V
vic-tory
Guest
That's crazy. Sad state of affairs.
Gold River First Nations say Nootka sound off limits for the next 2 years for?
- Thread starter SophiaB
- Start date
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Wow... I think you may be on to something GLG, this could possibly be a real game changer.
http://www.courierislander.com/future-of-rec-fishery-in-bc-could-be-in-doubt-1.319641
Several weeks ago I referred briefly to a new commercial fishery for chinook salmon taking place along parts of the west coast of Vancouver Island. For reasons of space in that particular column there wasn’t an opportunity to better describe it but promised to do so in the near future, so here goes. I think it important that ardent anglers everywhere in BC understand the reasons for it as other fisheries with the same or similar legal background may well occur elsewhere in the future.
Some years ago five of the 14 individual Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations – Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Hesquiaht, Mowachaht/Muchalaht and Ehattesaht – banded together in a legal action seeking the right to harvest and sell any species of fish found within their territories. The latter two bands reside in Nootka Sound.
In November 2009 the BC Supreme Court ruled in their favour, directing Canada and the First Nations to negotiate a new fisheries regime based on the recognition of their aboriginal rights. The court also set a two-year deadline for these negotiations to be concluded, later extended by six months at the Court of Appeal. While these negotiations took place Canada has appealed both the trial and appeal court decisions.
Approximately a year ago, what have become known as the T’aaq-wiihak Nations (meaning with permission of the Ha’wiih’ or hereditary chiefs) developed and proposed to DFO a fishery plan for 30,000 suuhaa, as chinook are known in the Nuu-chah-nulth language. It was at this juncture that the complexity of inserting a new fishery into an existing management framework for other fisheries and the relevance to the recreational fishery became clear.
As a fishery whose purpose is to catch fish for sale DFO took and remains of the view that the T’aaq-wiihak suuhaa fishery is a commercial fishery. As such it a) has a predetermined place in the hierarchy of use set out in the Salmon Allocation Policy and b) the harvest has to be accounted for in the aggregate abundance-based management regime for these fish in this area under the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty between Canada and the US. There is a prescribed catch ceiling for chinook salmon in the WCVI AABM fishery, which varies from year to year according to assessment of abundance. In 2012 it was 133,300 chinook, this year it’s 115,300.
As with all others, the harvest size of each sector in the AABM fishery is determined to a degree by the provisions of the allocation policy, the hierarchy of which is that once the needs of conservation have been accounted for the first harvest component is the Food, Societal and Ceremonial requirements of First Nations. DFO allocates 5,000 chinook to this.
Then, because the Salmon Allocation Policy gives a higher priority to the recreational harvest of chinook over commercial harvest in years of lower abundance, DFO next calculates the requirements of the recreational fishery for a season at full limits, which in the WCVI AABM fishery has been about 60,000 fish on average during each of the past few years. Any remaining fish (annual TAC minus 65,000) are awarded to the existing commercial gear type, the Area G troll fishery.
For reasons unclear to me, the PST chinook year starts on October 1 and so by this time last year the trollers had already harvested a significant portion of their annual allowable catch. The reality was that by then under the terms of the Salmon Treaty there weren’t 30,000 chinook salmon available for harvest unless some were removed from the recreational share of which, because it is largely a summer period fishery, only a small portion had been caught.
From a recreational sector perspective, to its credit DFO would not alter the management regime and the T’aaq-wiihak suuhaa fishery proceeded with a lower target number, eventually landing 4,573 fish by early September. Fishing took place from both conventional trollers and smaller vessels more in the style of sportfishing boats, the so-called “mosquito fleet”. The participating vessels are flagged to identify them so anglers should look for these markers as a way of avoiding any confusion on the water.
For the First Nation communities involved it was a small but positive step towards a renewed economic opportunity, however they believe that there is a long way to go before the court ruling is fully implemented according to their interpretation of it. There are some issues such as allowed area that should easier to resolve – the court ruling limits the right to harvest and sell fish out to nine miles offshore, however currently DFO keeps the usual troll fishery at least five miles off the surfline in the summer to minimize harvest of returning chinook to WCVI rivers, fish that continue to be a stock of concern. The T’aaq-wiihak Nations want to be able to fish from their smaller boats in more protected waters inshore and have been doing so thus far this year, prior to the time of concern for returning local stocks, starting mid-July.
