First Nation Salmon Fishery Investigation Focuses On Huge Illegal Sockeye Catch

Sockeye

First Posted: 01/09/12 05:53 PM ET Updated: 01/11/12 10:42 AM ET

VANCOUVER - A seafood company that prides itself on buying nothing but sustainable and legal fish says it has become a bycatch in an investigation into an alleged illegal First Nation salmon fishery.

Provincial court documents say the federal government is investigating the illegal catch of about 64,000 kilograms of prime sockeye salmon in the Johnstone Strait last August.

It's part of a wider investigation that a spokeswoman from the Department of Fisheries wouldn't elaborate on beyond saying no charges have yet been laid.

But the court documents show the Crown told the judge the investigation was extensive, involved more than one First Nation and concerned the various agreements between them and the federal government.

The documents show Pasco Seafood Enterprises Inc. purchased the fish last summer and began processing them. But Fisheries then seized 31 large totes of salmon saying it was illegally caught.

Pasco said in its statement it did everything by the book, checking the First Nations permit to fish and all other paper work authorizing the fishery.

"This case pertains to a dispute between the DFO and the First Nations band with regard to the interpretation of their fishing agreement," Pasco president Jason Ogilvie said in an email statement to The Canadian Press.

When the fish were being processed at the company's Richmond, B.C., plant, Fisheries officers inspected Pasco's paper and said it was complete and in order, Ogilvie said.

"But there was a question as to whether the First Nations band had the right to fish in the Johnstone Strait area."

An affidavit filed in provincial court by Fisheries officer Trevor Tomlin said the salmon were caught in a closed area and the fish harvesters didn't have a license to catch the fish.

The investigation came to light because Pasco asked the federal government to return seized documents and the $90,000 the government received from selling the salmon.

The government went to provincial court asking for a nine-month extension past the 90 days allowed to keep such evidence and proceeds.

In his ruling, Judge Dennis Schmidt extended the time for retention of the documents, but said he had no jurisdiction to extend the detention of the $90,000 proceeds being held by the Receiver General.

In the background of the judgment, Schmidt said the investigation involved an agreement signed last July between the federal government and some First Nations around an economic opportunity fishery.

His ruling said the unnamed First Nation conducted the fishery in the Johnstone Strait a month later and fisheries officers believe the salmon was caught illegally.

Kirsten Ruecker, communications advisor with the Department of Fisheries, could only say the issue remains under investigation. She wouldn't name the First Nations being investigated.

Ogilvie said Pasco's actions have not been called into question by DFO.

"In all circumstances, Pasco Seafood conducted its business wholly above board and acted with due diligence to ensure that all proper documents and permits required were in place for the purchases of this sockeye salmon from a First Nations economic opportunity fishery."

That fishery is different from food, social and ceremonial fishery B.C. First Nations rely on for their own use. The economic opportunity fishery allows First Nations to take part in a commercial fishery and sell the fish.

Todd Gerhart, a lawyer with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, also wouldn't reveal details of the case, but confirmed it is appealing the judge's ruling over the order to return the $90,000.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

VANCOUVER - A seafood company that prides itself on buying nothing but sustainable and legal fish says it has become a bycatch in an investigation into an alleged illegal First Nation salmon fishery.P...
VANCOUVER - A seafood company that prides itself on buying nothing but sustainable and legal fish says it has become a bycatch in an investigation into an alleged illegal First Nation salmon fishery.P...
Filed by Christian Cotroneo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 66
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
chuck nathaniel
Your micro-bio is pending approval
08:03 PM on 01/11/2012
How predictable. Hp commenters falling over themselves trying to justify illegal, unsustainable practices by native bands.

Take the same amount of fish, illegally harvested by a non-native corporation and these same commenters would be railing against it.
12:14 PM on 01/10/2012
Who really owns the fish? We can babble on about treaties till we're blue in the face and call all manner of laws down on our aboriginal people but it won't erase the fact that we're just jealous that they had the brass to do it in their own country.
When you see a dragger dumping up to ten tons of fish because they're out of season or not on the 'designer' fish table then tell me about the tiny amount our native peoples take. I'v been out fishing in BC and seen it for myself eh.
In Europe a Hake is dinner but on this spoiled coast we toss them overboard. If a shark comes through the pin rollers we kill it and heave it. Time to take a real close look in the mirror and ask our conscience if we are as superior as we think? The larger fish companies can it all for export and we get the dregs anyway, you see folks its all about MONEY.
Time we all washed our hands eh.
Awake O Canada
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
09:40 PM on 01/10/2012
“First Nations are being allocated fishing rights not because of their race but because their fisheries were wrongfully appropriated …
If a First Nation is recognized as having fishing rights above and beyond the food fishery it will be because it has either established a constitutional right to such a fishery in court (as the Heiltsuk have done with respect to the commercial herring spawn-on-kelp fishery) or because it has negotiated such rights as a side agreement to a treaty.
Either way, historical entitlement is the basis of the agreement, not “race,” because simply being “Indian” is not enough. An aboriginal person who is not a member of the treaty group can no more participate in a treaty fishery without permission than a non-aboriginal person can.
Surely there is something very unfair about taking property away from people because of their race and then arguing that it is racist to give it back.”

