In river netting pics

[fishinforever]

Just hoping the pictures get shared. I vote, show up to local meetings, donate and do river cleanups. I personally can’t convince parliament which is why we need to educate the rest of the public on what’s going on, pictures are worth 1000 words.

 

[wildmanyeah]

You dont like gillnets? Why are you complaining on a forum? What's your solution?

Unlike the rest of Canada, the First Nations have a right to fish. For the remainder of us it's a priviledge. Dont like it, convince parliament, and all of the provinces that it should change.

Sharing this stuff on social media is working like it or not it’s putting pressure on First Nations and getting them to come to the table and look at alternative methods such as fish wheels and traps. The **** storm that follows these videos results in 100s of calls to DFO and fingerprinting among lower Fraser First Nations. One such video resulted in one First Nation removing access to other First Nations that were fishing in their traditional area and wasting/dumping fish.

 

[Whitebuck]

I love how people try to justify waste of endangered species or other atrocities of our resources with "right to fish".
Complaining and posting out the issues is better than trying to say its OK!
Any sector that that poaches, wastes or exploits our resources should be all over the news.

Thankfully social media will run the videos and pictures that our biased soft news outlets won't.

Gillnets have NO place within our rivers.
There is other options that can be used.
Props to the region 3 FN bands for using actual selective methods this summer and fall!

 

[ericl]

Gillnets have NO place within our rivers.
There is other options that can be used.

Very true. Down here in WA Chinook in the stores later in the season have gill net marks - they look fair as far as brightness but they taste like crap & are priced at about half where the ocean caught fish are. IMO these river net fisheries need to be converted into selective catch methods in the saltwater. Don't think it will be happening soon.

 

[agentaqua]

Just wanted to add a few points that seem to be missing in this discussion - but I wanted to preface any comments beginning with the statement that I do not support or agree with any fishing anywhere by anyone that seriously impacts conservation. And as we all know - that also has been the dictate from court decisions along the way.

Like many topics - I don't see the issue of gillnetting as a black and white issue - rather enforcement and timing are the key variables in mitigating impacts through excessive bycatch from weak stocks. There are admittedly a few major rivers in BC (particularly the Fraser and the Skeena) where not only are there weak runs co-migrating with fishable stocks, but even weak stocks of different species.

In smaller watersheds - that is most often not the same reality. That's the 1st point that is often not either realized nor admitted. In the smaller watersheds often there is a 2-3 week period of little to no bycatch.

2nd - as mentioned above - timing is critical and the run and species composition of returning spawners in the larger rivers is very dynamic - often changing daily. It's critical to have accurate and quick turn around on DNA sampling as some years the expected timing envelope of runs can shift a week or so. They do a reasonable job on the Skeena with the test fishery @ the mouth there. Not many rivers have this capacity tho.

3rd - the next critical component is enforcement & catch monitoring - as it is for all fisheries including commercial and rec as well as aboriginal. By the sounds of it - there are serious issues in the lower Fraser in this regard. There are always challenges here - particularly in DFOs enforcement capacity - but also in having First Nations self-police. The ones that do it right - you never hear about; but the ones that don't often get their pics on Facebook and in the news - which is appropriate. However, trying to accurately determine the scope and scale of any assumed infractions from Facebook is challenging - to say the least - as characterizing any fishery or fishing method by the worst examples.

For some FNs on the Skeena - they work closely with DFO and nets cannot be left unattended or they will be seized and members will be either suspended for the season and/or face charges thru DFO. Working closely with the Band Councils is key here. Again - this is a point often not realized nor admitted.

And the last point I wanted to post is that all fisheries can have and often do have impacts - and due to many variables - not all types of fishing work in all temporal and geographic locations; but gillnets are an acceptable method given the need and challenges. What I mean by that is that fish fences only work in areas of stable bedload and non-flood conditions; fish wheels only work in narrow constrictions with higher water velocities and turbidities; beach seines only work on a few beaches where wading can take place and the lead line isn't snagged; and gillnets may be an effective way of drift fishing in some rivers - but only work in regards of conservation as described above. Even rec fishing has impacts - and I think most posters on this forum would be justifiably offended if they were inaccurately targeted as being the same as the worst examples of this fishery.

