Periodical
Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs – Fish and Indians are Inseparable (December, 1978)
- Title
- Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs – Fish and Indians are Inseparable (December, 1978)
- Is Part Of
- 1.06-01.03 Nesika: UBCIC News
- 1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series
- Date
- December 1978
- volume
- 1
- issue
- 8
- Language
- english
- Identifier
- 1.06-01.03-02.12
- pages
- 28
- Table Of Contents
-
Agenda 2
Editorial 4
Fishing: River and Seas Perspectives 6
Declaration of Our Fishing Rights 8
President's Message 9
Rights and Responsibilities 11
Fighting Back Through the Courts 12
Our Rights Cannot Be Limited 13
Federal Fisheries Discredits Indian Fishing Rights 17
Irresponsible Exploitation Kills Fish 19
Our Fishing Rights Have Never Been Surrendered 22
Gathering Indian Wisdom 25
Fish Forum, 1977 26 - Contributor
- Lilian Basil
- Type
- periodical
- Transcription (Hover to view)
-
UNION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN CHIEFS
_ DECEMBER, 1978 PRICE: 75 CENTS
~ FISH AND INDIANS
ARE INSEPARABLE
1978 FISH FORUM
“INDIAN FISHING RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES”’
The THEME of this year’s provincial fish forum is “INDIAN FISHING RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILI-
TIES.”
The PURPOSE is for the workshops to come up with specific recommendations on how to deal with some
of the major issues we will be confronted with next year. We are also using it as a basis to collect ideas and
information to begin a direction paper on Indian fishing. This concensus, through the Fish Forum, regional,
district and band workshops and meetings about the direction B.C. Indian Governments (Band Councils)
intend to go on the fishing concerns, will be presented to appropriate Federal Cabinet Ministers and officials
of government by the UBCIC next spring in Ottawa.
Another purpose of the forum is to follow up from the December 1977 Fish Forum. Only this time,
neither the Federal Fisheries Department not any major speakers will be involved in the forum.
The specific objectives are to plan ways to strengthen Indian Government in respect of Indian fishing
issues.
1. Indian control of Indian fishing.
2. Effective involvement of Indian people, especially our Indian expertise in the management and devel-
opment of Indian fisheries.
We hope that the fish forum will be useful and helpful to you. Without your input it becomes harder to
develop strategy, goals or objectives in the struggle for our fighing rights.
PROPOSED ae
Teddy Seward.
AGEN DA #3.Salmonid Enhancement Program
Chairpeople: Tommy Sampson
Walt Taylor.
Thursday 14th:
0900 - 0930 Chairman: Gordy Antoine | Friday 15th: Plenary at the Viking Hall
Opening Prayers: Dave Elliott
0900 - 0930 Opening remarks: George Manuel 0930-1000 Coffee Break
1000 - 1030 Introduction of Chairpeople and plan of 1000-1200 Review of Recommendations from
the forum. workshops
1 - 104 Coffee
=. , ae om 1200 - 1:00 Lunch will be served
1100-1145 Showing of UBCIC Fishing Films:
1) We'll Do Our Fishing — Mount Currie. 1:00 - 3:30 Plenary Session
2) Sinumwak —Bella Coola oolichan run.
[SESE
1145-1215 Report on current Fishing activities.
1215 - 1:30 Lunch Break 4:00 - 7:30 Open House
1:30 - 5:00. Workshops Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
#1.Strategy of the Federal Fisheries Dept. 440 West Hastings Street )
Chairpeople: Saul Terry Vancouver, B.C.
Mary Louise Williams Phone: 684-0231
se rte
_ There are so many people interested and concerned that our fishing rights and resources are being de-
stroyed. We felt we should encourage people by attempting this magazine on fishing. It is the beginning of
sharing knowledge, experiences, and concerns on our fishing.
Hopefully in a few months we will have enough input from people all over B.C. to share the responsibil-
ties of protecting our fishing rights and resources. We can especially share the knowledge of our many experts
on fishing in our communities.
e
INSIDE:
Agenda ..... A Ged earn ee ge eee See etal a atk ss Wis Oo Poet rck ee ae Pe el Cee eae 2
Editorial ..... peasy eee le crt sts tea ea piece Ey PE ihe a RAR te tee Cee 4
Fishing: River and Seas Perspectives .............0.2.000%. fb eae ets 2 fe ee ee ore eee 6
Declaration of Our Fishing Rights..................... iets ie be scat sawed a sas Osis 2 gm 8
Presicents Message. rr. . os ees ewer pred, Kia Tare es eae a Vee ee Pt eer eae eee
Rights and Responsibilities ......... Ry ee eee eer a ast ie igs eee Se es Gy ee ene ot a tae phan 11
Fighting Back Through the Courts ...... i ewe ew 6 ate ake Sele ae Nes Recents ere na 12
Our Rights Cannot Be Limited ........ Ciewiane's an ota se we Me Moh ee elec sa ern Mae ae ee ee 13
Federal Fisheries Discredits Indian Fishing Rights............ ty ed ees Ree eee eee 17
Irresponsible Exploitation Kills Fish... .... res eee Waa MRE eres Ce ree eas kas at cee atee 19
Our Fishing Rights Have Never Been Surrendered............ Dam see woh ea eh as hate e Cron eae 22
Serer, WIRIOM .. i ijca.t es 5 Pee dev oe ee ce ee Schoey wey ate ees eee eee 25
Rem AT Pe en PAREN granaMnens tasty ede ea pe Pe wee oe ae seas Sao eae 26
EDITORIAL |
Fish is the strength and food of our people as
well as the spiritual tie to the mother earth. The
_ governments are in many ways implementing
policies to take all our fishing rights away from us
as well as destroying the fishery and marine resou-
ces through mis-management.
This is what our people have been saying for the
last hundred years. . . ‘For thousands of years, we
have depended on the powers of the waters to pro-
vide food to.Indian people along the river systems
and the coastal areas. Abalone, clams, crabs, oysters,
seaweed, kelp, whale, sealion, sea urchins, cockles,
mussels, sea-prunes, and many different species of
fish have been very important to our Indian way of
life throughout the centuries.”’
. “History shows that we have never surren-
dered our lands and resources; legally and morally,
the lands, the salmon and the marine resources
should be held under Indian responsibility and con-
trol.”” Indian people consistently face extremely
hard struggles in determining the means and ways of
protecting our fishing rights. To ensure that there is
no further depletion of our great resources. Over
the years we have become so confused through the
forced and very deliberate attempt by Government
to do away with our rights to the lands, resources
and our right to govern ourselves. Dave Elliott from
Saanich is telling us something when he says:
“So we talk about our problems and ways to
solve them. You have to re-awaken your pride in
yourself. Our pride has been killed, destroyed. . .
So many things have happened and been done to
us. They have taken one right after another. Be-
fore the whiteman came we lived in a disease free
environment. The diseases came one after another.
It almost wiped our people out. Damn near it.
Thousands of people died, we had no immunity to
these diseases because our country was a disease
free environment.
To survive you have to know what happened
to your people, you have to know your old values,
the knowledge of your past, your culture, your
history. You have to understand your own history,
know where you are coming from, when the diseases
hit our people, our people couldn’t organize because
they were fighting for their survival. You have to
know this in order to take control of your own lives.
So I say probably the most important thing is to
take control of your education and do it as quickly
as you can, before your old people disappear. . .”
Looking back on our history, it becomes clear’
Our sea-resources are not only threatened with
enforced regulations by the Federal Fisheries, but
also by industrial wastes.
that right from the beginning, there was a deliber-
ate plan to wipe out the rights of Indian people.
In 1914 people were already facing problems with
the government. At a meeting with the Royal
Commission on Indian Affairs, Indian people were
stating. . . “There used to be lots of halibut out here
off the banks, and the American schooners have
been going out there, and have been getting rid of all
the fish that used to be out there; and still the Japa-
nese come closer into the shore. )
The Indians do not get enough halibut; the depre-
dations by the Americans and Japanese are cutting
down the number of fish which we used to catch.
You will now see the two rivers from which we get
our living. The rivers are not big enough. There is
just room enough for the Indians. We want to get
authority from the Government to stop the white
men from fishing there. You will see that we can-
not do any farming here, so that fishing is the only
thing which we do. If the white people should get
started out on the river they would clean it out in
five days as the rivers are not large.”’
In 1915 Indian people were telling the Royal
Commission that: “I use the creek for a fishing sta-
tion, and that is how I make my living. I want to
say a few words in regard to the fish in that creek.
When I go to catch fish in that creek sometimes a
little trouble occurs. When I go to catch fish in that
creek the Fishery Inspector gets after me, for
catching fish in that creek. . . There is a certain
party, a white man, that has a license — it’s a sockeye
creek, and the white man uses that creek and I can-
not use it as I want to.
. . . ROBINSON, a white man, was using a net,
and he catches all the fish at the mouth of th
creek, and when this poor man goes out to catch
fish he gets into trouble.”