The big issue is undoubtedly the determination of where in the allocation hierarchy aboriginal fisheries that have the right to sell fish will end up. Bear in mind that the T’aaq-wiihak Nations are unlikely to be the first and last aboriginal groups to win such a right and that they aren’t restricted to catching and selling only chinook salmon, it’s just that this is the species they’ve chosen to start with.
There are allocation policies for salmon and halibut, both different, but all other species are managed without one other than the overarching construct of conservation first followed by food fishery requirements for First Nations. There’s no explicit, written inter-sectoral allocation for rockfish, lingcod, prawns and crabs for example.
Perhaps not enough anglers, and others, give it enough thought but I’m quite sure in my own mind that the most important aspect of recreational fishery governance in the Pacific region is the priority access provided by the Salmon Allocation Policy to chinook and coho before commercial fisheries for them in years of low abundance. This is why, for example, there is no commercial fishery for chinook salmon in the Strait of Georgia, something unlikely to change until abundance increases significantly.
Should however the T’aaq-wiihak Nations challenge to the Salmon Allocation Policy result in an alteration of the existing hierarchy of use, the future of the recreational fishery in the Pacific region as we currently know it could be very much in doubt.
© Copyright 2013 - See more at: http://www.courierislander.com/futu...uld-be-in-doubt-1.319641#sthash.wUpa9AgO.dpuf
http://www.courierislander.com/future-of-rec-fishery-in-bc-could-be-in-doubt-1.319641
Several weeks ago I referred briefly to a new commercial fishery for chinook salmon taking place along parts of the west coast of Vancouver Island. For reasons of space in that particular column there wasn’t an opportunity to better describe it but promised to do so in the near future, so here goes. I think it important that ardent anglers everywhere in BC understand the reasons for it as other fisheries with the same or similar legal background may well occur elsewhere in the future.
Some years ago five of the 14 individual Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations – Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Hesquiaht, Mowachaht/Muchalaht and Ehattesaht – banded together in a legal action seeking the right to harvest and sell any species of fish found within their territories. The latter two bands reside in Nootka Sound.
In November 2009 the BC Supreme Court ruled in their favour, directing Canada and the First Nations to negotiate a new fisheries regime based on the recognition of their aboriginal rights. The court also set a two-year deadline for these negotiations to be concluded, later extended by six months at the Court of Appeal. While these negotiations took place Canada has appealed both the trial and appeal court decisions.
Approximately a year ago, what have become known as the T’aaq-wiihak Nations (meaning with permission of the Ha’wiih’ or hereditary chiefs) developed and proposed to DFO a fishery plan for 30,000 suuhaa, as chinook are known in the Nuu-chah-nulth language. It was at this juncture that the complexity of inserting a new fishery into an existing management framework for other fisheries and the relevance to the recreational fishery became clear.
As a fishery whose purpose is to catch fish for sale DFO took and remains of the view that the T’aaq-wiihak suuhaa fishery is a commercial fishery. As such it a) has a predetermined place in the hierarchy of use set out in the Salmon Allocation Policy and b) the harvest has to be accounted for in the aggregate abundance-based management regime for these fish in this area under the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty between Canada and the US. There is a prescribed catch ceiling for chinook salmon in the WCVI AABM fishery, which varies from year to year according to assessment of abundance. In 2012 it was 133,300 chinook, this year it’s 115,300.
As with all others, the harvest size of each sector in the AABM fishery is determined to a degree by the provisions of the allocation policy, the hierarchy of which is that once the needs of conservation have been accounted for the first harvest component is the Food, Societal and Ceremonial requirements of First Nations. DFO allocates 5,000 chinook to this.
Then, because the Salmon Allocation Policy gives a higher priority to the recreational harvest of chinook over commercial harvest in years of lower abundance, DFO next calculates the requirements of the recreational fishery for a season at full limits, which in the WCVI AABM fishery has been about 60,000 fish on average during each of the past few years. Any remaining fish (annual TAC minus 65,000) are awarded to the existing commercial gear type, the Area G troll fishery.
