Important Chinook Information - Feedback Required

You don have a choice in that equation. FN have left the room and only negotiate Nation(FN) to Nation(Canada). Canada's share is divided between two sectors Recreational & Commercial.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. You say "FN have left the room and only negotiate Nation(FN) to Nation(Canada)". I was under the impression that FN harvesting rights (FSC and limited commercial) are constitutional, but can be limited for conservation, which is non-negotiable. What do the FN negotiate with Canada and how does that work? Rights aren't typically amenable to negotiation once they are established.
 
You don have a choice in that equation. FN have left the room and only negotiate Nation(FN) to Nation(Canada). Canada's share is divided between two sectors Recreational & Commercial.
Not sure how you could ever have Nation to Nation negotiations ST when First Nations themselves cannot even deretermine whether elected or heriditary leaders represent /speak for them. Until at the very least,that’s determined by the FN people, the use of the term Nation to Nation is misleading at best. How does any meaningful negotiation take place in these circumstances?
 
You don have a choice in that equation. FN have left the room and only negotiate Nation(FN) to Nation(Canada). Canada's share is divided between two sectors Recreational & Commercial.

Sad that’s how it is considering my son now 7 has spent his entire life fishing and loves it, it’s a way of life for him the same as it is for First Nations of today. Point being we should all just be treated equally as Canadian. I do understand the bigger picture of this statement though and no of the political can of worms this opens, never gonna happen
 
Sad that’s how it is considering my son now 7 has spent his entire life fishing and loves it, it’s a way of life for him the same as it is for First Nations of today. Point being we should all just be treated equally as Canadian. I do understand the bigger picture of this statement though and no of the political can of worms this opens, never gonna happen
There are other groups in history that had it as bad or worse than them, that never got anything for it and still get nothing for it to this day. I can think of a couple of instances.
 
Also I’m not an expert at all but doesn’t take much of an expert to realize that all the restrictions and closures in the ocean mean absolutely nothing if we just net those same fish in the river and let what’s left to get eaten by seals. I don’t mean to cause finger pointing or separation we are all in this together
 
Last edited:
Also I’m not an expert at all but doesn’t take much of an expert to realize that all the restrictions and closures in the ocean mean absolutely nothing if we just net those same fish in the river and let what’s left to get eaten by seals
Why can’t everybody just agree to this statement? It’s the honest truth. It’s the problem. It’s the only way to fix this.
 
Not sure if this is actually been tested in court, Yes the supreme court decision did say conservation is suppose to come first I believe they left that interpretation of what that means to DFO. Not only that but we also have a process to override conservation concerns. This is called the social and economic impact clause. ITs been used for lots of now extinct salmon runs and endangered runs (cultus lake sockeye and others, probably hundreds of small steelhead stocks too at this point).

Now the question is say what would happen if someone decided to challenge that in court? that conservation must come first? that would be interesting,

Surrley being listed in SARA as endangered is a conservation concern, and DFO responsibility is to conservation first

That's a rabbit hole that no one may want to go down, that may result in DFO closing all fishing down and perhaps having to pay first nations millions in compensation.
You lost me, the Supreme Court has ruled that Conservation is the priority. What court is that challangeable in?
 
Not sure how you could ever have Nation to Nation negotiations ST when First Nations themselves cannot even deretermine whether elected or heriditary leaders represent /speak for them. Until at the very least,that’s determined by the FN people, the use of the term Nation to Nation is misleading at best. How does any meaningful negotiation take place in these circumstances?

S35/indian act supreme court ect has made it pretty clear and been challenged a number of times that the band council system will not change. The media likes to talk up hereditary leaders tho.

Sad that’s how it is considering my son now 7 has spent his entire life fishing and loves it, it’s a way of life for him the same as it is for First Nations of today. Point being we should all just be treated equally as Canadian. I do understand the bigger picture of this statement though and no of the political can of worms this opens, never gonna happen

That because you don't understand the history, You have live in a world of equality, however that world did not exist when canada drew up the indian act. Otherwise First Nations would have a lot more the fishery then they do today.

