THE INDIAN HSHERY 177 



battles. Already sensitive relations between Indians and 

 the Department have become inflamed, and resentment 

 and mistrust have been aggravated. 



We also have been legislated against, arrested 

 or threatened with arrest for practicing our 

 harvest of resources. . . . Since regulations, 

 restrictions and policies have come into exis- 

 tence by the Federal Government, harass- 

 ment has become a real problem for Indian 

 people. Harassment on Indian Fishing 

 increases as more policies are developed.'* 



... a great deal of harm and bad faith has 

 arisen . . . over the rights ... to food fish. ..." 



This deterioration in relations between Indians and the 

 government is the result of a long history of resentment 

 over restrictions on Indian fishing, recurrent legal 

 disputes and confrontations, and recently the resistence 

 by the Department to band fishing by-laws (described 

 below). And pervading all this is the frustration over the 

 slow progress toward resolving the fundamental issues of 

 Indian land claims and aboriginal rights. 



Several concurrent trends can be expected to aggravate 

 present problems. Increasing pressures on resources from 

 the commercial and sport fisheries in addition to the 

 growing demands of the Indian fisher>' itself will inevi- 

 tably call for improved control of escapements and more 

 stringent regulation of fishing, as I explain elsewhere in 

 this report. Moreover, the sharp rise in Indian fishmg 

 may well continue in view of the trends in Indian popula- 

 tions and age structures, and the movement of off-reserve 

 Indians back to their communities. 



It should be emphasized that Indian fishing is not 

 problematical everywhere. In some areas, smooth work- 

 ing relationships have developed between the Depart- 

 ment and local bands. But in many other areas, the issue 

 of Indian fishing is contentious and in some, explosive. In 

 the following paragraphs I summarize the main difficul- 

 ties with the present arrangements before turning to my 

 proposals for resolving them. 



Priority 



The Department has stated that it recognizes Indian 

 fishing rights, and accords this fishery first priority in the 

 utilization of fish, subject only to the paramount needs of 

 resource conservation (which means leaving enough 

 spawners to replenish the stocks).'" 



But according first priority to the Indian fishery pre- 

 sents a practical problem, since this fishery usually comes 

 last in the sequence of demands on migrating salmon. 

 Indian fishing on the rivers takes place after the much 

 larger commercial and recreational fisheries have taken 

 their catch. Giving priority to the Indians' catch therefore 



is exceedingly difficult, especially when the size of the 

 total stock is not reliably known until most fishmg is 

 completed. 



Inevitably, the commercial and sport fisheries some- 

 times take too many fish to provide sufficient stocks for 

 both needed escapement and the Indian fishery, and by 

 the lime this is known the only way to maintain the 

 stocks is to constrain Indian fishing. This problem is 

 aggravated by the fact that the requirements for the 

 Indian fishery are not quantitatively sf)ecified. The 

 Department never knows in advance how many salmon 

 in the various runs it should reserve for the Indian 

 fishery, and similar uncertainty is faced by the Interna- 

 tional Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission in regulating 

 the sockeye and pink salmon of the Fraser River. To 

 resolve this problem, among others, I propose below that 

 the Indians' first priority claim on the catch be defined 

 quantitatively. 



The Permit System 



The permit system has been adopted to identify Indian 

 fishermen and to regulate their fishing times and places 

 where this is required. The system is offensive to some 

 Indians and. in communities without a fishery' officer 

 near at hand, it is inconvenient. 



Certain administrative requirements of these permits 

 are criticized by Indians as being unjustifiable or unne- 

 cessarily bothersome. These include the provisions that 

 gear must be marked with identifying tags and that Indi- 

 ans must provide their Social Insurance numbers and 

 band numbers as well as certify that they are Indians 

 under the Indian Act. The administrative practice of 

 restricting fishing in some areas to a few days per week is 

 also criticized. Under the regulations, permits may 

 require the fish to be marked to identify them as Indian 

 food fish by removal of their snouts and dorsal fins, 

 which Indians view with distaste. And some Indians 

 object to the whole system as an unwarranted interfer- 

 ence with their fishing rights. 



There is another side to all this, however. The permit 

 system enables Indians to fish in ways and areas that are 

 forbidden to non-Indians. Their legal effect is to exempt 

 Indians from general restrictions, such as those on fishing 

 for sockeye and pink salmon in nontidal waters, the use 

 of nets on inland streams and the bag limits that apply to 

 sportfishing. Permits provide the instruments to authorize 

 these special exemptions for Indians. 



Permits also provide the means for managing stocks by 

 stipulating fishing in certain places, at certain times and 

 for certain species. As well, they are a means of obtaining 

 needed statistical information on Indian fishing. More- 

 over, they help to avoid disputes among Indians: by 

 authorizing certain Indians to fish in certain places, the 



