Rain City
Crew Member
Like wildman said, it's just easier and cheaper. They don't have the funding to police it. Which is why I think they went to C&R, they don't have to chase the rec guys off the water.
Upset about the Chinook Closures? What to do next?
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I guess my question is, do Canadian First Nations rights, protected by the Canadian Constitution extend to another countries fish? I don’t think so! This is a pretty clear example of another countries fish being fished while transiting our territorial waters, as opposed to Canadian fish returning to Canadian Natal streams. First Nations in Canada are permitted to target them the same as any other Canadian and at the same time. They are at no legal disadvantage!
So perhaps our government needs to stand up and say we can’t grant rights to another countries resources. I’m not a lawyer but I believe if there was a will, our government could and should litigate and would win. I don’t think our Supreme Court can rule on non Canadian resources.
I think a few people in Canada - including the occasional poster - could benefit from an improved understanding of the history of Canada and how the current colonial system of laws was imposed upon already functioning hereditary governance systems - and how that affects the laws and the regulations that are developed from those laws.
In short - FNs are not a "special interest" that the occasional poster have claimed - but rather existing Rights and Title Holders of unceded territories (esp. in the West and BC) that were invaded and colonized by primarily European settlers starting on the East Coast and working their way West.
In that process of colonization - terra nullius as espoused 1st by the Catholic Church and the Pope (http://longmarchtorome.com/terra-nullius/)- was that assertion that South America was "empty of people" - the term "people" only being reserved for pope-abiding Catholics and not the existing "savages" whom already had often quite developed hereditary governance systems & civilizations - and the Catholic conquistadors did pretty much what they wanted wrt genocide, slavery and domination. That was the 1st "racist" law imposed upon "new" world aboriginals.
In North America - it was different. 1st came limited and small-scale European settlements that were originally supposed to stop (and not expand West of the Appalachians: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/proclamation-line-1763 ) as colonies on the East Coast of "New England" - where numerous treaties were signed and sometimes fulfilled in part or in whole since the settlers knew they needed allies and generally ratified through the The Royal Proclamation of 1763 (http://www.history.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/courses/lectures/[realname]/3bb_terra_nullius.pdf). The assertion of British sovereignty was thus expressly recognized as not depriving the aboriginal people of Canada of their pre‑existing rights; the maxim of terra nullius was not to govern here.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is every much as important and legally binding as say the Constitution Act (both original and 1982 revised versions) - the same Act that all our laws generate their authority from.
But then came figures such as Edward Cornwallis (https://www.rnshs.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RNSHS_ThreeLivesEdwardCornwallis_JohnGReid_2013.pdf) in the East - and during the westward expansion came Joesph Truth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Trutch) and left quite a mess in their wake - not to mention the Indian Act of 1876.
Lots more history - but lets skip forward to the Repatriation of the Constitution of 1982 and s.35 - The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people in Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
From that seemly insignificant reference in 1982 - quite a bit of case law has been generated that further refines and expands how the Government of Canada is supposed to deal with aboriginal Rights and Title and consultation and accommodation. For those who wish to inform themselves - it can be found at: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/sort=decisionDateDesc&id=Aboriginal rights fishing
In short - FNs are not a "special interest" that the occasional poster have claimed - but rather existing Rights and Title Holders of unceded territories (esp. in the West and BC) that were invaded and colonized by primarily European settlers starting on the East Coast and working their way West.
In that process of colonization - terra nullius as espoused 1st by the Catholic Church and the Pope (http://longmarchtorome.com/terra-nullius/)- was that assertion that South America was "empty of people" - the term "people" only being reserved for pope-abiding Catholics and not the existing "savages" whom already had often quite developed hereditary governance systems & civilizations - and the Catholic conquistadors did pretty much what they wanted wrt genocide, slavery and domination. That was the 1st "racist" law imposed upon "new" world aboriginals.