In 1915 people continue to state to the Royal
Commission: “We used to get our meat, ducks and
fish, out in this lake — Sumas Lake — and on the
vairie. We go out on the Fraser and catch our
sh, and we go out on the mountains on each side
of the lake and get all the meat we want. If I take
my gun and go out there is always someone to
round me up and have me arrested. If I go out and
catch a fish the policeman comes out after me with
a gun,”
We don’t have to say who is responsible: we all
know. Old people are seriously cautioning us in
various ways not to allow ourselves to become to-
tally assimilated, because if we allow ourselves to
become swallowed up by the larger society, we
become extinct as a race of people. Brown in
_colour with our minds controlled by the exploit-
ers of our country, successful in their destruction
of the first people of this land.
We are fortunate the heartbeat of our people is
becoming stronger, re-awakening our values and con-
sistently resisting the government’s attempt to
totally assimilate or wipe out Indian people.
It is important to keep in mind what Saul Terry
said, “‘As long as we native Indians have a heritage
that we are proud of, as long as we have traditions
that we are proud of, and as long as we have our
hereditary rights, especially fishing rights, we will
protect everything we have and we will strongly
protest any more impositions regarding these
rights.”
Indians and fish are inseparable.
fish is thestrength bs
and food of our people
5. Basil
en Shee A
d by Federal Fishe
es
oat
Our rivers are threatene
ries mis-management and
2 7 F
es . %
SEA & RIVER PERSPECTIVES
ee Oe Fe tet ee a
=
FISHING
| The ocean and the streams, lakes and rivers of this
province provide us with our spiritual tie with the
earth, and allow us to eat the same foods of the sea
as our ancestors did before the white people travelled
to our land.
Our people on the coast and our people in the
interior depend on fish and shellfish and other marine
| life for the bulk of our diet. Just as important, we.
need this marine life to ensure that the delicate re-
lationship we have always had with the earth is not
damaged.
Greedy fishing companies at the beginning of the
| century blamed us for the depletion of the fish stocks.
| Today, some sports fishermen and the commercial
| fishing industry blame us for the continued depletion |
of fish stocks. We are not guilty today, and we were
not at fault yesterday.
We would not destroy a part of our life that we ©
have always depended on, and that we cherish as part
of our rich heritage.
We must continue to fight for the aboriginal
fishing right that has always been ours, so that our
| children will know that their culture and their Oy
is the one that will never die.
Thee
Like any other part of British Columbia, the Pa-
“cific Coast is beautiful, with the huge Pacific Ocean
-and the endless seashores and beautiful forests.
~ ‘ Seems like such a long time ago that I was home in
-Friendly Cove. Oh, how I get so homesick for the
~peacefulness and serenity of the coast.
* Yet the stormy moods of the sea can come so sud-
edenly. I wonder how many of us think about the
scrashing waves of the sea on the shore, or-that some-
“times eerie sad-sounding foghorn. But I’m glad that
Foghorn i is there to help the fishermen home from a
“very long day out on the ocean.
I wonder how many of us miss the lifestyle we
“grew up in: listening to the old people speaking in
«Indian; talking about the whaling days; or when
“our people travelled to Neah Bay, or up north to the
“Queen Charlotte Islands or to Nimpkish
oe
a
7)
gs
7.
A
When was it, we picked firewood along the beaches
for our grandmothers, grandfathers or parents and
‘their smoke houses — preparing our smoked and dried
fish for the long cold winter months? When did we
last go out to pick the wild berries that complemented
our seafood meals? Do you remember when your
family got on a boat and travelled for an hour or two
to the next village to visit your relatives? Those days
seem so long ago.
Remember when you used to see halibut as a
child? Today you are lucky if you see one.
Remember when you used to eat a lot of sea-lion,
duck, oolichan grease and seaweed?
The summer months were especially fun because
you went to hunt for abalone, sea-urchins, sea-prunes
and other shellfish. And then there were the times you
waited for your Dad or brother to bring home clams,
crabs or oysters.
How our lifestyle has changed. So many of us are
urbanized now.
For centuries and centuries our people depended
and relied on the resources of the sea. Today villages
all along the coast are familiar with some form of
threat to their traditional lifestyle. A community
proud to have a small fleet of boats destroyed by the
bankruptcy of a fish company; a community that
relied on the gardens of the sea now surrounded by
mills; a community of people whose heart belongs at
sea and now must depend on logging and pulp mills
for employment.
So many things are happening to our people. Com-
munities are experiencing the damages to the fishery
resources from mines and pulp mills along the coast in
communities like Gold River, Nanaimo, Duncan,
Campbell River, Squamish, Prince Rupert; and Powell
River. We have experienced the exploitation of the
fishery resources by the foreign-owned fish companies
and super-technology and mismanagement of the De-
partment of Fisheries.
| We are hearing about the exploitation, licensing
and quotas of shellfish food fishing.
People are making decisions and policies for
Indian people at a level we don’t understand. We are
ontrolled by the Department of Fisheries and the
Jepartment of Indian Affairs.
At one time, we had our own governing author-
ities; today it isn’t recognized. Our forms. of govern-
ment through the potlatch and klukwanna were nearly
destroyed by the federal government’s ban on our
traditional ways.
We want to assert control over our own lives, to
once more have a say in the management of our re-
sources, which our people were taught to respect.
The resources of the sea are too valuable to be
destroyed. And many of you who are still home on
the coast are so lucky to be home, to do all those
things so many of us dream of.
The beautiful coast where the people of Nucha-
tilitz, Skidegate, Oweekeno, Masset, Ahousat, Bella
Coola, Kyuquot, Nitinaht, Tstarlip, Albert Bay, King-
come, Hartley Bay and all the other villages still live:
You are fortunate not to have your lifestyle totally
changed. These are the words of so many of us who
wish we were home and yearn for a taste ot tish. .. .
continued page 10
FISHING DECLARATION
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs declaration for
fan Intercultural Collaboration between the Fisher-
fj ies Department and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
| for the benefit of all concerned Canadians is a must]
| that can no longer be ignored by the Canadian
| people.
Healthy fish reproduction and conservation are
the number one priorities for both the Fisheries,
Department and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.
The membership of the Union depends heavily on
the salmon population for the survival of our peo-
ple.
Each of these two organizations has a large num-
ber of fishing specialists. Those in the Fisheries
| Department gained their knowledge and wisdom
| mainly through academic training and personal
| experience. Most of the Indian experts acquired
their understanding of fish reproduction and conser-
vation from the accumulated wisdom and experi-
ence of earlier generations of Indian people who
mm have been fishing and learning in these same waters}
for some 9,000 years.
= Both kinds of expertise are valid, although in
fj some respects very different. Under modern condi-
| tions neither Indian nor Fisheries experts can do as
well alone as both could do working together and
fj complementing each other.
There have been occasions when Indian expert
™ advice has been ignored in favour of more “‘sophis-
im ticated,” “scientific” recommendations — but with
disastrous results. On the other hand there can be
| no doubt of the value of modern biological and ecol-
ogical science in planning the best ways to protect
| fish reproduction in B.C. waters for future genera-
tions as well as our own.
Both Indian and Fisheries experts lack confi-
dence and trust in each other. A deliberate, well-
planned mutual education program could overcome
| this skepticism and improve the expert qualities of
| both Indian and non-Indian fishing specialists.
| A major benefit from such a program would be
| a significant reduction in the money, time, person-
nel and hostility which is now being wasted on
efforts to accomplish by aggressive and sometimes
| futile enforcement what could so easily be achieved
through mutual understanding, cooperative research
and effective public education.
During the past half year the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs has made three attempts to work with
the Fisheries Department by submitting proposals
for cooperative projects to advance mutually desir-
able priorities: First, conservation and reproduction
| of fish; second Indian food fishing, and third com-
mercial and sports fishing.
Although we have received no funds or funding
encouragement from the Fisheries Department, we
have made substantial progress, under the direction}
of the Band Councils (Indian Governments) toward
a renewed emphasis on Indian fishing responsibili-
ties to match our concern for Indian fishing rights.
Some of the recent efforts by Indian Band
Councils to strengthen fish conservation and repro-
duction in their reserve waters have been misunder-
stood and very hastily misinterpreted to the general
public. |
In order to decrease the mistrust and the hostil
ities between Indian and Fisheries experts and to
develop mutual understanding and appreciation)
between Indian and non-Indian fishing people, we
need a solid base of well-documented facts. Wel
have to replace misinformation, misunderstanding
and misinterpretation with facts and arrange for
them to be shared with the Canadian public effec-
tively.
We are in the process of working out new pro+
posals with the focus on research, education and
conservation/reproduction. Our research wi
emphasize an Indian approach to fishing rights and
fishing responsibilities that will benefit fish, India
and, in fact all Canadians who are genuinely con
cerned about protecting our great fishing resources
and the legitimate fishing rights of both Indian and
non-Indian people. ‘
Our studies will provide a solid factual base for
two urgently needed projects. The first will be a
creative public education program on B.C. Indian
fishing rights and responsibilities. The second will
be a renewal of Indian fishing expertise geared to)
the conditions of modern life, but rooted in the ex-
perience, the wisdom and the spirit of ancient tra-
ditional fishing people.
