C & P from another site
"In the simplest sense, DFO has one major mandate.... resource conservation and protection. Whether they are achieving this mandate is always open to argument. First Nations are a close second in terms of DFO priorities, followed by commercial and sport fishing opportunities. Note that I grouped commercial and recreational together. DFO does not normally differentiate between the two groups with respect to resource access. Having said that though, fisheries such as Fraser River sockeye rarely open without access by both user groups at the same time. With the hugely disappointing test fishery results so far, I find it increasingly unlikely that DFO will open the Fraser sockeye fishery this year. If they do, I find it even more unlikely that they would open sport to the exclusion of commercial.
We all might openly or privately take exception to the fact that FN are permitted to fish when we can't. The fact of the matter is, DFO is committed legally (and I would suggest morally) to permit FN access to fish whenever possible. The stance of the Federal and Provincial governments, in general, support this view so any suggestion by minority members of society (i.e. sport fishermen as one group) that this is discriminatory is a non starter. As a side note, don't take the actions of the Cheam as being anywhere near representative of other FN on the Fraser. The Cheam are a radical fringe group destined for self destruction. For those of you wishing to know more of the FN perspective on their fishing rights (generally mirrored by DFO as well I might add) should check out some of Sandman's posts here. Although I disagree sometimes on points he makes, Sandman is right on the money on how FN view their rights. Again, to argue that FN rights somehow supercede those of white society is again a non starter. I would suspect that the majority of Canadians who do not fish or do not fish sockeye specifically would give more support to the rights of FN than to a few 'sporties' who feel it is their God given right to snag a few socks.
On the subject of God given rights, a few people have argued that somehow being a taxpayer or having purchased a fishing licence gives them the right of access. The purchase of a fishing licence gives you the PRIVILEGE to fish. There are no rights attached to it. Commercial fishermen and commercial fish processors also have to purchase licences for the PRIVILEGE. There are no guarantees that they will be able to exercise that privilege. Look at it this way. DFO is always under enormous pressure to open fisheries. If they can withstand pressure from commercial interests whose members rely on fishing income to survive in this world, what chance do you think the average sport fisherman has to pressure DFO into opening? How about like none? Every person holding a job in this country pays taxes (or should). Every person in this country who does not fish but likes to buy wild salmon is also at the mercy of DFO. If there are no fish to be caught, there are no fish to be bought. Again, the masses far outweigh a few thousand sporties on the Fraser.
DFO has been cursing the day they ever permitted sport access to sockeye on the Fraser. Its not that they are against retention. What they see as a growing and almost uncontrollable problem (don't most of us?) is the use of flossing, lining..ok call it for what it is..snagging, as the method of choice by too many anglers on other fish species in the Fraser and other river systems. We are our own worst enemy sometimes. Smarten up people or I am sure that DFO will enact very draconian regulations in the future to stop this snagging. "
Author
Topic: question for the powers at be (Read 4278 times)