Fish farm news ??

[Big foot]

From: Alexandra Morton
To: fishermenlist@lists.onenw.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:13 PM
Subject: [fishermenlist] We Won again


Hello


Today BC Supreme Court ruled in our favor once again. Justice Hinkson granted the federal government a suspension order until December 18, 2010 so that Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) can further prepare to assume control of regulating salmon farms. However, Justice Hinkson forbade any expansion of aquaculture during that period. Specifically, the province cannot issue any new fish farm licences and cannot expand the size of any tenure. He recognized the First Nation interest in this matter by granting the Musgamagw-Tsawataineuk Tribal Council intervenor status, which is essential as this case is based in their territory.

On the matter pursued by Marine Harvest at the Court of Appeal and sent back to Justice Hinkson to reconsider (that is whether the fish in the farms are privately owned by the companies and whether the Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA) is still in force), Hinkson confirmed that the FPPA, will no longer apply to finfish aquaculture and thus no longer protect farms from nuisance claims.

On the question, does Marine Harvest own the fish in their pens? Justice Hinkson found that this was not the place for this decision. Marine Harvest will have to bring this before the courts themselves. For now, we know that the aquaculture fish are now part of the fisheries of Canada.

Today’s decision is met by the unrelated announcement by US box store chain “Target” that they have eliminated all farmed salmon from its fresh, frozen, and smoked seafood offerings in its stores across the United States, because of farm salmon environmental impact on native salmon.

There is an enormous amount of work ahead to translate any of this into better survival of our wild salmon, but the courts seem consistently interested in bringing reason, the constitution and the law to bear on the Norwegian fish farm industry in British Columbia.

While I am truly sorry that jobs will be lost in ocean fish farming, bear in mind the industry is in deep trouble with mother nature herself in the fish farming strongholds of Chile and Norway. Trying to hold this nomadic fish in pens is never going to work, because it causes epidemics, unnatural sea lice infestations and drug resistance. Salmon farming is not sustainable and ultimately we are better served by our wild fish.

Alexandra Morton

 

[TheBigGuy]

Very good news, glad to hear the brakes have been slammed on fish farm expansion.

I am not of First Nations origin, but I feel that they are often given a hard time on this board. In my opinion alienating the First Nations from the rest of the sport fishing sector is foolhardy. I have felt for quite some time they are the only way of forcing the federal government to act responsibly to conserve our west coast Salmon. The First Nations are the only group in Canada that has the power in court to change Federal policies. Maybe instead of fighting amongst ourselves as user groups, we should be more closely allied to fight disastrous fisheries management policies.

 

[Steelhead S2]

x2

 

[highlights]

X3

 

[Whole in the Water]

X 4

Long live wild salmon!!!

 

[reelfast]

wonderful news. and for a major retailer like target to come out and eliminate farmed fish from all of their outlets, WOW.

working together is a great idea bigguy, but keep yur eyes open. the indians down this way have swung big bats for decades now and have been successful in doing their 50% to kill off wild fishes. ever see bank to bank nets sets? ever seen them high and dry stuffed with wild steelhead as the tide goes out? wonder where the fishermen are?

good to cooperate and work toward a common goal, don't make too many assumptions as greed is an easily caught commodity and tends to mask all other intentions.

 

[Steelhead S2]

X(-2)[xx(]

 

[TheBigGuy]

quote:Originally posted by reelfast

wonderful news. and for a major retailer like target to come out and eliminate farmed fish from all of their outlets, WOW.

working together is a great idea bigguy, but keep yur eyes open. the indians down this way have swung big bats for decades now and have been successful in doing their 50% to kill off wild fishes. ever see bank to bank nets sets? ever seen them high and dry stuffed with wild steelhead as the tide goes out? wonder where the fishermen are?

good to cooperate and work toward a common goal, don't make too many assumptions as greed is an easily caught commodity and tends to mask all other intentions.

I'm not naive, but better to see the Salmon preserved for future generations than to squabble amongst ourselves over the dwindling remnants. I really don't care if I have less access rights when the fight is over as long as the Salmon are given a lasting chance for survival.

 

[TheBigGuy]

Reelfast, as an American maybe your not familiar with our governments past track record with fisheries management. Google "Alantic Cod fishery" and then see if maybe we have good reason to fear them controlling the west coast Salmons fate.

 

[reelfast]

thanks bigguy, i do follow along with news from north of our shared border and both coasts as well. i am only pointing out that we down this way have been nieve in our approach to the indian fishery. the sympathy card still being played after 200 years resonates with lots of folks. but the facts are the facts and when the indians control, by court order, 50% of the quota, its time to take the blinders off and look at exactly what is going on.

hopefully you folks will be wiser in your appoach and keep your eye on the ball, we have failed miserably. protecting the reminants of our anadramous fishery is very important and something to fight over with great vigor. your court's decision is a spot of bright light in a very dim environment. keep up the good battle, maybe we down this way will actually learn something!

