Aboriginal Fisheries FR opening this past weekend

[Peahead]

I guess DFO doesn't see this loss of 9 -10 million Sockeye as too catastrophic. Or is it just pressure from Ernie Crey. I know this is very politically incorrect to say but it does surprise me that despite the FN (food and ceremonial fishery) having first rights to our Sockeye.....doesn't it seem wrong that drift net fishing was open to natives all weekend on the river from Port Mann Bridge to Sandheads from friday to Sunday evening this weekend ? FN food and ceremonial rights comes AFTER conservation, last time I checked.
Guess those Sockeye I released while trolling in the saltchuck ( I thought was for conservation purposes) last week, ended up in a FN net this past weekend. I never really thought that I am releasing those Sockeye because they aren't mine and that they belong to the FN. I release them so FN can get their food fish. Hmmm ....but then, I am offered to buy them back ...

 

[profisher]

But you will notice on the sockeye commission notices that there is no opportunity at this time for recreational or commercial fisheries...and that FN fisheries are being "CURTAILED". What the hell does that mean...seams to be just a buzz word...that allows them wiggle room. Define curtailed! How many days fishing last year..how many this year? How much curtailing of poaching is happening this year over others. DFO officers should be out in force and prosecuting illegal activity by ANYONE! No one should be taking sockeye at this time. If the sockeye disappear or get listed as endangered, I'll sleep at night.

 

[spring time]

now were they fishing for springs or sockeye. what was the mesh size that they were allowed to use

 

[profisher]

Last year DFO gave the bands (I'm sure under pressure from them) for extra time because of a shortage of sockeye. They had openings in October! So again we stay away from Thompson coho for ten years (and still counting) and DFO allows them nets in October. Guess they only took the clipped ones.

 

[fish4all]

food my butt.... my neighbour was aproached to catch food fish for 3 of the vancouver bands. He was to be paid $3/fish...sockeye only. with 3 pinks to each sockeye they were asked to throw back 30,000 pinks for 10,000 sockeye. there is more than enough pinks to feed the bands but dfo has made a mess of the food fishery as well.

 

[The Fish Assassin]

Fish4all FYI historicly pinks in the river where caught to feed our dogs... And I havn't seen any Sockeye from my Band now for 3 years and counting. Looks like I will have to look at other species to fill my freezer for the winter.



Take only what you need.

 

[fish4all]

quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin

Fish4all FYI historicly pinks in the river where caught to feed our dogs... And I havn't seen any Sockeye from my Band now for 3 years and counting. Looks like I will have to look at other species to fill my freezer for the winter.



Take only what you need.

FA
I guess i am an underprivledged Canadian here then. I hate to admit it but i have stooped to the level of your dogs and have eaten a pink. Why...because the sockeye are in trouble and that is what is available.
So while the rest of Canada is not allowed to touch a fraser Sockeye you feel it is ok to still harvest them for your own use..
You play the racecard as often as possible,about privledge, but this one takes the cake. You are saying that it is ok to throw away 30000 edible pinks that most people would die for because they are beneath you..wtf.. If this is what you call "Take only what you need" then man shake your head because the needs have turned to "wants".

 

[ratherbefishing]

FA is not worth your time here gents...

The unfortunate reality here appears to be short term gain (i.e. POLITICS) over long term sustainability of the fish. Too sad...

 

[spring time]

the reason they don't take the pinks is there is no market for them everybody wants a sockeye. when save on foods has them for 2 bucks a fish the natives can't sell them. hey fa if you haven't seen a fish in three years then what does your band do with them every band has been fishing within the past years and to clarify what band or we talking about.

 

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by spring time

the reason they don't take the pinks is there is no market for them everybody wants a sockeye. when save on foods has them for 2 bucks a fish the natives can't sell them. hey fa if you haven't seen a fish in three years then what does your band do with them every band has been fishing within the past years and to clarify what band or we talking about.

Here you go! Here is a "short" history concerning FA's band! I all ready had it typed and ready to post on another thread, but he doesn't seem to want respond there anymore?

The Songhees or Songish, also known as the Lekwungen or Lekungen, are an indigenous North American Coast Salish people who reside on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia in the Greater Victoria area. There is evidence of a fortified village existing at Finlayson Point in Beacon Hill Park prior to the arrival of Europeans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The Songhees' traditional foods included salmon, shellfish, whale, deer, duck, berries, camas root and herbs. The Coast Salish traditionally lived in bighouses.

