scott craven
Well-Known Member
So you dissaprove also F.A. ???
Rum Buddies
Well-Known Member
Oh no FA would never agree that a native could be guilty of over fishing. Those are FN fish and if they want take every last fish it is their right - good for them for exercising their rights, power to the people!
Red Monster
Well-Known Member
It sounds to me like "take only what you need" could actually mean "take whatever the hell you want." The FN response is always of the sort Poppa Swiss so very well articulated, and it's here I think that many people lose respect for FN rights.
Remember, it's called "fishing," not "catching."
Remember, it's called "fishing," not "catching."
W
WillyD
Guest
2 fish per day .
S
SnapperAttacker
Guest
You dont even have to pay $10 bucks for a sockeye from the natives.... Just wait till the end of the day when they throw away what didnt sell into a ditch and take it...the old waiting game.
C
cod jigger
Guest
Well said Snapper Attacker. Its like a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Make sure you bring a big truck as there is enough for all.[xx(][V]
banger17
Well-Known Member
so what happens to me when i drag a net infront of the somass river, and rape the run? put to jail for a few years?
yet the Fn can do this with about 400 nets along the river, and get away with it? rights or not, heritage or not, it is ******** and a mismanagement of the fishery.
i have just as much right as a tax payer to these damn fish! maybe even more of a right given how much i pay in taxes... [
]
we all need to practice conservation... FN, white, or otherwise
yet the Fn can do this with about 400 nets along the river, and get away with it? rights or not, heritage or not, it is ******** and a mismanagement of the fishery.
i have just as much right as a tax payer to these damn fish! maybe even more of a right given how much i pay in taxes... [
]we all need to practice conservation... FN, white, or otherwise
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
LMAO no you bloody well do not!!! If you think you do then go throw a net out and see what happens to you. I don't even have the right to throw a net out, and I'm status. If I went to the chief and asked for permission then I could thow a net out, but I know damb well they will just say "No, but you can buy them for $10 a piece". That's why I wait for sporties to open then I get my crack at them. Open for sporties = No conservation concerns = Me taking what I need.
If the whites had properly managed the fisheries in the first place we wouldn't be squabbling about a few thousand fish... how many where wiped out through logging and over fishing and what about hells gate? How many billions has the white man wasted? And yet you complain about the few thousand they have caught. Charlie made a good point in his post look at all the runs on the WCVI that the whites have wiped out, Oh wait there’s also the ECVI that the whites wiped out. Good idea for the DAM on Horne lake there... There used to be a good sockeye run up there too! As well as the Nimpkish!!! I think it’s about time the pot stops calling the kettle black and take some responsibility for your previous actions! Accept what has happened because blaming innocent people for the fisheries collapse shows alot about your kahonas.
Take only what you need.
Um Gentlemen, the obvious DFO theme that will prevail till the closing ceremonies of the 2010 great showcase of friendly BC is "dont **** the natives OFF", oh god please dont let anyone ruin this Glorious opportunity for Canada to show how friendly and good everything is here, Racism????, Aboriginal rights????, all Canadas People are loving , Sharing people. When that Flame gets extinguished it better be No more over fishing, No more illegal fishing
Sculpin
Well-Known Member
It's 2 a day to start and may increase once the counts are in.
It does seem like a race to the first fish however from what I have seen launching and coming in[B)].
My understanding is that the sockeye were introduced to the Stamp River? so how can this be a traditional fishery?
"I'm not talkin bout pleasure boatin or day sailin......I'm talkin bout workin for a livin"- Captain Quint
It does seem like a race to the first fish however from what I have seen launching and coming in[B)].
My understanding is that the sockeye were introduced to the Stamp River? so how can this be a traditional fishery?
"I'm not talkin bout pleasure boatin or day sailin......I'm talkin bout workin for a livin"- Captain Quint
Charlie
Well-Known Member
I like the OJ comment, but the Supreme Court had nothing to do with OJ! A "Jury" set him free, but in the end… He's still is in jail!
I am no way jumping on FA's bandwagon, but he is right in don't blame innocent people.
I hate to tell you this but, Canada and the United States (as Countries), we did it to ourselves</u>! The Supreme Court Decision referenced by FA, refers to the: Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982; PART II, RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA. The link is here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/9.html#anchorsc:6 The Supreme Court upheld, "previous treaties granted and rights or freedoms recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."
The aboriginal fishing rights are very much a part of these documents, as they are also part of our documents down here. Unfortunately, my ancestors agreed to and signed similar treaties, which the United States Supreme Court has also upheld.
Now… how did we do it to ourselves? Easy! We did indeed (on both sides of the border) invade, take control, and conquer what we then called the Indian Territories. We conquered these territories from coast to coast! In case no one knows it… WE WON THE WAR! Where our forefathers screwed up is after winning the war, rather than doing what conquering countries do… our ancestors decide to write all these provisions and conditions in these things called "treaties"; which a treaty is nothing more than a contractual agreement. The only problem we have is both of our Supreme Courts are telling us, we are now stuck and have to live with these contracts. While our forefathers did realize they won the war, they unfortunately did not have the insight to realize the future value of the concessions given. And, unfortunately they gave away a lot of concessions, including the right to fish and hunt on tribal lands and waters, which our Supreme Courts have defined! Plus, not too long ago down here, millions worth of prime waterfront property was given back to the tribes, per their treaties! A lot of businesses and families were forced to move!
Do I like it? No, but our ancestors are the ones who signed the stupid things and our Supreme Courts are telling us we are bound to them.