George Manuel, President
UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS
CHIEFS COUNCIL
August, 1978
PRESIDENT’S
MESSAGE
December 8, 1978
On April 19th, 1978 at Penticton B.C., at the
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs Annual General Assem-
bly, I declared the Federal Fisheries Department the
B.C. Indians’: ENEMY NUMBER ONE. The Indian
Chiefs and other Indian leaders at the Assembly
supported my declaration.
I declared the Fisheries Department ENEMY
NUMBER ONE because (A) Fisheries enforcement
officers were treating my people in the same way
the Germans treated the Jews in the Second World
War. (B) I made submission to the Fisheries depart-
ment offering discussions and negotiations on how
the Indians should be involved in the conservation
management of salmon and other seafoods, in the
interests of protecting our Indian Food Fishing
Rights. This offer was made in a spirit of good will.
But no co-operation was made by the Fisheries
‘Department. In fact, they totally ignored our pro-
posal. 3
Instead they made every effort to undermine the
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs by using the age-old
European. method of.divide and conquer. They
went to individual Indian leaders and Bands to try
and make separate deals to persuade our people to
work with them and against our Provincial Indian
Organization. But our Indian leaders and Bands
have gotten wise to these old tricks. Some pre-
tended to co-operate with them, some boldly re-
sisted their Nazi German methods.
On the issue of Indian Fishing Rights the Indians
of B.C. stand in SOLIDARITY. The Fisheries
Department is still our ENEMY NUMBER ONE
until they have shown good faith to co-operate
with our declaration on Indian Fishing Rights.
The B.C. Wildlife Federation and the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs have formalized our working rela-
tionship through a Working Committee to examine
ways to protect our fish as a valuable resource. We
are involved in protection of fish, through our
mutual concerns and co-operation.
The United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union
(U.F.A.W.U.) are working with us; I had the privi-
lege of addressing their membership and am encour-
aged by the support and concern of B.C.’s commer-
cial fishermen.
photo: S. Basil
We welcome the spirit of good-will shown by the
B.C.W.L.F. and the U.F.A.W.U. and the other
friends who support and are prepared to work with
us to work out ways to protect and enhance our
fish population.
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has an open-door
policy to all those people that are interested in
protecting and enhancing our fish population and in
defending our Indian Fishing Rights.
Our door will always be open to the Fisheries
Department if they choose to co-operate. If they
choose to continue to fight us for the purposes of
expropriating our Fishing Rights, then I will con-
tinue to declare them our ENEMY NUMBER ONE
and I will muster all the political force that I can to
fight the Fisheries Department.
a ee oe
2 gt
To the people along the Fraser,
the River is a Provider.
It provides us with
Fish and is a way of
Life.
Everyone looks forward to
the salmon runs
From the ocean to the spawning grounds,
Hundreds of miles upstream.
The Stuart Run is the
First and the best in the Fraser
and this run
is also the biggest.
The fish are canned or,
in this day and age,
Some are frozen for the winter.
Salmon is a nutrition for
All our people
and can be eaten in many ways.
The work is hard from dawn ’til dusk,
Preparing enough fish for the
Long winter months
to feed the big families. | Miles around, to get salmon to
One person will not go to the river Provide for their families.
and fish for only his own family The River is the provider for many people.
But will fish for maybe fifty people. | The strength of our people and their livelihood
The River not only provides for the Comes from the rivers and the fish.
People who live near the rivers, | The River and the Fish is everything:
But also To the one who catches the first fish in the old dip net;
for the people who come from To the one who sees the racks being filled;
PERE To the one who eats the salmon fresh from the River
And hears the river rushing by and feels the spray of
the water
And hears a faint sound of excited children’s voices
just able to hold the net in the aging river and
Catch their first fish;
And to the young girl who prepares her first fish
For the racks to be wind-dried
This is just the beginning;
For my people it is the beginning that has
Begun so many times before.
It is time to remember and to be repeated by the
Generations to come
Who will be able to share the stories that have been
told so many times before by the
Fish camps by the river.
Let’s not forget
Our grandfathers and grandmothers for
what they have taught us
And what they have worked so hard for us
to experience. We Indian people are
A generous people; Let us stop and
Think of the children of tomorrow.
_ Public Archives, Canada
jh
o
=~
“RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITY
By Bobby Manuel
The Aboriginal Rights Position
Paper has been developed and
based upon the research we have
done since the formation of the
Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs in
1969.
Position Paper essentially addres-
ses three basic areas which include
land, resources and broader power
for Indian Government. The three
basic areas as outlined are essential
for us to develop and enhance our
Indian self-determination on an
ongoing basis. The Aboriginal
Rights Position Paper covers many
areas, all of which are regarded as
essential to the continued survival
of the Indian people. This paper
though will only focus on one
resource area on the context of
the Indian Government. The
specific resource area that will be
affecting the fish resources.
The Union of B.C. Indian
Chiefs through the Aboriginal
Rights Position Paper has defined
our basic position with respect to
fish resources. The position is
contained in the U.B.C.I.C. Abor-
iginal Rights Position Paper Arti-
cle 5, Section 10 which states
“All Indian Governments or Leg-
islatures are to have exclusive
jurisdiction to make laws in
relation to matters coming within
the classes of: section hereafter
referred without limiting the
scope of the possible subjects to
be under Indian control. Some of
the areas to be under the jurisdic-
tion and authority of our Indian
Government (Band Councils) in-
clude: all fish resources contained
within the waterways of bodies of
water that are designated as being
associated with our Indian Reserve
lands.
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs
objective therefore, in regard to
fish resources is to assist Bands,
re-establish fish resources under
the jurisdiction and authority of
The Aboriginal Rights
Indian Government. The specific
amount of fish resources to be
established under the jurisdiction
and authority of our Indian Gov-
ernment has not been defined.
Neither has the specific bodies of
water
defined through the Indian Gov-
ernment of each Band. The Indian
Government of each Band will as»
well need to begin the process of
developing the specific legislation
laws or regulations to respon-
sibly govern the fish resource
under their jurisdiction and au-
thority. The legislation laws or
regulations prepared will need to
ensure the protection conservation
of the fish resources, so both non-
Indian and Indian future genera-
tions have the benefit of the
resources, in this regard, thought
will also have to be given to how
the laws or regulations are to be
enforced. We will also need to
give consideration to the best
means by which to re-establish the
fish resources under the jurisdic-
tion and authority of our Indian
Government. A few means open
to us include: negotiations and
through the By-Law Section of
the Indian Act. These two ways
may not be the only avenues open
but it is expected through dis-
cussions others will become appar-
ent. We have not covered all areas,
all considerations in this paper but
as expected it is intended to pro-
voke discussion and determine
further actions that need to be
thought about and considered in
bringing in the fisheries resource
under the jurisdiction of the
Indian Government.
or areas of land been
defined, these will have to be >
Article V
Our Indian Governments or Legis-
latures are to have exclusive juris-
diction to make laws in relation
to matters coming within classes
of subjects, hereafter referred to, —
without limiting the scope of |
the possible subjects to be under
Indian control. Some of the areas
to be under the jurisdiction and
authority of our Indian Govern-
ments (Band Councils) include:
Section 10. All fish resources
contained within the waterways —
and bodies of water that are
established as being associated
with our Indian Reserve Lands.
FISHING AND
CONSERVATION BY-LAWS
IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
1. Bella Coola Band By-law
No. 11 Passed June 1965
On preservation, protec-
tion and management of
fish and game on Reserve
~ No. 1
2. Squamish Band By-law No.
10—Passed November 1977
On preservation, protec-
tion and management of
fish.
3. Stallaqua Band By-law No.
1 — Passed April 1960 3
4. Cowichan Band By-law No.
1 — Passed December 1956
5. Kispiox Band By-law No.
10 — Passed January 1959
6. Moricetown Band By-law
No. 1 — Passed August 1962
7. Lower Kootenay Band By-
law No. 1 — Passed January
1970
8. Okanagan Band By-law No.
2 — Passed October 1956.
11
FIGHTING BACK THROUGH
THE COURTS
Throughout the year the Union [
has received numerous requests
, from Indian people all over the
' province asking for help with .
their illegal fishing charges. The _
Indian people have maintained —
that Fishing is a right. The Union
has assembled a Legal Fishing
Committee and the Committee ©
' has agreed to defend any Indian g&hete
person who has been charged with ™
m Fishing. We are defending Fish- _
-. ing Rights in the Lillooet area, the P¢h
Lytton area, Williams Lake, and &
the Matsqui area, the cases will be
heard in the months of December, 7
= January, February and March.’ - Oe
8 The UBCIC is now handling 6 ©
y ¥cases at Lillooet, 8 at Matsqui, 2 gay?
