UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

"To fish for themselves" : a study of accommodation and resistance in the Stó:lō fishery Brown, Kimberly Linkous 2005

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2005-994473.pdf [ 16.1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0092409.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0092409-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0092409-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0092409-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0092409-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0092409-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0092409-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0092409-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0092409.ris

Full Text

"TO FISH FOR THEMSELVES": A STUDY OF A C C O M M O D A T I O N A N D RESISTANCE IN T H E ST6:LO F ISHERY by KIMBERLY LINKOUS B R O W N B.A., Western Wash ington University, 1993 M.A., Western Wash ington University, 1996 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS F O R T H E DEGREE OF D O C T O R OF PHILOSOPHY in T H E FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES A N T H R O P O L O G Y T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA January 2005 ©Kimber ly Linkous Brown, 2005 Abstract Fisheries regulations, implemented in the 1880s, banned the sale of Indian ' food f ish' and resulted in the creat ion of the categories of "food f ishing" and "commercial f ishing." Wh i le simultaneously accept ing and rejecting that place in the margins of this f ractured f ishery, St6:l6 people have consistently maintained that their Abor iginal right to f ish cannot be cast in these false categories that separate the economic and social components of their way of life. St6:l6 f ishers have been f ighting for their Aboriginal right to f ish since the their first encounters with the Xwelitem. This thesis addresses that struggle within a context of accommodat ion and resistance. In this historically si tuated ethnography, I offer an examinat ion of a problem, not a people. By selecting three distinct responses to f isheries regulat ion on the part of peoples identifying themselves as St6:l6, I reveal a link between the histories of the individual St6:l6 communit ies and their specif ic responses to regulat ion, demonstrat ing that connected to those histories are as many different St6:l6 f isheries as there are species of salmon. The responses examined in this thesis are, in the words of the St6:l6 themselves, rooted in tradit ion; tradit ion having become the short answer to quest ions regarding the St6:l6 and their Aboriginal right to f ish. As a part of my examinat ion, I seek to uncover the long answer; more specifically how tradit ion has come to support these separate and distinct responses to over a century of interference into their way of life. ii Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables v List of Figures vi Preface vii Acknowledgments x Dedication xi In Remembrance xii Chapter One: To Fish For Themselves - Introduction 1 The Creation of Conflict - Locating the Problem 5 The Research Problem - Theory and Context 10 Discussions of Resistance 16 Discussions of Tradition 22 The Research Problem within the Context of an Existing Literature 24 St6:l6 Fishers Respond 32 The Problem of Research 36 The People of the River: Contemporary Times 45 The People of the River: Antiquity and Ethnography 50 Chapter Two: History, Regulation and Resistance 60 Historical Preview 61 The Growth of British Columbia Canneries and the Industrialization of a Fishery 65 An Era of Regulation Emerges 67 Early Struggles With Regulation 72 Fishing For Themselves 75 Summary and Discussion 85 Chapter Three: The Courts Reshape the Fishery 87 Indian Fishers and the Courts 89 The Creation of a Commercial Fishery and the Potential for Shared Management 100 Industrial Fishers and the Pilot Sale Arrangement 114 iii Summary and Discussion 118 Chapter Four: Warriors on the Water 121 Community Overview 122 The Battle Lines Are Drawn 123 A Cease Fire of Sorts 134 Life Along the River - the Practice of a Tradition 137 Managing Their Own Fishery 139 Discussion 143 Chapter Five: Would It Have Been Easier to Go to Court? 151 Community overview 153 The Creation of a Community 154 Justice as Healing 156 Mr. R's Day in 'Court' 159 Alternative Justice and the Aboriginal Right to Fish: A Good Fit? 161 Life Lived as Tradition 165 Discussion 171 Chapter Six: Highliners and Moneymakers 176 Highliners in the Canyon 183 Bona fide Commercial Fisherman 187 Discussion 192 Chapter Seven: Fishing For Themselves Still: Conclusion 203 Case Studies 210 What Follows 222 Reference 225 Appendix: Map of Traditional St6:l6 Territory 243 iv List of Tables Table 1. Chronology of Fishery Regulation for the Province of British Columbia 68 Table 2. Fisheries Regulations Impacting Aboriginal Access to Fisheries Resource 70 Table 3. Chronology of Governmental Regulation with Special Emphasis on the Fraser River 71 Table 4. Aboriginal Fisheries Court Cases 92 Table 5. Catch Data For Fraser River Sockeye 118 Table 6. Cheam Reserve 122 Table 7. Seabird Island Reserve 153 v List of Figures Figure 1. Notice to Native Fishers How to Mark Salmon 80 Figure 2. Map of St6:l6 Fishing Sites 90 Figure 3. Industrial Fishers Respond 117 Figure 4. "Get Away From My Net " Confrontation at Cheam Beach 132 Figure 5. Black Market Fish 193 vi Preface "In earlier times this Fraser River resembled an enormous dish that stored up food for the Indians flock here from every quarter to catch the fish that abounded in its waters" (Maud 1982). "Indians throughout British Columbia have always caught, sold or traded their fish and ...changes in technology and equipment or the development of non-Indian exploitation of the fishing resources could not alter the fundamental fact of Indian sovereignty, Aboriginal rights, and the unity of "food" and "commercial" fishing (Ware 1983). Domination and resistance: "No simple dialectic...both may be brutal, but often neither is very clear. Domination even at it's most violent can still be permeated with ambiguity, uncertainty and peculiar mixtures of fantasy and reality; resistance can occur simultaneously with collusion....having both cultural and political-economic dimensions that sometimes develop in conjunction and sometimes run cross-current to each other" (Sider 1987). "Tradition names processes of continuing cultural and social construction through which they seek to distance themselves from the dominant society" (Sider 1993). "...tradition does not appear as a corpus of statements handed down unchanged from one generation to the next. It is a succession of answers to questions about the resent, and consequently it takes on the status of an always correct answer to the questions asked. The questions are those the society is asking itself at the present time (Mauze 1997). Fisheries regulations, implemented in the 1880s, banned the sale of Indian ' food f ish' and resulted in the creation of the categories of "food f ishing" and "commercial f ishing" - categories that became firmly entrenched in the industrial f ishery at the mouth of the Fraser River and actively contested by the Aboriginal peoples f ishing the upper reaches of the river. Addit ional regulat ions in 1888 contained more comprehensive controls over f ishing equipment and methods as wel l as specif ic penalt ies for violat ions. Protected in the regulat ions was an Aboriginal right to f ish for food. Specif ic language contained in the regulat ions upheld the Indian food f ishery, declar ing that "Indians were to, at all t imes, have liberty to f ish for the purpose of vii providing food for themselves, but not for sale, barter or traffic" - casting in stone the concept of a separate fishery for food and a separate fishery for commerce. Cast in stone as well were the ideals of the larger population as to the place of Aboriginal peoples in the fishery. While simultaneously accepting and rejecting their place in the margins of this fractured fishery, St6:l6 people have consistently maintained that their Aboriginal right to fish could not be cast in these false categories that separate the economic and social components of their way of life. While industrial fishing interests have worked to maintain a separate commercial fishery confined to the mouth of the river, St6:l6 people have fought to keep intact the social and economic aspects of their fishery - sharing fish with family and friends as a part of ceremonies; selling and trading fish with the new immigrants to their land. As noted by Jimmy George of the Aitchleitz (St6:l6 member band) First Nation: the DFO stopped us from selling fish. We bartered what we had with other nations for what they had. Now we barter for the dollar to use for something else. My father does not ever remember giving the right to fish away - neither does my grandfather. My grandfather used to trade with people two mountains away for things we didn't have here. (Sqwelqwels ye St6:ld. August 1998, Vol. 1, Issue 6) Such were the historical processes that shaped the lives of the St6:l6 in the post-contact years and figured prominently in the production/reproduction of culture as reflected in the varying responses to fisheries regulation. This thesis examines selected, specific responses to fisheries regulation, focusing not only on the larger colonial/post colonial conflict, but also on the internal conflict inherent in the domination/resistance dialectic. Critical to this examination of the Aboriginal right to fish is the role of the 'processes of continuing cultural and social construction' or viii tradit ion as it supports specif ic acts of resistance. ix Acknowledgments First I would like to thank the St6:l6 People who were so gracious to me and al lowed me to spend so many wonderful days in their territory. There are a number of people who shared a great deal of their t ime with me to whom I must give a special thanks: Grand Chief Clarence Pennier, Chief Doug Kelly, Clem Seymour, Corky Douglas, June Quipp and all the people at Cheam. A special thanks to Grand Chief Archie Charles for letting me visit his dry rack camp and for letting my husband take pictures of his family 's camp. A special thanks to Lester Ned for his gracious hospitality aboard his "lazy whi te man's boat" as well as in his home. A special thanks to Isaac Aleck for all the t ime he spent visit ing with me at the beach, showing the important spots along that sect ion of the Fraser River, for taking me out drift ing and for all the salmon he gave me. A very special thanks to Ken Mal loway who spent so much t ime with me, talking with me, teaching me, and taking me on my first f ishing trip. Oh yeah, and for providing me with my fr ightening f ield story! And last, but certainly not at all least, Ernie Crey who has been a t remendous source of information and a fr iend for several years now. I know I couldn't have accompl ished this without his help and fr iendship. Thanks to the people at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in part icular Bert lonson and Bridget Enevor who took t ime out of their busy days to help me and talk with me. Thanks to Charles Menzies for his patience and direction in this project. He taught me so much and made possible many wonderful opportunit ies to apply what I've learned. Charles introduced me to so many people who helped shaped the way I now look at the world. Many thanks to Bruce Miller f rom whom I've learned and gained so much. His encouragement kept me going. And finally, many thanks to Dan Boxberger who first introduced me to the works of Karl Marx and who has shepherded me through my academic life now for 12 years. Thanks to Jane and Patty for sharing this exper ience with me. I learned so much from you both. And Caroline, I don't know where to even begin. I would have never made it this far without that smil ing face and words of encouragement. I'm looking forward to many more road trips. What 's next - New Mexico? Wai t a minute. One of us has to stay home to watch Gilmore Girls. Thanks to my family who have put up with my grouchiness, especial ly these last few months. And finally, thanks to my wonderful husband whose love and support helped make this dream a reality. Borrowing a line f rom my favorite Marxist, I sum up my approach to life and this wonderful , f r ightening experience. One Two One, Two, Three...JUMP * *Steve Earle, "Steve's Last Ramble" off of Transcendental Blues, 2000, published by Sarangel Music X FOR STEVE WITH ALL M Y LOVE xi In Remembrance During the course of my fieldwork, two of the individuals with whom I spent a great of t ime - individuals contr ibuting signif icantly to the complet ion of this document - lost loved ones. Out of respect for these individuals and all that they contr ibuted to this thesis, I would like to remember their loved ones here. Ernie Crey's sister In memory of Dawn Theresa Crey Ken Mal loway's son In memory of Kelly Mal loway xii Chapter One: To Fish For Themselves - Introduction "It's simple - one line on the page,"says one St6:ld fisher. "Tell them we're going fishing." A response comes from across the room. "Let's go back to our traditional way of fishing - Thursday through Sunday"1 July 15, 2002 - I sit quietly against the wal l at the far end of the room as band f isheries representat ives and chiefs meet to consider the sales agreement on the table before them; an agreement outl ining the federal government 's parameters for the upcoming salmon f ishery. Twenty-one bands must sign the agreement before the legal sale of in-river caught salmon may proceed. Only eleven bands agree to sign, forcing the sale of Indian caught sockeye to the margins outside of the law. The absence of a sale agreement shifts the discussion to "developing a f ishing plan of our own." Wi th in minutes a plan is committed to paper and circulated to those present for signature. Fifteen bands sign onto the plan. Fishing t imes for member bands of the St6:l6 f ishery are set: 72 hours each week for the month of July and August 2002 start ing the week of July 14, 2002, f rom Thursday 1800 hours to Sunday 1800 hours . 2 Fisheries and Oceans is notif ied of the St6:l6 f ishing plan; their response - no Thursday opening for the week beginning July 14, 2002. It wasn' t as simple as one line on a page. As Thursday, the first opening day out l ined in the proposed plan, approached, 'F rom 1951 through 1961 , open periods in the Indian Food Fishery were limited to four days per week, year round - 1 8 0 0 hours Wednesday to 1800 hours Sunday. Beginning in 1962, the number of al lowable f ishing days was reduced f rom four days per week to three. Over the decades further reductions in al lowable f ishing days would be wi tnessed. The f isher in quest ion was referring to the t ime when the river was more accessible to the Indian Food Fishery. 2 These t imes pertain to the set net f ishery only - the primary St6:l6 f ishery. The drift net f ishery was limited to Saturday and Sunday only. The dry rack f ishery t imes were also set for Thursday through Sunday. 1 debates and objections to the opening cont inued. Of concern was the effect of the 72 hour opening on the early Stuart run; a run that has been at the center of the Department of Fisheries and Ocean's (DFO) conservat ion concern for many years and a run that has consistently been f ished by Aboriginal peoples all a long the Fraser f rom the lower val ley to past Prince George in the central interior. 