 

[RalphH]

You dont like gillnets? Why are you complaining on a forum? What's your solution?

Unlike the rest of Canada, the First Nations have a right to fish. For the remainder of us it's a priviledge. Dont like it, convince parliament, and all of the provinces that it should change.

a big +1.

Most local sport fishing boards have perhaps a few dozen regular contributors and at best 100 or views at any given time. Comments about gill nets etc get very little public exposure.

Regarding snarky comments about FN "traditional methods". While FNs had nets they were very time consuming to make. They didn't use gill nets. Traditional methods were mostly traps, weirs, dip nets and spears. Traps and weirs were mostly outlawed once the Federal government began to regulate the fishery at the request of the commercial interests. FNs were forced to use gill nets they had to buy from white merchants. I appreciate the irony as we try to convince the FN and commercial sector to adopt variations of their outlawed 'traditional' methods.

Much FN traditional methods are done by individuals not by collective actions. The Supreme court has also directed that whatever method they use must allow them a reasonable chance of obtained the quantity of fish they are allowed. Whatever replaces gill nets has to met that.

 

[lazylump]

Regarding snarky comments about FN "traditional methods". While FNs had nets they were very time consuming to make. They didn't use gill nets. Traditional methods were mostly traps, weirs, dip nets and spears. Traps and weirs were mostly outlawed once the Federal government began to regulate the fishery at the request of the commercial interests. FNs were forced to use gill nets they had to buy from white merchants. I appreciate the irony as we try to convince the FN and commercial sector to adopt variations of their outlawed 'traditional' methods.

Much FN traditional methods are done by individuals not by collective actions. The Supreme court has also directed that whatever method they use must allow them a reasonable chance of obtained the quantity of fish they are allowed. Whatever replaces gill nets has to met that.[/QUOTE]

Good points Ralph.
Lots of information in books and online available for those interested in the history of post contact fisheries on the BC coast.
https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/aboriginal_fisheries_in_british_columbia/

 

[SpringFever552]

a big +1.

Most local sport fishing boards have perhaps a few dozen regular contributors and at best 100 or views at any given time. Comments about gill nets etc get very little public exposure.

Regarding snarky comments about FN "traditional methods". While FNs had nets they were very time consuming to make. They didn't use gill nets. Traditional methods were mostly traps, weirs, dip nets and spears. Traps and weirs were mostly outlawed once the Federal government began to regulate the fishery at the request of the commercial interests. FNs were forced to use gill nets they had to buy from white merchants. I appreciate the irony as we try to convince the FN and commercial sector to adopt variations of their outlawed 'traditional' methods.

Much FN traditional methods are done by individuals not by collective actions. The Supreme court has also directed that whatever method they use must allow them a reasonable chance of obtained the quantity of fish they are allowed. Whatever replaces gill nets has to met that.

Enlighten me of the commercial fisheries that the FN did before the colonials showed and ruined everything..
Was their a "commercial dip net fishery"?
How about a "commercial spear fishery "?

 

[agentaqua]

Some insightful and balanced comments in the past few posts.

To add to the comments - Regina v. Van Der Peet, 1993 CanLII 4519 (BC CA), para 96: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/d...bCBmaXNoaW5nIG1ldGhvZHMgAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1
96) In contrast, the modern manner of exercising a traditional right does not involve a distortion of the scope and nature of the aboriginal right; rather, it permits the right to remain, as it was at the time of sovereignty, an integral part of the native culture and traditional way of life. It is the manner of exercising the right which may take a contemporary form such as hunting, fishing, gathering and farming with modern equipment.

 

[ericl]

So am I reading that we ALL should ditch modern methods of catching fish or JUST the FN's? Sounds racist to me. Should I post pictures of rec fishers doing C&R of endangered Chinook? FYI this is a replay of the stuff that went around in WA state after the 1974 Bolt decision granted WA treaty FN's the right to 50% of various seafood resources with Salmon being the big attention getter. 46 years later & nothing has changed, except attitudes; mine included.