7 sat Hope, 1 at Duncan, 1 at Wil- ; y e
Hi*liams Lake and 1 at Victoria. #
KNOW YOUR FISHING RIGHTS
el
Fisheries officers have very wide
powers under the Fisheries Act.
| In many ways these powers are as
broad as those of an RCMP officer
| and people should react the follow-
| ing way in any confrontation with
| a fisheries officer.
1) Make no _ statement to
Fisheries officers or police except
name and address. If confronted
by a fishery officer, a person is
not required by law ‘to give any
other information other than his
name and address. This is usually
the best course to take, especially
| if it appears that a charge may be
| laid. Do not attempt to argue or
to defend any actions that you
have taken because any statements
you make can be used against you
if a trial results. Instead, talk to
Nand
12
your Chief and the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs as soon as possible.
2) An arrest will not usually be
made by a fishery officer. The
normal course is to charge a per-
son with an offence against the
regulations. In this case, a sum-
mons will be given to the person
charged. This summons will be in
the form of a small piece of paper.
It will include a date upon which
the person is to appear in court
and will list the offence charged.
It is very important that legal
advice is obtained on this charge
and that the summons is not
merely ignored and tossed away.
Again, you should inform the
UBCIC if your local Band does
not have a lawyer available.
3) Fishery officers do have the
Make No Statement to Fisheries Officers or Police
Except Your Name & Address
power to arrest anyone whom
they believe is committing an of-
fence against the Fisheries Act. If |
this is done, the person charged
may be taken to the local jail.
In that case, no resistance should
be made as this can result in fur-
ther charges. Instead, ask the
officer charging you that you be
allowed to contact your local
Band office. The Band should
then arrange to have a lawyer
meet with the person charged or
should call UBCIC. Again, it is
important not to discuss the
events with the officers as any
information you give can be used
against you at the trial.
Further information can be |
obtained by calling the legal de-
partment of UBCIC at 684-0231.
aul
MOTION 19 (Gordon Antoine,
Jim Dolan)
WHEREAS the Indian Bands of
' British Columbia have fishing
rights which they have never
given up and these rights can-
not be limited without the con-
sent and agreement of the In-
dian people involved, and
WHEREAS the Federal Fisheries
Department is now imposing a
in British Columbia,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED
that this Assembly reject in
principle any efforts of the
Fisheries Department to curtail
or limit Indian fishing rights.
CARRIED
quota system on Indian fishing |
RESOLVED
10th GENERAL ASSEMBLY
MOTION 20 (Gordon Antoine,
Michael Smith)
'WHEREAS when fisheries in B.C.
were completely managed by
Indian Bands, the fisheries were
well cared for and there were
plenty of fish, and
WHEREAS due to one hundred
years of control and mismanage-
ment by the Fisheries Depart-
ment, and due to over-fishing
by non-native people, the fish
stocks have become endangered
and are now in need of massive
rehabilitation and restoration
and,
ther on the coast or in the inter-
ior depend on many of the
same species of fish, and
WHEREAS Indian Bands must
exercise management of Indian
fisheries,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED
that this Assembly direct the
President to involve all inter-
ested Bands in developing a
strategy to provide province-
wide Indian representation that
would deal with current critical
concerns in fishery matters.
CARRIED
WHEREAS all Indian Bands whe- | &&
photo: E.Jonn
NOT BE
FISHING PORTFOLIO
Head: George Manuel
Co-ordinator: Lillian Basil
Research Co-ordinator:
Taylor
Field worker:
Walter
Herman Thomas.
Activities: The Fishing Portfolio
does the necessary follow-up
which is defined by resolutions
of our General Assemblies and
Chiefs Council meetings.
UBCIC involvement with the
West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, was
based on Indian Fishing Rights.
The Inquiry was used as the
basis for organizing, as we pre-
pared evidence for the West Coast
Oil Ports Inquiry (commissioned
by Dr. Andrew Thompson).
Throughout the Inquiry, we
AE er
} i, 5 | - of ' y
*. ‘ oat " i . a
ff Oe pi pet
oa Bs ef t . 4a rf
! al k A - } +
ved ee Ue ye
a>) ue #A-WEE
OUR RIGHTS CAN
LIMITED
REPORT BY _Lillian Basil
held workshops around the Pro-
vince, and held a Provincial Fish
Forum in December 1977 in
North Vancouver at which one
hundred people attended. The
purpose of the forum was to dis-
cuss various issues threatening
Indian Fishing Rights on the north
and south coast, and to help
people prepare for the West Coast
Oil Ports Inquiry Hearings. As
follow-up, a Special Report was
mailed out to all the Bands. |
On February 23rd, 1978 Len
Marchand announced that there
would be no oil port on our coast,
“now or in the forseeable future”
but the UBCIC continued to work
intensely on the protection of our
Fishing Rights.
Damien and Shenda John of Tache (Stuart-Trembleur) examing
fresh salmon eggs, are taking part in getting food ready for the winter.
13
Between February and April
1978, we participated in Indian
Government Workshops through-
out the Province. At this point in
time, the Fishing Portfolio has not
been successful in any budget pro-
posals, and to this day continues
to experience a hard struggle
financially.
In April, the UBCIC learned
that the Mission Rod and Gun
Club was introducing two reso-
lutions regarding Indian fishing at
the annual conference of the B.C.
Wildlife Federation held in May
1977. The first resolution encour-
aged a quota on Indian food fish-
ing and the second stated that
Indian people must man their nets
24 hours a day. We immediately
began to organize our people to
attend the convention so we could
lobby for the rejection of those
two resolutions. We succeeded in
getting the resolutions tabled and
in establishing a joint committee
of the B.C. Wildlife Federation
and the UBCIC.
After the General Assembly in
April 1978, the Fishing Depart-
ment began to do in-depth re-
search on our fishing rights. Even
at this early date, the material
gathered was very useful to the
Bands who began experiencing
pressures from the Federal Fish-
eries Department in June.
From June through September,
various communities throughout
the province were experiencing
increased enforcement from the
Federal Fisheries Department such
as the attempted imposition of
quotas, harrassments, media pro-
paganda and court actions. Some
bands felt the threat of a quota
system which George Manuel very
strongly warned of as early as the
December 1977 Fish Forum.
Without consultation with In-
dian people, the Federal Fisheries
Department introduced a new “‘In-
dian Food Licence” into its
regulations. The new licence does
not appear much different from
the old “Indian Permit” which it
14
replaces, however our people are
concerned about the bad implica-
tions of the new licence which
requires your Social Security
Number, your Band number, and
the word “fee” on the right hand
corner of the licence form. The
whole subject of the New Indian
Food Licence was a major issue of
concern around the Province, and
brought closer to home the im-
portance of developing our own
Indian Government, developing
our own means of control over
our rights rather than have it
dictated by the Department of
Fisheries. Unfortunately the
Department of Fisheries tactics of
implementing its policies on Indian
food fishing is done in a door to
door manner without consulting
with the Chief or Council. If
done through the Chief and Coun-
cil they are told that it is already
implemented every place else.
So it makes the Department com-
fortable enough to say they have
consulted with the Indians — but
never done in a democratic way or
“Bob Wilson of Fort Rupert. eee preparing rharbeced! salmon.
a respectable manner and virtually
never recognizing our Indian au
thority, the Chief and Council.
During the summer months,
the staff travelled extensively ar-
ound the Province. One of the
first trips after the General Assem-
bly were to Soda Creek and Tache.
It was a memorable one because
the field worker spent time in
each area with people knowledg-
able about the traditional fishing
grounds in the lakes, and the river.
In the short time, both elders
expressed very strongly the impor-
tance of fish to their lives and the
importance of the environment.
They both felt it was important to
see the country andthe places
where they fished, before they
could talk about their reliance on
fish and what it means to them.
The staff also travelled to
McLeod Lake, Shelly, Stoney
Creek, Alkali Lake, Toosey, Sugar
Cane, Cache Creek, Mount Currie,
Lillooet, Gold River, Bella Coola,
the Fraser Valley area, and many
other places, to get a better un-
derstanding of fishing in each
“rea.
Communities were visited in
order to inform people about
what was happening on fishing
issues and concerns. Some com-
munities requested assistance from
the Union, others asked for moral
support. With each community
we visited, we were so much more
encouraged, informed, and know-
ledgable. What the struggle is
all about on Fishing Issues, was
much more real. It is important
for the staff of the Fishing Port-
folio to be out on the field as of-
ten as they can, in order to have
the understanding of what fishing
‘s in each area. The Fishing Port-
folio can be more productive in
its services as a resource and sup-
port centre with more community
encouragement and wisdom.
