Video Recording-Fraser River Native Fishery 2020

To add to my previous post...you could also in your story say that other problems exist that DFO is not addressing which are also preventing wild salmon recovery. You could mention the big ones...farms, habitat, fresh water licences, gravel, mining etc etc. But that your story is focusing on a problem that the media and DFO is doing nothing about and that you felt it important that it be brought to the attention of the public so that positive change can happen with this issue.
 
The reason why First Nations are the ones illegally fishing is the courts have a standing order not to prosecute the individuals of First Nation origin.

Yes dfo can seize all there fishing gear but that’s about it.

If someone of different race went and illegal fishes they don’t have that same protections.

Can you cite a source on this?

It's not at all true.
 
Can you cite a source on this?

It's not at all true.

Go to an SFAB meeting and ask DFO for yourself these are their words not mine.

also if you google aboriginal sentencing you will see the courts also have special guidelines.

Why do you think there is 200-300 gillnets seized in the fraser river each year and almost no individual being prosecuted related to those illegal gillnets.
 
Last edited:
Been numerous postings on this thread by individuals describing their perceptions of the legal system as being race-based & their fears over that. That narrative is an unsubstantiated and erroneous description of the legal system.

1st off - not posting in any attempt to defend illegal fishing or harvesting "at-risk" weak runs - just wish to clear-up how harvesting rights are legally generated so that unsupported assumptions and perceptions aren't spun out of control into mass hysteria.

2ndly - these aboriginal rights aren't generated on "race". It starts with the rights conferred & affirmed by s.35 of the Constitution Act (1982) (i.e. The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed) - the main Act that the rest of the laws of Canada are based on - that we are all subject to. The exact details of how these rights are assessed & confirmed by the Colonial Governments (verses hereditary laws) is defined in numerous court cases (i.e. "case law") - generally starting with Sparrow (1986) and onwards. These legal benchmarks to confirm the claim of aboriginal title and rights include things like a history of exclusive use and occupation, governance mechanisms and the like - but not "race". You can reference these legal decisions and rationale using this weblink: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/jId=bc&text=claim of aboriginal title and rights Aboriginal or treaty right to harvest

3rdly - Where "race" comes into the mix is the intersection of the imposed Indian Act (1876 rev. 1985) where race is defined for whom is a "Status Indian", and for the authority of the imposed Band Councils (verses hereditary systems & laws) & the federal programs they are responsible for. The Act itself can be found at: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-5/
Where the history can be found at: https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/movementtowardsreconciliation/chapter/the-indian-act-1876/

It is safe to say that "Indians" (Columbus got lost - thought he was in India) had no say in this Act since they weren't allowed to hire lawyers before 1951, and not allowed to vote until 1960 - or even allowed to freely leave the reserves after 1885 and up until 1995 (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/pass-system-in-canada).

I believe many Canadians are ignorant of this history and of the Canadian legal system. With the easy access to the WWW it should be easy to educate ourselves on these topics before we get emotional about misconceptions and wrong information - and I am grateful for this forum in providing a forum where our collective intelligence can be shared - and those who wish to educate themselves have that opportunity, privilege, & responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Go to an SFAB meeting and ask DFO for yourself these are their words not mine.

also if you google aboriginal sentencing you will see the courts also have special guidelines.

Why do you think there is 200-300 gillnets seized in the fraser river each year and almost no individual being prosecuted related to those illegal gillnets.

Because of this, I called up one of the local officers.

There is no directive.

There are points that AA discusses above relating to First Nations fishing being a right, and that their access to fish (for FSC) is only second to conservation. If you have an issue with this, you can try to change the constitution.

When there is a conservation concern (and the Fraser Chinook fall in this categoty), those rights can be limited. They presently are limited.

I asked whether investigations were ongoing into first nations and they responded "yes. We have had several go to conviction here within the last year".

So leave First Nations out of it. There is legal, there is illegal. Anything else is discriminatory.
 
Because of this, I called up one of the local officers.

There is no directive.

There are points that AA discusses above relating to First Nations fishing being a right, and that their access to fish (for FSC) is only second to conservation. If you have an issue with this, you can try to change the constitution.

When there is a conservation concern (and the Fraser Chinook fall in this categoty), those rights can be limited. They presently are limited.

I asked whether investigations were ongoing into first nations and they responded "yes. We have had several go to conviction here within the last year".

So leave First Nations out of it. There is legal, there is illegal. Anything else is discriminatory.

Leave First Nations out of gillnetting on the Fraser what kind of sauce are u on.