 

[walleyes]

Some really good news..

I am not sure why it took the first Nations to get the Government to listen nor am I pleased to here that is why they are listening. Yes its good for the us now in order for us to stop the farming industry but if they only recognise the First nations on this issue whats next. ?? Are they going to start to regulate our take ?? If their word is strong enough to stop an industry you can be damn sure its strong enough to stop us from fishing.. Just my thoughts on it..

 

[Charlie]

First, if you aren’t on Alexandra Morton’s band wagon, I personally think you need to jump on it!

Now, how did, “He recognized the First Nation interest in this matter by granting the Musgamagw-Tsawataineuk Tribal Council intervenor status, which is essential as this case is based in their territory,” have anything to do with or become a 50% of the TAC issue, regarding this "good" news? Those are two separate issues! First Nations is indeed trying to get more, along with everyone else - aren’t you? But, the fact is that should remain nothing to do with - saving the fishery on either side of the border! Keep in mind, 50% of nothing still equates to nothing! In case you not aware TAC issues are part of and now being discussed through the “new” treaties currently in negotiations, so if there is a concern - get involved there!

With that being said, First Nations is one of the “most” powerful “POLITICAL” organizations in Canada, so why in the world, would one not want to join forces in court - to save the “Wild” and “Natural” salmon?

Now concerning a couple of comments, there is an old saying… ring out the old, and bring in the new! The first verse of that is, “Ring out the old, ring in the new, Ring, happy bells, across the snow; The year is going, let him go; Ring out the false, ring in the true.” I think that might be fitting, as it is time some finally let the past go and “Ring, out the false, ring in the true.” Look at what is being done now and how we can improve things - not continue to live in the past!

Concerning our “Indians” with 50% of the TAC - that is also now history! It was brought about by treaties “we” signed here in the States, and isn’t going to change – everyone needs to learn to live with! And, just for the record, as most know we have very few “wild” or “natural” runs left. The few that we have, have many different organizations that are trying to protect; to very much include, the “Indian fishery”! Incase no one knows, NOAA is the final controlling authority, and comparing NOAA with DFO? No comparison, I keep NOAA! Also, that 50% TAC referred to is “hatchery” fish - that are not even wanted to go upstream and spawn! If one were to research, they would find the number of hatchery fish we put out every year would very much overpopulate the spawning grounds if allowed to go up stream. That was one of our “past” mistakes.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[walleyes]

I absolutely appreciate the work the First nations are doing on this issue. The problem I have is that once again one group has precedence over another. And one groups rights and or claim to rights has precedence over another. Why should the voice of one be heard over the other. And call me gun shy but I learn from history. We in Alberta are dealing with one issue now that has affected our hunting and fishing do to a ruling made in "Manitoba" favouring a certain group. I may be paranoid and probably am I just don't want to see the same thing happen here..

quote:He recognized the First Nation interest in this matter by granting the Musgamagw-Tsawataineuk Tribal Council intervenor status, which is essential as this case is based in their territory

Why is just the tribal council granted intervener status why not the tribal council in conjunction with the all the other groups involved in this ??

This is going to be interesting and have lasting consequences.. How long until they are given "intervenor" status to decide how many Salmon you can keep or how many crab you can keep,, or as a non resident how many days you can come up here and fish.. Again I may be gun shy but I have seen where these simple rulings and decisions have led to in this country. You may not know or you may not have experienced the same thing we have up here..

 

[Steelhead S2]

Intervenor status allows the band to speak to the issues, it does not make them a party to the law suit. The action has not become about FN interests or rights, and the court will not make any determinations that have anything to do with allocations to different FN groups. They now have the court's permission to provide context. First off, it is a no-brainer that local First nations have some important context to give with regard to this issue, both because of the deep cultural importance of wild salmon and because of the glimpse they can provide into the very distant past. Second, although intervenors do not represent one side or the other, this group is very much on our side, making our case much stronger.

Intervenor status does not give the band any authority whatsoever, and it comes to an end at the close of this case. Calm down boys, there is nothing to get freaky about.

Why don't other groups have intervenor status? Perhaps they didn't seek it. It is difficult to secure, and there are costs attached. Why does this matter anyway?

Bottom line is, the court decision is good news, and the signs of growing cooperation among threatened user groups is even better news. United we stand, right?