This past summer showed that
the Federal Fisheries Department
is determined in their efforts to
enforce their regulations. We are
faced with the reality that our
fishing rights will be curtailed
through increased enforcement all
over the, province. Not only on
the rivers, but the lakes and the
ocean as well. People in commu-
nities, expressed how important it
is to protect the main source of
food for our people: the fish,
abalone, clams, oysters, crabs,
seaweed and all other marine life
that we depend on. If we contin-
ue to make ourselves subject to
the moves made by the Fisheries
Department in its age-old tactic
of ‘divide and conquer’, it be-
comes harder and harder to
protect our fishing rights. The
Federal Government has nearly
succeeded in permanently sepa-
rating the coastal people from
the interior people, and yet
throughout the province, we have
one thing in common. . . the
dependence on fish. The Depart-
ment recognizes that and is making
Louise Williams is doimg her
share of work for her family:
Dip-netting in the Fraser near
Lillooet.
our position weaker by their
tactics. Without a common front,
all our fishing rights are at stake.
Advisory Group Meetings: We
did not have the money but we
have held two Advisory Group
were very successful. There was
wide representation and a lot of
interest at both meetings.
Harassments:
someone stated “the Feder-
al fisheries officer watched one
guy for 24 hours a day for four
days. They followed him right
down to Vancouver. They knew
where he was for breakfast dinner
and supper, knew when he got up
and went to bed. They go all out
for overtime on harassment of
Indian people.” Someone else
stated on harassment “They are
pushing it in the north. People in
Metalakatla, Hartley Bay are faced
with the problem of the permits
for the first time. There is a
seq ‘s :o1oqd
paranoia (fear) of losing their nets
and skiffs through confiscation by
the fisheries officers.”
Rights: “Our objective is to
exercise our aboriginal rights to
fish and have the responsibility
of looking after those fish.”
Research: “there should be
research and this involves Indian
people doing it, to bring together
the wisdom and expertise of
Indian Fishing Specialists in an
organized way.”
Other areas of concern were
touched on; people emphasized
strongly the importance of com-
munication amongst each other,
possibly through the co-ordination
of the UBCIC central office.
People encouraged each other to
share information and support
each other.
Due to the lack of funding, we
could not continue these Advisory
Group meetings, but we felt it was
important to continue to use
community advisors. A commit-
tee was formed consisting of four
members and the iishing portfolio
staff, members of U.:- committee
are Michael Leech, Neil Sterrit,
Emory Gabriel, Eddy John, Walt
Taylor and Lillian Basil.
The fishing portfolio became
very involved in fighting infringe-
ments of Indian Fishing rights by
the Federal Fisheries Department
and provided legal support for our
people who experienced a great
deal of harassment during the
summer. A legal committee on
Fishing was established to defend
our people who are brought to
court on fishing charges and to
develop legal defences and offen-
sive strategies. The committee
consists of Louise Mandell, Stuart
Rush, Edward John, Art Pape,
John Rogers, and Rick Salter.
A very strong research team has
developed. Barbara and Bob Lane
have completed a historical re-
search report available at the
UBCIC office. Research is an
opportunity and a responsibility
of all. The most valuable re-
search material for the struggle
to protect Indian fishing rights
generally comes from information
that is well known in the commu-
nity, but needs to be recorded and
organized so that it can be used
effectively when needed.
During the summer the UBCIC
published a Fishing Bulletin every
2 weeks to keep the communities
up to date on Fishing issues and
concerns around the Province.
This form of publication will
continue when heavy pressures
come from the Federal Fisheries
Department, so that communities
can be informed about Fishing
news, from our perspective.
Because this is the first year
that the UBCIC has had a func-
tioning Portfolio on Fishing, we
haven’t got all the information
and material communities could
use because the whole fishing issue
is so huge and so complex.
We are just beginning to do
research on various subjects like
other species of Fish besides sal-
mon: marine life such as clams,
oysters, abalone, cockles, sea
urchins, mussels, herring roe, and
other marine life that Indian peo-
ple depend on for food. These
rights as well are being eroded.
We have begun to do research
on the Salmonid Enhancement
Program, and at what other In-
dians are experiencing in their
struggle for Fishing Rights in
Northwest Washington and New
Brunswick, in the Maritimes.
We have also begun to gather
material on the Canada/US nego-
tiations which is a Reciprocal
Fisheries agreement between the
Government of United States of
America and the Government of
Canada, signed at Ottawa June
15th, 1973.
16
The UBCIC is in the process of
organizing a Fishing Lobby at the
national level by sending a very
large delegation to Ottawa next
spring at the next sitting of Par-
liament. Basically the Fishing
Lobby is designed to sensitize
the Federal Government on how
vitally important the Fishery and
Marine resources are to the Indian
people of British Columbia.
It is felt that the politicians in
Ottawa do not understand our his-
torical fishing rights and _ the
marine resources here in B.C.
We are also working with West-
water Research on a study of
marine life.
In order for the public to un-
derstand what fishing and fish
means to our people we are try-
ing to educate them as much as
we can at all levels, always keep-
ing in mind how much harder it
is for our people to do their
fishing.
The UBCIC has just completed
two short films, one filmed in
Mount Currie titled ‘We Will Do
Our Fishing’’ and one filmed in
Bella Coola titled “Sinumak”
based on the Bella Coola Oolichan
run and how they process it for
oolichan grease.
By sending a delegation to Ot-
te
~The community
first Chilco run. (Arm of the Fraser.)
tawa we would attempt to create
awareness in the Federal Govern-
ment.
The delegation will go to Ottaw> _
next spring for a few days atti |
next sitting of Parliament to meet
with the Standing Committee on
Fisheries, the Standing Committee
on Indian Affairs, the Senate, and
the Liberal, NDP and Progressive
Conservative Party excluding the
Social Credit. The objectives of
the Fishing Lobby would be:
— To get government to nego-
tiate fishing separately from the
other B.C. Land Claims.
— To pressure for funding the
Fishing Portfolio work.
— To sensitize Federal Gov-
ernment.
— To create awareness of do-
cumented fishing rights in B.C.
— To broaden the base of
UBCIC connections beyond the
Fisheries Department and to bring
about better response.
There will be a political brief
prepared by the UBCIC based on
the historical fishing rights of
Indians in British Columbia. We
will keep you informed on the
progress through our publications,
workshops and meetings with you.
We are determined to continue to
‘protect and assert our fishing
rights and responsibilities.
FEDERAL FISHERIES
There is an attempt to discredit
Indian Fishing Rights in the public
mind. In 1977 and 1978, for ex-
ample, we see the Federal Fisheries’
attack by harassment, media pro-
paganda, and court actions against
various Bands in B.C. The intensity
of this campaign is evident in the
persistent use of emotionally
loaded terms such as: ‘‘massive
poaching”, “trafficking in fish”,
“illegal possession”, and “‘illegal
sale of fish”’.
Although the Department of
Fisheries appears in the public’s
eye to consult with Indian people
on fishing rights and issues, we all
know in dealing with the Federal
Fisheries department since 1914,
that the Department has been
eroding our fishing rights since
che first regulation, even though
research shows that the govern-
ment has recognized our Abori-
ginal Fishing Rights. As years go
on, policies made by the Fisheries
Department are destroying all of
our rights to fish and marine
resources.
The Department of Fisheries
talks about consulting Indian peo-
ple on the policies they have
developed for us. We are all op-
posed, for example, to the cutting
of the nose and dorsal fin and
many are opposed to the change
from the permit system to a licence
system. Yet Federal Fisheries has
completely ignored our proposal
to use our Indian Status cards as
a form of recognition of our right
to fish. The permit and the licence
system is an insult to our fishing
rights. Have we been consulted? In
looking through our files on fish-
ing, | am sure the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs has never been con-
sulted, nor have Bands or other
organizations.
photo: Province
=
Ll +. ha
) la
=
ban
SM wes ni See ee
: ASS ahh ee
* .
bd tee
ik
PROVOKING CONFLICT
Indians all over the province,
express concern over the provoca-
tive appearance of the Fisheries
enforcement officers carrying
powerful and obvious weapons.
They come into some Indian fish-
ing areas by airplane and to
other areas with the back-up of
the RCMP and their vicious
police dogs. We are worried that
military type enforcement by the
Federal Fisheries Department
could only lead to deeper conflict
and destructive confrontation.
We do not want confrontation.
Indian people want the respon-
sibility of asserting control in their
fishing grounds to protect fish
from further depletion. Indian
people want some of the respon-
sibility back in planning and im-
plementing effective conservation
and reproduction of fish. Fish
mean more than food to us. Fish
and fishing is the basis of our
culture and is the economy of our
people. Fishing is a right that was
never surrendered to the Federal
DISCREDITS INDIAN
FISHING RIGHTS
Government.
Yet, the Federal Government
continues to restrict Indian food
fishing and ignore our aboriginal
rights to fish.
IMPOSING QUOTAS
At a meeting in January 1978
the Minister of Fisheries Romeo
Leblanc and Regional Director
General told UBCIC representa-
tives and other organization rep-
resentatives that B.C. Indians can
expect a quota system for Indian
food fishing. The Minister also
stated that if the word “quota”
offended Indians, that he could
use another term to restrict Indian
food fishing.