Now known as: Songhees First Nation
Location: On Esquimalt Harbour, in Victoria. Main community is on New Songhees Indian Reserve #1A. (Three reserves on 137.8 hectares.)

Number of Band Members: 473 (Source: Registered Indian Population by *** and Residence May 2007, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)

Songhees First Nation, a member of The Te'mexw Treaty Association (TTA), entered the treaty process in July 1995, and is in Stage 4 of the six-stage process, negotiating an agreement in principle.

TTA members are a party to the Douglas Treaties, a series of 14 land purchases from aboriginal people around Victoria, Saanich, Sooke, Nanaimo and Port Hardy, made between 1850 and 1854, by James Douglas, chief factor of Fort Victoria and governor of the colony of Vancouver Island. While the Douglas Treaties addressed land and harvesting rights, the modern comprehensive treaty currently being negotiated between Canada, BC and TTA, deals with a wide range of issues that include governance, land, resources and fiscal matters. TTA negotiations are making steady progress and have successfully resolved a number of difficult issues.

In March 2007, The Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations memberships ratified by a large margin a settlement that resolves a reserve-based specific claim on the site of the British Columbia Legislature in Victoria. The settlement, which was initialed by Canada, BC and the First Nations in November 2006, relates to a lawsuit filed in 2001 which alleged that Canada and British Columbia breached certain duties owed to the First Nations. The claim alleged that the land was originally set aside as an Indian reserve in 1854 by Governor James Douglas, who then took it back for the site of the Legislature without obtaining a surrender of the reserve. The First Nations are now awaiting ratification by the Government of Canada so the agreement can come into effect. Once ratified, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations will equally share a financial settlement of $31.5 million and can purchase land out of the settlement funds.

In May 2006, Songhees First Nation received a $341,800 major capital grant from the provincial government to create 33 new quality child care spaces for Aboriginal families. The funding was also used for the construction of an addition to an existing child care centre.

In November 2005, Songhees First Nation and the Government of Canada signed a Settlement Agreement respecting a specific claim of 1.13 acres of land. The agreement includes the land and $1,240,000 in compensation.

Reference: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/temexw/default.html

"Take only what you need"? Looks to me like " he and they" have already taken more than needed!

 

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:Here you go! Here is a "short" history concerning FA's band! I all ready had it typed and ready to post on another thread, but he doesn't seem to want respond there anymore?

The Songhees or Songish, also known as the Lekwungen or Lekungen, are an indigenous North American Coast Salish people who reside on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia in the Greater Victoria area. There is evidence of a fortified village existing at Finlayson Point in Beacon Hill Park prior to the arrival of Europeans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The Songhees' traditional foods included salmon, shellfish, whale, deer, duck, berries, camas root and herbs. The Coast Salish traditionally lived in bighouses.

Now known as: Songhees First Nation
Location: On Esquimalt Harbour, in Victoria. Main community is on New Songhees Indian Reserve #1A. (Three reserves on 137.8 hectares.)

Number of Band Members: 473 (Source: Registered Indian Population by *** and Residence May 2007, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)

Songhees First Nation, a member of The Te'mexw Treaty Association (TTA), entered the treaty process in July 1995, and is in Stage 4 of the six-stage process, negotiating an agreement in principle.

TTA members are a party to the Douglas Treaties, a series of 14 land purchases from aboriginal people around Victoria, Saanich, Sooke, Nanaimo and Port Hardy, made between 1850 and 1854, by James Douglas, chief factor of Fort Victoria and governor of the colony of Vancouver Island. While the Douglas Treaties addressed land and harvesting rights, the modern comprehensive treaty currently being negotiated between Canada, BC and TTA, deals with a wide range of issues that include governance, land, resources and fiscal matters. TTA negotiations are making steady progress and have successfully resolved a number of difficult issues.

