Native group lays claim to Pacific fishery
Donny_Brasco @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:00 am
$1:
Vancouver — A Vancouver Island native group was back in court Monday to push its claim to an unrestricted commercial fishery, a case that could have wider implications for aboriginal rights off Canada's shores.
The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, which includes 14 aboriginal communities on the west coast of Vancouver Island, is trying to prove it caught and traded fish with other native groups before Europeans first arrived in what is now British Columbia.
But the Nuu-chah-nulth's claim of aboriginal title to onshore and offshore areas of Vancouver Island could have an impact beyond simply fishing rights, a spokeswoman for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans suggested.
The aboriginal commercial fishery — including sales to non-natives — continued until the Canadian government began restricting it in the late 19th century, the Nuu-chah-nulth contend.
The council now claims it effectively owned and controlled the waters adjacent to traditional Nuu-chah-nulth territory.
“This case is about our inherent right to fish,” said council vice-president Michelle Corfield. “It is about our right to catch, sell and participate in a fishing economy.”
The Nuu-chah-nulth will submit a variety of evidence, including accounts from early explorers and traders, government records and anthropological research, as well as witness testimony about the oral histories of the First Nation.
The Globe and MailThe Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, which includes 14 aboriginal communities on the west coast of Vancouver Island, is trying to prove it caught and traded fish with other native groups before Europeans first arrived in what is now British Columbia.
But the Nuu-chah-nulth's claim of aboriginal title to onshore and offshore areas of Vancouver Island could have an impact beyond simply fishing rights, a spokeswoman for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans suggested.
The aboriginal commercial fishery — including sales to non-natives — continued until the Canadian government began restricting it in the late 19th century, the Nuu-chah-nulth contend.
The council now claims it effectively owned and controlled the waters adjacent to traditional Nuu-chah-nulth territory.
“This case is about our inherent right to fish,” said council vice-president Michelle Corfield. “It is about our right to catch, sell and participate in a fishing economy.”
The Nuu-chah-nulth will submit a variety of evidence, including accounts from early explorers and traders, government records and anthropological research, as well as witness testimony about the oral histories of the First Nation.
$1:
“It is a claim to ownership of the ocean out to the 200-mile limit,” he said.
IcedCap @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:04 am
guess they'll have to blockade the ocean now
ridenrain @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:07 am
I saw that this morning and found it quite troubling.
This is far beyond selling fish out of the trunk of a car.
I was going to say that I'm proud to see that BC leads Canada in resolving land claims issues, but this is a big turd in the punchbowl.
Robair @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:59 am
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
“This case is about our inherent right to fish,” said council vice-president Michelle Corfield. “It is about our right to catch, sell and participate in a fishing economy.”
Do they not have the right to participate in a conventional commercial fishery right now? What's stopping them?Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
“It is a claim to ownership of the ocean out to the 200-mile limit,” he said.
Sooo, traditionally they were fishing 200 miles off the coast before Europeans showed up???
BartSimpson @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:06 am
Looks like the Natives need another ass-kicking. Of course, it may just be cheaper to pacify them the old fashioned way:
ziggy @ Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:07 am
Hyack @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:06 am
$1:
The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, which includes 14 aboriginal communities on the west coast of Vancouver Island, is trying to prove it caught and traded fish with other native groups before Europeans first arrived in what is now British Columbia.
Let them have their fishery,If and only If,they use the same methods and gear their ancestors used.
![[flag]](./images/smilies/smilie_flag.gif "Canada Flag")
ridenrain @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:11 am
What, stolen shopping carts in creeks?
SireJoe @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:20 am
lol, that is just mean 
MissT @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:08 pm
I think that there is (unsurprisingly) much more to this story than the Globe is telling us here. It's not just about "greedy Natives claiming exclusive ownership to massive territory" as the article might suggest. I'm not full on the details of this case, but I believe that this might be a genuinely constructive effort to achieve a number of worthwhile goals which should benefit almost everyone.
I think this claim is an attempt to:
1) preserve massively threatened fish stocks from destruction by the big commercial fishing industry,
2) to protect the local fishing industry
3) and also to preserve the rights of the tribes that live in the area, to whom the fish are an important source of food and cultural practice.
I wouldn't be surprised if there has been quite a bit of agreement between environmental groups and native groups behind the scenes, who want to do something to hold back on the big destructive commercial fishing companies who are hoovering up the sea and leaving nothing for the smaller commercial and native fishing businesses. (Although there has also been in the past some disagreement between environmental groups or government departments, who while attempting to protect the oceans and stocks from any fishing at all, fail to recognise that native practices are much less destructive than large commercial fishing, and shoudl not necessarily be treated in the same way.)
This assertion of aboriginal fishing rights is a way to challenge the current fisheries management system, so I say, go for it. We surely need to try something.
BUT I readily admit that I don't know the details of this case, I'm just guessing that it's a similar situation to other cases that I have known of. If somebody else knows more, I'd be interested to hear.
Hyack @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:48 pm
$1:
This assertion of aboriginal fishing rights is a way to challenge the current fisheries management system, so I say, go for it. We surely need to try something
I agree go for it !
$1:
What, stolen shopping carts in creeks?
DUH
![[bash]](./images/smilies/bash.gif "Bash")
fatbasturd @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:52 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Looks like the Natives need another ass-kicking. Of course, it may just be cheaper to pacify them the old fashioned way:
ouch!
ziggy @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:55 pm
fatbasturd fatbasturd:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Looks like the Natives need another ass-kicking. Of course, it may just be cheaper to pacify them the old fashioned way:
ouch!
But I still laughed,must be all the mad magazines and national lampoons I read as a kid.Think I got PJ O Rourkes sense of humour.
fatbasturd @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:01 pm
ziggy ziggy:
fatbasturd fatbasturd:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Looks like the Natives need another ass-kicking. Of course, it may just be cheaper to pacify them the old fashioned way:
ouch!
But I still laughed,must be all the mad magazines and national lampoons I read as a kid.Think I got PJ O Rourkes sense of humour.
I didn't say it wasn't funny
ridenrain @ Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:10 pm
The fisheries on the west coast has been wasted by the feds but I can't see this helping. This is only on the minus side of the equation and more emphisis needs to be done on the plus side.
I have a problem with race based businesses, expecially when that gives them an unfair advantage. What do we do when indian bands lobby to take whales to sell to Asia, like they did before the white man?