Not too long after that meeting,
Dr. Walley Johnson, Regional
Director General, stated to the
UBCIC’s 10th General Assembly
in Penticton, “Every band in B.C.
has traditional food fishing rights
and it is our responsibility to see
that these rights and a supply of
fish for this purpose, be met.”
a7
Johnson stated further, “If all of
the Indian Bands in B.C. are going
to have their share, there has to
be some sort of a quota system to
make sure everyone gets their
share.” And, “I want you to
know that we are going to do
everything in our power to see
that our responsibilities are carried
out. I’ve issued strong directives
to my staff that we have nothing
in this coming year that will allow
any interpretation of harrassment
of native people.”
The Minister of Fisheries Romeo
Leblanc told the Canadian Wildlife
Federation at its annual conven-
tion held in New Brunswick in
May 1978, “I have committed
the federal government to the
position that native access to
fish for food remains a fundamen-
tal principle of our fisheries
policy. In my meetings with
Indian representatives, I have
stated that any commercial fish-
ery disguised as food fishing
would be unworkable.
The basic principles of our
policies are these:
1. Indian food fishing areas
should be designated;
2. Food fish requirements
should be based on estimates of
the actual fish requirements of the
people living in each reserve;
3% Practical administrative
arrangements to ensure smooth
operations must be agreed upon,
perhaps having Indian fishery
wardens on certain reserves or
fishing sites;
4. An information campaign
should be undertaken to explain
to Indian and non-Indian sachs
the need for the Indian food
fishery.”
POLICY ON INDIAN FOOD
FISHERIES
The Minister’s policy on manag-
ing the fisheries resources and the
priorities with respect to use of
those resources have been clearly
defined:
1. Conservation of the resource
and maintenance of the role that
the resource plays in the marine or
aquatic environment.
2. The needs of the native peo-
ples for fish and marine mammals
for food.
3. The needs of the commercial
and recreational fisheries.
The policy itself seems to be
clearly understood. There are de-
veloping, however, various inter-
pretations by the Indians and
other native groups. Equally
important, and disturbing, is the
fact that there are some apparent
misunderstandings in the regions
as to interpretation of the policy
and its application. In order to
correct this situation, guidelines
for interpreting and applying the
policy as it bears on native food
and subsistence fisheries have been
approved by the Minister and are
conveyed to you below.
1. The policy does not in any
way imply exclusive use of the
fisheries by the Indians or other
native peoples.
2. Indians and other native
groups are expected to bear some
of the brunt of required conser-
vation measures together with
fseg "sg :030yd
“I want you to know that we
| are going to do everything in
our power to see that our res- |
ponsibilities are carried out.”
Dr. Walley Johnson, April 197s. |
‘other users of the resource.
If,
however, a segment of the resource
becomes depleted, e.g., a salmon
run to a particular stream, the na-
tive food fishery would be the last
to suffer major disruption such as
closure.
3. The prohibition on the sale
of food fish will remain in effect
and commercial fisheries will not
be allowed to develop under the
guise of food fisheries. Barter of
food fish will also be prohibited
except that it may be permitted
between natives or groups of
natives where special circumstan-
ces prevail, but then only under
authority of the Minister.
4. Priority given natives to har-
vest food fish will be on the basis
of reasonable needs as may be
negotiated with them.
5. Fish, surplus to require-
ments, from production faciliti
such as hatcheries and spawnii.,,
channels, may be allocated to
natives for food fish purposes as
part of the reasonable and negoti-
ated needs.
6. The food fisheries will be
subject to laws of general applica-
tion unless otherwise specified by
appropriate regulations.
7. Responsibility for adminis-
tration of the fisheries resource
will remain with the appropriate
government (federal or provincial).
Native guardians or wardens, nom-
inated by the native bands, may
be hired by the Department to
assist in such administration.
8. There will be consultation
on food fishery matters with the
native groups through advisory
committees or other appropriate
means.
9. Unless otherwise stipulated,
the Indian and Inuit food fishery
will be limited to those areas
which have been traditionally use
for food fishing purposes over the
last twenty-five years.
The Enefgy and Resources
Portfolio of the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs is involved in oppos-
‘wg many resource development
__ojects which threaten our peo-
ple’s land, water and fishing
resources. Our experience has
been that corporations like B.C.
Hydro and Westcoast Transmission
do not recognize our people’s
fishing rights and are insensitive
to the environmental damage
which they create. In most cases
they do not even conduct the
field research which is necessary
to determine what the impacts
of proposed projects will be.
In the past year the UBCIC has
assisted many Bands by supplying
them with information about pro-
posed energy projects in their
area. This has enabled our people
to take a firm stand in defence of
our rights.
The following are among the
major energy projects around B.C.
which threaten the fishingresource:
~OIL PORTS, SUPERTANKERS
_ AND OIL PIPELINES
In 1977 Kitimat Pipe Line Ltd.
put forward a proposal to the
National Energy Board to develop
an oil port in Kitimat and an oil
pipeline from Kitimat to Edmon-
ton, where it would connect with
existing pipelines. The major ob-
jective of this project was to trans-
port crude oil from Alaska to the
Northern and Central United States.
Our people actively opposed
the development of an oil port on
the West Coast because of the
dangers to the water and the fish
that an oil port and increased
supertanker traffic posed. If a
major oil spill were to occur, the
fish, birds and plant life in the
area could be wiped out forever.
Crude oil floating on water
smothers the marine life, killing
the small fish and vegetation that
feed the larger fish.
In February, 1978, the Federal
Government announced that there
was no need for an oil port on the
coast of B.C. now or in the fore-
seeable future. In recent weeks,
however, the threat of a Kitimat
port and pipeline has re-surfaced.
The proposal for an oil pipeline
from Kitimat to Edmonton re-
mains before the National Energy
Board, and the company is ex-
pected to make a decision in the
near future as to whether it will
pursue this plan.
Meanwhile, a second proposal
for an oil pipeline is being proposed
by Foothills Oil Pipe Line Ltd.
Their plan is to build a 1,100 kilo-
meter line from Skagway, Alaska,
to Keg River, Alberta, following a
route parallel to the Alaska High-
way Natural Gas Pipeline through
southern Yukon, northern B.C.
and northern Alberta.
Both of these proposed oil
pipelines will disturb fish habitats
at river crossings and could result
in major fish kills when oil spills
occur from breaks or leaks in the
pipe
19
KOOTENAY RIVER DIVERSION
Since 1974 B.C. Hydro has
been assessing a scheme to divert
up to two-thirds of the flow of the
Kootenay River at Canal Flats
into the headwaters of the Co-
lumbia River. The project would
consist of a small dam on the
Kootenay River and a canal to
divert the water into Columbia
Lake just west of the town of
Canal Flats.
Upstream from the diversion
there would be extensive flooding,
while downstream the lower water
levels would increase the level of
pollution from industrial and other
sources. A major concern for our
people is that the temperature
of the Columbia and Windermere
Lakes is expected to drop, and
this could seriously affect the pro-
ductivity of the fish.
QUATSINO
The Quatsino Band has experi-
enced serious pollution from the
operations of Utah Mines Ltd. and
Port Alice Pulp Mill Ltd. Utah
Mines deposits up to 17 million
gallons a day of tailings effluent
into Rupert Inlet. This effluent
consists of waste water, metals and
chemicals from the process of con-
centrating copper.
These pollutants are found in
tidal and inter-tidal zones in Ru-
pert Inlet and beyond, and they
contaminate crabs, clams and other
shell and bottom fish. The inlets
in the area provide salmon spawn-
ing and rearing grounds, and sal-
mon fry traversing the inlets may
also be harmed by this pollution.
Quatsino Band has reported that
salmon runs have drastically dwin-
dled over the years and the marine
shell life is becoming inedible.
HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECTS
B.C Hydro has indicated that
dams for hydro-electric power
20
could be economically feasible on
the Liard, Iskut and Stikine rivers
by the early 1990’s. Detailed stu-
dies of the power potential of
these rivers have already been con-
ducted, and possible dam sites
have been examined. Dam loca-
tions which are being considered
for the Iskut River are: 1) Site B,
just below the mouth of Forrest
Kerr Creek; 2) Site E, at the south
end of Kinaskan Lake; 3) More
Creek, slightly south of where
More Creek joins the Iskut River.
Potential dam sites on the Stikine
are: 1) Site C, 30 miles upstream
from Telegraph Creek; 2) Site D,
42 miles upstream from Telegray
Creek; and 3) Site F, 58 miles up-
stream from Telegraph Creek. |
If any or all of these dams are
built, the flow of the rivers would
be altered and extensive flooding
would occur. The salmon runs in
the Liard, Iskut and the lower
Stikine could be seriously affected.
GAS PIPELINES
In the past year Westcoast
nsmission Co. Ltd. has applied
to the NEB for permission to con-
struct the Silver-Dahl and Grizzly-
Bullmoose-Sukunka pipelines in
the Northeast,
existing one from Chetwynd to
Huntingdon. The UBCIC organized — 2 ees
our people to appear at these NEB.
Hearings to present their concerns ~
about the pipelines.