In March 2007, The Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations memberships ratified by a large margin a settlement that resolves a reserve-based specific claim on the site of the British Columbia Legislature in Victoria. The settlement, which was initialed by Canada, BC and the First Nations in November 2006, relates to a lawsuit filed in 2001 which alleged that Canada and British Columbia breached certain duties owed to the First Nations. The claim alleged that the land was originally set aside as an Indian reserve in 1854 by Governor James Douglas, who then took it back for the site of the Legislature without obtaining a surrender of the reserve. The First Nations are now awaiting ratification by the Government of Canada so the agreement can come into effect. Once ratified, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations will equally share a financial settlement of $31.5 million and can purchase land out of the settlement funds.

In May 2006, Songhees First Nation received a $341,800 major capital grant from the provincial government to create 33 new quality child care spaces for Aboriginal families. The funding was also used for the construction of an addition to an existing child care centre.

In November 2005, Songhees First Nation and the Government of Canada signed a Settlement Agreement respecting a specific claim of 1.13 acres of land. The agreement includes the land and $1,240,000 in compensation.

Reference: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/temexw/default.html

"Take only what you need"? Looks to me like " he and they" have already taken more than needed!

Each one of these settlements was a long drawn out process through the courts. Each Band memeber to date has recieved a payment of $2000.00 broken down into 2 $1000.00 payments. That is the extent of what we have been granted. Hardly fits what I would call a handout, but more of a portion of what we are entilted to by your laws. I'm sure you are learing a little bit (if you are reading what you are copy and pasteing into your posts), but if you want me to fill you in on the rest, let me know.

Take only what you need.

 

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by The Fish Assassin

quote:Here you go! Here is a "short" history concerning FA's band! I all ready had it typed and ready to post on another thread, but he doesn't seem to want respond there anymore?

The Songhees or Songish, also known as the Lekwungen or Lekungen, are an indigenous North American Coast Salish people who reside on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia in the Greater Victoria area. There is evidence of a fortified village existing at Finlayson Point in Beacon Hill Park prior to the arrival of Europeans in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The Songhees' traditional foods included salmon, shellfish, whale, deer, duck, berries, camas root and herbs. The Coast Salish traditionally lived in bighouses.

Now known as: Songhees First Nation
Location: On Esquimalt Harbour, in Victoria. Main community is on New Songhees Indian Reserve #1A. (Three reserves on 137.8 hectares.)

Number of Band Members: 473 (Source: Registered Indian Population by *** and Residence May 2007, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)

Songhees First Nation, a member of The Te'mexw Treaty Association (TTA), entered the treaty process in July 1995, and is in Stage 4 of the six-stage process, negotiating an agreement in principle.

TTA members are a party to the Douglas Treaties, a series of 14 land purchases from aboriginal people around Victoria, Saanich, Sooke, Nanaimo and Port Hardy, made between 1850 and 1854, by James Douglas, chief factor of Fort Victoria and governor of the colony of Vancouver Island. While the Douglas Treaties addressed land and harvesting rights, the modern comprehensive treaty currently being negotiated between Canada, BC and TTA, deals with a wide range of issues that include governance, land, resources and fiscal matters. TTA negotiations are making steady progress and have successfully resolved a number of difficult issues.

In March 2007, The Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations memberships ratified by a large margin a settlement that resolves a reserve-based specific claim on the site of the British Columbia Legislature in Victoria. The settlement, which was initialed by Canada, BC and the First Nations in November 2006, relates to a lawsuit filed in 2001 which alleged that Canada and British Columbia breached certain duties owed to the First Nations. The claim alleged that the land was originally set aside as an Indian reserve in 1854 by Governor James Douglas, who then took it back for the site of the Legislature without obtaining a surrender of the reserve. The First Nations are now awaiting ratification by the Government of Canada so the agreement can come into effect. Once ratified, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations will equally share a financial settlement of $31.5 million and can purchase land out of the settlement funds.

In May 2006, Songhees First Nation received a $341,800 major capital grant from the provincial government to create 33 new quality child care spaces for Aboriginal families. The funding was also used for the construction of an addition to an existing child care centre.

In November 2005, Songhees First Nation and the Government of Canada signed a Settlement Agreement respecting a specific claim of 1.13 acres of land. The agreement includes the land and $1,240,000 in compensation.

Reference: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/temexw/default.html

"Take only what you need"? Looks to me like " he and they" have already taken more than needed!