 

[SpringFever552]

^^so what AA eluded here is its ok that un elected (appeal) courts take the "word" of someone he/she agrees with, and doesn't need writen records ,oral accounts are fine in FN cases.

then some here right off any person(s) who might have local knowledge of an issue that doesn't go along with their narrative and demands those to produce writen records



still waiting for any written records of FN "traditional commercial fisheries" pre contact..

 

[GLG]

^^so what AA eluded here is its ok that un elected (appeal) courts take the "word" of someone he/she agrees with, and doesn't need writen records ,oral accounts are fine in FN cases.

then some here right off any person(s) who might have local knowledge of an issue that doesn't go along with their narrative and demands those to produce writen records



still waiting for any written records of FN "traditional commercial fisheries" pre contact..

Well that's a skookum argument. Wait... what, checks notes, I'm allowed to use a Chinook trade language word, right? It's a shame we didn't learn FN history in school. I'm no expert but the trade between BC and Alberta goes back thousands of years. Say what? Ever hear of the grease trail.

 

[agentaqua]

It's ok to disagree w court decisions on particular parts of the judgements using legal reasoning and history. That's what the courts are all about.

However, courts are and always have been an integral part of the colonial governance system (AKA Constitution Monarchy) imposed on both First Nations and non-aboriginals in Canada:
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/courts-of-law
"The court system of Canada forms the judicial branch of the federal, provincial and territorial governments and is independent of the legislative and executive branches of government. The Constitution Act, 1867 provides for the establishment and operation of Canada’s judiciary, including its courts of law."

I agree, GLG - it's a crime - not only a shame - that they don't teach CANADIAN history in schools - along w FN history. If we are having a debate - it should be an informed debate.

 

[wildmanyeah]

So am I reading that we ALL should ditch modern methods of catching fish or JUST the FN's? Sounds racist to me. Should I post pictures of rec fishers doing C&R of endangered Chinook? FYI this is a replay of the stuff that went around in WA state after the 1974 Bolt decision granted WA treaty FN's the right to 50% of various seafood resources with Salmon being the big attention getter. 46 years later & nothing has changed, except attitudes; mine included.

The bolt decision while not popular at the time is actually pretty good as it also affirms non aboriginal access and also confirmed that the Washington tribes ceded their territory to the US government.

it B.C. we live on unceded territory and have no right as non aboriginal people to any % of the resource.

if there is only enough for FSC then First Nations get 100%.

now you could argue in most cases commercial and recs get more then 50% of the firsh resource but it’s not hard to see the direction it’s going and in some cases no access in areas a and times.

For example central coast First Nations have asked the government to remove Rec fishermen from being able to fish for crab in some areas and it looks like that is going to be granted. Their reasoning apparently was to many boats transition though their waters on their way to Alaska were harvesting to much crab. Now it looks like the recs are gonna loose complete acess.

while I think people are upset about the current management it’s the future and the direction that’s more concerning.

 

[RalphH]

Enlighten me of the commercial fisheries that the FN did before the colonials showed and ruined everything..
Was their a "commercial dip net fishery"?
How about a "commercial spear fishery "?

Please do not stick words in mouth as I did not use the word 'commercial'. If FNs now fish "commercially" it is because they have to live in a modern world just like you and me. Maybe you and I should be traditional and go back to horses, wagons, row boats and sailing craft when we angle so as not to be hypocritical ...

I'd like to see river anlgers fish fall and winter without waders as they did in Scotland back in the 19th century to reestablish their 'traditions'.

traps and weirs basically blocked the run on the entire river. As I recall their were 3 or 4 such weirs on the Bela Coola River. To some extent they did trade salmon with Interior FNs though the trade in Herring Roe and Eulachon grease was bigger since the source was geographically limited to very close to the coast while runs on larger systems like the Fraser and Skeena penetrated well inland. So the ability to take huge amounts was there. The markets were small plus there were cultural restraints to keep the harvests small relative to the run size. Also the runs were on average much larger than we see now. Excessive commercial take and habitat degradation has eroded that.