You lost me, the Supreme Court has ruled that Conservation is the priority. What court is that challangeable in?

Not sure what you mean either perhaps we have lost each others train of thought,

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/609/index.do
 
There are other groups in history that had it as bad or worse than them, that never got anything for it and still get nothing for it to this day. I can think of a couple of instances.
Are you referring to Canada or worldwide?

In Canada, the treatment of Indigenous people was appalling. From the Truth and Reconciliation Report:

For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to
exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as “cultural genocide.”

Physical genocide is the mass killing of the members of a targeted group, and biological genocide is the destruction of the group’s reproductive capacity. Cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group. States that engage in cultural genocide set out to destroy the political and social institutions of the targeted group. Land is seized, and populations are forcibly transferred and their movement is restricted. Languages are banned. Spiritual leaders are persecuted, spiritual practices are forbidden, and objects of spiritual value are confiscated and destroyed. And, most significantly to the issue at hand, families are disrupted to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next.

In its dealing with Aboriginal people, Canada did all these things.

Canada asserted control over Aboriginal land. In some locations, Canada negotiated Treaties with First Nations; in others, the land was simply occupied or seized. The negotiation of Treaties, while seemingly honourable and legal, was often marked by fraud and coercion, and Canada was, and remains, slow to implement their provisions and intent.1

On occasion, Canada forced First Nations to relocate their reserves from agriculturally valuable or resource-rich land onto remote and economically marginal reserves.2Without legal authority or foundation, in the 1880s Canada instituted a “pass sys tem” that was intended to confine First Nations people to their reserves.3

Canada replaced existing forms of Aboriginal government with relatively pow- erless band councils whose decisions it could override and whose leaders it could depose.4 In the process, it disempowered Aboriginal women, who had held significant
influence and powerful roles in many First Nations, including the Mohawks, the Carrier, and Tlingit.5

Canada denied the right to participate fully in Canadian political, economic, and social life to those Aboriginal people who refused to abandon their Aboriginal identity.6

Canada outlawed Aboriginal spiritual practices, jailed Aboriginal spiritual leaders, and confiscated sacred objects.7

And, Canada separated children from their parents, sending them to residential schools. This was done not to educate them, but primarily to break their link to their culture and identity. In justifying the government’s residential school policy, Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, told the House of Commons in 1883:

When the school is on the reserve the child lives with its parents, who are sav- ages; he is surrounded by savages, and though he may learn to read and write his habits, and training and mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly pressed on myself, as the head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.8​

These measures were part of a coherent policy to eliminate Aboriginal people as distinct peoples and to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream against their will. Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs Duncan Campbell Scott outlined the goals of that policy in 1920, when he told a parliamentary committee that “our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic.”9 These goals were reiterated in 1969 in the federal government’sStatement on Indian Policy (more often referred to as the “White Paper”), which sought to end Indian status and terminate the Treaties that the federal government had negotiated with First Nations.10

The Canadian government pursued this policy of cultural genocide because it wished to divest itself of its legal and financial obligations to Aboriginal people and gain control over their land and resources. If every Aboriginal person had been “absorbed into the body politic,” there would be no reserves, no Treaties, and no Aboriginal rights.
 
S35/indian act supreme court ect has made it pretty clear and been challenged a number of times that the band council system will not change. The media likes to talk up hereditary leaders tho.



That because you don't understand the history, You have live in a world of equality, however that world did not exist when canada drew up the indian act. Otherwise First Nations would have a lot more the fishery then they do today.



Not sure what you mean either perhaps we have lost each others train of thought,

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/609/index.do
From your link

The constitutional nature of the Musqueam food fishing rights means that any allocation of priorities after valid conservation measures have been implemented must give top priority to Indian food fishing. If the objective pertained to conservation, the conservation plan would be scrutinized to assess priorities. While the detailed allocation of maritime resources is a task that must be left to those having expertise in the area, the Indians' food requirements must be met first when that allocation is established. 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.
 