Each one of these settlements was a long drawn out process through the courts. Each Band memeber to date has recieved a payment of $2000.00 broken down into 2 $1000.00 payments. That is the extent of what we have been granted. Hardly fits what I would call a handout, but more of a portion of what we are entilted to by your laws. I'm sure you are learing a little bit (if you are reading what you are copy and pasteing into your posts), but if you want me to fill you in on the rest, let me know.

Take only what you need.

BY ALL MEANS... PLEASE FILL ME IN! I WOULD REALLY LOVE THAT!

OOPS, MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE SAID, "BY ALL MEANS... PLEASE FILL ME IN!

 

[spring time]

right on smiley 66 could haven't said it better my self

 

[The Fish Assassin]

quote:Also if members are selling (and I know some do) or trade fish then the band should be personally liable. I.E. swift fine, and loss of priveledge. That is only fair. Even as a rec. sportsfisher I do pay in to the sytem every year through taxes/lisences, so I should also have a say as well. DFO seems to just give in becuse that don't wnat to sep on anyone's toes.

Well what if the band has a treaty right to sell fish? DFO does not want that fight in the courts. It isn't one they would win.

Take only what you need.

 

[hotrod]

What about Indians who are not Canadians? If you all are into upholding the defacto Douglas treaties then you better take a look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which incidentally is upheld in the 1982 Constitution section 25(a). You see there are agreements in place already! Not all Nisga Indians signed the treaty! Those who truly own the land will have the final authority. Can anyone here produce a deed to the land that shows the bankrupt state of Canada bought it? Just a few things to make you guys think!

 

[SnapperAttacker]

Something to be brought to light to FA and to the FN people. A note about Sockeye genetics, once the sockeye are depleted from the rivers or extinct it is near impossible to bring them back. Sakinaw lake used to have a healthy run of sockeye, then it crashed, years attempting to transplant different genes of sockeye from elsewhere failed, or have shown little success. So, unless the FN people go back to spearing and gaffing practices to catch Sockeye for personnal use, and not wipe them out in nets (especially once they make it to thier native river), then we could see the collapse of some runs along the fraser, ie: cultus lake, good luck trying to bring that run back with the nets and greed of the sto lo. Anyway, there is a attitude if I cant catch one then neither should you. Seems fair doesnt it. Maybe Jimmy Pattison can sell some commercial licenses to the FN, Id rather see them caught in the ocean than in the rivers.

 

[The Fish Assassin]

Hell no, No one should be allowed to fish endanged species. I don't get any fraser fish for my FSC this year, (I had to turn to other more abundent species) so as long as there is no sport or commercial fishing opportunites I personally do not think anyone should touch them. If however DFO opens it to sport fishing then they waive the conservation concern.

The bands need to be a little more proactive in there approach to rule breaking natives. Why not ban them from the river if they fish contrary to band rules. There definatly are bad apples in the Native community, who will fish reguardless. I know of a few in various reserves that abuse their right to harvest. But I also know some white people who go out flossing every chance they get. So I would say that is one thing that we do have in common is that the abuse of the resource continues no matter how decimated the run is.

As for charlie and him wanting to know what the First Nations in Canada have done for conservation, well perhaps a history lesson is due..

First Nations are responsible for the conservation, protection and rehabilitation of eco-systems, fish stocks and habitat. Our responsibility to care for the earth comes from the Creator. We have spiritual, cultural and historic ties to all fisheries resources, especially salmon.

Take only what you need.

 

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by hotrod

What about Indians who are not Canadians? If you all are into upholding the defacto Douglas treaties then you better take a look at the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which incidentally is upheld in the 1982 Constitution section 25(a). You see there are agreements in place already!

From my understanding what you just said is correct except the following?

quote:Not all Nisga Indians signed the treaty! Those who truly own the land will have the final authority. Can anyone here produce a deed to the land that shows the bankrupt state of Canada bought it? Just a few things to make you guys think!