3 Cit ing an " inherent Abor iginal right to go f ishing," f i f teen St6:l6 bands prepared to go f ishing with or without DFO approval . Expressing doubt as to the validity of DFO's data regarding the posit ion of the early Stuarts in the river, Bob Hall, Fisheries Portfolio holder for St6: l6 Nation, remarked at the meet ing, "The chiefs and f ishermen made the decis ion [to go f ishing] based on our own conservat ion knowledge. The early Stuarts have already passed through our territory." DFO would agree to the 72 hour opening. The events of that day in July 2002, clearly depict the specif ic relat ionship exist ing between Aboriginal peoples and the larger Canadian society as it relates to the salmon f ishery. The St6:l6 have been f ighting for their Aboriginal r ights since the first encounters with the Xwelitem.4 Central to the fight has been the struggle to regain 3 T h e DFO has had a number of incarnations in its i l lustrious past. 1867-1884 Marine and Fisheries - Fisheries Branch; 1884-1892 Department of Fisheries; 1892-1914 Marine and Fisheries - Fisheries Branch; 1914-1920 Naval Services - Fisheries Branch; 1920-1930 Mar ine and Fisheries- Fisheries Branch; 1930-1969 Department of Fisheries; 1969-1971 Department of Fisheries and Forestry; 1971-1976 Department of Environment-Fisher ies and Marine Service; 1976-1979 Department of Fisheries and the Environment Fisheries and Marine Service; f rom 1979 until very recently Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO); at present it is Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO Factbook, 1993, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa, Ontario). In this thesis the fol lowing designat ions for Fisheries and Oceans Canada are used: DFO, Fisheries, Fisheries and Oceans. The designat ion of DFO is the one used most often. *Xwelitem t ranslates as "hungry people" and is the Halq;emeylem word used to refer to people of European ancestry. 2 some measure of control over the natural resources of their territory, resources that were essential to the development of the industrial economies that now dominate St6:l6 territory. One primary batt leground for this f ight has been the Fraser River, or more part icularly the Fraser River salmon f ishery. Wh i le a great many factors have f igured into the St6:l6's conceptual izat ion of their f ishery, it has been f isheries regulat ions enacted in the 19 t h century - regulat ions that created the artificial categories of ' food' and 'commercial ' f isheries - that has reshaped the St6:l6's relat ionship to the Fraser and its salmon. Col lected oral histories refer to stories told by elders of a t ime when "the St6:l6 went to the river to f ish whenever they needed, any t ime of day, any day of the week." However, in the years subsequent to intense regulat ion, federal mandates have determined how, when and where Aboriginal peoples could f ish; out lawed the sale of salmon and turned the everyday practice of f ishing into a criminal act. This thesis addresses the St6:l6's f ight for their Aboriginal right to f ish within a context of accommodat ion and resistance. In this historically si tuated examinat ion, I focus my study on what I have identif ied as three separate and distinct responses to government interference into a way of life on the part of a peoples identifying themselves as St6:l6 - Coast Sal ish peoples with a common heri tage, common mythology and ritual - a people among whom social and economic t ies are establ ished across community boundar ies through marriage. The act ions I have identif ied as responses to regulat ion range from overt acts of rebell ion to simple acts of feeding one's family. Whether considered typical or atypical this range of act ions represents directed individual and/or collective actions designed to effect a fundamental change in 3 the relat ionship between the federal and provincial governments and the St6:l6 people and can be considered consistent with the history of the St6:l6's responses to the advancing loss of their f ishing rights. The actions that I have identif ied as specif ic responses to regulat ion include: the part icipation in direct acts of often militant protest on the part of the Cheam Band; the initiation of a just ice diversion program the Seabird Island Band; and the part icipation in legal sales f isheries conducted under the auspices of negot iated agreements or government l icensing requirements. Addit ional ly, I seek to understand how tradit ion, as it was descr ibed to me by the individuals with whom I spoke, supports the specif ic acts of resistance identif ied in this study. A n d equal ly as important, I seek to understand how that tradit ion has been shaped and reshaped by over one hundred years of regulat ion that had, as its mandate, the removal of Abor ig inal f ishers f rom the upper reaches of the Fraser River. In order to address these issues and others, I offer an examinat ion of a problem, not a people; a focus that is not so much on a particular place or group of people, but rather on forms of resistance in response to government regulat ion. This approach, as descr ibed by Dombrowski , seeks to demonstrate the relat ionship between peoples and their customs within an historical context, by focusing on the dynamacism of ceremonies, customs, relations and patterns of ideas and examining how that "stuff of culture" comes to be caught up with, and becomes part of, the polit ical and social changes people face (2001:4). Dombrowski , fol lowing in the footsteps of such historical anthropologists as Eric Wol f and Joan Vincent notes that: This approach moves away from the classical ethnographic stance that presumed collective identity rather than quest ioned it....This approach involves placing the emergence of particular peoples and customary pract ices in an extended historical context. (2001:4) 4 As did Dombrowski in his examinat ion of the recent emergence of ' radical ' Christ ian churches in Native vi l lages in Southeast Alaska, by work ing backward f rom the present si tuation to the context f rom which it emerged as wel l as f rom the context against which it emerged, I highlight the internal struggles support ing these very distinct responses to f isheries regulat ion. The Creation of Conflict - Locating the Problem Ethnographic and archaeological data support the importance of salmon in the Coast Sal ish diet as well as its importance in Aboriginal economies. Addit ional ly, the importance of salmon socially and ceremonial ly is revealed in the myths and legends of the Coast Sal ish people. Historical accounts refer to a t ime when St6:l6 f ishers actively 'sold' their catch, first to operators of the Hudson's Bay Company saltry, and later, to commercial canners. But the emergence of the industrial f ishery in British Columbia in 1871 and the subsequent regulat ions that fo l lowed to ensure the steady growth of the industry worked to al ienate the St6:l6 f rom the resource on which they have long relied. Fisheries regulat ions implemented in British Columbia in the 1880s restricted Abor iginal f ishing, reshaped Aboriginal f ishing practices and signif icantly al tered St6:l6 economic act ivi ty. 5 A n 1839 census conducted by traders of the Hudson's Bay Company post at Fort Langley ref lected a total populat ion of 2074 for all of the mainland Halq;emeylem 5 The importance of f ishing and f ish in the diet of the Aboriginal peoples of British Columbia was so apparent that James Douglas agreed f rom the onset that f ishing rights be included in the treaties and other agreements with Native groups. Wh i le no treaties were negot iated with the St6:l6, the importance of the f ishery was considered when reserve al lotments ere made by the Reserve Commission. 5 tr ibes of which 1285 were listed as upper St6:l6 and 789 as lower Fraser River tr ibes (Duff 1952:28-29, 129-130). By 1879 a seven percent populat ion decl ine would be observed for the upper St6:l6 tr ibes, this decl ine likely the result of the 1862 small pox epidemic (Gibson 1982/83). Between 1879 and 1915 another nine percent decl ine wou ld be observed, coinciding with the Spanish f lu epidemic of 1913. This decl ine in the St6: l6 populat ion would have had some affect on exist ing economic and family relat ions in regards to the f ishery. And no doubt, these populat ion decl ines would have made the government 's attempts to regulate the f ishery somewhat easier, in that the second decl ine in 1879 came just as the industrial f ishery was expanding. It was in 1879 that a general Fishery Regulat ion for Canada was adopted which prohibi ted salmon f ishing without a Department of Marine Fisheries lease or l icense. By 1888 new regulat ions were implemented that would contain more comprehensive controls over salmon f ishing. St6:l6 f ishers found themselves at the mercy of the government and eventual ly having to violate f isheries regulat ions in order to procure household staples when they traded salmon for eggs and other food stuffs. As will be d iscussed in more detail in the next chapter, St6:l6 f ishers were the backbone of a cured f ish industry at Fort Langley beginning in 1829 and cont inuing until industrial canning was establ ished on the Fraser. Initially Native f ishers f igured prominently in that newly emerging cannery f ishery, but by the turn of the century they found themselves replaced by Japanese f ishers. Again, St6:l6 f ishers found themselves at the mercy of the government and again in violation of f isheries regulat ions as they bartered, t raded and sold their catch to make ends meet. As Native peoples were increasingly being al ienated f rom their land and 6 resources, numerous other stepts were taken to al ienate them from their culture as wel l . Provisions added to the Indian Act in 1927 out lawed Native winter ceremonies and potlatches in an attempt to further strip Native peoples of their culture, forcing them to rely on avai lable wage labor jobs rather than their customary forms of provisioning themselves. Another key component in the hegemonic process that fo l lowed in the wake of increased white sett lement was the residential school system whereby Abor iginal chi ldren were removed from their homes dur ing the school year and placed in whi te run boarding schools. Residential schools were a core instrument in the government 's attempt to assimilate Aboriginal peoples and chi ldren placed in the residential schools were separated from cultural practices and foods. St6:l6 chi ldren were sent to the Coqualeetza residential school in Chil l iwack before it c losed in 1939 and to St. Mary's Mission school in Mission, British Columbia. Ken Malloway, in an interview with reports f rom the Chilliwack Progress remarked: It was a way for the government through the church, to steal our land and make us over in their image....l ittle brown version of themselves. (Wednesday, May 1, 1991) St6:l6 in their late fort ies and early fifties with whom I spoke, talked of not being able to eat sa lmon whi le attending residential schools, salmon being absent f rom the school 's meals. They talked of missing the food on which they were raised; the food that was so essential to who they are. All of these factors shaped the way the St6:l6 v iewed their posit ion in the fishery. Wh i le they never backed away from their assert ion of a right to f ish, they were forced to acknowledge their posit ion in the margins of the larger non-Nat ive economy. At the same time, however, Stoi lo f ishers were aware of avenues of redress and exercised 7 those opt ions avai lable. St6:l6 leaders protested, testif ied in front of Royal Commissions, peti t ioned the government and relied on the power of the press to get out their concerns regarding the f ishery. For example in 1914 St6:l6 chiefs placed a letter in the local Chil l iwack newspaper indicating that regardless of attempts to halt Indian f ishing: W e wish it thoroughly understood that we do not intend to stop f ishing and that the Fishery Department has no right to attempt to stop us f rom doing so for our own use, as we are the Aboriginal owners of the land and the w a t e r , which provided food for us as in the past and present, and for all t ime to come. (Chilliwack Progress, August 6, 1914) In addit ion to their submission in the Progress, the chiefs also sent a letter protest to Ottawa and hired a lawyer to press for damages (Carlson, ed. 2001:181) . Aboriginal efforts to pursue claims for land and resources were halted when in 1927, the federal government inserted a provision in the Indian Act prevent ing Abor iginal people from obtaining legal assistance. This provision was eventual ly dropped from the Indian Act and Aboriginal f ishing cases made their way through the courts result ing in signif icant changes in federal policy but not necessari ly in the att i tudes of f isheries authorit ies or the industrial f ishing community. A long with the decades, confl ict progressed. Incidents of the result ing conflict and near battle condit ions will be discussed in subsequent chapters. Equally important is the role of f isheries regulat ion in the creat ion of an industrial f ishery narrative that, whi le borrowing heavi ly on the Aboriginal narrat ive of f ishing as a way of life, denies the legit imacy of an inherent Aboriginal right to f ish. In the 1990s federal policy regarding the Aboriginal f ishery began to change. Prior to the Sparrow rul ing in 1990, f isheries authorit ies were under no obl igat ion to justify c losures of the 8 Indian Food Fishery (IFF) that was created in 1888. As the decades progressed from the 1950s through the 1990s, Aboriginal f ishers wi tnessed signif icant decreases in the number of days they were al lowed to f ish. Sparrow signif icantly changed federal policy in regard to when and why the IFF could be curtai led: establ ishing the criteria for river c losures and establ ishing the Aboriginal f ishery as having priority over all other f isheries, and second only to conservat ion. In the years subsequent to Sparrow, industrial f ishers real ized many of the effects previously exper ienced by Aboriginal f ishers in the past and industrial f ishers began to util ize many of the same tactics used by Abor iginal f ishers in their f ight for a right to f ish. Industrial f ishers p laced full page ads in newspapers pleading their case with pie charts as visual examples of their so-cal led "marginal izat ion" in the fishery. By way of these ads they sought to demonstrate that wi th the implementat ion of new Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, and specif ically the Pilot Sale program that was a part of that plan, industrial f ishing opportuni t ies were lost. A 1995 insert in a Vancouver Newspaper reported that St6: l6/Musqueam f ishers were al lowed thirty seven days of f ishing f rom the period of June 17 to September 12. During the June 17 through September 12 fishery, industrial f ishers caught 889,000 salmon in compar ison to the Native only pilot sale and food f ishery catch of 613,000 out of a total run of f ive mill ion (this f igure includes totals for the Musqueam pilot sales f ishery in addit ion to the St6:l6 f ishery. As noted in a later chapter, the total St6:l6 catch for 1995 was 326,700). It was the content ion of the industrial f ishers that the Abor iginal only f isheries pushed them off the river and worked to destroy a way of life passed down through the generat ions. A table of catch data in chapter 3 il lustrates the St6:l6 total catch of sockeye salmon for the years a sales agreement was in place, 9 contrasted with the total al lotment dictated by the agreements. For the most part, St6:l6 catches did not approach the total al location, much less exceed it. Industrial f ishers also engaged in protest f isheries and their claims of a government sponsored race-based f ishery were eventual ly upheld by a Canadian court, only to be reversed a year later. 