R
Robert Warren
Guest
Arn't seals Mammals? LOL
Arn't seals Mammals? LOL
Slabby20
Active Member
Just horrible. Spent the first week of September being entertained by whales in Barkley Sound while trolling, and trolling for elusive springs. I'll never understand the need to kill them. Whether it's for using a machine gun or for the unsanctioned hunt, I hope those responsible are brought to justice.
For those that didn't see the article, here's one link http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003876011_whale09m.html
For those that didn't see the article, here's one link http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003876011_whale09m.html
D
dman
Guest
I was there, fishing a Coho derby when it happened. They fired 20 plus shots in the vicinity of hundreds of sport boats, the Coast Guard stated it was a "safety exercise" on the radio with all the activity. That's two years in a row the Makah's have show a total disregard for working with State/ Province and Federal fisheries, given the 20k chinook overharvest last year when only 2k harvest was projected, when does it end?
R
Robert Warren
Guest
Treaty rights are inherent. Everyone who is covered under the treaty has the same rights. It is not up to chief and council when an individual practices those rights. Nor is it up to state/provincial or other regulations to restrict the rights of Natives granted under the treaty. It is however up to the individual when and where he chooses to pratices those rights. Some bands have signed agreements to participate in "the AFS" program. In trade they get money to run their fisheries and train Native officers, they give up certain rights to harvest as a general rule. Not all bands fall for this however and many would rather challenge the courts knowing that they have a signed treaty that enables them to hunt and fish (with the use of modern equipment) as before settlement. So what kind of regulation do you think was in place before the time of settlement? Certainly there was no mention in 2006 the band was limited to 2k springs. They are allowed to take whatever they feel they need. Some might say that taking 20K is too much. Well not when you consider the price of food in the grocery store, gas, ect. There was a commercial aspect to the treaties although the government here in Canada simply turns a blind eye to the fact that when the treaty was signed we where providing salmon for sale to the forts and the Hudson's Bay Company. So there was no doubt that there was a commercial aspect to the treaty. There for it is established that each of us should be able to make a moderate livelihood from the sale of commercially caught seafood. 20,000 fish seems like a lot, but my grandfather who worked as a tug boat captain told me stories of having to take barge loads of salmon out in the straits to get dumped because it went bad sitting at the docks waiting to get processed. Imagine 2 or 3 seaspan barges full of rotting fish this is only one small instance of waste created by white mans greed. And yet some still blame the Natives for the decline in stocks, all the while there is a drift net fishery being conducted right off our coast with 100 boats useing 50KM long nets. That works out to about 5000KM of net!!, pretty much enough to cover the entire west coast! So when might it end? who knows.. when the last fish is caught? or when compensation has been paid?
B
Brisco
Guest
Robert Warren,
Compensation to who and for what?
Compensation to who and for what?
scott craven
Well-Known Member
When a natural resource such as salmon is threatened, there should be
one set of regs applicable to all based on conservation of the species.
I don't care if you are native, white or any other race,
the same laws should apply to all.
one set of regs applicable to all based on conservation of the species.
I don't care if you are native, white or any other race,
the same laws should apply to all.
K
Klink
Guest
"When a natural resource such as salmon is threatened, there should be
one set of regs applicable to all based on conservation of the species.
I don't care if you are native, white or any other race,
the same laws should apply to all."
Native Over fishing combined with Pale Face over fishing means we're all to blame, but everyone happier pointing fingers at each other while this **** is still going on
Klink
one set of regs applicable to all based on conservation of the species.
I don't care if you are native, white or any other race,
the same laws should apply to all."
Native Over fishing combined with Pale Face over fishing means we're all to blame, but everyone happier pointing fingers at each other while this **** is still going on
Klink
R
Robert Warren
Guest
I totally agree with RS on this one. You would have to look at why the species is threatened though. Then if any infringement of rights have occurred there should be compensation for destruction of fish habitat by logging or damming or any other human influence such as mis-management of fish stocks and overfishing by commercial fisheries. Then once full compensation is achieved then we should all be on equal ground and follow the same regs. How ever would the government come up with the money though?
B
Brisco
Guest
Robert Warren, Who gets the compensation?
R
Robert Warren
Guest
Whomever had their rights infringed upon should be compensated. In this case it is the guys who were hunting the whale. They where fully within their treaty rights to go and do this. Gray whales were taken off the endangered-species list in 1994, and populations are healthy. This time of year has historically meant prime hunting for the Makah, whalers for millennia. The Coast Guard confiscated the gun and the boats, and cut the whale loose -- harpoons and all -- to drift on the current. By evening, it was dead. Read the article there is no mention of a 50 cal machine gun!!! but rather a .460-caliber rifle. Funny how the story always gets twisted a little bit.
B
Brisco
Guest
Robert Warren, I respect your views, however I can't agree with them. I am also curios what the Makaw tribe does with these animals.