http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/?id=1072
02:41 PM on 01/11/2012
Yes and not much will change until every Canadian is aware of the truth.
09:06 AM on 01/10/2012
Human greed will deplete all the fish.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
09:38 PM on 01/10/2012
Indigenous fishing techniques were not only highly productive, but the timing and level of harvest was carefully regulated through systems of what we today would call “resource management.” Specialized technologies and processing techniques were developed to deal with very large quantities of fish. For example, in 1904 the federal fisheries officer for the Upper Skeena reported that the Babine were catching 500 to 600 salmon a day in their weir fishery, and that they had caught 750,000 salmon that year.8 One anthropologist estimated the annual pre-contact level of salmon consumption at 1,000 pounds per capita; with an immediate pre-contact Stó:lō population of 20,000 to 60,000 people, between 4 million and 12 million salmon would have been consumed annually, and this does not include fish harvested for trade, or for ceremonial purposes.9 Given these large harvests, why did depletion not occur?

http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/?id=1072

9 David A. Smith, “Salmon Populations and the Sto:lo Fishery,” in A Sto:lo Coast Salish Historical Atlas, ed. Keith Thor Carlson. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2001. 120.
08:39 AM on 01/10/2012
Is this the same DFO that hid the virus for 25 years? They are a sour inbred beauracracy that needs fixing.
08:15 AM on 01/10/2012
In my part of the country, I have seen one hunter with 52 moose-one for each week of the year, and watched the reserve natives do massive damage to the local salmon fishery, then wave treaties in peoples faces when they try and complain about it. They illegally gill-net salmon, overfish the lobster fishery by not giving them time to recover and hunt WAY more than they can consume.

There needs to be conservation by EVERYONE as nature does not recognize treaties or money.

By the way....I have a native background.
08:42 AM on 01/10/2012
Sounds like they have learned greed from the invaders. They could now qualify to run the oil industry in Canada.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
09:35 PM on 01/10/2012
...the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the salmon, and sidestep important questions of Indigenous rights, Indigenous economies, and Indigenous histories (including the history of Indigenous-settler relations in the fisheries). Indigenous peoples are not “stakeholders;” they have conducted their traditional fisheries since time immemorial, and Indigenous harvesting practices have special status under Canadian law. For many thousands of years, Indigenous communities successfully managed the fishery without the help of the Canadian state. Most importantly, Indigenous peoples never gave up the right to manage the fisheries for their own benefit, which includes, but is not limited to, food, social and ceremonial purposes. For Indigenous peoples on the coast and far into the interior, salmon has always been a source of food, wealth, and trade, and is intricately tied to their continued existence as Indigenous peoples.

In this section, we will examine how the “food fishery” came to be, and how it has worked to conserve salmon for the benefit of the non-Native industrial fishery. We will explore how Indigenous fisheries management was replaced with state regulation, and the circumstances Indigenous fishers must still navigate in order to harvest fish from their ancestral fishing grounds: declining runs, increasing competition from sports and non-Native commercial fisheries,... As part of our look at the rise of the food fishery and the difficulties Indigenous peoples face in gaining recognition of the right to sell fish commercially, ...

http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/?id=1072
08:33 AM on 01/11/2012
Not trying to be a troll here, but Sorry Donna...having seen a camp with 52 moose heads stuffed on a wall-one for each week of that year, there is not a study in the world that you can give me that will compel me to change my mind. I have seen the gill nets, the freezers full of deer meat and wild caught salmon for sale, the clear-cut un-replaced forests, and the extra lobster traps.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opprobrious
More speech. Less Flagging.
02:13 AM on 01/10/2012
I have zero faith that the west coast salmon fishery is being managed any better than the east coast cod fishery was. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
02:12 AM on 01/10/2012
"Ex-advisor " Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's former campaign manager and chief of staff, received a lot of media criticism for saying that political attack ads don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ejais
05:07 AM on 01/10/2012
remembered an old saying...a poor politician is a poor politician.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
08:50 AM on 01/10/2012
Flanagan, although he later apologized, said that Julian Assange should be assassinated. The Calgary Police Service "investigated" and decided that charges wouldn't be laid.
The man is a disgrace to this country and an embarrassment to the University of Calgary.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
06:34 PM on 01/10/2012
Are you suprised: that Tom advocates a similar action towards a threat to the ruling political order? that Stephen Harper and his ilk govern as they do and do not allow their members free speech? that they refuse to be held openly accountable to the citizens?
There is danger in having our politicos rule by right of might, right here in Canada.