For reasons unclear to me, the PST chinook year starts on October 1 and so by this time last year the trollers had already harvested a significant portion of their annual allowable catch. The reality was that by then under the terms of the Salmon Treaty there weren’t 30,000 chinook salmon available for harvest unless some were removed from the recreational share of which, because it is largely a summer period fishery, only a small portion had been caught.
From a recreational sector perspective, to its credit DFO would not alter the management regime and the T’aaq-wiihak suuhaa fishery proceeded with a lower target number, eventually landing 4,573 fish by early September. Fishing took place from both conventional trollers and smaller vessels more in the style of sportfishing boats, the so-called “mosquito fleet”. The participating vessels are flagged to identify them so anglers should look for these markers as a way of avoiding any confusion on the water.
For the First Nation communities involved it was a small but positive step towards a renewed economic opportunity, however they believe that there is a long way to go before the court ruling is fully implemented according to their interpretation of it. There are some issues such as allowed area that should easier to resolve – the court ruling limits the right to harvest and sell fish out to nine miles offshore, however currently DFO keeps the usual troll fishery at least five miles off the surfline in the summer to minimize harvest of returning chinook to WCVI rivers, fish that continue to be a stock of concern. The T’aaq-wiihak Nations want to be able to fish from their smaller boats in more protected waters inshore and have been doing so thus far this year, prior to the time of concern for returning local stocks, starting mid-July.
The big issue is undoubtedly the determination of where in the allocation hierarchy aboriginal fisheries that have the right to sell fish will end up. Bear in mind that the T’aaq-wiihak Nations are unlikely to be the first and last aboriginal groups to win such a right and that they aren’t restricted to catching and selling only chinook salmon, it’s just that this is the species they’ve chosen to start with.
There are allocation policies for salmon and halibut, both different, but all other species are managed without one other than the overarching construct of conservation first followed by food fishery requirements for First Nations. There’s no explicit, written inter-sectoral allocation for rockfish, lingcod, prawns and crabs for example.
Perhaps not enough anglers, and others, give it enough thought but I’m quite sure in my own mind that the most important aspect of recreational fishery governance in the Pacific region is the priority access provided by the Salmon Allocation Policy to chinook and coho before commercial fisheries for them in years of low abundance. This is why, for example, there is no commercial fishery for chinook salmon in the Strait of Georgia, something unlikely to change until abundance increases significantly.
Should however the T’aaq-wiihak Nations challenge to the Salmon Allocation Policy result in an alteration of the existing hierarchy of use, the future of the recreational fishery in the Pacific region as we currently know it could be very much in doubt.
© Copyright 2013 - See more at: http://www.courierislander.com/futu...uld-be-in-doubt-1.319641#sthash.wUpa9AgO.dpuf
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Latest clarification:
The Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nations have clarified the intent behind a declaration about non-band member's fishing, hunting and gathering in a vast area of land, ocean, rivers and lakes north west and west of Campbell River.
Instead of angering First Nationas and non First Nations hunters and anglers, the band is actually taking steps to enable law enforcement officers to better deal with poachers in Mowachaht/Muchalaht territory.
In their first press release the band served notice that it was placing a two-year moratorium on hunting, fishing and gathering of any living resources in their territory.
The notice said that “all living things above, below and within the lands, waters and air (living resources) now or forever hereafter found within the boundaries of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Territory, not held by private ownership or lawfully acquired, are hereby declared to be property of the Mowachaht.Muchalaht First Nation and its members.”
It went on to say "anyone who doesn’t have approval by quorum of the Council of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation, will be found in violation of this declaration and shall be reported to Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
British Columbia Conservation Officer Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and subject to the penalties of any federal or provincial law, statute or regulatory infraction committed.”
The First Nation has since sent the following:
"For greater clarity, anyone who lawfully hunts, fishes or gathers will not be affected by the Declaration. It is intended for those without permits or written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Example 1: If a person, native or non-native, has a valid hunting or fishing licence they shall not be affected by the Declaration, provided they abide by the provincial, territorial or federal regulations, including quotas, seasons and any other infractions, such as hunting in the dark.