I am not sure that is quite correct? If I am not mistaken the last step needed to give legal effect to the Treaty took place on April 13, 2000, when Parliament passed the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, which was ratified by all the tribes, or am I missing something? http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/is/nit-eng.asp

FYI, this is "part" of the agreement there is more, but as you were speaking of salmon? The current treaty pretty much spell the fish entitlements out. You should take the time to read it? The whole treaty is here: http://www.gov.bc.ca/arr/firstnation/nisgaa/chapters/fisheries.html

GENERAL
Nisga'a Fish Entitlements
1. Nisga'a citizens have the right to harvest fish and aquatic plants in accordance with this Agreement, subject to:
a. measures that are necessary for conservation; and
b. legislation enacted for the purposes of public health or public safety.
2. Notwithstanding that Nisga'a fish entitlements are treaty rights, a Nisga'a fish allocation that is set out as a percentage of the total allowable catch has the same priority in fisheries management decisions as the remainder of the total allowable catch of that species harvested in recreational and commercial fisheries.
3. This Agreement is not intended to alter federal and provincial laws of general application in respect of property in fish or aquatic plants.
4. Nisga'a fish entitlements are held by the Nisga'a Nation.
5. The Nisga'a Nation may not dispose of Nisga'a fish entitlements.
6. Nisga'a Lisims Government may authorize persons other than Nisga'a citizens to harvest fish or aquatic plants in Nisga'a fisheries, in accordance with this Agreement, the Harvest Agreement and Nisga'a annual fishing plans. This authority is not intended to alter the application of federal and provincial laws of general application in respect of foreign fishing vessels in Canadian waters.
Licences, Fees, Charges, and Royalties
7. Canada and British Columbia will not require the Nisga'a Nation, Nisga'a Villages, Nisga'a Institutions, Nisga'a Corporations, Nisga'a citizens, or other persons authorized by Nisga'a Lisims Government to harvest fish or aquatic plants under this Agreement:
a. to have federal or provincial licences; or
b. to pay fees, charges, or royalties
in respect of the harvest for domestic purposes of fish or aquatic plants under this Agreement. This paragraph does not restrict Canada's ability to require licences for the use and possession of firearms under federal laws on the same basis as applies to other aboriginal people of Canada.
8. Persons who sell fish harvested under this Agreement are subject to fees and charges applied to commercial harvesters in respect of the sale of fish or aquatic plants except to the extent that Nisga'a Lisims Government, a Nisga'a Institution, or a Nisga'a Corporation funds or performs the activities for which those fees and charges are levied.
Trade and Barter
9. Subject to Nisga'a laws, Nisga'a citizens have the right to trade or barter among themselves or with other aboriginal people any fish and aquatic plants harvested in Nisga'a fisheries.
Harvesting Under Other Laws and Agreements
10. This Agreement does not preclude Nisga'a Institutions, Nisga'a Corporations, or Nisga'a citizens from harvesting fish and aquatic plants throughout Canada in accordance with:
a. federal and provincial laws;
b. any agreements that are in accordance with laws of general application between the Nisga'a Nation, a Nisga'a Village, a Nisga'a Institution, or a Nisga'a Corporation, on the one hand, and other aboriginal people on the other; or
c. any arrangements between other aboriginal people and Canada or British Columbia.
SALMON
Nisga'a Salmon Allocations
11. In every year in which it is necessary for conservation, the Minister will determine a minimum escapement level for one or more species of Nass salmon.
12. The Minister will not permit any directed harvests of a species of Nass salmon in any year if:
a. there is a minimum escapement level for that species of Nass salmon; and
b. the number of that species of Nass salmon returning to Canadian waters, less incidental harvests, is less than or equal to the minimum escapement level for that species.
13. In any year:
a. if the Minister has not determined a minimum escapement level for a species of Nass salmon; or
b. if the number of a species of Nass salmon returning to Canadian waters, less incidental harvests, is greater than the minimum escapement level determined by the Minister for that species
the amount of that species that the Nisga'a Nation is entitled to harvest will be determined in accordance with Schedule A and paragraph 16.
14. The amount of each species of Nass salmon in the Nisga'a fish allocations set out in Schedule A varies with the size of the total run of that species returning to Canadian waters in each year, as set out in Schedule A.
Overages and Underages
15. Following the fishing season in each year, the Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government will conduct an accounting of that year's harvest of Nass salmon, in accordance with Schedule B.
16. If there is an overage or underage of a species of Nass salmon in any year, the amount of that species of Nass salmon to be harvested in Nisga'a fisheries will be adjusted in subsequent years, in accordance with Schedule B.
17. In every year the Minister will manage all Canadian fisheries that harvest Nass salmon in order to minimize overharvests of each species of Nass salmon.
18. The Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government will endeavour to minimize any overages or underages in each year and to minimize the accumulation of overages and underages in successive years.
