Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs – Fish and Indians are Inseparable (December, 1978)

1.06-01.03 Nesika: UBCIC News

1.06.-01 Newsletters and bulletins sub-series

December 1978

1

8

english

1.06-01.03-02.12

28

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

Lilian Basil

periodical

 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