{This article is reproduced from Peace Brigades International (PBI)
Project Bulletin, April 1995. It was written by PBI volunteers as
part of a report on a fisheries conference held over March 11-12.
Reproduction and re-use is encouraged, as long as credit is given to
PBI for the text, and your intentions are good. For more
info about PBI's North America Project, contact:
Alan Dixon
27 Third Ave.
Ottawa, ON K1S 2J5
e-mail: adixon@web.apc.org}
The fisheries of Lake Huron are not in great shape. The fish have
been suffering from overfishing, pollution and the introduction
of new species not indigenous to the Great Lakes. As a result,
over the past 100 years there has been a radical transformation
of the fish stocks in size, age, species and numbers.
This has led to conflict between people with different interests
regarding the fisheries. These people can be grouped into:
commercial fishers, sport fishers, and fishers from the Nawash
and Saugeen First Nations. Until recently, the Ontario Ministry
of Natural Resources (MNR, the government responsible for the
management of the fisheries) has not acknowledged any rights
specific to the First Nations fishers, who claim both
constitutional and treaty rights to the Lake Huron fisheries.
>From 1984 on, when a quota system was introduced for commercial
fishers, MNR enforcment officials laid many charges against First
Nations fishers for illegal fishing and for over-fishing the
quotas assigned to them. According to the First Nations, these
quotas were too small and did not recognize the differences in
the way they do their fishing and distribute their catch, nor
their treaty and constitutional rights to the fisheries.
A recent court decision (Jones-Nadjiwon, April 1993) affirmed
that the Nawash and Saugeen First Nations do indeed have treaty
and constitutional rights to the Lake Huron fisheries. The court
ruled that a heirarchy of priorities should govern fisheries
management policy: conservation first, First Nations fishers
second, and commercial and sports fishers last. This has
concluded the legal aspect of the conflict, but has not resolved
the root of the problem.
According the MNR, their current management scheme based on an
"ecosystem" approach has been successful in generating record
harvests. In 1990, the Bruce commercial fishery was valued at
$1.5 million a year, of which about 1% was taken by First Nations
fishers. Recreational fishing is partially managed through
licensing, but there is little information about the size of
these catches. The MNR now has to change this management policy,
but the court decision does not describe how to implement the new
heirarchy of interests into the current system.
>From the point of view of the First Nations fishers, the decision
does not recognise their "traditional management policy," a
relationship with the fish that does not fit into the current
"western scientfic management policy." In other words, they don't
want a quota, they want to fish according to their traditional
values. They believe that the current policies are wrong and are
destroying their way of life.
At the same time, sport fishers are concerned about losing their
current opportunities for recreational fishing. Many do not agree
with the court decision, and are afraid that the priority given
to First Nations will result in their loss. Because of their
numbers and political influence, their involvement in any
political decision is essential.
And so the basic conflict over fisheries management is not just
about numbers, but also about control, and "management
philosophies." Because control is a political issue, the
conflict becomes enmeshed in the issues related to the historical
relationship between First Nations and newcomers. This adds a
level of complication, but also an importance and opportunity for
those involved, to work towards healing that relationship, and
with it the land and waters that cradle it.