Ryan A
Well-Known Member
Me as well, thx for the linkEmailed too
Me as well, thx for the linkEmailed too
I do respect your opinion. I hope we can work through this and not destroy the fishery.I don't really see what that has to do with anything. My fishing is less than it used to be but I can still live vicariously through others
I can see where this insanity is going though. We don't work together and by the time my youngest is out of diapers our opportunity will be horribly eroded.
I'll leave it at this, there are examples of adversarial fisheries occurring throughout the province. There are also examples where the sectors decided to sit down together and come up with a mutually respectful management plan. These areas have a strong and certain future.
As I said before though, if we don't want to entertain that the Nations have inherent rights...either get a national campaign together to overturn the constitution (specifically S.35)...or quite griping and start working together.
Maybe that's a good question to ask who's actually buying it?And it continues, I’m sure there’s a buyer for this catch right?
Ahousaht boats return from protest salmon fishing, braced for confrontation with DFO
Ahousaht fishermen are braced for confrontations with Fisheries and Oceans officers as they return with catches of salmon that were caught under the authority of their hereditary chiefs.www.cheknews.ca
We. Need. To. Work. Together.
That is the only. It was their land long before whitey came along and took it.
We. Need. To. Work. Together.
Those who think otherwise need to give their heads a shake. If we work with the Nations, our sport, our passions, our way of life have a future. If not. You should probably seriously think about selling your boat.
I think the 4% argument is a purposely misleading narrative for so many reasons:
1/ Who cares really whether it is 4%, 10% or any number? It is totally irrelevant in the context of both Constitutional and case law,
2/ That number is very much higher in non-urban places on the coast often approaching +50% on the North and Central Coasts.
3/ The pre-existing indigenous aboriginal community was decimated at contact thru diseases such as smallpox and tuberculous to ~10-15% of the pre-contact numbers,
4/ The honour of the Crown is not dependent upon the population size
5/ Rights and Titles have never been extinguished, except by Treaties - and most of BC didn't have any treaties until recently.
Having to feel guilty to acknowledge the above points?
Again, a misleading and unsupported narrative that attempts to delegitimize these realities.
As cuttle said - welcome to the 21st century - instead of whining about change - maybe try being in the forefront of that change. It's happening regardless of the whining.
I think the 4% argument is a purposely misleading narrative for so many reasons:
1/ Who cares really whether it is 4%, 10% or any number? It is totally irrelevant in the context of both Constitutional and case law,
2/ That number is very much higher in non-urban places on the coast often approaching +50% on the North and Central Coasts.
3/ The pre-existing indigenous aboriginal community was decimated at contact thru diseases such as smallpox and tuberculous to ~10-15% of the pre-contact numbers,
4/ The honour of the Crown is not dependent upon the population size
5/ Rights and Titles have never been extinguished, except by Treaties - and most of BC didn't have any treaties until recently.
Having to feel guilty to acknowledge the above points?
Again, a misleading and unsupported narrative that attempts to delegitimize these realities.
As cuttle said - welcome to the 21st century - instead of whining about change - maybe try being in the forefront of that change. It's happening regardless of the whining.
Again, a misleading and unsupported narrative that attempts to delegitimize these realities.