"Example 2: A First Nations person who is NOT a member of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation and does not possess a valid hunting, fishing or gathering permit issued by the Province or Canada, and are found to be hunting, fishing or gathering within the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation territory shall be in violation of the Declaration and are to be arrested, if they do not possess a written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Verbal, handshake, in-person, blood relations or email transmissions are not valid as any authorisation.They MUST possess a written authorisation signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Essentially, the Declaration now grants the authorities the ability to arrest persons, native or non-native, who are not Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Members, who are found to be wrongfully or illegally hunting, fishing or gathering within the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Territory, if they do not possess a written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures). This declaration has no impact on persons who are lawfully abiding by Provincial and Federal hunting, fishing and gathering laws."
© Copyright 2013
The Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nations have clarified the intent behind a declaration about non-band member's fishing, hunting and gathering in a vast area of land, ocean, rivers and lakes north west and west of Campbell River.
Instead of angering First Nationas and non First Nations hunters and anglers, the band is actually taking steps to enable law enforcement officers to better deal with poachers in Mowachaht/Muchalaht territory.
In their first press release the band served notice that it was placing a two-year moratorium on hunting, fishing and gathering of any living resources in their territory.
The notice said that “all living things above, below and within the lands, waters and air (living resources) now or forever hereafter found within the boundaries of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Territory, not held by private ownership or lawfully acquired, are hereby declared to be property of the Mowachaht.Muchalaht First Nation and its members.”
It went on to say "anyone who doesn’t have approval by quorum of the Council of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation, will be found in violation of this declaration and shall be reported to Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
British Columbia Conservation Officer Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and subject to the penalties of any federal or provincial law, statute or regulatory infraction committed.”
The First Nation has since sent the following:
"For greater clarity, anyone who lawfully hunts, fishes or gathers will not be affected by the Declaration. It is intended for those without permits or written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Example 1: If a person, native or non-native, has a valid hunting or fishing licence they shall not be affected by the Declaration, provided they abide by the provincial, territorial or federal regulations, including quotas, seasons and any other infractions, such as hunting in the dark.
"Example 2: A First Nations person who is NOT a member of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation and does not possess a valid hunting, fishing or gathering permit issued by the Province or Canada, and are found to be hunting, fishing or gathering within the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation territory shall be in violation of the Declaration and are to be arrested, if they do not possess a written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Verbal, handshake, in-person, blood relations or email transmissions are not valid as any authorisation.They MUST possess a written authorisation signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Essentially, the Declaration now grants the authorities the ability to arrest persons, native or non-native, who are not Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Members, who are found to be wrongfully or illegally hunting, fishing or gathering within the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Territory, if they do not possess a written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures). This declaration has no impact on persons who are lawfully abiding by Provincial and Federal hunting, fishing and gathering laws."
© Copyright 2013
For those who do not think this may be real? I remember being stopped, asked questions and NOT allowed to proceed on the Alaskan highway 37 northbound some years ago. They claimed moose hunters were taking to many animals and starving their families. Now look at the regs for the whole area? You decide who won, lost or listened.
HM
HM
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Forgive me for not patting anyone on the back here. Just another example of a band protecting the Status quoi.
bigbruce
Crew Member
Apart from the suggestions on this Forum, can someone point to anything that suggests the ramp at Gold River might be closed as a result of this?
As I understand all of the bumpf here, if you have a fishing license, and abide by the conditions of that license - i.e. you don't exceed the limits or fish in closed areas - you should be just fine.
Let's all take a deep breath and get a grip, folks.
As I understand all of the bumpf here, if you have a fishing license, and abide by the conditions of that license - i.e. you don't exceed the limits or fish in closed areas - you should be just fine.
Let's all take a deep breath and get a grip, folks.
soxy
Member
First Nation says ban near Campbell River is for poachers, not law abiding anglers and hunters
Neil Cameron / Campbell River Courier Islander
December 12, 2013 05:14 PM
The area referred to in the letter.
The Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nations have clarified the intent behind a declaration about non-band member's fishing, hunting and gathering in a vast area of land, ocean, rivers and lakes north west and west of Campbell River.
Instead of angering First Nationas and non First Nations hunters and anglers, the band is actually taking steps to enable law enforcement officers to better deal with poachers in Mowachaht/Muchalaht territory.