6 Industrial f ishers c la imed their way of life was eroding at the expense of protecting an Aboriginal right to f ish, a famil iar narrat ive as Abor ig inal f ishers have long claimed that their way of life as peoples of the river was being eroded to support the creat ion of an industrial f ishery. The unavoidable confl ict result ing f rom the coll ision of these two narratives has been played out on the river and in the court rooms. For the most part the weapons for each side have been the same: armed confrontat ion met with armed confrontat ion; court case met with court case; press release met with press release; hegemony met with counter-hegemony. The tool box for each side has been the same. The Research Problem - Theory and Context Anthropologists have examined individual and group act ions as they relate to social change and the interconnections among Aboriginal populat ions, the state, natural resources, social/polit ical organizat ion and adaptive strategies f rom a number of theoretical perspect ives including (1) dependency theory models and (2) approaches relying on processual analysis and action theory. Dependency theory approaches have been used to explain the relationship between the state and Abor ig inal peoples -these models i l lustrating the correlat ion between federal policies and the under-6 T h e Kapp decision, which is d iscussed in subsequent sect ions of this thesis. 10 development of Aboriginal economies. Examples of the appl icat ion of dependency theory in regards to the condit ions of Aboriginal peoples include Joseph Jorgensen's examinat ion of the relat ionship between Native Amer ican economies and the U.S. federal government, primarily in regards to natural resource extraction (1978, 1986, 1990); James McDonald 's (1985, 1994) examinat ion of underdevelopment as it exists in the polit ical economy of the Tsimshian of Ki tsumkalum; and Daniel Boxberger 's (1986,1988,1989) examinat ion of Lummi underdevelopment and the salmon f ishing economy of Wash ing ton State. In the case of McDonald 's and Boxberger 's examinat ion of Aboriginal f ishing, the focus is on the external factors that contr ibuted to the underdevelopment of Aboriginal economies; underdevelopment that resulted directly f rom dominat ion by the larger Euroamerican society. Boxberger 's examinat ion of the Lummi f ishery reveals that the Lummi, as with the St6:l6, provided the labor necessary in the formative years of the canning industry as Native people had the requisite skil ls as f ishers and processors. In the case of the Lummi, the earl iest industrial operat ions obtained the majority of their f ish f rom Indian f ishers (Boxberger 1988:169). As is d iscussed in a later chapter, historian Dianne Newell expounds on a similar notat ion regarding Aboriginal f ishing labor in British Columbia; Boxberger and Newell both not ing that Indian f ishers were eventual ly forced out of the industry (1988, 1993). Addit ional ly, processual analysis and act ion theory have been used to examine social change and the role of individual actors within political arenas as wel l as to examine motives behind al l iances, group formation and adapt ive strategies. In his d iscussion of the effects of government policy on the Quechan Indians of Colorado, 11 Robert Bee (1981) descr ibes the individual/group relat ionship and the persistent role of kinship clusters as units of economic adaptat ion and polit ical act ion as they relate to the strategies adopted by the Quechan Indians dur ing critical periods of transit ion. Consider ing group formation as it relates to adapt ive strategies and social organizat ion among the Coast Sal ish, Bruce Miller and Jen Pylypa descr ibe Coast Sal ish groupings as those of large, extended family households (corporate units) whereby family membership is f lexible; noting that "al though there is pressure to belong to only one family network at any given time, members may rel inquish ties to a network in which leadership is weak and affil iate themselves with another family in which their life chances will be improved" (1995:18). Michael Kew and Bruce Mil ler (1999), writ ing about the St6:l6, touch on this notion of al ignment and re-al ignment in their discussion of locating Abor iginal governments in the political landscapes; the need for flexibil ity in any government organizat ion. These approaches provide something of a f ramework whereby to understand individual act ion in relation to existing al l iances and future al l iances given the family/kin dr iven social organizat ion of the Coast Salish as wel l as a context in which to consider the unequal relat ionship between the St6:l6 economy and the larger Canadian economy. In short, they provide a theoretical 'backdrop' that contr ibutes to my examinat ion of the effects of a century of f isheries regulat ion and recent supreme court decis ions regarding the present day St6:l6 f ishery. However, act ion theory approaches speak more to quest ions of how depr ived people adapted and/or became social ly integrated within the colonizing society and dependency theory has tended to emphasize the overwhelming experience of external factors on shaping and limiting 12 how subaltern people make their own history. In order to fully explicate St6:l6 f ishers' responses to regulat ion, I seek to push past the bounds of these approaches and models that focus on adaptat ion and integration, relying instead on an approach that provides for a discussion of agency as it relates to the histories of subordinated populat ions within the context of the larger dominant history. Therefore I rely on an approach rooted in the notion of historical realism as developed by Gavin Smith as well as support ing discussions of hegemony and resistance as offered by Wi l l iam Roseberry and Gerald Sider. Gavin Smith's concept of historical realism reflects the need to understand society entirely in historical terms, and partly reflects the need to emphasize the realness of history over its constructedness (1999:15). For Gavin Smith, it is necessary to examine the historical processes as well as the real wor ld forces, condit ions and connect ions contr ibuting to the reproduct ion of culture. Given this emphasis on the realness of history, Gavin Smith poses quest ions that examine the potential of human act ion to effect change, or more specifically, to contr ibute to the product ion of history. As Gavin Smith (1989,1991,1999) notes in his discussion of peasant resistance and rebel l ion in Peru, human action cannot be v iewed outside the creat ion of culture. Accord ing to Smith, these acts must be viewed as mechanisms of cultural reproduct ion or more specif ically the protection of a l ivelihood which is interconnected with a social identity that must be v iewed in connect ion with the specif ic history/prehistory and economy as wel l as within the context of a global history and economy (1989). Winn ie Lem (1999), in her discussion of small vine-cult ivat ing farmers in the Languedoc region of France, reveals much the same thing as she descr ibes how the 13 collective act ions of these small farmers can be seen as mechanisms of cultural reproduct ion. Both Smith and Lem stress the importance of recogniz ing the heterogeneity of societ ies as they relate to cultural reproduct ion. In his discussion of heterogeneity, Smith discusses how a relatively successful rebel l ion by a peasant community in the face of a large ranch pressing toward capitalist rat ional ization gives the appearance of a homogeneous group deriving their solidarity f rom their shared customs and tradit ions; in essence devoid of internal struggles and dif ferences (1991:201). This notion, I believe, has special implications when appl ied to the examinat ion of the St6:l6 f ishery. In the face of treaty negotiat ions the appearance of a united front by a homogeneous peoples disguises the dif ferences arising f rom separate needs within the f ishery as wel l as the external and internal struggles engaging the St6:l6 people. But what forms the main stage on which these dramas of agency are played out - dramas that consti tute the product ion of history and reproduct ion of cul ture? Much has been writ ten regarding the colonial dominance of Abor iginal peoples in British Columbia and the processes of hegemony engendered within that uneven relat ionship (e.g. Asch 1993, 1997; Carstens 1991 ; Cole and Chaikin 1990; Culhane 1998, 1987; Duff 1965; Fisher 1992; Fournier and Crey 1997; Kew 1990; Menzies 1994, 1996, 1999, W a r e 1983). Roseberry problematizes hegemony and purposes it be used more as a concept not to understand consent, but to understand struggle - the ways in which subordinate populat ions understand, confront, accommodate themselves to, or resist their dominat ion are shaped by the process of dominat ion itself (1996). Roseberry asks that we explore hegemony not as a f in ished monol i thic ideological 14 format ion but as a problematic, contested political process of dominat ion and struggle (1996:77). Apply ing Roseberry 's axiom, I strive to understand the varying responses of the St6: l6 in regard to the salmon f ishery given their "objective format ion in the economic sphere, their social and cultural relations with other groups and the associat ions or organizat ions of kinship..."(1996:79). Roseberry 's part icular notion of hegemony works to il lustrate that "what hegemony constructs, then, is not a shared ideology but a common material and meaningful f ramework for l iving through, talking about, and act ing upon social orders character ized by dominat ion" (Roseberry 1996:80). It is this common material and meaningful f ramework that forms the stage for the var ious responses as played out through the part icular conf igurat ions of power exist ing in, and around the salmon fishery, as wel l as those conf igurat ions of power outside the salmon f ishery. Salmon f ishing is not only the basis of economic wel l -being for the St6:l6; it is also the basis of spiritual and cultural wel l -being. A century of federal regulat ion has not negated the economic, spiritual and cultural importance of sa lmon f ishing for the St6:l6, but it has reshaped percept ions of the future of that relat ionship. Wh i le the early years of federal regulat ion greatly al tered and reshaped the St6:l6 f ishery, it has been the implementat ion of a new Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy and direct ives imposed in the name of conservat ion that have contr ibuted most recently to protest f isheries and have placed the responses of one group in opposit ion to the demands of another group. Indian f ishers have found themselves not only 'doing battle' wi th f isheries officers but wi th each other, or as Sider puts it, "trying not to just understand, but to take control of and reshape the multiple connect ions between past, present, and 15 impending future" (1993:xv i i i ) . In his examinat ion of Lumbee Indian identity and the processes contr ibut ing to the creat ion of that identity, Sider descr ibes history as fraught with breaks, disjunctions, punctuated by dramatic incidents and episodes, or in Sider's words "far f rom seamless or running unbroken f rom past to present" (1993:10). It is a long these f issures that identity is created, history is produced and human agency revealed. It is this relat ionship between the product ion history and human agency that is central to my examinat ion of the actions and reactions of the St6:l6 f ishers and how those act ions and reactions reflect different responses to government authority. As early as 1883 the St6:l6 protested federal interference into their f ishery when dur ing the 1883 f ishing season the local f ish guardian seized a large number of nets in the Fraser River and Indians from Yale to Squamish protested loudly and angri ly against the seizures (Ware 1983:17). Throughout the late 19 t h century and early 2 0 t h century protests cont inued as government regulat ion heightened. Newspaper accounts f rom the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s relate acts of def iance on the part of the St6:l6 in direct response to f isheries policies. These newspaper accounts reveal act ions and reactions that constitute overt acts of resistance to government inference on the part of the St6:l6 ; attempts to affect change in governmental policies. Wha t remains hidden are the less overt act ions and reactions employed toward that same end. I seek to reveal those actions. D i s c u s s i o n s o f R e s i s t a n c e In his study of the Kwaio of the Solomon Islands as regards their struggle for cultural autonomy, Roger Keesing (1992) takes up the discussion of resistance. Keesing notes that through the works of such scholars as James Scott and Jean 16 Comaroff (among others) we are shown that for the relatively powerless, resistance may appear in places and in forms that are far f rom dramatic, overt confrontat ions that s tand out in historical records and news accounts (1992:4-5). Cont inuing with that discussion, Keesing explains that resistance may be expressed more or less covert ly in hundreds of everyday acts and may also be expressed indirectly, def lected in "symbolic" and rel igious forms, when overt political action is impossible (1992:5). Keesing argues that resistance as a concept is prototype based, iconic- image bound and metaphoric, thus precluding our defining resistance precisely, or specifying features common to all c i rcumstances that can be character ized through this metaphor (1992:5). Addit ional ly, according to Keesing, resistance is often too general a gloss to put on courses or groups of act ion taken by individuals that had other motives - often diverse, often hidden f rom one another. He notes that in relat ion to the Kwaio, rhetoric of collective struggle and mutual obl igation often serves to disguise the motives and ambit ions and strategems of individuals (1992:5). In the latter chapters of his 1992 work, Keesing explores a number of the uses of the concept of resistance in explicating relat ions between dominate and subaltern groups. But more importantly, Keesing caut ions against a general izat ion of resistance when examining varying act ions in different phases of history. Keesing also notes that it is imperative w e situate events and motives in the historical context of their unfolding and situate representat ions of them in the historical context of their tell ing (1992). In his 1985 work result ing from his f ieldwork in Malaysia, Weapons of the Weak, James Scott notes that subordinate classes throughout most of history have rarely 17 been afforded the luxury of open, organized political activity. Therefore he focuses on what he calls 'everday' forms of resistance that fall short of outright def iance: foot dragging, slander, arson, sabotage, fe igned ignorance and false compl iance. He also denotes other forms of resistance such as backbit ing, gossip, character assassinat ion, rude nicknames and rude gestures. In his work Domination and the Arts of Resistance, Scott (1990) def ines more clearly his discussions of the 'weapons afforded to the weak' . Scott notes that