One of the concerns was that
when pipelines cross rivers and
streams they often destroy salmon
spawning beds and disturb the
whole river bottom. On question-
ing, witnesses for Westcoast Trans-
mission have admitted that the
disturbances and the pollution of
the streams cannot be avoided at
pipeline crossings. The NEB has
responded to our concerns by
directing the Company to do addi-
tional studies and to take further
steps to protect the fish habitats
prior to building the pipelines.
The concerns for our fishing
rights which our people expressed
at the NEB Hearings also apply to
other proposed pipelines such as
the Alaska Highway Natural Gas
Pipeline and the Junior-Sierra Line
in the Northeast. Each new pipe-
line proposal must be opposed to
protect our fishing resources and
our Indian fishing rights.
HAT CREEK
B.C. Hydro is planning to build
one of the world’s largest coal-fired
power plants at Hat Creek. This
plant will burn 40,000 tons of
coal per day to produce 2000
megawatts of electricity.
A vast amount of water will be
required to produce the steam to
turn the generators which produce
this power. B.C. Hydro’s plan is to
pump water from the Thompson
River to the power plant by pipe-
‘tne. This poses a risk to the fish in
che Thompson River because small
fish (for example, juvenile salmon)
as well as an addi”
tional pipeline parallel to the~
The fi sh continue to die from river diversions, hydro-electric projects,
waste from mills and other irresponsible actions.
can get trapped by the current and
sucked into the pipe.
B.C. Hydro also plans to move
Hat Creek itself, and may then
build a small dam across the di-
verted section of the creek to
create a reservoir of 50 acres to
ensure a constant supply of water.
An added danger to the water
quality and the fish is that toxic
elements from the coal may seep
into the streams and underground
water systems, thereby contami-
nating the water.
At the regional level, the Hat
Creek coal mine and power project
ay 5 a . Hel
5 tyke
may create a problem known as
“acid rain”. This occurs when
pollutants such as sulphur dioxide
and nitrogen dioxide enter cloud
formation and are converted to
sulphuric acid and nitric acid. The
clouds may travel long distances
with this pollution, and when they
eventually drop the rain the
acidic water enters streams and
lakes, forcing fish to the lake
bottoms. Here there is insufficient
oxygen for them to breathe and so
the fish eventually die. This is one
of the long-term dangers of the
proposed Hat Creek project.
We must protest against pipeline proposals and ‘protect our ‘Indian
fishing rights and resources.
a
21
Public Archives. Canada
The general public is usually
ignorant of the meaning and his-
tory of Indian fishing rights in
British Columbia
The Department of Fisheries
often acts as if the Indian fisheries
are dependent upon their good
will. This is not true.
Many people believe that Indians
are given special fishing “privileges”
as an act of charity. This is not
true.
The truth is that Indian fishing
rights existed before the first
Europeans reached our land. These
rights still exist today, and are
recognized in law.
Indian fishing rights have been
mentioned in provincial treaties
and agreements. They have been
recognized in the creation of fish-
ing reserves and exclusive fishing
areas for Indians by federal-
provincial commissions.
22
However, despite the historical
recognition of our aboriginal rights
by both the federal and provincial
levels of government, Indian people
are still fighting today to have
these rights respected. As early as
between 1850 and 1854, Indian
fishing rights were acknowledged
in “legal documents”. Fourteen.
treaties were signed on Vancouver
Island during this period of time,
and each treaty allowed the Indian
party the right to “carry on our
fisheries as formerly’’. James Doug-
las, who was then in charge of the
colony now known as British
Columbia, said in a letter reporting
the treaty arrangements: “‘I in-
formed the natives. . .that they
were at liberty to hunt over the
unoccupied lands, and to carry on
their fisheries with the same free-
dom as when they were the sole
occupants of the country.” That is
a clear guarantee of aboriginal
fishing rights.
Between 1876 and 1894 many
fishing reserves and exclusive fish-
ing areas were set aside for some
Indian bands. These areas and
rights were recognized and official-
ly approved by the joint federal-
provincial Indian Reserve Commis-
sion. Provincial politicians didn’t
want large areas of land to go to
Indians in the form of reserves,
so they persuaded the dominion,
or federal, government that In-
dians didn’t need much land if
their fisheries were guaranteed to
them.
Indian fishing rights, then, were
given so freely to us because the
provincial authorities wanted to
cheat us out of land, and granting
fishing rights seemed a small matter
in the: late 1800’s, before the
white people had exploited fish
“ttc Archives, Canada
-
ohery in which Indians were in-
commercially.
Alexander Anderson was a
member of the Indian Reserve
© Jomission and Inspector of
rMeries for British Columbia
during the 1870’s. As a Commis-
sion member Anderson partici-
pated in setting up fishing reserves
and guaranteeing exclusive fishing
areas to Indians.
As Inspector of Fisheries, An-
derson recommended that the
Indian people in British Columbia
be subject to the provisions of the
Fisheries Act. The Federal Fishe-
ries Act was made law in British
Columbia as of July 1, 1877. One
month later, the Minister of Marine
and Fisheries declared that Indians
did not have to obey the regula-
tions of the Fisheries Act. How-
ever, this policy was later reversed
by the federal government, with
no consideration for the lifestyle
and culture of Indian people.
In 1892 Great Britain, acting on
Canada’s behalf, signed a treaty
with the United States regarding
the fur-seal fishery in the North
sific. This was a commercial
‘Indians ended
volved. In 1893 the two countries
agreed on certain restrictions on
the taking of fur seals, so that the
animals would not become extinct.
However, these restrictions did
not apply to Indian people sealing
“in the way hitherto practised by
the Indians’. The exceptions for
in 1911, when
Great Britain (again representing
Canada)
The United States, Russian, and
Japan. The treaty was cancelled
by Japan in 1941, but an agree-
ment still exists between Canada
and the United States.
It is an interesting point that
although the rights of Indian
people were discussed and pro-
tected by these countries in the
fur seal treaties, Indian people
were never invited to discuss this
23
Public Archives, Canada
matter themselves.
In 1889 the Government of
Canada entered into Treaty 8
with Cree, Chipewayan, and Bea-
ver Indians in northern Alberta,
the southern Northwest Territories
and northwestern British Columbia.
Under this agreement, the Indians
retained hunting, trapping and
fishing rights on the lands handed
over to the government. Treaty 8
has never been repealed and its
provisions are still in force.
Between 1906 and 1911, repre-
sentatives of the Government of
Canada entered into formal agree-
ments with bands from the Upper
Skeena region and the Stuart and
Fraser lake areas. The government
gave compensation to the Indians
who agreed to give up their abori-
ginal method of fishing with weirs
(fences built across waterways
which let the water pass through,
but stopped the fish). The govern-
bo
fa
ment also ruled that Indian parties
would fish with nets in non-tidal
waters, contrary to the provisions
of the Federal Fisheries Act.
Soon after this period of time,
the federal government began to
change its former policy of ex-
cluding B.C. Indian people from
the regulations of the Federal
Fisheries Act. And this change in
policy occurred, to a large degree,
because of the depletion of salmon
stocks by the dozens of canneries
crowding’ the British Columbia
coastline. Fish stocks were de-
creasing to an alarming degree.
When white people first came to
this land, they reported streams
and rivers sparkling silver with fish.
Indian people did not catch more
than they needed with their weirs.
It was the greed of the fishing
companies and the exploitation of
what was, to them, a “new re-
source’, which led to Indian people
being chosen as the scapegoat for
the exploitation.
For the last 100 years, the
Canadian government has told
that our fishing rights will not’. -
curtailed. In recent years, though,
the Department of Fisheries has
used and introduced new rules
which expand and protect the
commercial and sports fisheries at
the expense of our aboriginal
fishing rights.
INFORMATION NEEDED : YOU
cwAN HELP
The 1978 Fish Forum gives us
a chance to think together about
the direction we want to take on
Fishing issues. Our fishing rights
are threatened on many fronts.
Federal Fisheries is determined to
quash the Indian food fishery.
They argue that we are abusing
our fish resource, overfishing, sel-
ling large amounts of fish at great
profits. They are determined to
set quotas on the food fishery and
though they say Indian food
fishing is their number one priority
after conservation, the events of
the last summer prove otherwise.
Fish are being threatened by
bad logging practices, pollution
from pulp mills, mines, oil tankers
and dams. The natural salmon
stocks are being depleted by
irresponsible enhancement meas-
res and careless breeding prac-
ces.
We can all talk about incidences
‘where pollution has wiped out a
fishing area or where Federal
Fisheries have harassed us but we
need to do more than share our
experiences by word of mouth.
We must write them down —
document as many of these ex-
periences as possible so that we
have facts to back up our fight for
our Fishing Rights.
All we know is that our elders
know more about the land and the
waters than anyone. We are just
beginning to collect the elders’
knowledge of our history, the land
‘and our methods of conservation
that were practised before the
Europeans came. By writing
that information down on paper
we have a stronger case to pre-
sent in our struggle for our Fishing
Rights. We must do more.
photo: 8. Basil
During 1978 the Fishing Portfo-
lio made arrangements with Barb-
ara and Robert Lane to prepare a
number of reports documenting
the history of B.C. Indian fishing
rights, together with the recogni-
tion of these rights by treaties,
agreements, commissions and offi-
cial correspondence. These reports.
are brief and well presented.