In their first press release the band served notice that it was placing a two-year moratorium on hunting, fishing and gathering of any living resources in their territory.
The notice said that “all living things above, below and within the lands, waters and air (living resources) now or forever hereafter found within the boundaries of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Territory, not held by private ownership or lawfully acquired, are hereby declared to be property of the Mowachaht.Muchalaht First Nation and its members.”
It went on to say "anyone who doesn’t have approval by quorum of the Council of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation, will be found in violation of this declaration and shall be reported to Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
British Columbia Conservation Officer Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and subject to the penalties of any federal or provincial law, statute or regulatory infraction committed.”
The First Nation has since sent the following:
"For greater clarity, anyone who lawfully hunts, fishes or gathers will not be affected by the Declaration. It is intended for those without permits or written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Example 1: If a person, native or non-native, has a valid hunting or fishing licence they shall not be affected by the Declaration, provided they abide by the provincial, territorial or federal regulations, including quotas, seasons and any other infractions, such as hunting in the dark.
"Example 2: A First Nations person who is NOT a member of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation and does not possess a valid hunting, fishing or gathering permit issued by the Province or Canada, and are found to be hunting, fishing or gathering within the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation territory shall be in violation of the Declaration and are to be arrested, if they do not possess a written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Verbal, handshake, in-person, blood relations or email transmissions are not valid as any authorisation.They MUST possess a written authorisation signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Essentially, the Declaration now grants the authorities the ability to arrest persons, native or non-native, who are not Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Members, who are found to be wrongfully or illegally hunting, fishing or gathering within the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Territory, if they do not possess a written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures). This declaration has no impact on persons who are lawfully abiding by Provincial and Federal hunting, fishing and gathering laws."
© Copyright 2013
http://www.courierislander.com/news...-not-law-abiding-anglers-and-hunters-1.757647
Neil Cameron / Campbell River Courier Islander
December 12, 2013 05:14 PM
The area referred to in the letter.
The Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nations have clarified the intent behind a declaration about non-band member's fishing, hunting and gathering in a vast area of land, ocean, rivers and lakes north west and west of Campbell River.
Instead of angering First Nationas and non First Nations hunters and anglers, the band is actually taking steps to enable law enforcement officers to better deal with poachers in Mowachaht/Muchalaht territory.
In their first press release the band served notice that it was placing a two-year moratorium on hunting, fishing and gathering of any living resources in their territory.
The notice said that “all living things above, below and within the lands, waters and air (living resources) now or forever hereafter found within the boundaries of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Territory, not held by private ownership or lawfully acquired, are hereby declared to be property of the Mowachaht.Muchalaht First Nation and its members.”
It went on to say "anyone who doesn’t have approval by quorum of the Council of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation, will be found in violation of this declaration and shall be reported to Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
British Columbia Conservation Officer Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and subject to the penalties of any federal or provincial law, statute or regulatory infraction committed.”
The First Nation has since sent the following:
"For greater clarity, anyone who lawfully hunts, fishes or gathers will not be affected by the Declaration. It is intended for those without permits or written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Example 1: If a person, native or non-native, has a valid hunting or fishing licence they shall not be affected by the Declaration, provided they abide by the provincial, territorial or federal regulations, including quotas, seasons and any other infractions, such as hunting in the dark.
"Example 2: A First Nations person who is NOT a member of the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation and does not possess a valid hunting, fishing or gathering permit issued by the Province or Canada, and are found to be hunting, fishing or gathering within the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation territory shall be in violation of the Declaration and are to be arrested, if they do not possess a written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Verbal, handshake, in-person, blood relations or email transmissions are not valid as any authorisation.They MUST possess a written authorisation signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures).
"Essentially, the Declaration now grants the authorities the ability to arrest persons, native or non-native, who are not Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Members, who are found to be wrongfully or illegally hunting, fishing or gathering within the Mowachaht/Muchalaht First Nation Territory, if they do not possess a written authorization signed by a quorum of our Chiefs (minimum 3 signatures). This declaration has no impact on persons who are lawfully abiding by Provincial and Federal hunting, fishing and gathering laws."