FNs fishing the Fraser Canyon were more than able to fill their needs by dip netting. Spears were mostly used on smaller rivers without large villages. These were used to take steelhead which in some cases were taken in number. You can find this in Clayton Mack's books if you have the interest.

 

[SpringFever552]

If the rights of some come before, and are more important than others , why are people not arguing for the later?

Canadian Charter of rights and freedom was writen into the Canadain constitution of 1982
Re 15

https://www.lawlessons.ca/lesson-plans/1.3.overview-of-the-canadian-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms

 

[wildmanyeah]

If the rights of some come before, and are more important than others , why are people not arguing for the later?

Canadian Charter of rights and freedom was writen into the Canadain constitution of 1982
Re 15

https://www.lawlessons.ca/lesson-plans/1.3.overview-of-the-canadian-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms

The charter of rights and freedoms has a clause for First Nations.

Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter25


The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

 

[RalphH]

hmm... no mention of fishing in the Charter, just mundane things like:

• Freedom of conscience and religion
• Freedom of thought, belief, and expression
• Freedom of peaceful assembly
• Freedom of association
• Every Canadian citizen of age has the right to vote
• Every Canadian citizen of age has the right to run for public office
• Elections, both federal and provincial, must be called every five years
• Parliament and legislatures must sit at least once every 12 months
• Everyone has the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
• Everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

...but fishing, no.

 

[agentaqua]

At least we are getting @ the crux of the legal issues - s. 35 of the Constitution Act and the case law that has developed after that - is where FN have been able to move ahead using legal avenues. That case law includes provisions for the appellants (FNs) have to prove history and exclusivity and other issues.

 

[wildmanyeah]

hmm... no mention of fishing in the Charter, just mundane things like:

• Freedom of conscience and religion
• Freedom of thought, belief, and expression
• Freedom of peaceful assembly
• Freedom of association
• Every Canadian citizen of age has the right to vote
• Every Canadian citizen of age has the right to run for public office
• Elections, both federal and provincial, must be called every five years
• Parliament and legislatures must sit at least once every 12 months
• Everyone has the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
• Everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, nationality, or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

...but fishing, no.

no mention but there have been fishing cases around it, FSC is clear, First Nations and commercial sales not so much

"Here, there is a prima facie case of discrimination pursuant to s. 15(1). The right given by the pilot sales program is limited to Aboriginals and has a detrimental effect on non‑aboriginal commercial fishers who operate in the same region as the beneficiaries of the program. It is also clear that the disadvantage is related to racial differences. The native right falls under s. 25. The unique relationship between British Columbia aboriginal communities and the fishery should be enough to draw a link between the right to fish given to Aboriginals pursuant to the pilot sales program and the rights contemplated by s. 25. The right to fish has consistently been the object of claims based on aboriginal rights and treaty rights, the enumerated terms in the provisions. Furthermore, the Crown itself argued that these rights to fish were a first step in establishing a treaty right and s. 25 reflects the notions of reconciliation and negotiation present in the treaty process. Finally, the right in this case is totally dependent on the exercise of powers given to Parliament under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which deals with Indians. The Charter cannot be interpreted as rendering unconstitutional the exercise of powers consistent with the purposes of s. 91(24), nor is it rational to believe that every exercise of the s. 91(24) jurisdiction requires a justification under s. 1 of the Charter. Section 25 is a necessary partner to s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982; it protects s. 35(1) purposes and enlarges the reach of measures needed to fulfill the promise of reconciliation. There is also a real conflict here, since the right to equality afforded to every individual under s. 15 is not capable of application consistently with the rights of aboriginal fishers holding licences under the pilot sales program. Section 25 of the Charter accordingly applies in the present situation and provides a full answer to the claim. [116] [119‑123]"