Important Chinook Information - Feedback Required

I apologize if I offended you or anyone but I ain’t changing my opinion as I have lived all up and down the west coast for 40 plus years and also worked on gillneters, sein boats and including draggers, I am an avid fisherman and citizen of this land as well, I agree that we all need to work together but that’s not been happening. I don’t have to explain to anyone who is raping the halibut or selling the Chinook or sockeye when it’s closed. There are frustrations on all sides, but my point in my view is the truth and huge part of the problem that no one has the balls to call it out, you should see my post on moose hunting. Cheers
 
Last edited:
Sorry bud, I am not offended in any way, simply because I don't paint people with a single brush stroke. I know that it is all people living on this planet, the one we all call earth - that in one form or another we all carry the weight of survival while living here together. You can't blame DFO, any one of the fishing sectors, the whales or the pinnipeds for the crash of certain fish stocks. We are all participants in the harvest game, we all carry an impact. There certainly are narrow individualized areas of troubling concern within each sector, whether in sport participation growth and others, commercial under reporting with some like Super Trawlers, pinnipeds in rivers, lakes and estuaries gorging on returning stocks, or what seems like unaccountable in-river fisheries on some systems throughout BC. Every single fisher in every single sector counts toward the offset end result of annual fish harvesting.

One thing is for certain, we can't control mother nature or her cycles, or mass extinctions of plant, insect, animal or even fish die-off's. What we can do, is stop finger pointing and get people moving toward an opportunity to form some kind of co-operative fisheries that can be sustainable in a mutually beneficial manor that F*cking Puts FISH FIRST. I don't care what you think it is that you deserve. I don't care if you think every sector accept sportfishing is raping the resource. I only care about the fish and working towards something that all fishing sectors can enjoy.

Great post
 
When it comes to fish and fishers it really should be quite simple...fish first, work together and if you can't fish selectively you don't fish and that includes everyone...no exceptions....period!!
 
My view is that we are all citizens that should have an individual opportunity as a sport/rec/ public fishery above all else. This means, First Nations, commercial and recreational should all fall under one fishery called the public in which everyone gets to try. Yes maybe upwards of 300 000 sportfishing rec licenses get purchased but how many actually go out and fish and then how many are actually successful in catching salmon. At least the rec fishery allows an opportunity to try, where as a First Nations or commercial opportunity only allows a select few to even try do if we are talking about closing or allocations the recreation fishery should be the last to go in my opinion.
 
Research law of the sea, maritime law, magnacarta, human rights. All of these subjects pertain to unalienable rights and the law pertaining to human rights to fish in the sea for sustenance and commercial fishing. Unfortunately sportfishing is a privilege. Unalienable means they cant be extinguished. :)

It is always discouraging how people post here without any understanding of what you are saying. Commercial and sport fishing are privileges. Indigenous Canadians have constitutional fish and game harvesting rights, which can only be limited for conservation purposes. It is tedious to hear the endless repetition of posters who do not understand or accept the differences between rights holders and privilege holders. It also does nothing to advance the cause of saving the salmon.
 
It is always discouraging how people post here without any understanding of what you are saying. Commercial and sport fishing are privileges. Indigenous Canadians have constitutional fish and game harvesting rights, which can only be limited for conservation purposes. It is tedious to hear the endless repetition of posters who do not understand or accept the differences between rights holders and privilege holders. It also does nothing to advance the cause of saving the salmon.

Your right, I’m not an expert in maritime law and human rights I was just giving an opinion into a discussion. Sorry if that’s so discouraging for you.
 
Wrong. Sustenance and commercial fishing are both listed in the magna carta and other historical pieces of law as unalienable human rights to fish in the sea. Fishing under contract(license) is a privilege. Therefore as our fisheries act where it rides by issuing a licence is in fact a fraud as it implies ownership of property which is not legal. It is illegal to own apart of the sea, it's bed or any creatures or fish in it, unless attached to shore property of the Province or State, then a licence maybe issued for areas that damages may occur. This is why freshwater fishing is and always will be a privileged due to property rights and ownership inland.

You may believe that you know and that I am wrong - it is in the magna carta and other laws that are unalienable human rights and that apply to this country.
 

Attachments

  • 12597D5A-DF4B-4045-A74D-21CB1507249F.jpeg
    12597D5A-DF4B-4045-A74D-21CB1507249F.jpeg
    47.8 KB · Views: 42
Wrong. Sustenance and commercial fishing are both listed in the magna carta and other historical pieces of law as unalienable human rights to fish in the sea. Fishing under contract(license) is a privilege. Therefore as our fisheries act where it rides by issuing a licence is in fact a fraud as it implies ownership of property which is not legal. It is illegal to own apart of the sea, it's bed or any creatures or fish in it, unless attached to shore property of the Province or State, then a licence maybe issued for areas that damages may occur. This is why freshwater fishing is and always will be a privileged due to property rights and ownership inland.