Red Monster
Well-Known Member
FYI: Recent genetic research shows that the number of gray whales is actually far below what it once was.
However, IMHO the number of self-serving stories of certain folks having the right to do whatever the hell they want to do is far beyond historic levels and without doubt has become an impediment to conservation efforts. Of course that doesn't absolve everyone else, but please let's try not to cover the truth under malodorous piles of rhetorical BS.
However, IMHO the number of self-serving stories of certain folks having the right to do whatever the hell they want to do is far beyond historic levels and without doubt has become an impediment to conservation efforts. Of course that doesn't absolve everyone else, but please let's try not to cover the truth under malodorous piles of rhetorical BS.
R
Robert Warren
Guest
Perhaps it is just ignorance on some people's parts that even in today's world which if full of literate people that some still refer to treaties that where signed at the time of occupation as malodorous piles of rhetorical BS... That is a statement that basically sums up what were up against. The white man doesn't want to honor the treaties that were signed. As far as I'm concerned then the treaties should be void as a result. And all the land reverts back to us as a breach of the contract..? If it was any modern business deal and one side refused to honor the contract it would be void! The entire city of Victoria is within our traditional territory. That's a pretty big rent check!
...and IMHO it is about time!
What treaties ?
In BC there were no treaties signed.
Treaty 8 stops at the Alberta border around old Fort Edmonton area and up into the Peace River country.
A simple analogy for todays world would be if the BC Government came up to "Red Monsters" home and property and said "we like that and are appropriating it as of this moment without compensation and Oh by the way don't bother trying to sue as you can't under the laws we have passed" just what are you going to do about it ?
This is simplified but forms the basis of just how much of a mess our area is in right now.
Or you can simply ascribe to the old dictum "might makes right" and pick up the banner of racial extermination and continue marching down that road to its ugly end.
AL
In BC there were no treaties signed.
Treaty 8 stops at the Alberta border around old Fort Edmonton area and up into the Peace River country.
A simple analogy for todays world would be if the BC Government came up to "Red Monsters" home and property and said "we like that and are appropriating it as of this moment without compensation and Oh by the way don't bother trying to sue as you can't under the laws we have passed" just what are you going to do about it ?
This is simplified but forms the basis of just how much of a mess our area is in right now.
Or you can simply ascribe to the old dictum "might makes right" and pick up the banner of racial extermination and continue marching down that road to its ugly end.
AL
R
Robert Warren
Guest
The treaties I am refering to are called the Douglas Treaties. Here is a quote
These treaties, apart from Treaty 8 that included a portion of northeastern British Columbia, are the only treaties made in British Columbia. Referred to as the Douglas Treaties their intention was to surrender 359 square miles, or 3% of Vancouver Island, to become "the entire property of the white people forever." What about the other 97%? We are lucky now to find a spot to hunt on this island. By the province selling off crown land to forest companies and then becoming "private land" is also an infringement on the rights guaranteed by these treaties. It is nice to see that some people don't even know the treaty exhists. Perhaps that explains why we feel like were banging are heads against a brick wall when we try to explain the rights that we have. At least now al knows...
I knew of the "Douglas Treaties" , but my point was to illuminate the obvious inequities of the whole system of communications in which our governments DO NOT advise the general populace as to the true conditions which remain open for the indigenous peoples of this Province.
AL
AL
D
dman
Guest
"They are allowed to take whatever they feel they need." -Incorrect
They (tribes in Washington State) are allowed only 1/2 of all available salmon for harvest per the Boldt decision, which the State attempts to work with the tribe's on monitoring catch, but that's impossible to do, when there is a verbal commitment of 2k and the actual harvest exceed's 20k chinook. I can assure you that the local catch of 20k juvenile winter chinook exceeded a 50% catch of the local SJDF winter chinook stocks relative to Neah Bay, but what it really comes down to is what is responsible harvest? This topic was about the illegal harvest of a gray whale, I'm not even sure what drift nets off the coast you're referring to, who's are they and where are they from?
D
dman
Guest
Also, R.W., the Makah's whaling was suspended in court and they do currently need a Federal permit to harvest grey whales which they did not have and the Feds to have the authority to grant that permit or not. I do not blame the natives for all decline of fisheries, but when I personally am put in harms way (believe me I would not have been fishing the area if the whale harvest was scheduled at the same time), then I take exception.
R
Robert Warren
Guest
The USA definatly has handled the question of fishing rights diferently then here. I think we would be very happy with 50% of the TAC. It sure would put less pressure on the rivers if we took our TAC out in the ocean and limited the commercials to half of their catch out there. Then all the fish that are alotted to go back to the rivers to spawn might have a chance of making it because there would be no net pressure put on them in the rivers. Our part of the world might be a better place for all fishermen.
