Aquaculture improving?..The Fish Farm Thread

Sparrow was 1990. The DNA and the resultant moratorium was 2006/7. It is now - as we all know - 2024. Case Law on FN rights and titles continues to expand and get added to over time - that's what case law does. It builds on past cases and decisions. Sparrow started this process built on S. 35 of the Constitution Act.

And now additionally with UNDRIP - FN Rights & Title cases are a priority and the government regulators are further obliged to protect Rights and Titles including harvesting rights and protect against infringements of these rights - including now using informed consent.

So, Sparrow is but the start and a minimum of defining those rights - not the end of the defining of those rights. The government lawyers and those in DFO Aquaculture are well aware of these realities and consequences.
 
Last edited:
I was more referring to the fact that they would not answer the question if one FN could use a gillnet that just spanned across the river, as in fish swim, as in can one first nation make a decision or impact an other but yeah. as in a can of worms no one wants to open to this day

Application to this case - is the net length restriction valid?

The Court of Appeal below found that there was not sufficient evidence in this case to proceed with an analysis of s. 35(1) with respect to the right to fish for food. In reviewing the competing expert evidence, and recognizing that fish stock management is an uncertain science, it decided that the issues at stake in this appeal were not well adapted to being resolved at the appellate court level.



Before the trial, defence counsel advised the Crown of the intended aboriginal rights defence and that the defence would take the position that the Crown was required to prove, as part ofits case, that the net length restriction was justifiable as a necessary and reasonable conservation measure. The trial judge found s. 35(1) to be inapplicable to the appellant's defence, based on his finding that no aboriginal right had been established. He therefore found it inappropriate to make findings of fact with respect to either an infringement of the aboriginal right to fish or the justification of such an infringement. He did, however, find that the evidence called by the appellant



" ...casts some doubt as to whether the restriction was necessary as a conservation measure. More particularly, it suggests that there were more appropriate measures that could have been taken if necessary; measures that would not impose such a hardship on the Indians fishing for food. That case was not fully met by the Crown."
According to the Court of Appeal, the findings of fact were insufficient to lead to an acquittal. There was no more evidence before this court. We also would order a retrial which would allow findings of fact according to the tests set out in these reasons. The appellant would bear the burden of showing that the net length restriction constituted a prima facie infringement of the collective aboriginal right to fish for food. If an infringement were found, the onus would shift to the Crown which would have to demonstrate that the regulation is justifiable. To that end, the Crown would have to show that there is no underlying unconstitutional objective such as shifting more of the resource to a user group that ranks below the Musqueam. Further, it would have to show that the regulation sought to be imposed is required to accomplish the needed limitation. In trying to show that the restriction is necessary in the circumstances of the Fraser River fishery, the Crown could use facts pertaining to fishing by other Fraser River Indians.
In conclusion, we would dismiss the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirm the Court of Appeal's setting aside of the conviction. We would, accordingly, affirm the order for a new trial on the questions of infringement and whether any infringement is none the less consistent with s. 35(1), in accordance with the interpretation set out here. For the reasons given above, the constitutional question must be answered as follows:



Question: Is the net length restriction contained in the Musqueam Indian Band Indian Food Fishing Licence dated March 30, 1984, issued pursuant to the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations and the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F -14, inconsistent with s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982?

Answer: This question will have to be sent back to trial to be answered according to the analysis set out in these reasons.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification, WMY.

I find it informative to use the CanLii website (https://www.canlii.org/en/) to search case law by subject matter by jurisdiction. Not every single court decision in Canada is on there - but it seems the important ones are. You can search for case law on topics like "FSC" or "Rights & Titles", etc and stay informed and current. There has been substantial additive court decision since Sparrow (1990), that add and further define issues that affect us today. It's also helpful in fact-checking claims made by anyone about the status of all of our rights in Canada instead of taking anyone's word for it.
 
What a pandoras box it would be if aa's fish swim water flows argument was opened
How about wind blows? Sound travels?
My neighbor is vegan and doesnt like to smell my tbone steaks grilling on the bbq?
My other neighbor has an old stinky loud diesel truck that I dont want to smell and hear everday they start it up, all hypothetical 😎

As we are talking salmon, who really "owns" the fish aa is talking of, if fish swim and water flows?
Are all wild salmon originating in a fn x,y,z head waters owned by those fn's, and anyone that may affect in whatever way those fish, are then doing so unlawfully if those fn says so?

aa what are you saying with this fish swim water flows argument?
no industry of any kind especially on or near water ways, no (sports) fishing anywhere anytime except at headwaters and only by those fn ,if thats what they (fn) want..
 