Some of the research requires
the help of such academically
\
trained experts, not only in an-
thropology, but also in history,
fishery economics, federal and
provincial law, fish biology, eco-
logy, habitat protection, and
hatcheries and related studies in
aquaculture.
But the most important infor-
mation has to come from Indian
fishing experts and concerned In-
dian leaders. A lot of the informa-
tion in your community would
seem pretty ordinary but put
together with other communities’
information might be of great
significance.
It is important to let our elders know that we care what is
The purpose of collecting, or-
ganizing and sharing information
about the history of our fishing
rights, Federal Fisheries harass-
ments, and incidents of pollution
and depletion is to strengthen
Indian governments (band coun-
cils) and their Union of B.C. In-
dian Chiefs in the struggle to
achieve two major goals:
1) The protection of B.C. Ind-
an Fishing Rights in 1979 and for
#2 +9 ,
re
pening
to our rights — to show that we are sincere enough, for them to share
their knowledge and wisdom with us.
our future generations.
2)The resumption (taking
back) of our traditional, abori-
ginal responsibility for the health
and continued reproduction of
salmon and other marine life in
our waters, forever.
The Fish Forum makes it
possible for us to decide together,
first of all, what areas are the most
important for the gathering of
information. Secondly, the Fish
Forum workshops provide an
opportunity for Indians from
many Bands to pool their in-
formation and knowledge for the
benefit of all B.C. Indians.
» GATHERING INDIAN WISDOM
FISH FORUM:
DECEMBER,1977
The first UBCIC Provincial Fish Forum was cal-
led to discuss the various issues threatening Indian
Fishing Rights. Last December over 100 delegates
came from: the North Coast, Gitskan-Carrier, Bella
Coola, East and West Fraser, Thompson-Nicola,
Kwakeewlth, Lillooet, West Coast, Okanagan and
Kootenay Districts and the Native Brotherhood.
UNITY ON FISHING ISSUE
If the UBCIC was to take action, said George
Manuel, President, the direction had to come from
the people concerned, with their full involvement
and active participation. There was grave concern
at the prospect of quotas. George Manuel described
the pattern of harassment and pressure that had hap-
pened before the regulations about the cutting of
nose and dorsal fin. ‘The Fisheries Department
was conducting the same kind of campaign now and
already the Press was suggesting quotas for each In-
dian family. ‘We have to start our own campaign
against such a proposal, before it comes into exis-
tence.”
PAST AND PRESENT RIVER FISHING
To open the conference, speakers had been in-
vited to talk about different kinds of fishing. Bap-
tiste Ritchie of Mount Currie talked about fishing in
his earlier years, when fish were plentiful, and Jake
Kruger talked about fresh water fishing the Okana-
zan/Kootenay areas: “It’s very hard for a person
/
f
:
Baptiste Ritchie: ‘When the salmon came up you
could walk across the river on their backs.”’
26
yiseq “s :ojoyd
there to derive a meal just once a year.” The fish
that are there, are polluted.
“But for you that still have a chance, I hope you
start now, because tomorrow will be too late.”
The only hope that Jake saw for us was for our peo-
ple to be in a decision-making position on fishing
issues, at all levels.
NATIVE BROTHERHOOD
Ed Newman, President of the Native Brother-
hood, talked about their concern to keep Indian
fishermen in the commercial industry. Whole
communities have been pushed out of the commer-
cial fishing industry, after depending on it totally
for a living. Another major concern of the Native
Brotherhood was the fact that fishermen were ex-
pected to pay for the Salmonid Enhancement Pro-
gram, which would be directed from Ottawa with no
Indian consultation.
“There is no example in the history of B.C. of
the people ever paying for the cost of rehabilita-
ting any natural resources.”
THE BOLDT DECISION AND WHAT IT MEANS
TO US
Alvin Coutlee and Georgianna Bergsman of te
Lummi Tribe in Washington State, talked about the
Boldt decision which gave Washington Indians rights
to 50% of the harvestable catch. The decision limits
State controls where Tribes have proved willing and
able to regulate and protect the fish. The decision
was a major victory, but the struggle leading up to it
went on for a long time and the Lummi people still
saw no end to it. When asked by Neil Sterritt of the
Gitskan-Carrier Tribal Council what advice the
Washington Indians had to offer us so that we can
avoid some of the pitfalls, Alvin Coutlee was clear:
“You definitely have to have your homework
done as far as your research is concerned. . . we
had to do a lot of leg-work, talking to all the el-
ders and the historians, to establish where our
ancestors actually did fish. This had to be estab-
lished in court. . . .You have to gather data...
you have to have a good public relations staff. .
When asked if they were ready for the Boldt deci-
sion, and all its implications, Alvin Coutlee admitted:
“We weren't ready and prepared for that decision
and neither was the State of Washington.”
Ed Newman brought up the point of opposition
coming from white people, particularly from whit
fishing unions, who are already mobilizing agains.
the possibility in B.C. Today the Indian people
in Washington are still before the courts trying to
maintain their rights as given to them by Judge
Boldt. Many long and costly legal battles are still
being fought about the interpretation of his decision.
“airSHERMEN CONFRONT FEDERAL FISHERIES
“1. On the second day of the Forum, the Director
General of Fishing for the Pacific Region, Walley
Johnstone, was invited to answer delegates. He
denied that quotas were to be introduced.
THE ISSUES:
Chief John George of Chilliwack: dog patrols and
unequal or unfair fines.
John Williams, Mount Currie: the new mud bridge
over the Birkin River that was blocking off
spawning grounds; and logging debris in Lillooet
Lake.
Ed Newman: one set of rules for Indian food
fishing and one for sportsmen; catch figures
for sports fishing; lack of Indians on permanent
staff of Fisheries Department, tough licensing
regulations ‘putting marginal fishermen out of
business.
Neil Sterritt: tactics used by Fisheries Officers to
arrest food fishermen which amounted to harass-
_ ment; and the policy of officers carrying guns.
Robert Nahanee of Squamish Band: why is it illegal
for Indians to sell fish when the Fisheries Depart-
ment sold 70,000 pounds out of the Capilano
hatchery?
ie Willie, UBCIC: Fishery officers should be
educated about Indian traditional fishing.
- Ken Malloway: questioned about commercial and
food fishing figures.
Clifford Louis, Stellaqua: erosion of fishing cishits
since Barricades Agreement in 1911; Is conser-
vation a smokescreen to take away our rights?
Linda Johnson, Lahane Lake: winter fishing hours
and cutting off of nose and dorsal fin.
Jake Kruger: Indian representation on all decision-
making fishing groups;
Victor Reece, Prince Rupert: encroachment of non-
Indian commercial fishing on traditional Indian
food, like oolichan, seaweed, clams, abalone.
Ed Moody, Bella Coola: depletion of fishing runs
caused by logging, floods, pollution, steam-dam-
age, etc.
Ray Nahani: aboriginal rights to territory and re-
sources.
FISHERIES LIP-SERVICE TOKENISM
UNACCEPTABLE
Wally Johnstone expressed sympathy with com-
plaints, agreed with suggestions, couldn’t answer
questions and promised to look into incidents and
reports. George Manuel interrupted:
“J am appalled at how unprepared you are, in
coming to this meeting. You aren’t taking this
photo: S. Basil
conference seriously. Our delegation is very
concerned about the harassments and the token-
ism coming from your department.
We are concerned about the economic power the
sports fishermen hold. They are given more rights
than our people who have Fishing Rights and who
need the fish resources for survival.
You state your officers are highly trained. I dis-
pute this because the enforcement officers use
unethical methods to lay charges and convict our
people; and I am concerned about your campaign
to harass our people, giving bad publicity in the
eyes of the public in order to impose more regu-
lations. It concerns me because you are talking
down to us, not with us.
We are the Aboriginal People. The fish is part of
our survival, culture and history. We have an un-
employment rate of 57% year round, and we need
the fish. And today you are merely trying to
pacify us and I cannot accept that.”
Dr. Johnson replied that he hoped to disprove this,
given some time. He agreed that expense and travel
funds should be available for food fish committee
meetings.
The next item on the agenda was DIA agent Tom -
Rotheray’s report about the Indian Fishermen’s
Assistance Program. .
Jake Kruger: “The “only reason a person in our
area goes out on the water now is to sit and think.
The fish there are pretty well depleted.”
PROVINCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Finally the question of a Provincial Fish body
was discussed and chairman Steven Point announced
that all people present would be invited to attend a
Provincial Advisory Committee Meeting which
would, he hoped, be held early in 1978. Ed New-
man supported the idea and recommended that all
Indian organizations be contacted about this. All
delegates were invited to an Open House at the
UBCIC’ offices and the meeting was adjourned.
27
aoe
Save
Part of Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs – Fish and Indians are Inseparable (December, 1978)