I ran across an interesting press release today regarding the use of federal money to help Native Americans become competitive in the fishing industry.  It turns out that the Canadian government has committed $20 million over the next two years to provide assistance in the way of business knowledge, skills, and equipment to allow First Nations tribes gear up and get fishing in the Atlantic. 

Canadian law states that aboriginal people have a right to make a living via hunting, fishing and gathering. 

It’s been almost 30 years since a federal court ruled that Michigan Indian tribes had virtually unlimited fishing rights in state waters, under an 1836 treaty.  As a result, the state is currently still under negotiation with five Michigan tribes to decide their right to Michigan’s fish and wildlife resources.  Unlike Wisconsin and Minnesota, Michigan is trying to negotiate in order to avoid the problems encountered by the other two states. 

A recent article from the Detroit Free Press explains the rights given to Native Americans under the new agreement.    

Personally, a number of things bother me about the agreement, and tribal rights in general, but the thing that really gets me is this:

Q: Indians can kill up to five deer a year, including two bucks, with tribal licenses. Can they buy state licenses and kill more deer?

A: Yes. Because Indians are in the unique position of being both members of their tribe and citizens of the state, they can buy licenses from both. That goes for small game and fishing licenses as well.

I don’t understand how someone has the right to claim both tribal membership and state citizenship at the same time for the purposes of taking fish and wildlife.  As a citizen of the state of Utah, I can only claim residency in Utah.  To me, this is like saying that I can claim residency in other states for hunting/fishing purposes outside of my home state.  Come on, either you’re an American or you’re not.  I guess I just don’t understand tribal rights.  If an allowance to take addition fish and wildlife applied to those who live off the land (like subsistence users in Alaska - Native OR White), I would understand that.  But most of these folks live just like you or I.  I understand that the treaty is law, but how relevant is it?  We’re all Americans and live in ‘One Nation Under God’.  Why don’t we all live under the same law and rules, without exception?

The conflict between Native American tribal rights, recreational fisheries, and fisheries conservation as a whole has been highlighted by recent events in Canada’s Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery. 

Native Americans are protesting a ruling by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans that will prevent them from fishing for sockeye salmon in the Fraser River using traditional native fishing methods this season.

The ruling to close sockeye fishing came as officials got the news that only about 1.6 million salmon were estimated to return to the river, significantly down from the expected 6.3 million.  The Fraser is reported to be the largest salmon producing river in the world, and the reason for the sharp decline in numbers is believed to be a result of poor ocean survival in 2005.

Management of the Fraser River sockeye highlights a very complex set of rules, regulations, and priorities that often cause different user groups to be at arms.  In short, the top priority in sockeye management is to ensure that enough fish return to spawn in order to support a sustainable population.  Next in the line of priorities come the Native American tribes, which claim traditional rights to the fishery.  Finally, commercial and recreational anglers rank at the bottom of the list.

Natives have voiced strong opposition to the Fraser River recreational fishery and have demanded that it be shut down.  Even with the commercial fishery shut down and the recreational fishery closed to the taking of sockeye, they’ve accused recreational anglers of taking ‘their’ sockeye illegally.

 And so in lieu of the latest closure to the sockeye fishery on the Fraser River, natives vowed to protest and fish anyway.

Natives of three local bands took their boats out on the lower Fraser River and fished on Saturday and Sunday.  This was done with the knowledge that they would be able to fish legally if the time were taken to draft a sharing agreement with the government.

Federal officials charged 35 of the protesters for fishing in a closed season over the weekend.  The individuals were using gillnets to capture sockeye salmon.  Officials kept a close eye on recreational fishermen in the Lower Fraser, who were targeting chinook salmon over the weekend, and stated that no sockeye salmon were kept illegally.

So what do you think?  Were the native bands right in protesting for their rights to the fishery?  I don’t think so.  We’ll have to wait and see how the courts rule, but I don’t think anything positive was accomplished by the move.  While I don’t intend to deny respect for Native American tribal rights, I think this was a very poor decision by the group that protested.  If anything, it expanded the divide between native and recreational anglers, and these bands showed that they are more concerned about ensuring they have one up on the recreational guys, than about the well being of the salmon population. 

One would think that a group whose livelihood is based partially on the salmon resource would be concerned about preserving it for the future rather than making sure they got more than everyone else.  These folks could have fished legally for chinook, just like the recreational anglers. 

Read more about the issue in the following articles:

DFO Curtails Harvest of Fraser Sockeye

Natives Promise to Defy Ban on Sockeye Fishing

Natives Ignore Fishing Ban

35 Natives Charged With Breach of Sockeye Fishing Ban