Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court  (Read 4741 times)

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13885
Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« on: November 21, 2007, 05:46:45 PM »

I have just been informed that the Supreme Court of Canada has rejected the request for appeal by the Cheam Band members in the Douglas case.

This case stemmed from 2000 when a charge was layed for fishing for Early Stuart Sockeye during a closed time. Those charged put forth a case that there was a recreational fishery for chinook at the time so they had a right to fish also.

I am told the law now says the FN do not have absolute priority and that managers can allow fisheries by others while FN FSC fishery is closed.

troutbreath

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
  • I does Christy
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2007, 08:18:00 PM »

Mute point these days with Sockeye closures etc. :P
Logged
another SLICE of dirty fish perhaps?

BwiBwi

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2007, 10:19:50 PM »

That's a weard arguement from the FN band.  Rec. has opening on Chinook salmon not Sockeye.  But they were fishing for sockeye.
Logged

Gooey

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2007, 09:44:37 AM »

Its kind of the same arguement Earnie Cray (sp??) petitioned DFO with to shut the fraser down to sporties this summer when sports fishers were ignoring the selective fishing methods request. Makes sense this summer as flossing springs has a definite sockeye by catch but as a defence for FNs fishing early stewarts...its pretty weak.

Mute point Trout Breath?!?  How so, if sockeye stocks are weak then its good to know we (sporties) can still have a chinook fishery without that meaning FN fishers can have a sockeye opening at thee same time. 

And its always a good thing when ANYONE fishing outside an opening/poaching or what ever gets a kick in the my friend for their transgressions.  Glad to see that the FN fisher in this case couldnt use the charter to hide behind and protect his sorry my friend from his poaching activities!
Logged

troutbreath

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2908
  • I does Christy
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2007, 10:09:23 AM »

The Tsawassen(sp) treaty etc will allow them to net the fish anyway.We will have the closure. The Cheam could sign a treaty that recognizes there tradition claim to even more fish than other tribes by appling pressure to a ruling party eager to settle claims. They (Cheam) will put pressure to close most sport fishing down with the help of others screaming sport fishers are snaggers all the time. A worst case scenerio that may not happen, but don't be too sure about anything right now until you see how these treaties work out.
Logged
another SLICE of dirty fish perhaps?

BwiBwi

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2007, 10:44:17 AM »

Even this summer the claim is still weak.  Mortality rate for C&R is 15% for salmon.  While FN had the closure during summer for none sockeye retaintion they still netted the river same as last year, netting during none opening time.  That is 100% mortality.

Reality is no matter what rec sector does, FN will find excuse to have everyone away from river.
Logged

RA40

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 126
  • STS Guiding Service
    • STS Guiding Service
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2007, 09:20:53 AM »

Even this summer the claim is still weak.  Mortality rate for C&R is 15% for salmon.  While FN had the closure during summer for none sockeye retaintion they still netted the river same as last year, netting during none opening time.  That is 100% mortality.

Reality is no matter what rec sector does, FN will find excuse to have everyone away from river.

Where do you get 15% from, I have never heard this number before. I think your a bit off.

brood dude

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 153
  • i do it with both hands!
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2007, 10:14:43 AM »

15 % i don't think is accurate for all species.

 sockeye alone is about 40% mortality you would think that most guys would get there two and go home, but no they sit there all day and will tell everyone "i got 50 today" :P it's a shame that these people don't understand that 20 of those fish will die. that really gets under my skin. >:(
Logged
girls suck throw rocks at them!

BwiBwi

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2007, 10:23:49 AM »

From DFO and Washing Sates Fishery has similar result.

20% for coho in Areas 1 & 2; 16% for coho in Areas 3 to 10; 10% for coho in other areas; 15% for chinook in all areas.

Sockeye range from 20 to 40%  Depending on water temperature, time out of water. and believe it or not when caught don't try to touch it to remove hook.  Just cut as close to hook as possible and in water this will reduce mortality by 20%
Logged

Arnie Salmonegger

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2007, 07:50:23 PM »

Here's an upcoming case that the Supreme Court will be hearing, so keep your eyes and ears open for the decision:

"On December 11, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear R. v. Kapp, a constitutional challenge to the federal government’s current fisheries policy. The Japanese Canadian Fishermen’s Association is intervening in R. v. Kapp to argue that racial segregation of the workplace violates Canada’s constitution."

I understand this relates to the FN being allowed to fish commercially when no one else can, even though the Constitution only refers to the FN having first rights to "food, social, and ceremonial" fisheries.

Logged

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13885
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2007, 08:19:43 PM »

15 % i don't think is accurate for all species.

 sockeye alone is about 40% mortality you would think that most guys would get there two and go home, but no they sit there all day and will tell everyone "i got 50 today" :P it's a shame that these people don't understand that 20 of those fish will die. that really gets under my skin. >:(
This is one of reasons why I believe you will no longer see a sockeye opening on the Fraser River for the recreational sector.

Prettyfly

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
    • I have a website..
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2007, 08:43:17 PM »

Since the Vickers decision (Nov 22,2007) Treaty negotiations will likely cease as Aboriginal Title has been recognized throughout BC. BC is not in the same
position as the rest of the country because the feds rushed into purchasing BC from people who were not the land owners. It's like buying a car from
someone and the cops come and charge you for being in posession of a stolen vehicle. Same principles only the cops took a long time tracking down the
stolen vehicle.

I'm reading the Standing Committee's Evidence from Nov 2001. It makes me wonder about things.

How much fish does a commercial boat hold?
According to one of the presenters Sockeye are a "hearty fish" so when they do selective fishing (by means of shaking the fish out of the nets)
 they suspect that "1 in 10 will die" For the entire fleet, how many fish actually die?

Another thing is when the Hudson Bay Company first made counts of the fish, they suspected there were "100 million" returning to the rivers.
Why is it now that managment of salmon is required because fish disturb the other nests and result in an off year for spawning? Prior to any
management of the salmon, any non natives selling fish, the fish were coming in abundance on a regular basis?
Logged
~They were displaced. Their use of the land and history as a people, such as it was known, was appropriated and used to advance competing European territorial interests.

~You've lived a life of privilage, one that was garnered by GREEDY thieves.

Eagleye

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2007, 12:09:40 AM »

Quote
Another thing is when the Hudson Bay Company first made counts of the fish, they suspected there were "100 million" returning to the rivers.
Why is it now that managment of salmon is required because fish disturb the other nests and result in an off year for spawning? Prior to any
management of the salmon, any non natives selling fish, the fish were coming in abundance on a regular basis?

One reason I can think of is habitat destruction; loss of suitable spawning grounds.  But I do think they exploit this of course.
Logged

Eagleye

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2007, 12:16:11 AM »

Im very happy with the decision I think its great news for sport fising and the salmon.
Logged

BwiBwi

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Douglas Appeal Rejected In Supreme Court
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2007, 12:26:46 AM »

Since the Vickers decision (Nov 22,2007) Treaty negotiations will likely cease as Aboriginal Title has been recognized throughout BC. BC is not in the same
position as the rest of the country because the feds rushed into purchasing BC from people who were not the land owners. It's like buying a car from
someone and the cops come and charge you for being in posession of a stolen vehicle. Same principles only the cops took a long time tracking down the
stolen vehicle.

While true.  But the origional owner will need to proof he/she owns the vehicle through purchasing/trade... and it all comes down to registry and having a legal system that justify such claim.  When there is no such system in place, who gets what?  How is it's ownership kept track?
Logged