what may appear to be acts of deference are actual ly acts of resistance; the appearance of a lack of response is not an indication of acceptance of dominat ion. He also elaborates on what contr ibutes to exploitat ion. Accord ing to Scott, exploitat ion need not be strictly material, but also includes acts of personal humil iat ion. Scott talks of social spaces in power relations; discussing those acts of resistance that are reserved for private places and those exhibited in locations of uninhibi ted speech where hidden transcripts are revealed via approved media (1990:175-6). Addit ional ly Scott d iscusses how resistance is played out or mediated through and displayed in folk culture or folktales such as the trickster stories of Raven in Northwest Coast mythology and the Brer Rabbit stories in the south. Accord ing to Keesing, Jean Comaro f fs (1985) analysis of the Tshidi of South Afr ica, suggests that we may not want to define resistance solely in terms of conscious and col lective subaltern strategies of confrontat ion and covert opposi t ion (Keesing 1992:215). Comaroff dist inguishes between those forms of resistance mediated through polit ical struggle and those of rel igious forms, noting that among the rel igious forms polit ical agendas may remain partially h idden. Comaro f fs focus is on the internal t ransformations in productive and power relations as well as the pervasive structural 18 changes fol lowing a century and a half of colonial ism via Christ ian missionaries (1985:1). As part of that study, Comaroff examines the manner in which symbol ic schemes mediate structure and practice; how, within a system whose parameters were themselves redef ined in the colonial context, there was a complex interdependence of dominat ion and resistance, change and perpetuat ion (1985:260). Comaroff identif ies two domains contr ibut ing to the dynamics of Tshidi order: the formal apparatus of power and the implicit structures of everyday practice. Notes Comaroff, just as colonizat ion was a process which over-powered both indigenous institutions and commonsense categories of the Tshidi wor ld, so resistance lay in the struggle to counteract the invasion in all of its aspects (1985:260). Wh i le the discussions of resistance offered by Keesing, Scott and Comaroff do contr ibute to some degree to an understanding of my discussion of resistance among St6: l6 f ishers, it is Gavin Smith's less cognit ive approach that best serves my examinat ion of the act ions and reactions of St6:l6 f ishers. In his 1989 work Livelihood and Resistance, Smith begins his discussion of peasant rebel l ion in Peru by identifying what he calls the "bl ind spots" apparent in exist ing peasant studies. According to Smith, political init iatives have been over looked in studies focusing on discussions of peasants ' l ivel ihoods. Addit ional ly Smith notes, that studies focusing on rebel l ion and peasants ' revolut ionary potential overlook how resistance is interl inked with development and development policies. Smith seeks to avoid those bl inds spots by careful ly construct ing the historical context surrounding peasant groups' l ivel ihoods and clearly i l luminating how that historical context, development, and development policies are l inked to peasants ' l ivel ihood and acts of resistance or rebel l ion in the 19 product ion or reproduct ion of culture. For Smith, two important factors must be considered in understanding peasant culture. First, drawing on Blanco Muratorio's 1987 discussion of the social history and economics of the High Napo, Smith stresses the importance of not v iewing peasant culture as "at first pristine and then invaded f rom without, but rather v iewed as from the beginning the assert ion (or fai lure) of will and identity under condit ions of dominat ion and resistance." Secondly, it is essential to recognize peasant cultures as heterogenous - "be it in terms of socioeconomic differentiation, the form of domest ic enterprise, or engagement in geographical ly d ispersed sectors of the economy" (1989:27). Smith chronicles the events surrounding a campaign lasting over a hundred years - a war of attrit ion between the Huasicancha and the haciendas. His work ref lects the heterogenous aspects of the Huasicancha through his d iscussion of their prehistoric past and its connect ion with their present ways of life and the radical changes exper ienced in the domest ic units essential to Huascicancha l ivel ihoods. He descr ibes how Huaschiancha social relations, within the domest ic household units as wel l as within the larger community, reflect not just the product ion of a l ivel ihood, but the polit ical protection of the condit ions necessary for the cont inued reproduct ion of a way of life - this "protect ion" taking the form of acts of resistance and rebell ion. Smith demonstrates that acts of resistance and rebell ion cannot be v iewed as outs ide the creat ion of, in this case, peasant culture. These acts must be v iewed as a mechanism of cultural reproduct ion or more specif ically the protect ion of a l ivel ihood which is interconnected with a social identity that must be v iewed in connect ion with the specif ic individual Huascicancha history/prehistory and economy as wel l as within the 20 context of a global history and economy. According to Smith, his task is modest in scope in that he is not asking 'why' peasants rebel or which peasants rebel, but rather 'how' the rebel l ion is put together (1989:25). According to Smith it is necessary to rethink the role of leadership as well as the role of unity in discussions of resistance. He further notes that the role of the charismatic leader is overemployed. As notes Smith, too often unity and solidarity in political resistance are diametrical ly opposed to, and made to be exclusive of, individualism. Unity is seen to rest on homogeneity, and homogenei ty is seen to depend on the suppression of individual di f ferences (1989:27). St6:l6 f ishers have consistently protested government inference into their way of life. Whi le those actions or responses have taken varying forms, all are purported to be rooted in St6:l6 tradit ion. As a part of my examinat ion of responses to f isheries regulat ion, I seek to uncover the links between resistance and tradit ion as regards the St6:l6 f ishery. However, discussions of tradit ion can prove problematic. This is part icularly true as regards First Nations peoples in Brit ish Columbia in that the courts have relied on static not ions of Aboriginal tradit ions that disregard changes in Abor iginal ways of life arising out of engagement with colonial society. In my examinat ion of St6:l6 responses to regulat ion I attempt to sidestep the problem of ' tradit ion' by relying on a discussion of tradit ion that implies a connect ion to a real or imagined past as identif ied by the St6:l6 with whom I spoke. By incorporat ing those elements identif ied by the St6:l6 themselves, my discussion of tradit ion reflects the change that comes f rom the colonial experience. Before examining how tradit ion supports the specif ic acts of resistance that I have identif ied in this thesis as responses to regulat ion, it is important to first review how the concept of tradit ion has been 21 discussed in the discipl ine of anthropology. Discussions of Tradition Discussions of tradit ion have taken the form of those regarding the ' invention of tradit ion' as in Hobsbawm and Ranger 's 1983 work. As a part of this discussion, it is noted how symbols of the colonizer take on ritual meaning among the colonized and become a part of their tradit ion, a tradit ion that has been retooled to reflect the needs and agendas of both sides. Cannadine, in his submission to Hobsbawm and Ranger 's col lect ion, notes that dur ing the Victor ian and Edwardian eras, in response to the increasing size of the British Empire, the need for symbol ic and ritual means to reign over ths far-f lung territory, legit imating symbols of tradit ion were not so much ' invented' as ref ined and careful ly f ramed (1983:124). In his discussion of a "Tradit ion of Invention," Michael Harkin (199 ) focuses on how the re-emergence of the past is used as a means of deal ing with attempts at suppressing Abor iginal customs on the Northwest Coast of Brit ish Columbia. Harkin wri tes of a Heil tsuk potlach held in 19 , the first one in 50 years as such practices were out lawed in 192 . Notes Harkin, only the older community members could remember attending a potlatch in their own community, consequent ly very few chi ldren spoke the Native language or fully understood the meaning of the potlatch. But it is Harkin's discussion of the canoe journey or the construct ion of a new tradit ional performance that touches specif ically on the argument that new tradit ions are bound to be perceived as inauthentic and false. According to Harkin, the invented tradit ion of the canoe festival evoked such strong emotion and blending of personal and collective exper ience that it was made authentic. A l though it was new, it was constructed out of 22 cultural f ragments in the manner of a bricolage; individual signif iers all had pre-establ ished meanings. A canoe became not an obsolete mode of t ransportat ion but a symbol of, on the one hand, historic culture, and on the other hand, the revital ization of contemporary culture (Harkin 1997:110). Marie Mauze, in the introduction of a col lection of essays regarding the uses of tradit ion in Native society remarks on how tradit ion has come to be v iewed as something that is continual ly being produced and nurtured by new ideas. In short, according to Mauze, the notion that the present is descended f rom a tradit ional past has given way to the opposite notion: the past is reached through inductive reasoning that takes place in the present (1997:6). According to Mauze: ...tradition is used to justify the present through remember ing the past. It interprets the past according to the needs of the present. Thus the past is continual ly reassessed and reconstructed depending on the course of events.... From this point of view, tradit ion does not appear as a corpus of statements handed down unchanged from one generat ion to the next. It is a succession of answers to quest ions about the present, and consequent ly it takes on the status of an always correct answer to the quest ions asked. (1997:6-7) Essential ly cultural factors (or practices) reif ied in ethnographic monographs not only refer to the past, they become the foundat ion for present as wel l as future identit ies (1997:9). I bel ieve Mauze's discussion of tradit ion has important implications in my examinat ion of the specif ic responses to regulat ion I have isolated in this study. The responses examined in this thesis are, in the words of the f ishers, rooted in tradit ion. "Tradit ion" has indeed become the short answer to quest ions asked regarding the St6: l6 f ishery. More specifically, for St6:l6 f ishers, tradit ion has become a means of just i fying the present through remembering the past. However, notes Sider (1993, 23 2003) tradit ion cannot be v iewed in isolation of history or struggles with outside forces and often forms the bases of internal antagonisms when set into opposi t ion of continuity. In his discussion of the complex connect ions and opposi t ions between tradit ion and continuity, Sider notes that it is necessary to look closely at the forms of social relations, particularly among dominated peoples, to which the word "tradit ion" refers - relat ions that often turn out to express claims for autonomy or partial autonomy in the midst of poverty and powerlessness much more than they express continuity with a real or imagined past (1993:11). In his discussion of the struggle for history, tradit ion and hope among Native peoples, Sider (1997) discusses the place of exper ience in that struggle. Drawing on the works of Thompson and Wil l iams, Sider notes that f rom (and he insists, against) exper ience come both agency and culture. According to Sider, "exper ience is social and relat ional; it is not only socially formed and continual ly shaped but also names a major arena for the chosen and unavoidable struggles of all forms and processes of differentiation - i.e. class, gender and ethnicity - for it's both f rom and against one's changing specif icity that exper iences are constructed (1997:62-3). Sider's discussion of the place of exper ience as it relates to actions of a dominated peoples provides a f ramework for examining the emerging identities arising f rom a remembered the past; a past revealed in the existing literature regarding the Coast Sal ish in general and more specif ical ly the St6:l6. The Research Problem within the Context of an Existing Literature In one of the most recent discussions of St6:l6 historical identity, Keith Carlson notes the need for the Aboriginal historical exper ience to be brought "out of the 24 background" (2003:338). Carlson notes that in general , past stories have essential ly portrayed western colonial ism's impact on Aboriginal people f rom the colonial perspect ive. Accord ing to Carlson: ...within this interpretive framework, Native people are principally foils used to crit ique and expose the excesses of western colonial ism and capital ism... .preventing indigenous people f rom being portrayed as anything more complex than reactive victims in the history of western development and more recently as ecological prophets for a society that exper iences pangs of guilt over its consumptive past. (2003:338) By examining the historical exper iences of St6:l6 f ishers within a context of agency and through the dynamicism of tradit ion as it supports specif ic responses to regulat ion, their historical exper iences are indeed removed f rom the shadows. Wha t must not be d iscounted, however, is the contr ibution of these past portrayals to emerging identit ies and reconf igurat ions of power, particularly as regards access, to and management of, f isheries resources as St6:l6 f ishers have simultaneously advanced a portrait of themselves as the first commercial f ishers and ult imate guardians of the salmon resource. In her historical account of the circumstance and situations that contr ibuted to the past and contemporary identit ies of the Indians of the Puget Sound, Alexandra Harmon notes that, contr ibut ing acutely to this identity is the relat ionship that developed between traders and Indians (1999). From Harmon's discussion of the partnerships (trading, marr iage, etc) that developed as non-Nat ives sett led in the area, it becomes clear that an Indian identity emerged within the space where whi te economies intersected with Indian economies. As with the St6:l6, access to natural resources, primari ly f isheries resources, is at the core of that intersection. Harmon notes that since at least the 1880s U.S. officials have set the parameters of Indian identity for 25 purposes of polit ical and property relations, but they have never monopol ized the process of def ining ' Indian' or 'tribe.' Such classif ications and their meanings have evolved f rom negotiat ions between classif iers and classif ied. Harmon's observat ions of the creat ion of an Indian identity among Puget Sound Native peoples leaves open the door for contr ibut ions to identity construct ion by Native peoples themselves. Harmon's d iscussion regarding the creat ion of identity directly informs this study in that specif ic identit ies ar ise in connect ion wi th acts of rebel l ion and resistance on the part of St6: l6 f ishers. One of the most recent discussion of St6:l6 peoples focuses on the implementat ion of Aboriginal just ice programs. Through his case study of Aboriginal just ice programs in three Coast Sal ish communit ies, Mil ler problemat izes the concept of tradit ional just ice as it appl ies to continuity with a primordial past (2001). Mil ler notes that the communit ies on which he focuses are not merely l inked by an abstract part icipation in a language community rather they are members of a broader network of social relations with considerable t ime depth (2001:7) . 