33 replies to this topic

[MadocFlyGuy]

Everyone who's been around OFF for a while knows that I never chime in on things like this, and I'm cool with a good debate, but can we please refrain from blatant ignorance and gross generalizations like the sentence below? Growing up very close to a Native community, and having many friends with families that had to grow up with numerous difficulties that we cannot imagine, I find this to be offensive. I know this was not your intent, FF, but I'd appreciate if we kept this debate to fishing and facts, and keep OFF as a positive community for anyone.

 

TBH i don't believe natives in this area of Ontario are not struggling more or less than anyone else, the ones that are, are the ones too lazy to get off their butts and find work, theres lots of work available this time of year, especially in a rural area, lots of farmers need help getting their fields ready.  so sanctuaries, although part of their 'Native Treaty' should be off limits.

[FrequentFlyer]

not my intent at all, im well aware of other issues, growing in sarnia, just a short distance from kettle point and the infamous dudley george incident in the 90's.  some do struggle with drug and alcohol abuse, especially in northern areas.  point is, a sanctuary is a sanctuary, and no one should be able to fish it, regardless of status

[Shawarma]

FF, emotions aside, the treaty existed before that area was defined and deemed to be a sanctuary. So, in accordance to the law, their rights trump these rules put in place after the fact.

Even if they live like we do, surrounded by the things we hold sacred and value, it doesn't mean the natives see it the same. The outdoors is my hobby, my escape, my way to calming the nerves after a long stressful day/week at work. My love of fishing isn't culturally based where as there's a direct connection between the natives and their land.

Whether these fisherman see it that way or not isn't something any one of us is ever going to find out, but holistically, as the Native people, they do share that value. That alone necessitates the need for us to look at this situation differently.

It's extremely difficult to empathize in this situation if an individual hasn't had something sacred taken away and told to deal with it.

Had there been 100 natives lined up there, would I say the same thing? Yes. Without a doubt.

[creek chub in your pocket]

unless you are an animal you should respect the fisheries.

 

there are many, MANY other ways for humans to get food.

 

the only species getting screwed here is the fish, the animals were here before the natives, so why don't they "pull rank"? It's an excuse, every time.

[DILLIGAF?!]

When I first saw the headlines....

then found out who they were....

[creek chub in your pocket]

regardless of what skin colour or race, humans are humans.

 

respect is the key.

 

look at scugog, look at nippissing...look at the netting that takes place in the Thames River in London.

 

it disgusts me...rant complete hah

[creek chub in your pocket]

tossing iron: exactly, and if people continue to poach, net and ruin fisheries there will be no fish left to catch...that's my concern my friend.

 

we are always preaching to ensure proper releases, keeping the water clean, garbage off the shorelines, etc...that all means nothing if the fish are gone.

[NMCMLK]

I'm with Creek Chub on this one. It's only about preserving a healthy habitat and maintaining populations. 

Doesn't seem like they care about that. 

[bharkasaig]

I've been following this forum for a while but haven't joined until today. I joined to commend all of you for having a pretty civilized debate over something that can get nasty pretty quick.

 

I'd also like to throw in my three cents:

I work (sometimes) with First Nations west of Toronto in an industry where how and why they do things matter, so we talk about fishing and hunting. Those that do fish and hunt do so for a couple of reasons but the big two seem to be to get out an enjoy the sport and to help connect themselves to their culture. The first I'm pretty sure we all get. The second is more complex. It isn't just harvesting fish but harvesting them in certain ways and in certain times for certain purposes.

 

A harvest 'we' don't agree with may make more sense with some context.

 

As for Treaty Rights - it may seem 'unfair' that they are exercising and fulfilling treaty rights (they are two way deals). Keep in mind, however, that Canada has a poor reputation of upholding the other end of the deal and that these individuals may only be exercising the rights agreed to in exchange for settlers' rights to live here.

 

Finally, what if they were doing something wrong? What if they were not in compliance with their rights? What if they weren't fishing according to tradition? This is where I would say a partnership is needed. Going back to the people I have spoken to - to a person they are all conservationists and will call out those who abuse 'treaty rights' to fish or hunt illegally. Let the government police us, let them decide who polices them and how.

 

Think of it as three levels of fishing licence - conservation, sport, First Nation

[Rainbow]

We're not living in the 1600's. Everyone should be following the same laws in this day and age. 

[Will]

We're not living in the 1600's. Everyone should be following the same laws in this day and age. 

 

Agreed. It does seem like a stretch to consider driving a motorized vehicle to a stream stocked with fish from the West Coast of Canada as, "stemming from a custom, practice or tradition"....or at least pretty far removed from such a practice. On the other hand, I doubt the majority of well-meaning native people in that area are pleased that these guys are abusing the fishery. A couple of guys stretching (or breaking) some unique regulations allotted to aboriginal people is definitely bad for everyone.

[NMCMLK]

Well put bharkasaig, it does seem like we are missing some context here

[FrequentFlyer]

I've been following this forum for a while but haven't joined until today. I joined to commend all of you for having a pretty civilized debate over something that can get nasty pretty quick.

 

I'd also like to throw in my three cents:

I work (sometimes) with First Nations west of Toronto in an industry where how and why they do things matter, so we talk about fishing and hunting. Those that do fish and hunt do so for a couple of reasons but the big two seem to be to get out an enjoy the sport and to help connect themselves to their culture. The first I'm pretty sure we all get. The second is more complex. It isn't just harvesting fish but harvesting them in certain ways and in certain times for certain purposes.

 

A harvest 'we' don't agree with may make more sense with some context.

 

As for Treaty Rights - it may seem 'unfair' that they are exercising and fulfilling treaty rights (they are two way deals). Keep in mind, however, that Canada has a poor reputation of upholding the other end of the deal and that these individuals may only be exercising the rights agreed to in exchange for settlers' rights to live here.

 

Finally, what if they were doing something wrong? What if they were not in compliance with their rights? What if they weren't fishing according to tradition? This is where I would say a partnership is needed. Going back to the people I have spoken to - to a person they are all conservationists and will call out those who abuse 'treaty rights' to fish or hunt illegally. Let the government police us, let them decide who polices them and how.

 

Think of it as three levels of fishing licence - conservation, sport, First Nation

 

 

well firstly, welcome to the board.

 

i understand and respect all of this.  unfortunately, there are individuals that only have their status card to reap the benefits.