It is currently Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:47 pm


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: "British Columbia First Nation" ?
PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:04 pm 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 178
So, in response to one of our favorite forum member comments (on the other forum), I decided to find out just what First Nations (TFN) was doing for the protection and conservation of the BC salmon fishery. While I could not find much of anything being done in the form of protection, conservation, or restoration, I did find some interesting insights and facts regarding their current agenda. You might find this of interest?

Do you know what is really transpiring? They have established a "First Nations Fishery Council" This appeared to be a good thing initially; in that TFN is building an organization similar to that of our " Nortwest Indian Fisheries Commission, at least one would think? But, as you read through their website, there are parts that is really starting to get scary! http://www.fnfisheriescouncil.ca/

Here is a quote right from their first newsletter of September 2008, which is called the "September Communiqué", "This is an important time for First Nations in British Columbia. Once again, we are facing threats that put at risk our ability to access our traditional fisheries for the sustenance and well-being of our communities. The Council has been working with communities over the last six months to help improve communications and to build the infrastructure and capacity of First Nations in B.C. to respond to the challenges we face."

Now if one goes into their, "The B.C. First Nations Fisheries Action Plan". Here is the introduction:
"Fisheries in British Columbia are in a period of transition as a result of increasing demands and pressures on the resource and shifts in government policy to try to respond to these and other issues. This includes First Nations seeking increasing shares in the fishery and greater involvement in management and decision-making, pursuant to their Aboriginal title and rights, and treaty rights. However, First Nations in BC have lacked a strong, collective vision and strategy to achieve progress on these goals, and to address the wide range of other regional and provincial fisheries issues. As a result, First Nations often find themselves reacting to issues that arise from government decisions on policy, legislation and programs, as well as actions and decisions taken by the commercial, sport and recreational fishing sectors or others.

In 2004, the First Nation Panel on Fisheries, co-commissioned by the BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission and the First Nations Summit, released “Our Place at the Table – First Nations in the BC Fishery”. This report outlined a vision, goals and principles for changes in management and allocation in the BC fishery, based on hearings in First Nation communities around the province and over 50 submissions.

On October 4-6 and November 29, 2006, BC First Nations gathered together to build upon this previous work and to commence a broad dialogue about common fisheries issues. This BC First Nations Fisheries Action Plan is a result of those Forums. It provides First Nations with a solid foundation for future action; however, it is only a starting point. Further work and discussion is required to create a BC First Nations Fisheries Council, which will engage with First Nations in implementing a detailed workplan based on the actions set out in this document."

Oh, and it gets better as you read farther, and I quote, "A parallel First Nation Panel on Fisheries was commissioned to ensure that a First Nations perspective was advanced on how to manage and allocate the Pacific fishery. The First Nation Panel on Fisheries proposed a vision, goals and principles for future management and allocation approaches through the lens of recognizing and respecting Aboriginal rights and title and treaty rights. Its recommendations included:

• immediate steps to ensure adequate First Nation access to fish for food, socialand ceremonial purposes,

immediate transfer of a minimum of 50% of all fisheries to First Nations,

• steps by First Nations to resolve intertribal allocations which would encourage them to work together on management of migratory stocks,

• recognition of First Nations management rights and flexible management systems that accommodate the interests of First Nations, and

a moratorium on further individual quota regimes until First Nation allocations are resolved."