7 The community just ice programs in Mil ler 's study include the Upper Skagit Court, the South [Vancouver] Island Justice Project and the St6:l6 Nation justice initiatives. Examining each case individually, the Upper Skagit Court, the oldest of the three programs examined, was establ ished fol lowing the legal decision, U.S. v. Washington in 1974. As a part of this landmark legal decision the Upper Skagit and other tr ibes in western Wash ing ton regained access to the salmon harvest as specif ied under the terms of the western 7 Bruce Miller's case study includes the same community on which I focus my examinat ion of resistance and accommodat ion as it is played out in the salmon f ishery. 26 Washing ton treaties s igned in 1854-56. Explains Miller, the rul ing created the need for a venue in which to try f ishing violat ions in order that the tr ibe could manage its own f ishing interests a long with the state and federal government (2001:7-8). The second program examined is the South [Vancouver] Island Just ice Project which emerged out of an effort in the 1980s to educate mainstream legal personnel about Coast Sal ish practices and concepts. He notes that the project became a diversionary just ice project in which cases could be treated by Coast Sal ish peoples themselves (2001:8). And finally, Miller focuses on the St6:l6 Nat ion just ice initiatives that arose in the 1990s out of three primary motivations: 1) to create a just ice program that could be put into place fol lowing treaty negotiat ions with the province and federal governments and thereby assert St6:l6 rights and title; 2) to implement St6:l6 cultural pract ices as they pertain to justice; and 3) to begin a process of restoring communit ies to a state of health, v iewed holistically. Accord ing to Mil ler the "problem of justice" includes one of resolving the pressures and difficulties imposed on indigenous communit ies f rom the dominant Amer ican and Canadian societies in reestabl ishing internal control over the practices of just ice. Mil ler d iscusses the problems by first, identifying past just ice pract ices as appl ied to present day circumstances and then by discussing how attempts are made to reconci le the past and the present among the people relying on those practices. Rather than providing a primordialist account of justice, Mil ler's historically and polit ically charged account of Coast Sal ish justice systems focuses on how colonial processes have t ransformed and distorted the politics of indigenous communit ies, including the ways in which community members understand their own prior practices 27 of just ice (2001:201). Mil ler notes that his use of the term 'tradit ion' points to its place in the discourses produced and the play of power in present-day communit ies (2001:35). Drawing on Mauze's discussion of tradit ion as it relates the present to the past, Mil ler emphasizes her notion that "tradition is primarily a political instrument for regulat ing both internal and external relations" (Mauze 1997:12 in Miller 2001:35) . It is Mil ler 's employment of the related concepts of resistance and accommodat ion within indigenous communit ies as it relates to the implementat ion of tradit ional just ice programs in Coast Salish communit ies that informs my examinat ion of Seabird Island's protocol agreement. Addit ional discussions of Coast Sal ish and specif ically the St6:l6 include the non-material d iscussions of Coast Sal ish peoples and power relat ions such as Jay Mil ler 's examinat ion of Lushootseed culture and Crisca Biertwert 's poststructural "bricolage" that focuses on Coast Salish f igures of power and power relat ions as they relate to Indian agency. In his 1999 work, Lushootseed Culture and the Shamanic Odyssey: An Anchored Radiance, Jay Miller notes that when trying to explain their present condit ion to outsiders, contemporary Lushootseed elders often dist inguish between culture and survival to express the recent changes that have greatly impacted their l ives and communit ies. According to Jay Miller, survival is what people do to keep themselves and their famil ies in food, clothing and other necessit ies including, since 1850, off reservat ion wage labor which he maintains contr ibuted to the loss a Native community and a loss of full part icipation in family life. Survival also means rel inquishing Native elements of life - language and tradit ions that interfere with educat ion. Culture is the quality of a lifeway based in the land and is not the same 28 thing as survival or earning a living by exploit ing the same terrain. Jay Miller also focuses on the role of shaman in Lushootseed society - l ifecycles, death, marr iage, puberty, cures. He talks of spirit bonds - the hal lmark of life was the existence of immortals - and descr ibes Lushootseed life as exper ienced through the shamanic odyssey. In its full complexit ies, the shamanic odyssey involved all of the institutions of Lushootseed society, ranging through technology, economy, polity, kinship, rel igion and language. According to Jay Miller, technological relat ions with the environment were at the forefront of the rite. As a part of her discussion of Coast Salish power relations, Bierwert si tuates the St6:l6 on the landscape by attempting to give an historic and economic profi le through a narrat ive analysis of cultural complexity. Drawing on the works of Casey, Myers and Basso, Bierwert talks of points and places in and along the river possessing spiritual and social importance as part of her discussion of place. She draws a Coast Salish parallel to Basso's storied landscape of the Western Apache through her discussion of f ive ways to know a place i.e. the fish camp: 1) a natural place - image evoking language of the river, the banks, the landscape and the f ish 2) social place - describing the camp physical ly but also the work that takes place, the atmosphere, the family interaction 3) a source of danger - descr ibes the physical characterist ics of the river's edge, the canyon that makes it dangerous, again with image evoking language 4) historic place - makes this point by relating the stories of how Lady Frankl in rock came to be named by the non-Nat ives 5) mythic place - stories of the t ransformed rocks that denote the place as spiri tual. Bierwert takes on the subject of knowledge and power in her discussion of how texts are constructed by the Native and non Native wor ld and 29 wor ld and what the implications are for both. The most recent indepth, grassroots examinat ion of the St6: l6 f ishery is B i e r w e i f s discussion of the Indian business of f ishing (1999). Regarding her discussion of the f ishery, Bierwert notes that her aim is to i l luminate the historical tensions created through the reckoning and regulat ion of Indian f ishing practices, whereby she describes the col lective sa lmon runs as contested sites (1999:38). Specif ical ly regarding the business of f ishing, Bierwert descr ibes a river f ishery conducted outside the sentence of the law. Bierwert wri tes that: Fishing legally has meant f ishing in prescr ibed places within enforced hours with limited technology, cutt ing off the noses and dorsal f ins of the catch [to mark them as Indian fish] In fact Indian f ishing has long exceeded these l imitations and involved a variety of renegade practices (keeping alive a considerable knowledge of the river), and haul ing contraband (unmarked) f ish in sacks or plastic garbage bags for sale to dealers. (1999:224) B ie rwe i f s descript ion of Indian f ishing paints a romantic picture of resistance on the part of St6:l6 f ishers. Wh i le factually descr ibing a way of life, B ie rwe i f s portrayal of the f ishery dist inguishes the cultural practice of f ishing (il legal f ishing) f rom the business of f ishing (legally negot iated sales agreements). In my conversat ions with St6:l6 f ishers I heard these same stories about which Bierwert writes. However, I also was part of d iscussions regarding the practical business of f ishing; profit and loss, crew payments, capital expenditure, overhead, preparat ion for the prospect of a sale agreement and preparat ion for the prospect of no sale agreement. Bierwert 's examinat ion, as with Jay Miller's, separates the material f rom the cultural. In contrast to Bierwert and Miller's less material d iscussion of Coast Sal ish and St6:l6 life, Daniel Boxberger 's examinat ion of the Lummi f ishery focuses on the very real material aspects of Coast Salish life in his discussion regarding Lummi f ishers and 30 the way they have been included and excluded f rom the commercial f ishing industry. Boxberger 's approach to the study of internal dependency examines access to resources as wel l as control over productive resources. By document ing the change in f ishing technology intended to increase harvest, in concert wi th changes in policy, Boxberger provides a point of departure to investigate the Lummis as a specif ic user group within the salmon industry. 8 According to Boxbeger, the changing patterns in the uti l ization of the resource and the concomitant changes in the society can be seen as the direct result of the tr ibe's dominat ion by the larger society. Boxberger points out that besides polit ical and economic activit ies, the dominant society brings its own technology; dramatical ly new technology that tends to redirect many aspects of tradit ional societ ies, for the most part support ing the ideology of the social system that introduces it. He notes that some tribal members saw actions by the tribal counci l to limit entry as a mechanism for protect ing their own interests, since several tribal counci l members owned purse siene vessels and were successful f ishers (after the Boldt dec is ion) . 9 Accord ing to Boxberger, by careful ly select ing crew members and by assist ing others to enter the fishery, a strong fact ion was created that aided in acquisi t ion of polit ical power through elected office and through support of the decision making process. Addit ional ly 8 St6: l6 f ishers with whom I spoke take except ion to a designat ion of user group within the salmon f ishery. Such a designat ion does not reflect their place in the f ishery as the original users, managers or stewards of the resource. It also removes any spiritual connect ion to the resource. 9 l n 1974 United States Federal District Court judge George Boldt handed down a decis ion def ining Indian f ishing rights and guaranteeing treaty Indians 50 percent of the al lowable harvest of salmon (Boxberger 1989:1). The case, United States v. State of Washington, is general ly referred to as the "Boldt decision." 31 according to Boxberger, a parallel structure exists at Lummi where a small fact ion of the tribe, the purse seine operators who take over sixty percent of the total Lummi f ish harvest, control the decis ion-making body of the tribe. Since class relat ionships are economic relat ionships, it is important to understand the place in the class structure of the society in which they are a part. Boxberger notes that the the Lummi were part of the capitalist economy prior to Boldt, in that the pre-Boldt f ishery existed as a supplement to other forms of income. According to Boxberger, what emerged in the post-Boldt f ishery was a highly capital ized f ishing fleet geared toward the market. Notes Boxberger, the growth of this highly capital ized f ishery created a distinct economical ly elite segment of Lummi society, a segment that did not exist prior to 1974 St6:l6 F i s h e r s R e s p o n d By engaging the aforement ioned works, I examine selected, specif ic responses to f isheries regulat ion focusing, not only on the larger colonial/post colonial conflict, but a lso o n the internal confl ict inherent in the dominat ion/resistance dialectic. Crit ical to this examinat ion of the Aboriginal right to f ish is the role of the processes of cont inuing cultural and social construct ion - tradit ion - as d iscussed by Mauze and Sider and expressed in specif ics acts of resistance and accommodat ion. Essential to my discussion is the relat ionship between experience and tradit ion and the manner in which that relat ionship contr ibutes to specif ic acts of resistance and accommodat ion. Given that tradit ion is dynamic and socially constructed, how is it shaped/reshaped by the histories or exper iences of the St6:l6 in the context of the larger Canadian history is essential to an understanding of agency. Specifically, I seek to identify the particular compet ing and antagonist ic interests shaping St6:l6 f ishers responses to regulat ion: 1) 32 To what extent are they supported by tradit ional practices as wel l as the contemporary political structure of the St6:l6 Nat ion? 2) How are they shaped by the exper iences of the St6:l6? 3) To what extent do they reflect exist ing conf igurat ions of power within and outside of the larger St6:l6 col lect ive? State pract ices regarding Aboriginal f isheries have been, for the most part, products of f isheries regulat ions imposed over the last century. Recent supreme court rul ings have brought about some changes in federal f isheries management plans and St6:l6 f ishers have responded to these changes in a variety of ways that are, at t imes, in confl ict wi th each other. W h e n examining the responses to regulat ion on the part of St6:l6 f ishers, the fact that there are numerous responses must be noted. Wha t is important to note, that whi le for the purposes of my examinat ion of the f ishery I focus on three responses aside from Bierwert 's "outlaw f ishing" response, the single most visible response is simply to go f ishing. I found that a number of the f ishers with whom I spoke had a non-specif ic, general knowledge of f isheries regulat ions and that upon compar ing the information I received regarding those regulat ions, di f ferences in understanding just what the rules are were apparent. These dif ferences were even more apparent in the lack of understanding of how the Pilot Sale Arrangement worked and why it ceased. The one rule about which there was no quest ion but much debate was the fact that the sale of in-river caught salmon was against the "white man's law." W h a t happens when that "white man's law" is broken? St6:l6 f ishers say they are the original commercial f ishers. The sale and barter o f f i s h has always been integral to St6:l6 life. Wi th the emergence of the industrial f ishery and the implementat ion of f isheries regulations, the exper ience of f ishing was 33 forced to the margins outside of the law. Commercial f ishing has cont inued with the label of commercial f isher becoming a badge of honor or tradit ion. Wr i tes Bierwert: Indian f ishers have insisted on sel l ing f ish, have forced themselves to act counter to enforcement where no opt ion of an informal economic sector has al lowed their subaltern practice a cover to thrive. Out law f ishing thus has actively engaged with state power and with corporate enterprise, and the contests of power that are particular to it reveal cross-cutt ing intersections of law and marketplace that pose in political d iscourses as intersections of race, culture, and economy. (1999:243) In essence St6:l6 commercial f ishing takes place within a space bounded by tradit ion and state regu la t ion . 