In North America - it was different. 1st came limited and small-scale European settlements that were originally supposed to stop (and not expand West of the Appalachians: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/proclamation-line-1763 ) as colonies on the East Coast of "New England" - where numerous treaties were signed and sometimes fulfilled in part or in whole since the settlers knew they needed allies and generally ratified through the The Royal Proclamation of 1763 (http://www.history.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/courses/lectures/[realname]/3bb_terra_nullius.pdf). The assertion of British sovereignty was thus expressly recognized as not depriving the aboriginal people of Canada of their pre‑existing rights; the maxim of terra nullius was not to govern here.
The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is every much as important and legally binding as say the Constitution Act (both original and 1982 revised versions) - the same Act that all our laws generate their authority from.
But then came figures such as Edward Cornwallis (https://www.rnshs.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RNSHS_ThreeLivesEdwardCornwallis_JohnGReid_2013.pdf) in the East - and during the westward expansion came Joesph Truth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Trutch) and left quite a mess in their wake - not to mention the Indian Act of 1876.
Lots more history - but lets skip forward to the Repatriation of the Constitution of 1982 and s.35 - The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people in Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
From that seemly insignificant reference in 1982 - quite a bit of case law has been generated that further refines and expands how the Government of Canada is supposed to deal with aboriginal Rights and Title and consultation and accommodation. For those who wish to inform themselves - it can be found at: https://www.canlii.org/en/#search/sort=decisionDateDesc&id=Aboriginal rights fishing
Last edited:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Yeah you hit the nail on the head. They obviously counted on only a few people out practising catch and release thus lowering their workload. It’s sad they are trying to blame First Nations for the closure.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
I believe Stormtropper has pointed out many times that salmon is a common law resource. The supreme court has made that clear many times. DFO is suppose to weigh the rights of common law with the rights of indigenous people. Sockeye,Chum and Pink allocation policy actually does this pretty well tho the rec sector is left with 5%. The round table processes do this very well, with essentially no one fishes or everyone fishes.
I believe a solution to all this might actually to allow an FSC troll fishery to occur in south coast waters were First Nations could also retain hatchery fish. Just like how First Nations on the fraser can retain hatchery coho caught in their nets when fishing for chum. Otherwise the Southcoast is going to be left in the state its now and that is pretty much with no chinook salmon opportunity. According to the harvest record to date first nations on the fraser have only been able to get approval to harvest 21 chinook (were talking Legal Case Law Fish). I know from talking to a few chiefs that they are not happy with this outcome they actually expected it would be business as usual from them and the coast would just be shut down.
This is from Australian case law but still relevant to our own case law.
"Magna Carta is still invoked in cases around a small number of Indigenous rights cases, but that does not diminish its importance, at least symbolically as a defence against arbitrary rule and as a provider of individual rights. It is not so much that there is a claim that those rights lie in that document but rather that they have evolved from it. In fact, it is—if not superseded—complemented or overshadowed by the emergence of an international human rights framework in the World War II era and the norms it sets. Similarly, it has only provided specific recognition of the rights of Indigenous people with the evolution of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations in 2007 and endorsed by Australia in 2009. In Indigenous jurisprudence, Magna Carta is most commonly invoked in disputes concerning the right to fish (clause 33; clause 23, 1297 charter). Since the 1215 Magna Carta, there has been a common law right to fish in tidal waters. This right can only be abrogated by the enactment of legislation. In these instances, this document is generally referred to in an attempt to protect the public right of fishing against fishing rights that have been granted to particular Aboriginal groups.3 The question that is generally at the centre of judicial enquiry is whether a relevant statute that purports to regulate fishing rights, most commonly through a licence system, has impliedly or expressly displaced the public right to fish. The existence of a public right to fish in tidal waters was accepted in New South Wales v The Commonwealth (Seas and Submerged Lands Case) (1975), where the court referred to Magna Carta’s preservation of public rights of fishing in tidal waters by reference to English and Canadian case law.4"
I believe a solution to all this might actually to allow an FSC troll fishery to occur in south coast waters were First Nations could also retain hatchery fish. Just like how First Nations on the fraser can retain hatchery coho caught in their nets when fishing for chum. Otherwise the Southcoast is going to be left in the state its now and that is pretty much with no chinook salmon opportunity. According to the harvest record to date first nations on the fraser have only been able to get approval to harvest 21 chinook (were talking Legal Case Law Fish). I know from talking to a few chiefs that they are not happy with this outcome they actually expected it would be business as usual from them and the coast would just be shut down.
