Interesting Developments Alberni Sockeye & FN's

[IronNoggin]

This afternoon I heard a rumor that DFO posted signage at the local marina to inform the local FN's they had reached their number and would therefor have to stop fishing immediately. Couldn't believe such a development could ever occur, so I ran down to have a boo myself...

aYup, there it was, Black and White, posted right on the launch itself. The Notice states that the local FN's have surpassed 63,000 sockeye in their harvests, and that the Department feels that they have been "generous" in "allowing" that number for their "FSC" purposes. It goes on to state that their is NO working Agreement for Economic Opportunity Fisheries for this sector, and as such "ANY further fishing efforts and/or SALES (specifically) are NOT AUTHORIZED</u>."

While I was reading this, a couple of FN fellows backed their shiny new 4x4 down the ramp, readied their gillnet, and launched. They paused long enough to see what I was reading, laughed, said "Yah... RIGHT", and carried on with Business As Usual. They also paused for a few moments to chat with 2 others boats from their group that were getting their nets in order, and the bunch appeared to be rather jovial about the posting that went up there this very day.

Methinks The Dino has bitten off a rather HUGE chunk with this move. Gotta give whomever grew a set long enough to draft that Notice and have it posted credit for doing so. But... methinks backing up the contents of that Notice is a VERY different matter! With road-side sales booming, sockeye still pouring through in some numbers, I will be absolutely amazed if their is ANY</u> further action in support of the Department's stance. Business As Usual in other words. I rather hope I am in error in this assumption, but certainly am not holding my breath...

Front page of the local rag today has one of the Elder FN's was quoted saying "It is all about GREED" in regards to sockeye harvesting. The context was that he was suggesting cutting the FN's out of the loop at this point was being done to benefit the bag fleets (at it again today and tomorrow) and that the ratio of fish the FN's could take in comparison with all other sectors was somehow "unfair". Hmmm...

Guaranteed to be more developments on this one. Letcha know as it goes...

Cheers,
Nog

 

[searun]

Tough issue Nog I agree....not sure how we ought to approach this one. Basically as I see it with 850,000 fish it is hard to say there is a conservation concern. The real question is how much is just too much. I think most recreational fishers once they get their fill of fish simply stop retaining fish, so the majority of good anglers likely self limit their catch at this point. Problem with rec fishers is once the word gets on the street it attracts more of the guys who rarely get out so there is probably no upper limit on the number of rec guys participating in the fishery. So, for either sector where do you draw the line? I guess my feeling is if we can all get along and get our fair and reasonable share without getting stupid about it then all the better...so long as there are plenty of fish to spawn successfully.

Searun

 

[xavier]

A very important, controversial, but simple question. How many local First Nations individuals are there?

 

[xavier]

Just a question unknown...I am guessing someone knows the answer.

I do not know the answer to your question, but would be interested to hear that as well. The answer to your question would be two-fold though. How many sportsfisherman? How many Commercial Fisherman? But before answering, someone would need to clarify if FN's in the inlet are sportsfishing, or fishing commercially. Because at the moment, it is quite gray.

 

[xavier]

Not trying to pick a fight unknown. Just interested in the info. I absolutely acknowledge all sectors are to blame for declining stocks. As a sporty who pinches his barbs, follows the regs,and hopes his children will be able to enjoy fishing as much as I do, I have great distain for anyone who acts in contradiction to notices or regs.

But I must say,since I was born Canadian, I have a difficult time comprehending why other Canadians may be enitled to more fish than I. Btw, I am very interested in your perspective as well, I do appreciate it.

 

[scott craven]

quote:

. we are all human beings - we are all equal and we all have the same rights and opportunities.

quote:

I think some are a little more equal in the eyes of the law/courts [B)]

 

[Barbender]

There are FN's selling Sockeye on Cowichan Bay road in Cobble hill now. Not sure where these fish came from but I can only imagine.

 

[searun]

quote:Originally posted by UNKNOWN

how many fish can an individual family f'ing eat![???]

EVERY SECTOR WILL ALWAYS DO EXACTLY WHAT DFO WILL ALLOW THEM TO DO! stop pointing ****ing fingers and look at your own individual impact times 200 or more fishers.

don't even try to pretend that you have no impact...

r.

bread white - born brown...put fish first!