You may believe that you know and that I am wrong - it is in the magna carta and other laws that are unalienable human rights and that apply to this country.
Another noteworthy inclusion in the Magna Carta was the banning of fishing weirs in the river of London (Thames I assume)Seems even then Conservation was a consideration. We could learn!
 
Wrong. Sustenance and commercial fishing are both listed in the magna carta and other historical pieces of law as unalienable human rights to fish in the sea. Fishing under contract(license) is a privilege. Therefore as our fisheries act where it rides by issuing a licence is in fact a fraud as it implies ownership of property which is not legal. It is illegal to own apart of the sea, it's bed or any creatures or fish in it, unless attached to shore property of the Province or State, then a licence maybe issued for areas that damages may occur. This is why freshwater fishing is and always will be a privileged due to property rights and ownership inland.

You may believe that you know and that I am wrong - it is in the magna carta and other laws that are unalienable human rights and that apply to this country.

You’ll have to do more than rely on the Magna Carta and other unspecified historical pieces of law to argue that the federal government’s laws regulating commercial and recreational non-indigenous ocean fishing are a fraud. I am not aware of any such claim being recognized by a Canadian or any other court. Aboriginal fishing rights have a constitutional status in Canada while fishing by anyone else is regulated by federal or provincial law and is therefore a privilege.

Claims grounded in the Magna Carta have enjoyed no success in Canada. It is a historical document that greatly informs the context of Anglo Canadian law, but it dates back to the 13th century and a few things have changed since then.

Here are two cases which show how little time the courts have for arguments invoking the Magna Carta as a basis to challenge and invalidate established Canadian laws. The first one is the detailed dissection of these types of claims. The second one shows how they will give little, if any, time and attention to such claims going forward.

Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq>, retrieved on 2019-03-21

R. v. Penner, 2018 MBQB 200 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/hwttq>, retrieved on 2019-03-21
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately neither of these linked examples apply and for the most part are a very poor examples with no connection to Unalienable Human Rights or fishing rights. Common Law and Law of the land as well as property or land ownership are not the same thing. Hense the privilege to access. We have an unalienable human right to access fish in the sea. There can be no ownership or property attachment to these fish therefore no privilege (ownership) may be granted.

Not a lot of elaboration in your answer. Are you saying that no country has the right to limit or restrict ocean fishing by persons anywhere? So the US, Canada, European and other countries can in no way regulate ocean fishing by individuals because people can claim an inalienable (you say unalienable) right to take whatever fish and in unlimited quantities in the exercise of this international worldwide right? Can you refer me to any written authorities or legal decisions setting this out?
 
Wolf, don't be silly. Ask yourself or search out the information regarding the ten super trawlers that will be working on the BC coast this year. Around four have been steadily working year after year off the coast of BC. Ask for actual harvest numbers for all sectors. Stop pointing fingers, Put Fish First. Find the solutions that count, form meaningful partnerships with all willing fishing sectors and work toward a mutually beneficial opportunity that all fishing sectors can enjoy.

It's hard not to point fingers when those of us who are on the water and in the rivers, and have been for years see things like the impact of seals, sea lions and illegal river fisheries and nothing being done about it.
Not to mention Fish Farms who clearly impact salmon survival, to what extent is undetermined and the salmon river bed deterioration and destruction.
It seems to me the fingers are pointed most often at the Sport Fishers and have been for years.
 
I think what’s important is to recognize that there are examples of abuse in every sector. All the same that doesn’t mean any one sector gets a free pass simply because others are breaking rules. This is the tired argument that leads to the justification of the total inaction by the authorities to prosecute offenders and the excuse used by abusers for their illegal action. Conservation trumps all other considerations and must be applied to all sectors fairly.
 
I don't understand why we need 15 chinook on our liscences. I've never caught 15 chinook in a season. And I fish quite a bit. I'd be totally fine paying more for the liscence provided the money goes to enhancement. 10 springs would be enough for me easy.
If 300000 liscenses paid $50 more ....that's 15 million to enhancement!
 
You guys need to stop fighting because your not getting it yet. The NGO have a plan, and it is not hard to figure out.

Have a read you may find that article from the past interesting. Key figure Greg Taylor. MCC caucus, Skeenawild and Raincoast Conservation. An independent contractor ( ex-commercial) that floats between all of them and even with Pacific Salmon Foundation. He wants the recreational fisherman shutdown, and doesn't believe in catch and release fisheries. That's right really one person that sweeps back and forth giving to all of them fisheries advice.

https://www.bcliving.ca/lake-babine-nation-brings-sustainable-salmon-to-vancouver-businesses

I think it crystal clear of what we have going on. Judge for yourself you will start to connect those dots as you read and do more research.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top