From your link

The constitutional nature of the Musqueam food fishing rights means that any allocation of priorities after valid conservation measures have been implemented must give top priority to Indian food fishing. If the objective pertained to conservation, the conservation plan would be scrutinized to assess priorities. While the detailed allocation of maritime resources is a task that must be left to those having expertise in the area, the Indians' food requirements must be met first when that allocation is established. 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.

Yeah but what’s does conservation mean? Is that one river one stream one stock? Or is it all the stocks put togeather? Or does it just mean enough need to come back so fsc needs are met?
 
Are you referring to Canada or worldwide?

In Canada, the treatment of Indigenous people was appalling. From the Truth and Reconciliation Report:

For over a century, the central goals of Canada’s Aboriginal policy were to eliminate Aboriginal governments; ignore Aboriginal rights; terminate the Treaties; and, through a process of assimilation, cause Aboriginal peoples to cease to
exist as distinct legal, social, cultural, religious, and racial entities in Canada. The establishment and operation of residential schools were a central element of this policy, which can best be described as “cultural genocide.”

Physical genocide is the mass killing of the members of a targeted group, and biological genocide is the destruction of the group’s reproductive capacity. Cultural genocide is the destruction of those structures and practices that allow the group to continue as a group. States that engage in cultural genocide set out to destroy the political and social institutions of the targeted group. Land is seized, and populations are forcibly transferred and their movement is restricted. Languages are banned. Spiritual leaders are persecuted, spiritual practices are forbidden, and objects of spiritual value are confiscated and destroyed. And, most significantly to the issue at hand, families are disrupted to prevent the transmission of cultural values and identity from one generation to the next.

In its dealing with Aboriginal people, Canada did all these things.

Canada asserted control over Aboriginal land. In some locations, Canada negotiated Treaties with First Nations; in others, the land was simply occupied or seized. The negotiation of Treaties, while seemingly honourable and legal, was often marked by fraud and coercion, and Canada was, and remains, slow to implement their provisions and intent.1

On occasion, Canada forced First Nations to relocate their reserves from agriculturally valuable or resource-rich land onto remote and economically marginal reserves.2Without legal authority or foundation, in the 1880s Canada instituted a “pass sys tem” that was intended to confine First Nations people to their reserves.3

Canada replaced existing forms of Aboriginal government with relatively pow- erless band councils whose decisions it could override and whose leaders it could depose.4 In the process, it disempowered Aboriginal women, who had held significant
influence and powerful roles in many First Nations, including the Mohawks, the Carrier, and Tlingit.5

Canada denied the right to participate fully in Canadian political, economic, and social life to those Aboriginal people who refused to abandon their Aboriginal identity.6

Canada outlawed Aboriginal spiritual practices, jailed Aboriginal spiritual leaders, and confiscated sacred objects.7

And, Canada separated children from their parents, sending them to residential schools. This was done not to educate them, but primarily to break their link to their culture and identity. In justifying the government’s residential school policy, Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, told the House of Commons in 1883:

When the school is on the reserve the child lives with its parents, who are sav- ages; he is surrounded by savages, and though he may learn to read and write his habits, and training and mode of thought are Indian. He is simply a savage who can read and write. It has been strongly pressed on myself, as the head of the Department, that Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence, and the only way to do that would be to put them in central training industrial schools where they will acquire the habits and modes of thought of white men.8​

These measures were part of a coherent policy to eliminate Aboriginal people as distinct peoples and to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream against their will. Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs Duncan Campbell Scott outlined the goals of that policy in 1920, when he told a parliamentary committee that “our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic.”9 These goals were reiterated in 1969 in the federal government’sStatement on Indian Policy (more often referred to as the “White Paper”), which sought to end Indian status and terminate the Treaties that the federal government had negotiated with First Nations.10