http://newspaperrock.bluecorncomics.com/2010/12/conservatives-hate-wikileaks-and.html

http://myblahg.com/?p=5020

http://myblahg.com/?cat=17

Update: The conservative solution to Aboriginal land claims seems to be to encourage them to sell off the rest of their land.

Guess what? The Conservatives want us to “sell” our homeland to help us get out of the poverty they’ve put us into. That’s what would-be comedian Tom “who’s-a-scalawag-like-his-zero-hero-Sir-Walter-Raleigh” Flanagan, a University of Calgary professor, said recently on the CBC. Did he ask us? No. “Selling reserve land could help solve poverty”, he said.

I wonder if Flanagan also thinks some firewater and beads would be a fair price.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/walking-talk/aboriginal-issues-and-culture

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/362/aand/evidence/ev1039822/aandev14-e.htm

UBC: Books:::https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/2429/568/1/Trade_S05.pdf
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
02:08 AM on 01/10/2012
"Canada will issue licences under similar conditions to commercial fishing licences.

· The provincial government supports fisheries arrangements as part of treaties that reflect the following objectives:

· a fishery that is accessible to all British Columbians;

· equitable fishing arrangements for all participants; and

· an integrated and effective management regime across all sectors that is capable of ensuring the sustainability of the resource and economic viability of the industry. "
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
01:49 AM on 01/10/2012
The following cases provide further discussion on the jurisdictional powers of the Federal and Provincial governments with respect to aboriginal issues:

Thomas Paul v. B.C. (Forest Appeals Commission and Attorney General and Minister of Forests) and Council of Forest Industries [January 2001] (B.C. Court of Appeal)
B.C. (Ministry of Forests) v. Jules (Adams Lake Band et al) and Wilson (Okanagan Indian Band et al) [November 2001] (B.C. Court of Appeal)
Kitkatla v. B.C. (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture) [2002] Supreme Court of Canada)
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. Ringstad et al - B.C. (EAO et al) and Redfern Resources Ltd. [2002] (BC Court of Appeal) and
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. Ringstad et al - B.C. (EAO et al) and Redfern Resources Ltd. [2004] (Supreme Court of Canada)
Haida Nation v. B.C. and Weyerhaeuser [February 2002] (BC Court of Appeal) and
Haida Nation v. B.C. and Weyerhaeuser [June 2002] (BC Court of Appeal) and
Haida First Nation v. BC and Weyerhaeuser [Nov. 2004] (Supreme Court of Canada)
2007 BCSC 1722 Cook v. The Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
01:48 AM on 01/10/2012
Jurisdictional Issues

The relationship between federal and provincial authority is very complex. The following discussion provides a very general overview of some key jurisdictional issues.
Federal authority for Aboriginal peoples comes from section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which gives the Parliament of Canada the legislative authority over "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians." The scope of federal authority is very wide, and includes authority over matters that would otherwise be in the legislative authority of the provinces.
Provincial laws that attempt to regulate Indians in an area of exclusive federal authority are invalid. However, provincial laws that fall short of invading the area of exclusive federal authority may apply to Indians. Provincial laws of general application that do invade the area of exclusive federal jurisdiction may be incorporated into federal law through section 88 of the Indian Act. However, if these general application laws are inconsistent with another federal law, the federal law is paramount.
Under section 109 of the Constitution Act, 1867, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html the Province has ownership of the lands of British Columbia. aboriginal title is a burden that rests upon Crown title. All aboriginal rights are under exclusive federal authority and only the federal government has jurisdiction to accept a surrender or to extinguish those rights. However, provinces can infringe aboriginal rights as long as such infringements can be justified under the Sparrow test.
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
01:47 AM on 01/10/2012
Halfway River First Nation v. B.C. (1999, BC Court of Appeal)
Lax Kw'alaams v. British Columbia (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management) (2002, BC Supreme Court)
Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) (2001, Federal Court of Canada)
Musqueam Indian Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management), 2005 BCCA 128
Musqueam Indian Band et al v. City of Richmond et al, 2005 BCSC 1069
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. Ringstad et al (2004, Supreme Court of Canada)
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. Ringstad et al. (2002, BC Court of Appeal)
Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
01:47 AM on 01/10/2012
Consultation