 

[reelfast]

charlie, what a total crock.....the treaties contain the phrase '...fish in common with...' judge boldt took it upon himself in 1974 to interpret that phrase to mean 50%. it is an interpretation, by one individual, nothing more or less.

until the group which holds the judicially granted right to half of all of the anadramous fish, crustateans, shrimp, sea weed, kelp, clams, oysters and anything else they choose to claim, is held accountable for the wanton waste of the resource they practice each and every fising season, nothing much will help these various extraction resources.

now don't tell me you have never seen the photos of the wild steelhead high and dry in the indian nets on the hoh, happens every fishing season.

but wonderful news for the province and even chirpier news from target, a nice day for fish.

 

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by Steelhead S2

Intervenor status allows the band to speak to the issues, it does not make them a party to the law suit. The action has not become about FN interests or rights, and the court will not make any determinations that have anything to do with allocations to different FN groups. They now have the court's permission to provide context. First off, it is a no-brainer that local First nations have some important context to give with regard to this issue, both because of the deep cultural importance of wild salmon and because of the glimpse they can provide into the very distant past. Second, although intervenors do not represent one side or the other, this group is very much on our side, making our case much stronger.

Intervenor status does not give the band any authority whatsoever, and it comes to an end at the close of this case. Calm down boys, there is nothing to get freaky about.

Why don't other groups have intervenor status? Perhaps they didn't seek it. It is difficult to secure, and there are costs attached. Why does this matter anyway?

Bottom line is, the court decision is good news, and the signs of growing cooperation among threatened user groups is even better news. United we stand, right?

ABSOLUTELY X2!

Intervenor Law & Legal Definition:
An intervenor is a a party who does not have a substantial and direct interest but has clearly ascertainable interests and perspectives essential to a judicial determination and whose standing has been granted by the court for all or a portion of the proceedings.

 

[walleyes]

quote:Bottom line is, the court decision is good news, and the signs of growing cooperation among threatened user groups is even better news. United we stand, right?

Yes you are right,, this is good news for all involved..

Sorry boys like I said I am just a little gun shy when dealing with these matters.

 

[Charlie]

quote:Originally posted by reelfast

charlie, what a total crock.....the treaties contain the phrase '...fish in common with...' judge boldt took it upon himself in 1974 to interpret that phrase to mean 50%. it is an interpretation, by one individual, nothing more or less.

until the group which holds the judicially granted right to half of all of the anadramous fish, crustateans, shrimp, sea weed, kelp, clams, oysters and anything else they choose to claim, is held accountable for the wanton waste of the resource they practice each and every fising season, nothing much will help these various extraction resources.

now don't tell me you have never seen the photos of the wild steelhead high and dry in the indian nets on the hoh, happens every fishing season.

but wonderful news for the province and even chirpier news from target, a nice day for fish.

quote:“"By dictionary definition and as intended and used in the Indian treaties and in this decision, 'in common with' means sharing equally the opportunity to take fish…therefore, non-treaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish…and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage."

Well, it might be a “total crock”, but I guess you can take that up with our “Supreme Court” who upheld it!

In addition, just for the record! How do you think I feel when I see our natives going out and bringing in those nice “prawns” just south off of Vashon, and I can’t! Like I said… “We are the ones that signed the treaty… Bolt, made a decision, and the “Supreme Court” upheld it – that is done! Like it or not, get used to it!

And agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with what is going on in British Columbia right now!

 

[Gone Fishen]

It's about time the bigger picture is being recognized by the powers that can bring forth change. Hats off to everyone one or group that havn't given up. Keap up the fight to save our wild salmon. THANX everyone for trying to eleviate this one problem all our salmon and other fish face. (the farms and political backers in there current unforgiving & selfrightous "we're getting rich so who give's a chit" state.) xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(][xx(]

I'm setting my priorities. I'm making time for fishing.

 

[reelfast]

actually charlie, what happened on our side of the border may have a lesson or two for our friends north of the border.

greed on the part of the commercial fishery, indifference and disorganization on the part of the sport fishing folks and an indian group who played this game with expertise. while no one i know down this way would argue with the abomonation called the steven's treaties, everyone just 'assumed' that fishing would continue on as it had since the first contact occurred.

big mistake! our fisheries are now controlled by a process of co-managers, put in place by the boldt decision. unfortunately, that is not quite what happens. folks are so afraid of 'upsetting' the indian co-managers, the only thing WDFW is willing to do is put proposals on the table that they know will be accepted. science, fisheries management, all total bunk at this point.

so folks north of the border, pay close attention to how this is unfolding and who is going to hold the pat poker hand at the end of all of this. with greed the name of the commercial game and disorganization the description of the sport community, your turn may be coming up next.

p.s. boldt never was never appealed to the ninth circuit and i really doubt it was ever reviewed by the supremes. it stands as written and that is enough to have totally shifted the barganing parties to a one sided dictation of what will happen. wake up canada.