1 0 It is on this space that I concentrate my examinat ion of St6:l6 commercial f ishing, including rather than denying, both edges of the space. St6:l6 f ishers cont inue to push for a formal agreement that provides for the legal sale of in-river caught salmon and did succeed in obtaining a small agreement in the fall of 2003 after Fisheries and Oceans wi thdrew the sales agreement cover ing the 2003 summer sockeye run. Through my selection of three specif ic responses to f isheries regulat ion I juxtapose what can be seen as simultaneously converging and diverging acts of resistance and accommodat ion. I posit a notion that agency is manifest as two sides of a single coin - resistance and accommodat ion - and is not l imited to acts conducted 1 0 For the purposes of my examinat ion I limit my study to those groups compris ing the nineteen Halq;emeylem speaking bands comprising the St6:l6 Nation. My focus is on the "commercial" f ishers among those bands. Initially as a part of the 1992 Pilot Sale Arrangement Musqueam and Katzie f ishers were included with these St6:l6 bands in calculat ing salmon al locations. That changed the next year with Musqueam receiving a separate al location. Katzie cont inued to be included with the remaining St6:l6 bands. Whi le considered as St6:l6 in some of the ethnographic l iterature, political aff i l iations in the wake of treaty negotiat ions have shifted identity designat ions to some degree. Hence, the Musqueam and Katzie peoples are general ly referred to as St6:l6 in heri tage. The Musqueam and Katzie bands have f ishers who hold industrial f ishing l icenses not held by the f ishers compris ing my study aside f rom one fisher, Lester Ned. This reality leaves the door open to future examinat ion regarding the relat ionship between the Native and non-Nat ive industrial f ishery. 34 outside the margins of the law. Whi le I maintain that the predominate response to f isheries regulat ion is simply to go f ishing, by focusing on three differing and high profi le responses to regulat ion, I seek to demonstrate that the St6:l6 responses to regulat ion represent more than a shared ideology, but a common material and meaningful f ramework rooted in tradit ion for living through, talking about, and acting upon social orders character ized by dominat ion. In chapter 4, I examine Cheam's particular posit ion regarding the Abor iginal right to f ish and the role of tradit ion in the creation of their persona of "Warr iors on the Water." I also examine how that particular stance shapes the band's relat ionship with the larger St6:l6 community. As a part of my discussion I chronicle the numerous confrontat ions between Cheam and f isheries officers, confrontat ions that have on occasion resulted in combat on the river and in one instance brought rai lway freight traffic bound for the west coast to a halt. In chapter 5, I examine the Justice Protocol Agreement init iated and s igned by the Seabird Island Band in their attempt, in the words of the individual who spearheaded the implementat ion of the agreement to "build a foundat ion of a new relationship." As a part of my discussion I identify the elements of the agreement and how it is to funct ion. More importantly I pose the quest ion, "Can a col laborat ion designed to bring resolut ion funct ion within a f ramework of regulat ion, that for some inside [and outside] the community has no resolut ion when set within the context of the Abor iginal right to f ish?" Specifically, I seek to establ ish a link between the just ice agreement init iated by the Seabird Island community and the unique history of that community as wel l as with the f ishery that has become closely associated with them. 3 5 Addit ional ly I seek to uncover to what extent the unique characterist ics of the wind dry f ishery has contr ibuted to the implementat ion of Seabird Island Justice Protocol. And f inally in chapter 6, I focus on the those f ishers who seek to make a living f rom f isheries resource and who have, over the years fought for a legal right to sale their f ish. As a part of my examinat ion of the "highliners and moneymakers" I ask the quest ion, "Is B ie rwe i f s out law f ishing and the cont inued trade, barter or sell of salmon an overt act of resistance or simply life, l ived?" But more importantly I ask, should the part icipation in the legal sale opportunity be seen as less tradit ional than out law f ishing? Even more importantly, is participation in that f ishery any less an act of resistance or rebel l ion on the part of a people seeking to control some measure of their own dest iny? The Problem of Research Conduct ing any research among human subjects is a daunt ing task fraught with numerous ethical snares and traps. The task is made more problematic when the part icipants and/or their specif ic goals or aims are put in jeopardy by the mere presence of the researcher. A case in point is Avram Bornstein's work among the West Bank Palest inians. Bornstein notes how he, a Jewish Amer ican anthropologist conduct ing f ieldwork among Palestinian famil ies in the Wes t Bank, presented the greater potential danger to his hosts. As Bornstein writes, "Umm Samud (the mother of the household) was always keeping track of my whereabouts and warn ing me to be careful If something happens to you, the Israelis will put us all in pr ison" she said (2002:21). Similarly, regarding his work among the Lumbee Indians of North Carol ina, 36 Gerald Sider ta lked briefly to me of the problems of chronicl ing shifts in identity for Native Amer ican peoples in the process of seeking federal recognit ion; a process whereby one of the requirements is identif ication as an Indian entity by anthropologists, histor ians or other scholars. Upon explaining my own research among a people actively involved in treaty negotiat ions and seeking to advance their Abor iginal rights, in part icular their rights to the salmon resources of Fraser River, I asked Gerald Sider if his work among a group seeking federal recognit ion had been difficult. His reply, "It's a pain in the ass. You have to be very careful." Wh i le I wouldn' t go so far as to characterize my particular situation as a "pain in the ass," I was however, cognizant of the potential effects my presence had on my research, striving to always be aware of those t imes when I was being used as a "vehicle for a message." This is not to say that my f ield exper iences were superf icial, they were not. However, the folks with whom I spoke had long ago recognized what "anthropology was capable of doing - the good and the bad." Several of the St6: l6 people with whom I spoke, talked of the things early anthropologists had "gotten wrong" and ment ioned by name those anthropologists whom they felt had actually caused them harm. This was particularly important to them when they felt that harm had came in the form of court test imony as most recently, the courtroom has been the arena in which batt les regarding Aboriginal f ishing rights have been won and lost. As Bornstein states, ethnographers cannot extricate themselves f rom unequal relat ionships and should be careful about wri t ing texts that attempt to stand outside the wor ld of struggle, contest and competi t ion (2002:vii i). In the case of my work with the St6:lo, disassociat ion or extrication was impossible. But this does not mean that I 37 sought adopt ion into a family or the ascript ion of an "Indian name." It does mean that I did indeed f ind myself in the posit ion of advocate, not just in the struggle with the Canadian state over Aboriginal rights, but also as advocate for one Aboriginal group over another; a situation that for some time caused me some measure of anguish. I have since come to the conclusion that my act ions in regard to that situation were, whi le I felt at the t ime the only thing to do, indeed the right thing to do. The goal of my research is an honest discussion of the power struggles between the St6:l6 and the state as well as the power struggles among the St6:l6 themselves and how those struggles are inherent to the colonial experience. My relat ionship with the St6:l6 began in 1996. That year the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in VanderPeet that sufficient evidence did not exist to support the fact that a 'commercial ' sa lmon f ishery is integral to Sto. lo culture or heri tage. Th is was a major blow to St6:l6 f ishers. Through contacts I made with individuals in the Aboriginal Rights and Tit le Department at St6:l6 Nation I was introduced to Grand Chief Clarence "Kat" Pennier, St6:l6 Fisheries Executive Director Ernie Crey and Fisheries Portfolio Holder Lester Ned. In 1997 I contracted with St6:l6 Nation to produce a report on the tradit ional and contemporary relationship between the St6:l6 people and the salmon resource of the Fraser River. I spent the next 18 months combing through the St6:l6 archives and talking with St6:l6 people about f ishing. About this same t ime I was accepted into the Ph.D. program in anthropology at the University of British Columbia with the notion of cont inuing my research on f ishing among the St6:l6. Wh i le I had remained in contact with some of the St6:l6 people whom I had met in 1997, primarily Ernie Crey, my f ieldwork for this thesis began in earnest the summer 38 of 2002. I rel ied on the contacts I establ ished in 1997 to secure interviews for this research. At one point this proved problematic when Ernie Crey, my main contact in the f ishery, was dismissed from his posit ion with St6:l6 Nation as part of what some explained to me as "Nation politics" as well as an effort to shift the direct ion of the Nation's f isheries agenda. By attending f isheries meetings I was able to make new contacts. Not only did my presence afford me the opportunity to secure future interviews, I was also able to observe the collective actions of a peoples assert ing their Abor iginal right to f ish; act ions that were at t imes content ious. Eric Wol f wri tes that ult imately in a f ield study you may come to know about f i f teen people very wel l , another twenty-f ive reasonably wel l , and perhaps a hundred wel l enough to know their names, where they live, and how they are connected to others by kinship or marr iage. You come to know some people "in the round" and others only as if typecast into two-dimensional categories (2001:52). Accord ing to Wolf , it is f rom this information that one constructs maps of social relat ionships through descent, inheri tance and marr iage or of relations between storekeepers and debtors, owners and tenants, leaders and fol lowers, patrons and cl ients (2001:52). As regards the St6:l6, also mapped are the power relations within the individual St6:l6 communit ies as wel l as between those communit ies and the larger collective of the St6:l6 community. Whi le salmon is a fundamental part of St6:l6 life and l i feways, roughly less than one-sixth of the St6:l6 populat ion are active f ishers. In general those actively involved in the practice of f ishing are also actively involved in the protect ion of f ishing rights. I was ever aware of the legal ramifications facing St6:l6 f ishers and I took great care to 39 avoid placing them in any adverse situations. Hence, those f ishers already in the publ ic eye became the core contr ibutors to my study. In many cases I included the names of the St6:l6 f ishers with whom I spoke. This was done with their permission and at t imes at their insistence. I used the names of only those people who have made publ ic statements, in general to the press, regarding their Abor iginal right to f ish, and the specif ic manner by which they have advanced that right. Essentially, f ishing is a St6:l6 practice; not strictly a female practice or, as the case of the industrial f ishery, strictly a male practice. For that reason, I use the term "fisher" rather than "f isherman" or " f ishermen" in the course of my discussion. Conversat ions with Sto.lo f ishers did reveal that in the early days of l icensing, it was primarily 'the man of the house' who obtained the f ishing l icense. However, I was also told stories of women f ishing in that same capacity dur ing those early days, a case in point, the story told to me by Grand Chief Archie Charles who was 83 years old at the t ime of my interview. During the course of my f ield study I observed both men and women actively involved in f ishing activit ies and I engaged both men and women in discussions regarding all aspects of f ishing and att i tudes toward f isheries regulations. I also observed women in leadership roles at f isheries meetings, their agenda being consistent wi th that of their male counterparts. Wha t seemed to drive the agendas of all in at tendance - male and female - was the ever shift ing political wind. Consequent ly, after two summers in the f ield, what emerged was a predominant ly male core of contr ibutors to this study. This is not to say that the contr ibut ions of female f ishers were set aside or not incorporated into the final data analysis. Fol lowing Dorothy Smith's call to "problematize the everyday" (1987), the life 40 histories and stories col lected for this study are not subjected to an intensive content analysis. Narrat ives are analyzed f rom the perspect ive of the respondents. That is, f rom the stories and the "accounts of their everyday experience" I move to explor ing from that perspective the general iz ing and general ized relations in which each individual 's everyday wor ld is embedded" (Smith 1987:185). By employing this form of analysis, I attempt to de-center the imposed narrative form of the researcher by l istening not just the form, but to the content of the narrat ives of life a long the river. This approach works to 'decolonize' research methodology (Linda Tuhiwai Smith 1999) . 1 1 My two summers among the St6:l6 f ishers were, in a word, idyllic. For the most part I spent the weekends alternating between sitting a long side the river at Cheam to braving the white waters of the Fraser Canyon, sett ing and checking nets. These adventures were broken up by attending f isheries meetings at St6: l6 Nation and trips to l ibraries and archives. One of the highlights of my summer observing f ishers - aside f rom my near death experience in the canyon - was the t ime I spent at Grand Chief Archie Charles ' dry rack camp in the canyon. Grand Chief Charles, 83 in 2002 when I interviewed him at his canyon dry rack camp, talked of his regular tr ips to the camp each July for the last 58 years. He talked of the r iver closures that prevented his family f rom f ishing dur ing the critical early/mid July period when the canyon condit ions were right for drying. Perhaps one of the things that made my visit at his family 's camp so n M y thanks to Dr. Charles Menzies, my PhD advisor, for point ing me in the direct ion of Dorothy Smith's call to 'problematize the everyday. ' This paragraph borrows f rom Dr. Menzies ' adaptat ion of the analyt ic approaches of Dorothy Smith and Linda Tuhiwai Smith. 