What dfo officers did you talk to what was their name? What office did u call?

Last I heard they did manage to get a few convictions against some very very long time offenders but it did not involve any jail time. It was a restraining order type where they can’t get within x distance of a Gilnet on the Fraser. They we quit proud that they were even able to get that as previous years they could not even get the crown to press charges.
 
Last edited:
To add to your comments, browingmirage - all federal employees are representatives of "the Crown". They all have a "fiduciary duty" to "consult & accommodate" holders of "Aboriginal Rights & Titles" (where their job may infringe those rights) - so that the "Honour of the Crown" is upheld.

This is again - all in the case law (look it up!) - and NOT (as a few posters suggest) because the FNs have lobbied or not - nor is it "discrimination" that FNs have never ceded or relinquished their Rights and Titles and are afforded the consultation & accommodation that s. 35 and the Crown & the representatives of the Crown are legally bound by.

I am unsure of what "directive" WMY is referencing - but it could be the legal decision that FSC (Food, Social & Ceremonial) fish can be legally sold by FNs ("Right to a Moderate Livelihood") that came in after the Marshall Decision in 1999. See: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/text=Right to a Moderate Livelihood
 
Last edited:
To add to your comments, browingmirage - all federal employees are representatives of "the Crown". They all have a "fiduciary duty" to "consult & accommodate" holders of "Aboriginal Rights & Titles" (where their job may infringe those rights) - so that the "Honour of the Crown" is upheld.

This is again - all in the case law (look it up!) - and NOT (as a few posters suggest) because the FNs have lobbied or not - nor is it "discrimination" that FNs have never ceded or relinquished their Rights and Titles and are afforded the consultation & accommodation that s. 35 and the Crown & the representatives of the Crown owes them.

I don't think anyone on here is questioning the priority. That's been well established

I think this is more to counteract the media where they say they are not fishing when in fact there is limited openings right now and full scale openings for chinook later on in the summer. I am not sure why they can call out sports fishing in front of the fraser, Send there people out in boats with the media to take pictures but when people on here suggest doing the same thing they get accused of being racist?
 
I am unsure of what "directive" WMY is referencing - but it could be the legal decision that FSC (Food, Social & Ceremonial) fish can be legally sold by FNs ("Right to a Moderate Livelihood") that came in after the Marshall Decision in 1999. See: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/text=Right to a Moderate Livelihood

I am not sure if any of it has basis in law. At one of our SFAB meetings two years ago. One officers incharge of the region said a new DFO lawyer had that opinion that First Nations could not actually illegal retain fish. As such charges against individuals were not being pursued by DFO crown lawyers.

Yes they could violation of fishing laws such as fishing outside of a set opening or using two large of a net. In these cases dfo would seize the gear but not go after individuals.

Then last year they were excited that they were able to get a few conditions for some very long time offenders and were quite excited about that.
 
I don't think anyone on here is questioning the priority. That's been well established...
Really? maybe re-read the start of this thread:
...It is my believe that the government and DFO have put such heavy restrictions on the commercial fishermen and the sportsfishermen so that they can let the Fraser River get overloaded with Springs so that the Natives can completely annihilate them to decimated numbers. I believe this is completely arbitrary and discriminatory to all the other sectors that have interests in these fish...
I am not sure if any of it has basis in law.
You realize that I gave weblinks to actual court decisions? The assertion that case law is "not law" - is totally ridiculous and inane. The older set in DFO C&P may not like the fact that they have lost their control over what happens to FSC fish as they thought it should go like it did when they were younger - I can understand that. Case law is a work in progress, and it evolves. DFO C&P are "not pursuing" charges against selling FSC in court because they would loose that court battle, IMHO - because of the "moderate livelihood" ruling. They do still charge commercial processors for receiving that FSC fish if it enters the legal market, however.

Typically, in charging FN fishers - if they get a BCR (Band Council Resolution) against illegal fishing - they do charge individuals.

Again - to be clear - I'm not posting in any attempt to defend illegal fishing or harvesting "at-risk" weak runs - just clearing up the legal misunderstandings as I see them - so we know where we stand in this debate.
 
Last edited:
You realize that I gave weblinks to actual court decisions? The assertion that case law is "not law" - is totally ridiculous and inane.

I was referring to what dfo told me not what u posted lol are you feeling okay today?
 
Well you can't blame them for calling it arbitrary and discriminatory when DFO refuses to define what the FSC needs are.
Again, you appear to be missing the point, WMY. It's not up to DFO to arbitrarily set FSC numbers for FNs - FSC is a needs-based # - 2nd to conservation as everyone agrees - and again - all in the case law.
 
