Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[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."

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 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

[roeman]

I think we should take the money from HST and give that to the FN as well.
What is really funny, were these sockeye not introduced to this area? so they are not a natural run.  How is it possible to make a claim on something that was never there in the beginning.

[IronNoggin]

What is really funny, were these sockeye not introduced to this area? so they are not a natural run.  How is it possible to make a claim on something that was never there in the beginning.

Tis true. This run is completely artificial, and there never was any real numbers of sockeye in the Stamp system previous to that. It took the placement of ladders on both the Sproat and Stamp systems to provide access to the lakes, an intensive hatchery program based on Henderson Lake stocks, and extremely expensive fertilization programs in the lakes to build the stocks to their once glorious level. These efforts were conducted with both tax base dollars, and copious injections of volunteer time and effort. What was lacking through that process was an involvement from the FN Community. Basically the run was established and maintained by the non-FN community. However, the FN Community, once the run was established, and once they realized just how lucrative the potential fishery might prove to be, immediately claimed "Traditional Harvest Rights" regarding this artificial run. And I, amongst most, would have little problem with that development, were the FN's to offer something back towards maintaining the run from their enormously profitable fisheries (which they do not), govern and perhaps limit their harvest rates to a fixed ratio of the run (which they agree to but do not monitor nowhere close to adequately), and cease their holding all sectors and the Department to their demands on each and every stock that returns here. It is for a reason that it is well recognized the FN's run ALL of the local fisheries, not DFO. Even they (DFO) will admit that when pressured.
Yes, they have Constitutionally Protected Rights, and by all means should indeed be allowed to exercise them. That shouldn't however come at the cost of conservation. And it would be a decent gesture were they to put a little something back, even if that were simply a little volunteer effort, towards the runs they capitalize on.
Overall I have but few problems with FN people, and in most situations their fisheries. I have worked alongside them for a great many years, and often championed their cause while doing so. Unfortunately the behavior displayed here leaves something to be desired. Also unfortunate that this exact behavior creates divisions between themselves and the community at large. No easy fix methinks.

The FN's haven't had a working Agreement regarding "Economic Fisheries" whatsoever on this run (besides the previous Court Ruling that states they can sell them) yet have been actively doing so for 2 months! Couple that with their aggressive and extremely early start when all other sectors were holding back in an attempt to get some of the early timed fish up into the lakes, and the extreme low-balling of their catch numbers to date, and it's not tough to understand why DFO wants them at least slowed down. They already receive the highest allocation number, guess that simply ain't enough...  

A related article in the Vancouver Sun today: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/thewest/High+returns+sockeye+salmon+sparks+illegal+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 very much tied, there isn't a damn thing they, nor anyone else can do about it. Kinda like what the Notice reflects, concern expressed, but what then to follow?  

Nog

[troutbreath]

The Sockeye is turning into a black market cigarette. Probably can get a free pack for every ten fish from some natives.

[IronNoggin]

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, MUST be set out in a Negotiated Settlement BEFORE consideration can be applied to those who might step foot outside of them.

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.

Here's a related broadcast that aired yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4qsr6Z9skQ&feature=player_embedded

Kinda telling the story as it were.

So, Interesting Times in the Alberni Valley for certain. It will be VERY intriguing to follow the developments as they unfold. I will attempt to stay on top of those (tricky as I am away a LOT this time of year) and post what I learn as I am able.

Cheers,
Nog

[skaha]

--these postings are of value... as you of course did not see those who respected the order.
--given the lack of staff ( I'm sure government understaffs on purpose) like all posted regulations we can only count on hopefully a majority of fishers respecting this or any other order.

[IronNoggin]

The case in point here continues to be a working example of the summary I posed above. The Tseshaht have publicly denied DFO's demand to stop fishing, noting that they "refuse to recognize DFO's Management Plan for Alberni sockeye" and "will continue to operate based on the Fishing Management Plan of their own design". The Hupacasath have publicly stated that "they will discuss the matter with their Elders and Chief in an upcoming meeting". Both continue to fish.
DFO's answer has been to engage in a PR Program designed to inform the general public that they would prefer if the FN's stop fishing, and warning of the dangers associated with purchasing "illegal" road-side fish sales.
At this juncture, there appears to be no forthcoming resolution to the issue at hand. Fishing continues, and frustrated DFO personnel sit on the sidelines (as they have been directed to).