Now with all that being said… abuse is still abuse! It happens down here, too! Again, everyone needs to do their part in stopping it.
I am okay with "Take only what you need", but leave a little for the rest of US!
I am no way jumping on FA's bandwagon, but he is right in don't blame innocent people.
I hate to tell you this but, Canada and the United States (as Countries), we did it to ourselves</u>! The Supreme Court Decision referenced by FA, refers to the: Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982; PART II, RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA. The link is here: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/9.html#anchorsc:6 The Supreme Court upheld, "previous treaties granted and rights or freedoms recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."
The aboriginal fishing rights are very much a part of these documents, as they are also part of our documents down here. Unfortunately, my ancestors agreed to and signed similar treaties, which the United States Supreme Court has also upheld.
Now… how did we do it to ourselves? Easy! We did indeed (on both sides of the border) invade, take control, and conquer what we then called the Indian Territories. We conquered these territories from coast to coast! In case no one knows it… WE WON THE WAR! Where our forefathers screwed up is after winning the war, rather than doing what conquering countries do… our ancestors decide to write all these provisions and conditions in these things called "treaties"; which a treaty is nothing more than a contractual agreement. The only problem we have is both of our Supreme Courts are telling us, we are now stuck and have to live with these contracts. While our forefathers did realize they won the war, they unfortunately did not have the insight to realize the future value of the concessions given. And, unfortunately they gave away a lot of concessions, including the right to fish and hunt on tribal lands and waters, which our Supreme Courts have defined! Plus, not too long ago down here, millions worth of prime waterfront property was given back to the tribes, per their treaties! A lot of businesses and families were forced to move!
Do I like it? No, but our ancestors are the ones who signed the stupid things and our Supreme Courts are telling us we are bound to them.
I agree, it IS time the pot stops calling the kettle black. The First Nations did its share of wiping out the fisheries, also! Plus, in that time frame the FN did very little to conserve anything! Even a "Yank" knows that! It is not just the "whites" job to properly manage the fisheries! Maybe the FN should come down and take some lessons from the Puyallup Tribe? They seem to have figured it out. The responsibility belongs to EVERYONE, even us south of your border!
Now with all that being said… abuse is still abuse! It happens down here, too! Again, everyone needs to do their part in stopping it.
I am okay with "Take only what you need", but leave a little for the rest of US!
L
Lance D
Guest
Was at the rivr last night. I couldnt belive it. There was not one net in the river!!! Even the poacher nets that are usually around the bend on the upper part were gone. the fishery must be over
Lance
Lance
the fog ducker
Well-Known Member
Just making a point Charlie , Redneck Style ,People, Courts , make mistakes , Times Change , lets , FIX IT !!..
..FD..enough allready , lets talk Sports Fishing ,
..FD..enough allready , lets talk Sports Fishing ,
T
The Fish Assassin
Guest
In most instances the treaties where made to AVOID war. Not many Warring tribes got treaties.
Oh so you want to redefine the constitution of Canada?
Take only what you need.
Business Time
Member
quote:Originally posted by The Fog Ducker
Just making a point Charlie , Redneck Style ,People, Courts , make mistakes , Times Change , lets , FIX IT !!..
Yes, lets talk Sports Fishing!!
The Sockeye are open Monday - who's going out and where? Black hooks or your favourite lure?
Business Time
Member
quote:Originally posted by The Fog Ducker
Just making a point Charlie , Redneck Style ,People, Courts , make mistakes , Times Change , lets , FIX IT !!..
Yes, lets talk Sports Fishing!!
The Sockeye are open Monday - who's going out and where? Black hooks or your favourite lure?
thanks charlie for a very calm explaination of what the history was! i believe a court challenge is necessary to clarify the intent of those treaties. i have ZERO concern for subsistence and ceremonial fisheries and i do believe that the intent of these treaties was focused on these two fisheries.
what concerns me is the commercial harvest by indians under the protective cover of those treaties. IMHO, all commercial harvest should be regulated by a single entity no matter who the commercial fishermen happen to be by way of their heritage.
i honestly believe that the treaties were focused on the first two purposes, not the last.
what concerns me is the commercial harvest by indians under the protective cover of those treaties. IMHO, all commercial harvest should be regulated by a single entity no matter who the commercial fishermen happen to be by way of their heritage.
i honestly believe that the treaties were focused on the first two purposes, not the last.
thanks charlie for a very calm explaination of what the history was! i believe a court challenge is necessary to clarify the intent of those treaties. i have ZERO concern for subsistence and ceremonial fisheries and i do believe that the intent of these treaties was focused on these two fisheries.
what concerns me is the commercial harvest by indians under the protective cover of those treaties. IMHO, all commercial harvest should be regulated by a single entity no matter who the commercial fishermen happen to be by way of their heritage.
i honestly believe that the treaties were focused on the first two purposes, not the last.
what concerns me is the commercial harvest by indians under the protective cover of those treaties. IMHO, all commercial harvest should be regulated by a single entity no matter who the commercial fishermen happen to be by way of their heritage.
i honestly believe that the treaties were focused on the first two purposes, not the last.
Charlie
Well-Known Member
I don't get to do a lot of sockeye fishing, due to the poor returns down here, when it does open it is "wall to wall" boats. Not a pretty site.
A few years back, I was out and wasn't doing very well, so I started the typical "try everything"! One thing I found worked very well was a trout "wedding ring" rigged with a single "red" hook! If things are slow, you might want to give that a try, just for grins.