RV, not sure how you got that from my post...if you took the time to actually read, I was saying we should not get stupid about how many we catch, and the bottom line is making sure there are enough to successfully spawn. The real question is when you have a run of 850,000 where is the conservation line really. I don't really care how many DFO allocates to the FN guys just as long as there are controls in place to make sure all us greedy buggers don't over fish what is required to ensure a highly successful spawn....bottom line. So crawl down off that high horse you are riding, and read the post to see we are actually talking about the same freakin thing man.[B)]

Searun

 

[Justfish]

quote:Originally posted by UNKNOWN

each and every human being in canada is entitled to, and has a right to sustenance. it is your duty to know your rights and the acts that hold the weight of law over you. your own ignorance is what separates all of us here in this country. we are all human beings - we are all equal and we all have the same rights and opportunities.

hint: are you a sport angler or are you fishing for sustenance??? if you don't know, then don't worry about it - if you do know, then know your rights and any acts that may try to extinguish your rights...you are entitled to sustanence, you have a right to fish for food. know your rights, and the acts that have the force of law prior to exorcising them...they are yours, they always have been and always will be - all human beings in canada can legally fish for sustenance.

r.

Where did you get the idea that ALL Canadians may fish for sustenance? Are you saying that if i am short of groceries i can go and catch a Salmon regardless of licensing, time or place?
Please explain these "rights" so that all may be enlightened, or at least share what yer smokin........
Would any young "legal aid" lawyer know this and be able to help out when my equipment got in the gears?

A liar will assume you are lying

 

[vetteman]

quote:Originally posted by Justfish

quote:Originally posted by UNKNOWN

each and every human being in canada is entitled to, and has a right to sustenance. it is your duty to know your rights and the acts that hold the weight of law over you. your own ignorance is what separates all of us here in this country. we are all human beings - we are all equal and we all have the same rights and opportunities.

hint: are you a sport angler or are you fishing for sustenance??? if you don't know, then don't worry about it - if you do know, then know your rights and any acts that may try to extinguish your rights...you are entitled to sustanence, you have a right to fish for food. know your rights, and the acts that have the force of law prior to exorcising them...they are yours, they always have been and always will be - all human beings in canada can legally fish for sustenance.

r.

Where did you get the idea that ALL Canadians may fish for sustenance? Are you saying that if i am short of groceries i can go and catch a Salmon regardless of licensing, time or place?
Please explain these "rights" so that all may be enlightened, or at least share what yer smokin........
Would any young "legal aid" lawyer know this and be able to help out when my equipment got in the gears?

A liar will assume you are lying

That's a good question regarding sustenance.I'm interested in knowing what Unknowns definition of sustenance is.If everyone in Canada is entitled to fish for sustenance then I suppose that I could take my $50,000 truck,hook up to my $40,000 boat,drive to Port Alberni and burn a pile of gas getting there and back,catch a sockeye and be sustained.I suppose that I could probably do the same thing with a moose.That would be a bigger bang for my buck.
What are you smokin UK?
Dave

 

[Gordo]

Yes, please define "subsistance".

I fish (and hunt) to put protein in the freezer. Is this "subsistance"?

Do I have to quit my $80K/year job in order to qualify?

We are a nation of citizenship by seniority -its great to be a Canadian if your forefathers arrived chasing a wooly mammoth rather than a resource sector job.

 

[Sushihunter]

quote:

it is up to you to do the work and research - it is you that must have the understanding of your rights and it is you who must know if you can or can not.

Well... it was you who brought up the subject. Apparently you have knowledge that the rest of us lack. As you have already done the research, then it is up to you to enlighten the rest of us.

Please explain. [?]

Jim's Fishing Charters
www.JimsFishing.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sushihunter250

 

[IronNoggin]

quote:Originally posted by UNKNOWN

...don't even try to pretend that you have no impact...

Wasn't at all implying the Sporties have no impact Rob. But... have a boo at the numbers once. Just what is the Recreational Sector being held to in terms of numbers? And just how does that stack up against those of the bag fleets, let alone the grossly under-estimated harvests the FN's are "allowed" (yeah, right) to take?