It is quite the contentious issue here, heating up more each passing day. Personally I see no easy way to solve the divisions between the Management Authority and the First Nations Sector. The only real way to address this matter in anything resembling a permanent fashion is to get on with finalizing Treaties with both the local First Nation Organizations. Won't happen obviously in time for this year's run. I sincerely hope it can be addressed before too many more years' runs pass by... 

Nog

[alwaysfishn]

 The only real way to address this matter in anything resembling a permanent fashion is to get on with finalizing Treaties with both the local First Nation Organizations.

Nog

How about driving a couple of military tanks on to the reservation and declaring a conquest? Then they become part of Canada and are subject to it's laws.  Isn't this is how these things were handled in the good old days?

[fyrslyer]

How about driving a couple of military tanks on to the reservation and declaring a conquest? Then they become part of Canada and are subject to it's laws.  Isn't this is how these things were handled in the good old days?

Here here, I second that

[IronNoggin]

How about driving a couple of military tanks on to the reservation and declaring a conquest? Then they become part of Canada and are subject to it's laws.  Isn't this is how these things were handled in the good old days?

Ummm... NOPE!
Do a little homework. Canadian FN's actually fought at our side against the US and other arenas. We did not overtly attempt to "conquer" them, that was the US approach. We tried "assimilation" and apparently that didn't go over so well...

Nog

[StillAqua]

Tis true. This run is completely artificial, and there never was any real numbers of sockeye in the Stamp system previous to that. It took the placement of ladders on both the Sproat and Stamp systems to provide access to the lakes, an intensive hatchery program based on Henderson Lake stocks, and extremely expensive fertilization programs in the lakes to build the stocks to their once glorious level. These efforts were conducted with both tax base dollars, and copious injections of volunteer time and effort. What was lacking through that process was an involvement from the FN Community. Basically the run was established and maintained by the non-FN community. However, the FN Community, once the run was established, and once they realized just how lucrative the potential fishery might prove to be, immediately claimed "Traditional Harvest Rights" regarding this artificial run.

Ah, the Port, my old stomping ground. I'm not sure where this idea that the Stamp and Somass sockeye are completely artificial came from but it's not true at all so I would back off trying to use it as an argument for limiting FN fisheries. If you're interested, you can read all about it here:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/ffip/Hyatt_KD1987CanSpecPublFishAquatSci.pdf
The authors estimated about 1000-2000 FNs in the Henderson/Stamp/Somass areas before the white man showed up and that they probably harvested 30,000 to 100,000 sockeye per year, probably mostly with traps and weirs in the rivers.

[Easywater]

I don't understand DFO's (and the Feds in general) weak-kneed approach here.

They are normally over-the-top heavy handed in everything they do.

[roeman]

The authors estimated about 1000-2000 FNs in the Henderson/Stamp/Somass areas before the white man showed up and that they probably harvested 30,000 to 100,000 sockeye per year, probably mostly with traps and weirs in the rivers.

I thought the sockeye were not natural to this area, how can the FN take what was not there???
Seems like someone has the wrong information...

[StillAqua]

I thought the sockeye were not natural to this area, how can the FN take what was not there???
Seems like someone has the wrong information...

I don't know where the myth that sockeye weren't natural to the Somass area came from. Maybe it's an extrapolation from the debate about whether or not Great Central Lake had a regular run because of Stamp Falls passage problems. Or maybe because of all the enhancement work that went into rebuilding the runs and improving passage problems after the non-natives almost exterminated the runs with their dams. Sproat Lake certainly did have a large natural run before the white man showed up. The archaeology shows lots of village and fishing sites and middens full of salmon bones. That's usually where the estimates of pre-European native populations and fishing effort come from.

[skaha]

--StillAqua:

--Thanks for providing access to the extensive report on Barkley Sound Sockeye management.
-- My interest in reading the whole report was sparked in the first paragraph of the Introduction...
--Reuben Ware (1983)..." It has been the direct responsibility of the Federal Fisheries Department to protect salmon spawning areas and the salmon resource" but that "while they were confiscating a few nets, smashing weirs, and harassing Indians practicing their aboriginal rights, the resource was being severely depleted.

--Clearly the sockeye were there in abundance prior to the management initiatives which were required to protect the existing stocks from commercial over fishing and loss of habitat due to settlement and development of the logging industry.

--The report goes on to document the implemented managent strategies and the reasons for them.

--As a side note my family roots established in early 1901-1909 in Alberni as loggers and fishers. I assume our family presence contributed to the problems, Its up to us to ensure the continual improvement and implementation of practicable management strategies.