This opening must be part of the limited FSC approach. They never stated there wouldn't be FSC opportunities, just that they would be very limited in scope. This one was 8 hours....pretty limited opportunity compared to what normally takes place. So before we light our hair on fire here, the Tommy case sets out why there is no recreational fishery on Fraser stocks...as long as there are ANY restrictions on FSC, our fishery will be zero...... so, if you actually want to fish, focus your effort on ensuring there are abundant Chinook such that there are no infringements on FSC.
Here's the specific sections of the Tommy case for reference:
[81] The special circumstances of the 1999 fishing season were contemplated by the court in Sparrow, where it stated at ¶78:
The significance of giving the aboriginal right to fish for food top priority can be described as follows. If, in a given year, conservation needs required a reduction in the number of fish to be caught such that the number equalled the number required for food by the Indians, then all the fish available after conservation would go to the Indians according to the constitutional nature of their fishing right. If, more realistically, there were still fish after the Indian food requirements were met, then the brunt of conservation measures would be borne by the practices of sport fishing and commercial fishing.
[Emphasis added.]
[82] In my view, the underlined portion of the Sparrow passage reflects the circumstances of the 1999 Chinook fishing season, while the last statement of the passage more closely reflects the circumstances in Douglas.
[83] In the circumstances of these appeals, where there was insufficient fish to meet the First Nations’ food, social and ceremonial needs, I am of the view that all of the available Chinook had to go to the First Nations, regardless of the minimal impact the recreational fisheries may have had on the stock. This was necessary in order to guarantee the appellants their constitutional right of priority to the fish in the circumstances that existed and were known to exist before the commencement of the 1999 fishing season. The appellants did not, in my view, receive priority when the DFO closed the aboriginal fishery while the sports and recreational fisheries continued to enjoy access to the Chinook, albeit on a limited basis. After setting valid conservation measures, the honour of the Crown required the DFO to give priority to the appellants’ right to fish over all other non-aboriginal user groups, including the marine and in-river recreational fisheries.