Remember the plan was to have a plan by 2025 .... or some sort of liberal speech. I don't think they will kill the industry in these economic times ...... which brings us to an election.
 
Good questions SF - and the government lawyers in DoJ have had many meetings & emails with DFO Aquaculture over this. They blank out the ATIPs when this is going on for all the obvious reasons.

I think on this forum - we all care about wild fish. Many of us know in great detail in the areas we fish and live about how adult salmon return to the coast and up their natal rivers, and the run timing up those rivers.

Additionally, some of us know what the juveniles do outmigrating down the rivers and out to sea. That is the most critical time - when they are small and lice loading is lethal.

In addition, juvies can and do pick up other pathogens including some new and novel ones from operating open net-pen operations. It is largely unknown how lethal these infections are because DFO Aquaculture really doesn't want to know and they don't want you to know - the Pandora's Box for them. Kristi Miller-Saunders & others from the PSF have been heroically forging ahead answering these questions IN SPITE OF resistance & blocking from DFO Aquaculture - the same bunch that is in legally in charge of wild salmon being their legislated priority & duty.

Just stop and think about this for a second: the compromised bunch that is in legally in charge of wild salmon being their legislated priority & duty WILL NOT ADMIT THAT WATER FLOWS AND FISH SWIM!

Let that sink in for a second....

The species-specific patterns that drive when and where you find juvie salmon are VERY predictable and repeatable for any given estuarine/nearshore area DESPITE the lies from DFO Aquaculture.

Risk is quantified by looking at both likelihood and consequence; while risk reduction is managing this risk to minimize it.

And DFO Aquaculture refuses to admit this risk and/or take scientifically valid methodologies to minimize it.

Draw your own conclusions from here on....
 
FN have decided they will be running aquaculture in their territory’s.

Politicians will back this.


Money talks.
 
We have discussed this on commercial fishing threads. It is a position that is not surprising they are stating. Fisheries need to work together for common interests.

I'm really struggling to think of how this is going to be a positive for anyone involved.

It seems to be an incredibly short-sighted and divisive political ploy which will inevitably result in even less collaboration between user groups.

Wild salmon would be the losers in the end, because we all know where the real support for them comes from.

It certainly isn't from a keyboard warrior, or some self involved selfie taking virtue hound at a rally, that's for sure.
 
It is an interesting development from a group that supports salmon aquaculture in their claimed territories and is facing pressure from opposing groups. Several of the Nation's conduct thier own research on impacts and feel that the impact is low. After others say they should close to benefit salmon they are pointing out other impacts that may impact salmon populations. ..... rec fishing is one of them. All users impact fish . We forget that sometimes.
 
I'm really struggling to think of how this is going to be a positive for anyone involved.

It seems to be an incredibly short-sighted and divisive political ploy which will inevitably result in even less collaboration between user groups.

Wild salmon would be the losers in the end, because we all know where the real support for them comes from.

It certainly isn't from a keyboard warrior, or some self involved selfie taking virtue hound at a rally, that's for sure.
Well so far we have one user group split into multiple layers, and the big players all want SF gone to gain whatever they think internally will be a gain for them. Then there's the groups (non user groups) that are funded by the government on their own agendas that coincide with said user group on another angle which makes it even worse. What a mess.

Just seen an add on YouTube for **** sakes about how the FN are in support of fish farms and how they claim have a positive effect on the environment and have no impact on the wild anything for that matter. Good times
 
It's not a great development for sure. I don't think it will go anywhere but it's ment to put pressure on the decision makers to keep the farms.
 
Have they passed any legislation to remove fish farms. Think a MP could draft the legislation and put it forward.

I am surprised this was never pushed for
 
Have they passed any legislation to remove fish farms. Think a MP could draft the legislation and put it forward.

I am surprised this was never pushed for
Nobody and I mean NO POLITICIAN at the moment will draft anything that goes against 1st nations wishes.
It'll be a generation before that happens again.
 
Back
Top