Adjustment of Species Composition
19. In any year the Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government may agree to adjust the species composition of the Nisga'a harvest for that year in accordance with the system of equivalencies set out in Schedule C.
20. If a proposed Nisga'a annual fishing plan includes an adjustment under paragraph 19 that will affect a species or fishery under the management authority of the other Party, the Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government will consult with the other Party's representatives on the Joint Fisheries Management Committee, and will notify those representatives of any in-season adjustments.
Harvest Agreement
21. On the effective date, the Parties will enter into a Harvest Agreement pursuant to paragraph 22. The Harvest Agreement does not form part of this Agreement.
22. The Harvest Agreement will:
a. include Nisga'a fish allocations equivalent to:
i. 13% of each year's adjusted total allowable catch for Nass sockeye salmon, and
ii. 15% of each year's adjusted total allowable catch for Nass pink salmon;
b. be for a term of 25 years and be replaceable at the discretion of the Nisga'a Nation every 15 years for a further 25 years;
c. include provisions for the harvest and disposition of fish, determination of overages and underages, harvest monitoring, and fisheries management that are consistent with the similar provisions set out in this Agreement; and
d. include a dispute resolution process and a requirement for fair compensation if the Harvest Agreement is breached by terminating or reducing the Nisga'a fish allocations pursuant to subparagraph (a).
23. The Harvest Agreement will be established under federal and provincial settlement legislation.
24. The Harvest Agreement is not intended to be a treaty or land claims agreement, and it is not intended to recognize or affirm aboriginal or treaty rights, within the meaning of sections 25 or 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
25. The Minister will implement the Harvest Agreement by:
a. issuing licences to Nisga'a Lisims Government; or
b. other means under federal or provincial laws.
26. Fisheries under the Harvest Agreement have the same priority as commercial and recreational fisheries in fisheries management decisions made by the Minister.
27. Fish harvested under the Harvest Agreement may be sold in accordance with the Harvest Agreement.
Harvest of Surplus Nass Salmon
28. In any year, the Minister may determine whether there is a surplus of a species of Nass salmon, and the size of that surplus.
29. The Joint Fisheries Management Committee may:
a. recommend to the Minister procedures for the identification of a surplus and terms and conditions for the harvest of the surplus; and
b. provide advice to the Minister in respect of the size of the surplus.
30. The Minister may permit Nisga'a Lisims Government to harvest some or all of the surplus Nass salmon on reaching agreement with Nisga'a Lisims Government in respect of:
a. the terms and conditions of the harvest; and
b. whether all or part of the harvest will be included in the determination of overages and underages.
Disposition of Salmon Harvests
31. Subject to paragraph 33, the Nisga'a Nation, and its agents, contractors, and licensees authorized by Nisga'a Lisims Government, have the right to sell Nass salmon harvested under this Agreement.
32. For greater certainty, in accordance with paragraph 13 of the General Provisions Chapter, federal and provincial laws of general application pertaining to the sale of fish, in respect of commercial transactions, health and safety, transport, inspection, processing, packaging, storage, export, quality control, and labelling of fish, apply to the sale of all Nass salmon harvested in Nisga'a fisheries.
33. If, in any year, there are no directed harvests in Canadian commercial or recreational fisheries of a species of Nass salmon, sale of that species of Nass salmon harvested in directed harvests of that species in that year's Nisga'a fisheries will not be permitted.
ENHANCEMENT
34. Nisga'a Lisims Government may conduct enhancement initiatives for Nass salmon or Nass steelhead only with the approval of the Minister. This approval will include provisions in respect of the determination of surpluses resulting from an approved enhancement initiative. The Joint Fisheries Management Committee may make recommendations in respect of those initiatives and provisions.
35. In any year, the portion of the return to Canadian waters of chinook, coho, or chum salmon that can be identified as resulting from approved Nisga'a enhancement initiatives in the Nass Area will be excluded from the determination of the Nisga'a fish allocations under paragraph 13 for that year. The Nisga'a fish allocations of these fish are 21% of the chinook, 8% of the coho and 8% of the chum salmon, subject to measures that are necessary for conservation for non-enhanced Nass salmon and non-enhanced Nass steelhead stocks.
36. The Nisga'a Nation has the right to harvest surplus Nass salmon that result from an approved Nisga'a enhancement initiative, in the same proportion as the Nisga'a contribution to the total cost of the initiative. These harvests are not subject to paragraph 16 and are in addition to the Nisga'a fish allocations under paragraph 13 and 35 and the Harvest Agreement.
37. Notwithstanding paragraphs 13, 16, 35, and 36, the Minister and Nisga'a Lisims Government may negotiate agreements in respect of the Nisga'a harvests of Nass salmon or Nass steelhead that result from Nisga'a enhancement initiatives.