Again, you appear to be missing the point, WMY. It's not up to DFO to arbitrarily set FSC numbers for FNs - FSC is a needs-based # - 2nd to conservation as everyone agrees - and again - all in the case law.

If it was defined in case law then Justice Cowen would of been able to find out that information but even him was unable to that information from DFO as they said the inseason negotiations for FSC were subject to parliamentary privilege.

is it 10k fish per individual is it 1k? should lower fraser bands be able to take all the FSC and leave non for upper fraser bands? If they harvest crab and pawns all year for FSC should they also get as much as a band that does not have access to the ocean?

This year the summer 4.1 go everyone got a piece. can you show me in case law the change between last year and this year? To me it seems FSC needs are only limited by what DFO arbitrary decides to give them? If sockeye were abundant this year then what would happen?

This is what DFO is telling us

upload_2020-6-24_12-20-26.png
upload_2020-6-24_12-21-56.png
 
If you go back through the CanLii website you will find rulings on FSC. It has been ruled that it is "needs based". That "needs" is largely based on the size of the aboriginal community and the availability based on location of the Traditional Territory. It is under debate as to exactly how to define it as absolute numbers - particularly as a bilateral negotiation between DFO and any FN - hence the "Parliamentary Privilege" being invoked so that DFO doesn't inadvertently give-away it's poker hand in those negotiations. Many FNs have undertaken "Traditional Use Studies" to identify their needs - and those studies are typically confidential, as well - same reasons. That's likely why Cohen was unsuccessful to find out.

Case law - as mentioned - is a work in progress, and it evolves. So... over time - as DFO gets taken to court and generally looses (and the lawyers get richer) - those questions get answered with increasing structure and detail.
 
Conservation needs will not be met by any of the stocks above big bar slide this year.

How is any netting allowed?

We used to have abundant sockeye that got absolutely destroyed by in river netting. Now with hardly any sockeye the main target has been the 4-1 for about 6 or 7 years. Cant wait for this summer when people expect the same fishing as last year. Asides from the big cycle of South Thompson 4-1 the last few cycles have been on a great downswing.
Almost 30000 Chinook REPORTED for August alone being taken.



Nothing better than explaining to my region 3 FN friends why their catch numbers are **** ,while using traditional methods or rod and reel.
Sorry the fish didnt make it from Tsawassen to Spuzzum. Downstream netting only leaves the ones that slip through the nets or come out. That is why you are getting beat up small chinook.
 
Again, WB - I'm not trying to defend illegal fishing, nor targeting "at risk" stocks. I also acknowledge the Fraser is arguably the most difficult & complex to manage particularly with gill nets potentially intercepting those weak stocks.

But...

You assertion that in-river gill nets are the only stated reason for absolutely destroying the sockeye run flies in the face of the geographic scale of the sockeye calamity. This year - even the Copper river in Alaska shut down early. That sockeye decline is coast-wide. If it were due only because of the Fraser in-river gill nets - only the Fraser would be shut down.
 
Again, you appear to be missing the point, WMY. It's not up to DFO to arbitrarily set FSC numbers for FNs - FSC is a needs-based # - 2nd to conservation as everyone agrees - and again - all in the case law.

I’m not a lawyer so forgive me for not completely understanding the case law and precedents...I understand FN is needs base and they get priority after conservation needs are met. I agree with this.

But in terms of resource management, based on my understanding “quotas” should be set, as in once returns have been reasonably forecasted such that conservation needs have been met FN get x amount leaving x to recreational and commercial.

What amount is x for FN? How many chinook do they need? How do other species (coho, chum, sockeye, pink) get factored in? What happens in a good sockeye year, does their chinook “quota” go down and allow for rec retention? Can they legally sell salmon when it is deemed there isn’t enough resource to allow for recreational and commercial fisheries? Last year FN chinook retention is documented at 25,000, how does this compare to their “needs”?

I suspect the above questions cannot be answered with legalities as they have not been determined. Please educate us if this is not the case. These are the questions that need to be addressed clearly and communicated to the public before DFO makes such unexpected regulation changes. The way it was done can only lead to public outcry against FN.
 
Can they legally sell salmon when it is deemed there isn’t enough resource to allow for recreational and commercial fisheries? Last year FN chinook retention is documented at 25,000, how does this compare to their “needs”?

in 2010 fraser FN took 500k sockeye 15k chinook for FSC needs. In 2019 took 9k sockeye and 25k+ chinook

Reported numbers from PSC website and DFO website
 
Back
Top