This is from Australian case law but still relevant to our own case law.
"Magna Carta is still invoked in cases around a small number of Indigenous rights cases, but that does not diminish its importance, at least symbolically as a defence against arbitrary rule and as a provider of individual rights. It is not so much that there is a claim that those rights lie in that document but rather that they have evolved from it. In fact, it is—if not superseded—complemented or overshadowed by the emergence of an international human rights framework in the World War II era and the norms it sets. Similarly, it has only provided specific recognition of the rights of Indigenous people with the evolution of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations in 2007 and endorsed by Australia in 2009. In Indigenous jurisprudence, Magna Carta is most commonly invoked in disputes concerning the right to fish (clause 33; clause 23, 1297 charter). Since the 1215 Magna Carta, there has been a common law right to fish in tidal waters. This right can only be abrogated by the enactment of legislation. In these instances, this document is generally referred to in an attempt to protect the public right of fishing against fishing rights that have been granted to particular Aboriginal groups.3 The question that is generally at the centre of judicial enquiry is whether a relevant statute that purports to regulate fishing rights, most commonly through a licence system, has impliedly or expressly displaced the public right to fish. The existence of a public right to fish in tidal waters was accepted in New South Wales v The Commonwealth (Seas and Submerged Lands Case) (1975), where the court referred to Magna Carta’s preservation of public rights of fishing in tidal waters by reference to English and Canadian case law.4"
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I don’t disagree with anything in your post in so far as it may be applied to a Canadian fish stock. But are we talking just a Canadian fish stock here? Absolutely not. No one is suggesting intercepting the Fraser run. So how does all the info above apply to American hatchery fish transiting through our waters? This is not a traditional terminal fishery at least not on this side of the border. I’m sure our American neighbours would dispute anything to do with the Magna Carta being applied to America or American fish and in this case that’s what we are talking about.
RiverBoy
Well-Known Member
I’ve been checked three times this year already.THREE . Once with “The Lindsay”, once with “the Higgitt”, and once with a small RIB. Two of those times i was the only vessel in the water. Lyndsay and Higgitt are a two man crew operated vessel, and the last time DFO was along for the ride. Can’t imagine these vessels are cheap to run and operate; they must have the funds if they can afford to harass my always compliant self!
Last edited:
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
How we intercept American fish is determined by the pacific salmon treaty. We should have access to Those fish but don’t because DFO does not want us too for political and optics. Hence the protest in north van
littlechucky
Crew Member
Yup. We’ve traded our fish caught in the SE Alaska fisheries in return for catching WA, OR and California fish.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Bingo, no basis in law, no basis in conservation, simply politics and optics
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
This was sent out today by DFO today on 2019 Fraser River Chinook Conservation Measure. I have attached it as a pdf.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Yeah got it today. I am not sure what it was supposed to clear up? Just was a great example of government script writing.
This reminds of the Provincial MOE approach. Don't address concerns just script write, and deflect.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Its suppose to make you feel guilty for wanting to bonk a chinook. Doom and Gloom
nothing new in the letter
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Yeah I know.
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
Recovery plan? What's a Recovery Plan??
Recovery plan? What's a Recovery Plan? Maybe if we get a selfie with Trudeau it will help these Chinook?
They’re absolutely clueless....
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Yeah I am not getting why they even bothered sending that out.
Timing of this memo is pretty strange. I wonder if other FN bands on the coast have already started complaining or even ignoring the closures and DFO is trying to cover their a#s. Like anything DFO, this must have a political driver. Elections only 4 months out.