 

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by smiley66

quote:Well what if the band has a treaty right to sell fish? DFO does not want that fight in the courts. It isn't one they would win.

FA

I never even said you couldn't, and do not get me wrong I do have respect for FN. Again there is the attitude again "me first". Answer me a question since this is a debate.

Do you belive right now this second natives should fish for sockeye or other endangered fish to sell/harvest whatever even though you know run is in jeopardy from possible collapse? Also even though you know that the many recreational/commercial guys you are friends with can't, and are very concerned with teh stock levels?

Just answer that question I am curious.

Smiley66

Smiley, I REALLY DON'T THINK FA CAN, I don't think he has permission from his tribe and it isn't in "HIS" treaty rights, but rather his tribes! His tribe has the jurisdiction, thank goodness! I am quite sure if he could, he would, "Take it ALL"! I love it! [:0]

Concerning FA's comment on TFN... HERE IS THE "TFN" "VISION"! Right from words of babes!

A parallel First Nation Panel on Fisheries was commissioned to ensure that a First Nations perspective was advanced on
how to manage and allocate the Pacific fishery. The First Nation Panel on Fisheries proposed a vision, goals and principles
for future management and allocation approaches through the lens of recognizing and respecting Aboriginal rights and title
and treaty rights. Its recommendations included:
• immediate steps to ensure adequate First Nation access to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes,
• immediate transfer of a minimum of 50% of all fisheries to First Nations,</u>
• steps by First Nations to resolve intertribal allocations which would encourage them to work together on management
of migratory stocks,
• recognition of First Nations management rights and flexible management systems that accommodate the interests of
First Nations, and
• a moratorium on further individual quota regimes until First Nation allocations are resolved.

 

[cliffjumper]

I'm waiting for the Chinese to say the "first nations" are actually their genetic offspring, thus they have first claim on Canada... Middle USA is to be split between the Latins & the Chinese.

I've witnessed too much of this "we're custodians of the land and life on it and know best"... and the devastating effects of such arrogance... sort of like the enviros living in their dt Vanc condo taking a brisk walk in the "fresh air" of Stanley Park, shopping at the corner Mac's, telling the family in Blitswhack BC the gasoline surtax & homeheating fuel surtax and hydro surtaxes are neccessary to help us learn to alter our consumption habits, with a zero concept of how or where food comes from. Like all good city kids, they know it grows in cellophane pre-paks, IQF... See... there's the plastic greenhouse, no bugs, pestilence or people...

It's the simplest thing to get city-folks to buy whatever crap determined storytellers want them to believe... (PETA & DIA... two simple, crystal-clear examples) Just talk to a reporter on a slow day... tehy're about as gullible as it gets, and twice as greedy for the notoriety... And, there's got to be, what?, a few thousand lawyers, each hungering for the commissions and reputation from a good, rousing lawsuit?

"Subsistence" fishing & hunting??? "Ceremonial" fishing & hunting??? Yeah, right, twin 250 envinrudes?.. jetboats?.. a scoped .308?.. Invisible mono finemesh nets?.. Back to our roots!

Buy a calf, grow a cow. Dig a pond, grow some fish. Dig some dirt, grow a garden. Not!!! It's demeaning and a lot of work. Better to have DIA build your house, give you new outboards, pass-on the new pick-ups, and build your new bingo palace... After all, the whities are so damned gullible and ridden with guilt for having made something through their efforts... Although that's not the stylin' thing to do these days.

According to a land-claims lawyer involved in the process 127% of BC's landmass is subject to native land-claims.

Indigenous peoples are unique nations unto themselves... But, they also came from someplace else... Hmmm!

The ridiculous, wasteful example of fisheries-management is but a mere tip of the iceberg of fallacies. Look long, hard & honestly in the mirror before you even begin to think I'm about to be called a racsist.