41 special was the comment Grand Chief Charles made upon reading my research release form. After reading over the page and signing the form, he remarked "It's about t ime." During my t ime spent along the river at Cheam, I observed the activity a long the beach whi le engaging in casual conversat ion with famil ies f ishing - conduct ing formal interviews with some. As with the experience at Cheam, whi le at tending f isheries meet ings, I would move around the room, introducing myself and chatt ing casual ly with those in at tendance. At t imes I would conduct formal interviews wi th those having t ime to spend with me before leaving the meeting room. For the most part, my t ime in the meet ings was spent observing the interaction of f ishers as attempts were made to force everyone's agenda into a f ishing plan that was satisfactory to St6:l6 f ishers and somewhat compat ible with Fisheries and Oceans conservat ion needs. More t imes than not, Fisheries' needs were discounted as val id for considerat ion. The specif ic act ions on the part of St6:l6 f ishers that I have identif ied as responses to f isheries regulat ions 'presented' themselves to me after I had spent a few months in the f ield talking with St6:l6 f ishers in different communit ies and after observing the on going discussions that took place in the f isheries meet ings composed of f isheries representat ives from each of the St6:l6 bands. It became clear to me, that whi le for the most part, St6:l6 people simply wanted to 'go f ishing, ' others had very clearly def ined agendas and needs that def ined their part icular act ions regarding f isheries regulat ion. In the case of Cheam, the act ions of those f ishers have been front page news for many years. However, some of the aspects of the agendas or needs behind those act ions were less apparent. Upon investigating the less visible aspects of 42 Cheam's part icular response to f isheries regulat ion, it was clear I needed to examine other act ions that appeared, on the surface, to be vastly different and counter to one another in a effort to gain insight into this f ractured f ishery. T h e part icular responses on which I focus provide insight not only into a f ishery f ractured by the regulat ions of the 1880s, but also by the varying ways through which St6: l6 f ishers assert their Aboriginal right to f ish. As I've ment ioned previously, for most St6: l6 the typical and single most important form of agency is simply to go f ishing. However, the three different responses on which I focus in this work reflect not only the differing expressions of agency, but differing ways by which some St6:l6 f ishers wish to be identif ied. These identit ies stem from the exper iences of the residential school system, the regulatory system that has essential ly made them out law f ishers and the economic system that some seem wil l ing to exploit as a means of garner ing "legit imate" capital . These identit ies represent assert ions of power as St6:l6 f ishers seek to work against those same experiences. Whi le on the surface the t ies that bind the responses on which I focus may not be readily apparent, indeed, all three responses are profoundly connected. Based on my conversat ions with St6:l6 f ishers, all three responses are considered by the St6:l6 f ishers to be an aff irmation of the Aboriginal right to f ish. Al l are said to be rooted in tradit ion and all work to support a 'St6:l6' identity. Addit ional ly each response provides a particular insight into the varying facets of a f ractured f ishery. More importantly, reflected are the rough edges of the fractured pieces that are often forced together. Identified are the f issures along which, as Sider notes, "identity is created, history is produced and human agency is revealed (1993). During the summer of 2002, an inventory of St6:l6 f ishing sites was conducted. 43 As a result of that survey over one hundred f ishing sites below the Fraser Canyon were mapped. My examinat ion of responses to f isheries regulat ion focuses on areas included in that inventory as wel l as sites located in the canyon. Whi le there are correlat ions between the responses I identify and the locations of the communit ies and f ishers on the river, it would be too simple to make a direct correlat ion between sties and responses. Cheam's location along the river does indeed make easier the implementat ion of their particular strategy of def iance. The fact that the rai lway runs through their reserve has been a key factor in their ability to draw attention to f ight for the Abor iginal right to f ish. This was evident when in 1993 under the direct ion of Sam Douglas, members of the community b lockaded the rai lway until the f ishery was reopened. W h e n examining the relat ionship between site and response in regards to the Seabird Island community, a correlat ion is indeed evident. This is compounded by the fact that some of the members of the Seabird Island community are related to members of the Cheam community and Cheam band members also maintain f ishing sites in the canyon alongside Seabird Island members. Cheam's response to the canyon f ishery mirrors that of their f ishery along river on their reserve. Simply stated, they do not check their mil i tancy at the doorstep of the canyon. Approximately two thirds of the salmon caught by St6:l6 f ishers are caught in the canyon; and a large share of that two thirds is caught by Ken Malloway. There is no quest ion regarding the correlat ion between Ken Mal loway's access to the canyon f ishery and his abil ity to profit f rom that f ishery. A long these same lines, there is little quest ion regarding the correlat ion between Lester Ned's gil lnet operat ion below the Mission Bridge and his ability to turn a profit in the f ishery. Wha t compl icates the 44 notion of a direct correlat ion between site and response is the interconnectedness of the St6:l6 community. The family connect ion between members of the Cheam and the Seabird Island community is just one example of such relat ionships. During the summer of 2003 I watched as Lester Ned's son f ished along the river at Cheam, his son having that access to the Cheam beach as his mother was a member of the Douglas family of Cheam. In that family connect ions provide access to f ishing spots, the f ishing network afforded to f ishers can be quite extensive. Therefore, a narrow correlat ion between site and response would limit the dimension of any discussion of responses to f isheries regulat ion. The People of the River: Contemporary Times ...My history tells me that salmon is the reason I am here. We are salmon people. The history of the salmon in this part of the world is my own people's history. The salmon, and the Fraser River,define who we are. We take our name from the word that we give the river: St6:ld Our history tells us that at the beginning of the world, salmon was given to the St6:ldbyXa:ls, the creator and great Transformer. He taught us how to survive by maintaining a good relationship with salmon. He taught us how to fish for salmon, how to cook it, and how to look after it. (Ernie Crey, 1997 in You Are Asked to Witness, Keith Thor Car lson ed.) The Halq;emeylem speaking tr ibes living along the lower 105 miles of the Fraser River took their name Stalo or Sfd.Vdfrom the Halq;emeylem word sta'lu meaning 'river' (Duff 1952:11). Today, the peoples identif ied as St6:l6 by Duff, cont inue to be col lect ively know as Sto.lo or River People. However, as Car lson (2003) notes, whether the term St6:l6 implies simple cultural similarity, social aff i l iations or some degree of polit ical unity, is hotly debated. According to Carlson, some Aboriginal people regard the meaning behind the term St6:l6 as a construct of the Wes te rn intellectual tradit ion, others "going so far as to dismiss the notion of a St6:l6 collective 45 identity as a dupl ici tous f ict ion created by nefarious academics and Canadian polit icians to facil i tate the erasure of more tradit ional tribal - and sett lement based forms of identif ication and political authority" (2003:6). Still others regard St6:l6 identity as "an ancient and meaningful affi l iation with particular relevance to the contemporary racially charged polit ical situation" (Carlson 2003:6). In his discussion of St6:l6 political identity, Car lson notes that events of the late 19 t h century forced a rise in a supra tribal St6:l6 identity (2003:41). Accord ing to Car lson, this was not because of any past mandate for such col laborat ion, but was a funct ion of necessity as groups came together to protest the banning of the potlach and ever increasing f isheries regulat ions that worked to force Abor iginal peoples off the Fraser (2003:41). As explained by Carlson, popular percept ions to the contrary, the history of Abor iginal collective identity is the story of a compl icated process of change, shaped as much by internal divisions as external forces (2003:42). This concept is evident when examining the collective identity of St6:l6 f ishers. Twent ieth century pressures - many of those surrounding f isheries issues - forced the coming together of St6:l6 peoples as a single political voice. The coming together occurred in 1989 when, in an effort to present one powerful voice, more than 50 representat ives f rom 16 St6:l6 communit ies gathered around a table in the Seabird Island community hall to plot a unif ied course for St6:l6 f ishermen in the face of ongoing confl ict wi th the federal government over Aboriginal f ishing rights {Chilliwack Progress, May 3, 1989). This attempt at br inging the bands together to address their concerns in any kind of formal 46 unif ied entity did not prove successfu l . 1 2 Another attempt resulted in the creat ion of the entity known as the St6:l6 Nation Society, represent ing an aggregate populat ion of about 6,000 souls identifying themselves as St6 : l6 . 1 3 This newly created entity represented an amalgamat ion of the St6: l6 Tribal Counci l and St6:l6 Nation Canada bringing together 19 of the original 24 Halq;emeylem speaking communit ies a long the Fraser River. These bands include: Aitchelitz, Chawathil, Cheam, Kwantlen, Kwaw-kwaw-a-pilt, Lakahahmen, Matsqui, Shxw'ow'hamel, Popkum, Scowlitz, Seabird Island, Skawahlook, Skowkale, Skway, Soowahlie, Squiala, Sumas, Tzeachten and Yakweakwioose. The St6: l6 Nat ion Society began negotiat ing with Canada and British Columbia on behalf of 17 of the 19 bands represented . 1 4 According to Kew and Miller: Tr ibes are umbrel la organizat ions composed of several cultural ly related bands. They exist to create an economy of scale in providing services to band members, to create a more powerful political presence in the province, and as a recognit ion of a common nationality among the member bands. In 1 2 W h e n I talked with Ken Mal loway fairly recently about the possible dismantl ing of the St6: l6 Nat ion, he discussed how an attempt was made in the late 1980s to br ing St6:l6 people together in a unif ied body. He noted that it didn't work then and that many of the problems existing at that t ime remain. 1 3 l t is this group that forms the collective at the core of my study. 1 4 l n July of 2004 the St6:l6 Nation government split into two rival groups. Eight of the nineteen St6:l6 bands that merged in 1994 have 'left the Nation' and have formed the St6: l6 Tr ibal Society in a bid to control del ivery of their own programs and services (Chilliwack Progress, July 27, 2004). These eight bands are the same bands that formed the St6:l6 Tribal Counci l , one of the intact groups merging with St6:l6 Nation Canada in 1994 to form St6:l6 Nation Society. The eight bands comprise nearly sixty percent of the total St6: l6 populat ion. Initially the two top posit ions wil l be f i l led by Grand Chief Clarence Pennier (from Scowlitz) and Tyrone McNei l ( from Seabird Island) who were elected Yewal s iyam and St6:l6 Siyam respectively in the December 2003 Nation-wide elect ion. Scowlitz and Seabird Island being two of the eight depart ing bands. T h e Cheam Indian Band and the Skway First Nat ion are not part ic ipat ing in the treaty process. 47 this sense, bands and tr ibes are creations of contact wi th non-Nat ives. The largest of the tr ibes in the region is the St6:l6 Nation. (1999:59) In his discussion of Coast Salish tradit ion and law, Bruce Mil ler provides a detai led and comprehensive overview of the Nation as part of its funct ion as a tr ibe (2001). As notes Bruce Miller, the St6:l6 Nation operates under a consti tut ion and is organized into a political arm and a bureaucrat ic arm. The St6:l6 political arm is composed of the Lalem Ye St6:l6 Sf:yam or House of Respected Leaders, the Lalem Ye S' i :yelyo:lexwa or House of Leaders and the House of Justice. The House of Respected Elders is the main political body with its membership based on modif ied proport ional representat ion; each band holding at least one representat ive, some as many as three. The representat ives (chiefs) elect f rom among their group a f ive-person cabinet cal led the Special Chiefs' Counci l (SCC) which consists of one representat ive for each bureaucrat ic department (or Portfolio) of the nation. The Chief 's Representat ive, or St6:l6 Yewal Siyam, is the primary spokesperson for the nation and is effectively the head of state. The Yewal Siyam chairs the SCC and is directly accountable to the St6:l6 Special Chiefs. Fisheries issues fall under the purview of the Fisheries Portfolio and the direction of the Portfolio holder. However, it is erroraneous to assume the Fisheries Portfolio holder has any vested power or control over the St6:l6 f ishery. As descr ibed to me by Bob Hall, the Fisheries Portfolio holder in 2002 when I conducted my f ieldwork, the job is one of facilitator. The House of Elders is composed of elders f rom every member band and is des igned to funct ion in the manner of the Canadian Senate. Elders are selected for their knowledge of St6:l6 tradit ions and customs, so that, as Bruce Miller notes "St6:l6 ways of knowing and understanding are well represented by the act ions of the St6:l6 48 government" (McMul len 1998 in Miller 2001) . The St6:l6 consti tut ion st ipulates that the House of Elders must approve new laws. The St6:l6 Nation House of Justice comprises representat ives f rom the House of Respected Leaders and the House of Elders and began funct ioning in 2000 with the implementat ion of Qwi:qwelst6m, the confl ict resolut ion program offering alternatives to the mainst ream criminal and family court systems. It is through Qwi:qwelst6m and the House of Just ice that resolut ion is to be sought as part of the Justice Protocol s igned by Seabird Is land . 