178 IMI INDIAN MSMI RV 



Department can protect traditional tishmg stations ("rotn 

 iiitertereiice by others (and usually (.K>es so al the liulians" 

 request). S«> at least si>rne i>l the at.lininistrative details 

 that are a nuis;ince to Indians appear to be necessary to 

 identity legitimate Indian fishermen, to manage the 

 resources they use and to enforce the restriction on sell- 

 ing their catch. Some others can be simplified. 



A more fundamental issue underlies the Indians' di.s- 

 satisfaction with the permit system, however. While per- 

 mits confer tishmg privileges that are not available to 

 non-Indians, they have also been the government's 

 means of curtailing Indian fishing. But many Indians feel 

 that their traditional access to fish is their right and not 

 merely a privilege to be meted out by the authorities as 

 they see fit. It has become clear to me that this is the root 

 of much of the discontent and friction that have erupted 

 in the field and spilled over into the courts. Under cur- 

 rent policy, Indians view their access to fish to be vulner- 

 able to changes in Indian fishery regulations and the 

 Department's policies, to catches by other, larger 

 resource users, to pollution and other habitat damage, 

 and to the Department's difficulties in managing the 

 resources. Thus, the permit system oflTers the Indians no 

 security for their claim on the resource. To overcome this 

 I propose below that Indian catches be guaranteed. 



Illegal Sales of Fish 



The illegal sale of fish caught in Indian fisheries is by 

 no means universal, but it is common in certain areas and 

 draws much criticism from outside observers. The mea- 

 sures taken to control it are irritating to innocent Indians, 

 and it presents an exceedingly difficult enforcement prob- 

 lem for the authorities. 



Many Indians resent the prohibition on sales of fish as 

 a denial of their historical practices. In the words of one 

 northern group. 



The idea that the inlan(d) Indian fisheries 

 should be for subsistence only was first intro- 

 duced in this area in the B.C. Fishery Regula- 

 tions, November, 1888. Up to that time, and 

 indeed after, it was considered legitimate for 

 an Indian fisherman to trade or sell any of his 

 catch that was surplus to the needs of his 

 family.-' 



The desirability of permitting sales offish caught in the 

 Indian fishery is debated among Indian groups them- 

 selves. Those on the Skeena and Fraser typically support 

 legalization of sales, while those of the Nass valley gener- 

 ally oppose it. But all advocate inland commercial fisher- 

 ies as a means of economic development. 



The refusal of some Indians to accept the legitimacy of 

 restrictions on the sale of their fish makes enforcement 



particularly difficult. Moreover, many believe that the 

 .system has allracleil non-lnilians to become involved in 

 bootlegging tish taken in up-river Indian fisheries. As 

 .salmon have increased in value, the incentives for illegal 

 sales have increased correspondingly, and enforcement 

 has become almost impossible. 



These problems would disappear if the restrictions on 

 Indian sales offish were abolished. This could be done if 

 Indians had the right to specific quantities of fish, as I 

 propose below under certain conditions. This would also 

 meet the fundamental concern that underiies the prohibi- 

 tion on sales: that is, keeping the catch to a legitimate 

 level. 



Other Enforcement Issues 



In addition to the difficulties over sales of fish, the 

 Indian fishery has a history of abrasive relations between 

 the Department and Indians over enforcement of 

 requirements concerning fishing times, places and other 

 matters. Many Indians find these regulations offensive in 

 principle, others maintain that they are arbitrarily 

 imposed, and others appear to misunderstand them. In 

 the course of public hearings and meetings with Indians, 

 I heard of many incidents in which gear or fish have been 

 destroyed or confiscated and arrests made that have left 

 Indians bewildered or outraged and have often had 

 severe economic consequences for thera These measures 

 are often interpreted by Indian people as harassment; 



. . . Indian people (have) experienced harass- 

 ment, intimidation, unjustified confiscation of 

 fish, cars and gear, unnecessary and fruitless 

 court action pursued at great expense by 

 Fisheries personnel, constantly using emo- 

 tionally loaded terms as "massive poaching", 

 "illegal possessions", etc.-^ 



For enforcement officers, too, the present arrange- 

 ments often pose very difficult problems. While they must 

 apply the law with understanding and sensitivity, they 

 are, at the same time, under heavy pressure to closely 

 monitor highly visible Indian fishing. 



To help resolve these problems I propose new provi- 

 sions to clarify in advance the fishing arrangements for 

 particular bands and to enable the Indians themselves to 

 take more of the responsibility for administering them. 



Q)nsultation and Participation 



A recurrent criticism by Indians is that the Department 

 fails to consult them in formulating regulations for their 

 fishing activity and that this results in difficulties relating 

 to their customary fishing practices. They also claim that 

 their local knowledge is ignored and that they have little 

 opportunity to contribute to fisheries management. 