Now the "GRAND FINALE", look at their goals, and I again quote, " First Nations in BC have established the following seven goals for the Pacific fishery:
1. That we have healthy ecosystems that are resilient to change.
2. That, within the limits of healthy ecosystems and species, First Nations have the ability to use species and habitat to nourish their people for food, social, spiritual, educational and ceremonial purposes.
3. That within the limits of healthy ecosystems and species (and once the second goal is achieved), that First Nations have the ability to generate enough economic wealth from a diversity of resources and uses so that families and communities are healthy.
4. That within the limits of healthy ecosystems and species (and once the second goal is achieved), that First Nations have the ability to share their resources and wealth with respectful neighbours and guests, and that this sharing is reciprocated.
5. That First Nations, federal and provincial governments jointly manage aquatic species and ecosystems, and that those involved in the use and enjoyment of aquatic species and ecosystems have the responsibility and ability to meaningfully contribute and share their knowledge, experience, and energy towards achieving the above goals.
6. That First Nations, federal and provincial governments, with the help of others, ensure aquatic species and ecosystem users and managers are held accountable if they are not respectful of the above goals.
7. That there is a high degree of certainty that we can continue to achieve these goals over time.

So, in the end - at least I can say, we in the U.S wrote, agreed to, and signed OUR treaties. The language in the U.S. treaties and the B.C. treaties are different, but it does not appear First Nations really cares about that? While I could not find much of anything TFN is doing in the form of conservation, it does appear to me while First Nations priority is not to conserve, but rather it is to take the entire fishery, completely. It is starting to sound that British Columbia will be changing its name to "British Columbia First Nation", at least if they have anything to say about it?

This information comes directly from their website at: http://www.fnfisheriescouncil.ca/

Just so you know there is a difference in the wording of the treaties:
The treaty signed by your bands state: "It is understood, however, that the land itself, with these small exceptions, becomes the entire property of the white people forever; it is also understood that we are at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands, and to carry on our fisheries as formerly."

The treaty "our" tribes signed state: "The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory."

To interpret this article of these treaties, United States District Court Judge Boldt looked at the minutes of the treaty negotiations to determine the meaning of "in common with" as the United States described it to the Tribes, and determined that the United States intended for there to be an equal sharing of the fish resource between the Tribes and the settlers.

Your treaties DO NOT state "in common with all citizens of the Territory", rather it states ,"and to carry on fisheries as formerly"… there is a difference there, just in case you missed it!

Good luck in the Supreme Court, because it appears that is where you are headed!


Last edited by Charlie on Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "British Columbia First Nation" ?
PostPosted: Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:47 pm 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:37 pm
Posts: 135
Location: Victoria
Wow i had no idea that this is what TFN "goals" are.
It seems they have no real concern about conservation, i don't like where this is headed.

But we can't forget who overfished in the first place...the white man.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "British Columbia First Nation" ?
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:25 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:53 pm
Posts: 1195
very detailed post charlie, thanks for posting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "British Columbia First Nation" ?
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:47 am 
Offline
Cabin Boy

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:45 am
Posts: 11
That's the way it always is charlie....they are so hypocritical!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "British Columbia First Nation" ?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:37 pm 
Offline
Cabin Boy

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:04 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Victoria,B.C.
That's pretty rich, 50% of ALL fisheries to less than 10% of the population!
They could insulate their houses with that much fish.
I do note that they want to be able to "share" their fish with good neighbors though.
HAH!
Typical legal representation- shoot for the moon so you can compromise somewhere between. Our government is too greedy to let this pass!

_________________
Hooch


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "British Columbia First Nation" ?
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:03 pm 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:20 pm
Posts: 195
I like the idea of equal rights for all users groups better. 50% of all fish going to the FN is insanity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: "British Columbia First Nation" ?
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:12 am 
Offline
Cabin Boy

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:40 am
Posts: 4
Alex wrote:
Wow i had no idea that this is what TFN "goals" are.
It seems they have no real concern about conservation


What? Every goal stated that conservation was foremost, and subsequent goals need to achieve that first. Regardless of who they are preserving ecosystems for, they intend on doing so.

And yes, it was (us) whiteys who overfished the resource. First Nations fishing methods may be sustainable within their system, but not when it is shared with us, who have a different vision and approach to "conservaton".

However, earmarking 50% of fisheries for FN seems a bit strange - especially when Salmon counts have proven to be so inaccurate.

$0.02


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Victoria Fishing Charter

phpBB SEO
All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]