© Copyright 2013
http://www.courierislander.com/news...-not-law-abiding-anglers-and-hunters-1.757647
Last edited by a moderator:
Birdsnest
Well-Known Member
Ok. Does the above mean that they (the local band) will continue to " hunt at night" and other such activities. I think this could be a positive step in the right direction if they are going to follow responcable management plans with strick enforcement among their tribe. If not the above is meaningless to me. I feel that all to often the bands lack enforcement among themselves.
Last edited by a moderator:
FishWhisperer
Active Member
What I picked up out of that, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that its business as usual as long as you have said permits, ie: provincial licenses of which you should have anyway. What I've read between the lines is that it looks like they're trying to stop the non native people who grab their First Nations buddy and then go and pillage the system, drop a couple elk, take 20 salmon home, with the excuse that he has a member of the First Nations in his boat/truck.
Now they want you to have 3 chief's signatures AND your First Nations buddy with you. You know... I think I like it.
I get a sour taste in my mouth when I hear guys saying similar boasts as - "Oh ya, took a dozen springs and 7 hali's. We were legal, had my First Nations buddy with me. We loaded up!"
Now they want you to have 3 chief's signatures AND your First Nations buddy with you. You know... I think I like it.
I get a sour taste in my mouth when I hear guys saying similar boasts as - "Oh ya, took a dozen springs and 7 hali's. We were legal, had my First Nations buddy with me. We loaded up!"
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I think you have to careful with these types of proclamations. Reading between the lines they are claiming all manner of fish, fowl and terrestrial creatures. They are asserting the right to control hunting and fishing in a vast territory. Today they are acknowledging the right of other governments to issue licenses to harvest. What about next year or the year after? Once you grant control you are on a slippery slope. Can they not report poaching under the current system? Why is another system required?
fish4all
Well-Known Member
I agree with this one. I think we are on a very slippery slope with this.
FishWhisperer
Active Member
Quote Originally Posted by ziggy View Post
I think you have to careful with these types of proclamations. Reading between the lines they are claiming all manner of fish, fowl and terrestrial creatures. They are asserting the right to control hunting and fishing in a vast territory. Today they are acknowledging the right of other governments to issue licenses to harvest. What about next year or the year after? Once you grant control you are on a slippery slope. Can they not report poaching under the current system? Why is another system required?
X2 totally agree
I think you have to careful with these types of proclamations. Reading between the lines they are claiming all manner of fish, fowl and terrestrial creatures. They are asserting the right to control hunting and fishing in a vast territory. Today they are acknowledging the right of other governments to issue licenses to harvest. What about next year or the year after? Once you grant control you are on a slippery slope. Can they not report poaching under the current system? Why is another system required?
X2 totally agree
GLG
Well-Known Member
Could some of this been done because of the Elk Poaching that's occurred on their territory?
http://www.albernivalleynews.com/news/235091931.html
http://www.albernivalleynews.com/news/235091931.html
Sitkaspruce
Well-Known Member
The meaning of the post is this;
- if you are a legally licenced hunter/fisher (race not important) you can carry on like normal, follow all the regulations with respect to limits and cancelling tags etc.
- if you are an indian, but not from the local band, then you need to have permission from them before hunting/fishing in their traditional territory. If you do not have permission, they you are trespassing and poaching, for which they will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
- if you are not an indian and chose to not buy a lic and poach, ditto as above.
Still not sure how they will choose to enforce the gathering part, since there is no required licence or limits.
So if you are have a lic, then you are good to go.
Still a slippery slope as it will soon carry to having permission for anyone to hunt/fish in their territory, I believe this is a test to see how far the gov will let them go and how far they can carry it.
Cheers
SS
- if you are a legally licenced hunter/fisher (race not important) you can carry on like normal, follow all the regulations with respect to limits and cancelling tags etc.
- if you are an indian, but not from the local band, then you need to have permission from them before hunting/fishing in their traditional territory. If you do not have permission, they you are trespassing and poaching, for which they will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
- if you are not an indian and chose to not buy a lic and poach, ditto as above.
Still not sure how they will choose to enforce the gathering part, since there is no required licence or limits.
So if you are have a lic, then you are good to go.
Still a slippery slope as it will soon carry to having permission for anyone to hunt/fish in their territory, I believe this is a test to see how far the gov will let them go and how far they can carry it.
Cheers
SS
