the Natives keep winning in the courts, and have while conservative and Liberal governments have been in power. If you want to blame someone blame the original Europeans who never forced the natives into signing treaties. To be fair to them, by the time disease had decimated the native populations they probably didn't see much of a need for treaties, most of the land was no longer occupied so they could do what they wanted.


I'd have to think a Native parent in the 1850s would have expressed the same thing, if he/she survived.


I rest my case, thank you for confirming my post.
 
Back
Top