The Canadian government pursued this policy of cultural genocide because it wished to divest itself of its legal and financial obligations to Aboriginal people and gain control over their land and resources. If every Aboriginal person had been “absorbed into the body politic,” there would be no reserves, no Treaties, and no Aboriginal rights.
I’ll semd you a pm tomorrow to keep this thread on topic. Cheers
 
Yeah but what’s does conservation mean? Is that one river one stream one stock? Or is it all the stocks put togeather? Or does it just mean enough need to come back so fsc needs are met?
I read it to mean IF enough come back, regardless of what stock or what location, after conservation numbers are met FN have priority to harvest those fish in excess of the predetermined conservation number?
 
I read it to mean IF enough come back, regardless of what stock or what location, after conservation numbers are met FN have priority to harvest those fish in excess of the predetermined conservation number?

Okay well we know that some Fraser river stocks have come back with less then 100 individual spawners. That surely is a conversation concern. Surely we need more then 100 to come back to make conservation goals.

Yet not one ENGO or group is challenging them in court on this.

Makes you wonder why
 
Last edited:
We can talk about what Canada did back then and what rights FN have now and how the DFO mismanaged it all until the cows come home, the bottom line here is we have a species at risk. How do we move forward to fix this? My suggestions are as follows:

1. Ban use of nets for salmon fishing, period. They catch too much in areas where salmon are most vulnerable (rivers). If FN truly are concerned for their fishery they will agree to this. FN have many methods of harvest.

2. Ban wild salmon retention, period. This ensures the best genetics are propagating what remains of the species. This allows "trophies" to still be caught, but instead of eating or mounting, take a picture and let her go. This ban can be lifted or controlled when population levels return to equilibrium.

3. Invest more in hatcheries using wild salmon for brood stock. We know they work. Let's use them to help get the wild salmon populations back on their fins. A method of identification for wild hatchery fish can be determined if required.

4. Ban use of net pen fish farms. Instead, move them to inland facilities. The technology is there. No amount of money is worth the loss of a species.

5. Put a cull on pinnipeds. If we don't, nature will. Not sure what is a better photo op, a humanly culled pinniped or an emaciated one washed up on a local beach.

We need fresh, even extreme ideas on this because clearly what has been done is not working.
 
We can talk about what Canada did back then and what rights FN have now and how the DFO mismanaged it all until the cows come home, the bottom line here is we have a species at risk. How do we move forward to fix this? My suggestions are as follows:

1. Ban use of nets for salmon fishing, period. They catch too much in areas where salmon are most vulnerable (rivers). If FN truly are concerned for their fishery they will agree to this. FN have many methods of harvest.

2. Ban wild salmon retention, period. This ensures the best genetics are propagating what remains of the species. This allows "trophies" to still be caught, but instead of eating or mounting, take a picture and let her go. This ban can be lifted or controlled when population levels return to equilibrium.

3. Invest more in hatcheries using wild salmon for brood stock. We know they work. Let's use them to help get the wild salmon populations back on their fins. A method of identification for wild hatchery fish can be determined if required.

4. Ban use of net pen fish farms. Instead, move them to inland facilities. The technology is there. No amount of money is worth the loss of a species.

5. Put a cull on pinnipeds. If we don't, nature will. Not sure what is a better photo op, a humanly culled pinniped or an emaciated one washed up on a local beach.

We need fresh, even extreme ideas on this because clearly what has been done is not working.
Those seem like good ideas and also add:
6. Complete coast wide ban on commercial herring fishery
 
If we all truly cared about the fish as much as we do about the opportunity to catch that fish - then truly we would all simply stop fishing in order to Put FISH FIRST. Period.

This would be an interesting experiment. No fishing by anyone for 1 season. See what happens. Of course, we wouldn't truly understand the results for 4 years...
 
This would be an interesting experiment. No fishing by anyone for 1 season. See what happens. Of course, we wouldn't truly understand the results for 4 years...
And we are taking about all fishing: commercial, recreation and river?!
 
Back
Top