OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
http://steelheadvoices.com/?p=2234&fbclid=IwAR1vxFyXfUE6_gTaj_9ALQ_qzAKxti2adiLtTdqDeBDPToNgyl5o74mWQpk
Taken from this: Finally, please don’t anyone try and sell the notion that all the court decisions pertaining to FN fishing rights should take precedence here. This is all about conservation, not allocation. Forget Sparrow, Van der Peet, Gladstone, Marshall and Ahousaht, as well as endless debate around today’s fishing methods of vastly greater indigenous populations exercising traditional rights. Our fish populations are obviously incapable of sustaining the mortality rates of the past, let alone those on the horizon. There is still supposed to be a Canadian Constitution that states plainly conservation prevails over food, social and ceremonial fisheries, however the latter is defined. If IFS doesn’t represent a conservation crisis that isn’t being addressed under the law of the day, what does? What purpose is there in any of us pushing for application of all the rules and guidelines we’re told should apply?
Taken from this: Finally, please don’t anyone try and sell the notion that all the court decisions pertaining to FN fishing rights should take precedence here. This is all about conservation, not allocation. Forget Sparrow, Van der Peet, Gladstone, Marshall and Ahousaht, as well as endless debate around today’s fishing methods of vastly greater indigenous populations exercising traditional rights. Our fish populations are obviously incapable of sustaining the mortality rates of the past, let alone those on the horizon. There is still supposed to be a Canadian Constitution that states plainly conservation prevails over food, social and ceremonial fisheries, however the latter is defined. If IFS doesn’t represent a conservation crisis that isn’t being addressed under the law of the day, what does? What purpose is there in any of us pushing for application of all the rules and guidelines we’re told should apply?