The following are recent cases from the British Columbia Supreme Court and British Columbia Court of Appeal that discuss when consultation is necessary and the scope of consultation required:

Gitanyow First Nation vs. B.C. [December 31 2004] (BC Supreme Court)
Homalco First Nation v. B.C. (Min. of Agriculture, Food & Fish) (December 24 2004] (BC Supreme Court)
Squamish Nation v. B.C. (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management et al) [September 2004] (B.C Supreme Court)
Haida Nation v. B.C. and Weyerhaeuser [February 2002] (BC Court of Appeal) and
Haida Nation v. B.C. and Weyerhaeuser [June 2002] (BC Court of Appeal) and
Haida First Nation v. BC and Weyerhaeuser [Nov. 2004] (Supreme Court of Canada)
Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. (Ringstad et al) [June 2002] and (BC Court of Appeal)
CCAA and Skeena Cellulose, et. al. v. Minister of Forests of the Province of British Columbia, et. al. 2002 BCSC 597
Taku River Tlingit FN v. B.C. (EAO et al) [Nov 2004] (Supreme Court Canada)
Apsassin et al (Salteau FN) v. BC Oil and Gas Com. et al [January 2004] BCSC 92
Apsassin et al (Salteau FN) v. BC Oil and Gas Com. et al [April 2004] BCCA 240
Apsassin et al (Salteau FN) v. BC Oil and Gas Com. et al [May 2004] BCCA 286
Relentless Energy Corporation v. Davis et al (Blueberry band members) [Nov. 2004] BCSC 1492
Gitanyow, Lax Kwa'allams et al v. BC (Min. of Forests, et al) & Skeena Cellulose [2002]
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
01:46 AM on 01/10/2012
Treaty Rights Although the majority of First Nations in Canada have treaties with the federal or federal and provincial governments, British Columbia is unique among Canadian jurisdictions in that it has very few treaties. While there are some 200 Indian bands in British Columbia, there are currently only three sets of treaties:

Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement
Maa-Nulth First Nations Final Agreement
Treaty 8
Douglas Treaties
Nisga'a Treaty
Donna Meness
www.findmaisyandshannon.com
01:45 AM on 01/10/2012
Aboriginal Rights Because section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides general protection but does not define or set out particular aboriginal rights, the courts have established tests for proving aboriginal rights. The courts have also established tests for proving aboriginal title (a sub-category of aboriginal rights, which, if proven, provides an Aboriginal people with the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land in question) and for justifying infringements of aboriginal rights.
The following cases deals with these tests:

R. v. Van der Peet (1996, Supreme Court of Canada)
R. v. Sparrow (1990, Supreme Court of Canada)
Mitchell v. Ministry of National Revenue (M.N.R). (2001, Supreme Court of Canada)
R. v. Gladstone (1996, Supreme Court of Canada)
Calder v. B.C. (Attorney General) [1973] (Supreme Court of Canada)
Delgamuukw v. B.C. (Attorney General [1997], Supreme Court of Canada)
R. v. Sappier; R. v. Gray (2006 Supreme Court of Canada)
R. v. Morris (2006 Supreme Court of Canada)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mythoughts808
01:31 AM on 01/10/2012
So what did they do with the fish they seized? I hope they at least gave it to people who would have prepared it and ate it, and not wasted it. It makes me hungry for fish.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ejais
05:13 AM on 01/10/2012
didnt you read......the govt sold it for 90 000........lol. makes me wonder why they are going after this company. They wont name FN however they have no problem smearing the company that traded with the FN. It smacks to much of the bs the govt did against anyone who sold or bought anything from natives for agriculture. Govt. admitted they feared while they wanted the natives to be independant they did not want them to be successful so they started imposing regulations on who,what,when and how much can be sold or bought from natives. Louis O'Soup was a great advocator for native farmers and the laws preventing successful relationship between native and non native farmers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
08:46 AM on 01/10/2012
The feds have pulled this crap before...selling fish to somebody's buddy who owns a processor.

Any authority body, like customs, fisheries, and police, attract much more than their fair share of power-trippers. No matter how they try to weed them out, even a few getting through and getting promoted makes a mess.