Management here (and elsewhere) operates under the gun of FN demands. Just the way it is, and I recognize that there is damn little that can ever be done to address that particular matter. But (and it's something of a Big BUT) when DFO notes that any one sector has exceeded their allowance, why then do they continue to turn a blind eye to a single one of those sectors for actions that would land all the rest in the Crowbar Hotel? Methinks we both know the answer, just getting a tad tired / jaded with it all I suppose...

A related article in the Vancouver Sun today: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/th...al+sales+Port+Alberni+area/3270022/story.html

One of the quotes from that: ""The illegal salmon sales have been prevalent -- we're extremely concerned about them," said Larry Paike, a DFO fisheries officer."

Concerned? Quite Possibly so. But with their hands tied, there isn't a damn thing they, nor anyone else can do about it. Kinda like what the posted Notice reflects, concern expressed... OK. But what then to follow???

Nog

 

[Justfish]

it is up to you to do the work and research - it is you that must have the understanding of your rights and it is you who must know if you can or can not.
[/quote]


Is this a game where you claim to be omniscient and we get to be supplicants?
Cough it up if you so sure of your "knowledge". I'll get my tinfoil hat ready......

A liar will assume you are lying

 

[xavier]

Unknown, you have made my point for me. If you are using "fishing for sustinence" as justification for greater than 63 000 sockeye taken by LOCAL FN's, it is simple logic to ask how many local FN's are there?

 

[searun]

Searun

Sorry RVP, may have jumped to a premature conclusion...couldn't figure our your response given we are basically saying the same exact thing...everyone has an impact and we need to be certain our actions do not result in over-fishing.

Searun

 

[IronNoggin]

Related Channel A Broadcast from yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4qsr6Z9skQ&feature=player_embedded

VERY much Interesting Times in the Valley!
I initiated this thread to note the action regarding the posting of the Public Notice regarding local FN fishing activities. For that, I do believe DFO has taken a mighty step forward. It was a good First Step and took considerable intestinal fortitude to do so. What can legally follow is anyone's guess, however I perceive something must be in the works, or that Notice wouldn't even have been considered. Defining what that something may be is now in the hands of both DFO and the FN's. In my mind's eye, it is very much a Catch-22 scenario for the Department - they have now drawn a line in the sand, what they now do when that line is crossed will, for better or worse, be instrumental in defining future relations with all BC First Nations, as well as Public Perception of DFO's ability to deal with such occurrences.

Cheers,
Nog

 

[Barbender]

Interesting times for sure Nog. I highly doubt that DFO will do anything other than put up a sign. They do not have the political will higher up to engage FN on this issue. The front line guys I am sure are willing but the pencil pushers are not. Basically they will huff and puff but at the end of the day nothing will be done. I will even bet you $0.25 on that one.

 

[IronNoggin]

quote:Originally posted by Barbender

They do not have the political will higher up to engage FN on this issue. The front line guys I am sure are willing but the pencil pushers are not. Basically they will huff and puff but at the end of the day nothing will be done. I will even bet you $0.25 on that one.

NO WAY I'm taking that bet on!

As much as I have issues with a lot of what DFO does / doesn't do, in this particular matter I don't believe they (the Front Line Troops anyway) can be held responsible for the developments of late. Their hands are VERY much tied in what they can or cannot do by Court Rulings, Legislation and Policy that have declared Hand's Off when it comes to First Nations except under the most extreme of situations. As many FN's (most in BC in fact) have as yet "undefined" Rights regarding resource access, until such time as Final Agreements (Treaties) have been realized with each, the Justice System simply cannot address anything that even comes close to defining what those Rights might be. Simply stated, even the Supreme Court of Canada cannot enter into defining FN Rights and/or Privileges. These, Constitutionally</u>, MUST be set out in a Negotiated Settlement BEFORE</u> consideration can be applied to those who might step foot outside of them.

Just the facts Mam, Just The Facts...

Cheers,
Nog

 

[Last Chance]

Yep, this just shows FN's commitment to sustainable fisheries.


Last Chance Fishing Adventures

www.lastchancefishingadventures.com
www.swiftsurebank.com