1 5 Whi le the St6:l6 Nation represents the various St6:l6 bands in treaty negotiat ions and administers many of the government service programs designed to assist First Nations peoples, governing powers rest within the individual Indian bands formed under the auspicious of the Indian Act. Individual bands elect a chief and counci l (Section 74 of the Indian Act sets out elect ions procedures) who preside over band governance as well as representing band membership within the larger collective of the St6:l6 Nat ion. Bands hold formal recognit ion f rom the federal and provincial governments and are the entit ies that have title to any assets held in common by First Nations (Kew and Miller 1999:59). A case in point is the limited power of the St6:l6 Nation Fisheries Portfolio as regulat ing St6:l6 f ishers. The St6:l6 Nation Fisheries Portfolio provides the vehicle for collective negotiat ion with the federal government for f ishing opportuni t ies however, individual bands determine part icipation in the 1 5 l recently spoke with Clem Seymour at Seabird Island about the effects of the break up of St6:l6 Nation on the just ice program within the Nation charged with handl ing those cases diverted from the courts. According to Clem Seymour, cases would still be referred to Qwi:qwelst6m. Wha t remains unclear, however is the effect of the break up on the other areas of the structure descr ibed in this sect ion. 49 opportunit ies. Governance of the f isheries remains in the hands of the federal government. The People of the River: Antiquity and Ethnography This complex relat ionship between the river, its salmon resource and the St6:l6 people has been observed and descr ibed by ethnographers, archaeologists and historians. Ethnographic and historic accounts descr ibe the large numbers of Indians travel ing to the canyon each year fol lowing seasonal salmon runs (Crosby 1907; Duff 1952; Fort Langley Journal 1827; Lamb 1966). The importance of Fraser River salmon as a primary food source is borne out in studies reveal ing high concentrat ions of Pacific sa lmon protein in the diet of Coast Sal ish Indians (Chisholm 1983; Hewes 1947; Kew 1976). This importance is reflected linguistically wi th as many as one hundred and forty seven words in the Halq;emeylem language cover ing methods of catching and processing f ish having been identif ied (Gal loway 1993:587). Myths, legends and ceremonies i l lustrate the role of sa lmon in Sto. lo cosmology (e.g. Amoss 1987; Boas 1 8 9 1 , 1895; Codere 1948; Duff 1950, 1952; Hil l-Tout 1902, 1904; Lerman 1976; Teit 1917). Salmon as a commodity of exchange in affinal relat ionships and formal trade arrangements is i l lustrated in the ethnographic and historic accounts and supported to some extent by the archaeology of the area (e.g. Car lson, Roy 1994; Duff 1952; Crosby 1907; Hudson 1993; Fort Langley Journal 1827; Kew and Griggs 1 9 9 1 ; Lamb 1966; McMul l ian 1988; Meggs 1991; Smith 1950; Suttles 1987, 1960; Teit 1900; W a r e 1977, 1983). Regard ing the antiquity of the area, Borden wri tes that the prehistory of the Amer icas is the history of the Indian peoples prior to the advent of Europeans (1968:9). 50 Noting further: ...the first whi tes to visit the Sta le . . .were the Spaniards, probably companions of Juan de Fuca, who explored this part of the coast in 1592 (Swanton 1953:600 in Borden 1968). Two centuries later, 1792, Captain George Vancouver charted the shore of Burrard Inlet. But the first whi te men .... to come into intimate contact with the Indian people a long their route were Simon Fraser and his crew...the year was 1808. (Borden 1968:9) Beginning with the archaeological explorat ions of Hil l-Tout and Lazenby in 1894 and cont inuing since the 1950s with the work of Borden, Duff, Kidd and others, the extent, t ime depth, complexity and intensity of Indian land use and occupat ion of the Upper St6:l6 area has been documented (Borden 1968, 1970, 1975; Mitchell 1963, 1965, 1971 ; Irvine 1973). In the upper Fraser Valley, Native occupancy as long ago as 9,000 to 10,000 years is establ ished by the archaeological record (Borden 1975). The ancient beginnings of people in British Columbia is further noted in Mohs ' summary of sites in the vicinity of Ya le (1990). This includes evidence of one of the oldest habitat ion structures ever found in British Columbia dated between 4,000 to 5,000 years old and the structural remains of another feature found in conjunct ion with sa lmon vertebrae dated to about 62 hundred years ago (Eldridge 1981 and LeClair 1976). Addit ional evidence of antiquity is found in St6:l6 legends and folklore. Stories of ancient occupat ion have been noted by several ethnographers and anthropologists. St6:l6 belief in their ancient ancestry is consistently noted (Boas 1895; Duff 1950, Hil l-Tout 1902, 1904; Jenness 1934/35; Lerman 1976; Smith 1947; Wel ls 1987). Early accounts were first observed around the turn of the century (Boas 1895; Hil l-Tout 1904). Boas descr ibed the creation of the first ancestors at the sites of the old tribal vi l lages as told to him by Chief George Chehal is (Mohs 1990). In this account, the 51 St6:l6 deity Xa:ls is said to have created and/or t ransformed St6:l6 tribal ancestors at South Yale, Chehal is, Harr ison Lake, Matsqui, Lakahahmen, Chil l iwack, Agassiz, Scowlitz, Popkum, Ohamil and Yale (described in detail in Mohs 1990). Other early accounts recall ancestors of the Scowlitz as descending f rom the sky or t ransformed f rom fish in the river. For example, Hil l-Tout recounts the story: The old t ime Scowlitz were divided into three septs, each of which was bel ieved to have had a different and distinct origin. Two of these were tel sweyil 'sky born' ; the third was descended f rom the Sturgeon of the old days... the only old man now left among them, claims to be descended f rom the first Scowlitz man, who was cal led Sumqeameltq. He came down from the sky, br inging with him in his arms two animal- l ike beings cal led Skaiaq and Cwometsel, Mink and Otter. (Maud 1978:148) A similar story is found regarding the Chehal is who were t ransformed f rom the f ish in the river (Maud 1982:151). Other evidence of antiquity is found in the stories relating occupat ion prior to geographic and geological events such as the 'Flood Story' (e.g. Duff 1950; Jenness 1934/5; Hil l-Tout 1902; Lerman 1976; Wel ls 1987). Stories descr ibe occupat ion at a t ime before rivers were f ree f lowing and 'there was salmon in the Fraser River.' These stories coincide to some extent with documented geological activit ies of ancient chronology. Archaeological accounts indicate the Fraser became a free-f lowing river, between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago and salmon have been ascending the river system for the past 7,000 to 9,000 years ago (Borden 1968; Car lson 1983; Fladmark 1975). Very early ethnographic sketches of Coast Sal ish peoples, of which the St6:l6 belong, include the works of Boas (1889, 1890, 1891 , 1894, 1895a, 1895b, 1895c) and Hil l -Tout(1902). In the early 1950s, W a y n e Suttles and Wi lson Duff closely examined 52 Coast Sal ish l i fe-ways with Suttles focusing on the Lummi of western Wash ing ton state and Duff on the upper St6:l6. Duff's ethnography, The Upper Stalo Indians, publ ished in 1952 provides detai led information regarding upper St6:l6 history, vi l lage, place names, archaeological sites, material culture, f ishing, hunt ing, social order, family t imes, kinship terminology, marriage customs; nearly every aspect of St6:l6 life. Notes Duff, the St6:l6 were divided into a considerable number of local groups or 'tr ibes,' each of which claimed a stretch of r iver-bank or an important tr ibutary (1952:19). Accord ing to Duff, the socio-polit ical units into which the Upper Stalo were divided included the extended family, the vil lage, and the 'tribe.' Extended family relat ionships were important, carrying with them access rights to resources and responsibi l i t ies towards those resources. Vi l lages varied in size, made up of one to several extended famil ies. St6:l6 tr ibes consisted of groups of vi l lages which had come to be thought of as units to the extent that they were given names (Duff 1952:86). Strength of tribal identify var ied among the groups in the territory with some of the tr ibes having a clearly def ined tribal identity. However, most of the evidence suggests that the concept of a tribal unit was neither clearly def ined nor important in the Native mind, rather, Stalo tr ibes were named clusters of vi l lages grouped by outsiders for descript ive purposes (Duff 1952:87). The concept of band identity was reinforced with the creat ion of reserves. The notion that band identity is a product of the creation of reserves and the implementat ion of the Indian Act seems to be held by many of the St6:l6 with w h o m I spoke. As one individual wi th whom I spoke explained: It's hard to use the concept of "my band" because this was all our l iving room here, f rom one end of the river to the other because we' re 53 back and forth hunt ing and f ishing, t raveled different places. There 's no "mine" it's all "ours" The designat ion of bands was a European concept. (Sto: 16 f isher f rom Shxw'ow'hamel) Others explained to me that identif ication was with family first above band. This notion f igures into the discussion in chapter 6 regarding weal th accumulat ion as a product of the Pilot Sale Arrangement. Evident in that discussion is the responsibi l i ty of, and to family members as regards the fishery. Fishers with whom I spoke, ta lked of the responsibi l i ty to family first over band, mentioning that family membership t ransected band membership. This emphasis on family is clearly visible in the chapter 6 case study regarding the highl iners and moneymakers as wel l as in regards to the case studies in chapters 4 and 5. In chapter four 's case study regarding the Cheam, the notion of a collective band identity is advanced as a particular "means to an end": warr iors in a battle for the right to f ish. The family consti tutes one corporate/economic unit, another being the simple employer/employee relat ionship establ ished outside the family. In all regards, a sense of community responsibil i ty, aside f rom the simple public persona, strongly exists. As regards the Seabird Island case study in chapter 5, individual famil ies consti tute the core corporate/economic unit. The part icular history regarding the formation of the Seabird Island reserve serves to provide an addit ional d imension to the family/band dichotomy as the initial Seabird community included individuals relocated from surrounding Sto: 16 and N' laka'pamux communit ies. As with any Sto: 16 community, family t ies stretch across band and community l ines. The importance of family and family t ies essential to my discussion of the St6:l6 is d iscussed by Suttles in his examinat ion of Coast Sal ish life publ ished contemporar i ly wi th Duff's work. Similarly to Duff, Suttles descr ibes Coast Sal ish organizat ion as 54 consist ing of four levels of discrete units: famil ies, each occupying its own section of a cedar-plank house and maintaining its own domest ic economy; house groups, each composed of several famil ies (related either through males or females) occupying a plank-house and co-operat ing as hosts of feasts and other ceremonies; vi l lages, each composed of a group of such houses occupying a short stretch of beach or river and shar ing a common name and identif ication with territory; tr ibes, general ly composed of several vi l lages occupying a longer stretch of shorel ine or a drainage area and sharing a common name and, and to some extent, forms of speech, subsistence methods, and ceremonial procedures (1963:513). Suttles identif ies a specif ic form of social organizat ion or property holding kin-group. It was this group or its head, rather than any of the residential groups, that owned the most important ceremonial rights and the most product ive natural resources: f ishing sites (1963:513). Both Duff and Suttles discuss the concept of social rank among the Coast Sal ish. According to Duff, social rank among the Upper Stalo is measured in terms of respect. Duff notes that individuals and famil ies dif fered in social rank because they differed in the degree to which they possessed the quali t ies which were admired and respected (1952:80). Edmund Lorenzetto (E.L.) recal led to Duff how these qualit ies determined the designat ion of S i y a m A siya:m w a s a good man w h o talked to his people to keep them straight and to settle rows. He didn't really boss the people around... .but all the people would take his advice. He talked to the people, tel l ing them what they should do, when they should go hunt ing or f ishing, and the did it. He had to be a good hunter and f isherman himself to be a leader. There might be more than one siya.m at a place... .(1952:80) Siya:m were usually of upper-class l ineage, having had access to special training due to their high-class status. They assumed roles of leadership in the community as pre-55 contact St6:l6 society had no 'chiefs. ' A chief was the one appointed by the Indian Superintendent to conduct the affairs of a reserve (Duff 1952:81). As wel l , in his d iscussion of social rank in Coast Sal ish society, Sutt les comments on the existence of a c lassed society. According to Suttles, within most communit ies there seem to have been three distinct social c lasses - a majority identif ied as "high class," a somewhat smaller group identif ied as "low class," and a still smaller class often occupying its own sect ion of the community (1987:17, originally publ ished in a paper del ivered in 1959). As notes Suttles, this lower class consisted of people who "had lost their history" and hence people who had no claim to the most product ive resources of the areas, such as f ishing sites. This was reiterated by Sonny McHalsie in an interview with Bruce Miller in 1995 and to me in my conversat ions with St6:l6 f ishers. In my conversat ions with Ken Malloway, Sutt les' and Du f f s descript ion of the existence of three distinct c lasses was ment ioned in regards to the f ishery. Ken Mal loway noted to me on more than one occasion that the fact that some contemporary St6:l6 f ishers had gained some measure of weal th f rom the salmon f ishery was simply a reflection of a past class system that existed prior to whi te settlement. In his discussion of resource ownership, Duff notes that exclusive tribal or vi l lage ownership of resource areas was practically unknown to the Upper Sto:Id except for the case of salmon dip-net stations. These stations were located predominant ly in the lower canyon above Yale and were actually rocky points in the canyon wal l the a long the water 's edge. Natural or man-made, these f ishing platforms were named and family owned. Duff wri tes that: 56 The usual pattern was for the 'owner' and his sons and younger brothers to use the station together. Under his leadership they built, rebuilt or kept in repair the drying-rack that went with the station, and each was allotted a number of poles on the rack from which to hand his fish to dry. The dip-net was usually made and owned by the owner of the station, who left it at the water's edge for the others to use....(1952:77) Though dip-net stations were 'owned,' use was extended to anyone who could claim the right through kinship as designated by 'names.' For the most part, the stations in the lower canyon were owned by families in the nearby villages, however, kinship webs could bring fishers claiming rights to the station from as far away as Musqueam and Vancouver Island. These 'kinship webs' were formed through intervillage marriage alliances, thereby expanding hereditary access the canyon fishing sites. Drawing on Suttles' work, Carlson and Eustace describe how access to resource sites were procured through marriage when speaking specifically of the St6:l6: Among the most highly valued inherited privileges, and one that undoubtedly motivated many marriages among upper class families, were rights of access to special resource gathering places such as lower Fraser canyon fishing sites... After the initial exchange of material wealth (blankets, canoes, jewelry, slaves) came the exchange of hereditary privileges. Either the bride or groom, or both, were called out individually by their new parents-in-law and told of their new privileges... Names served as a means of tracing access rights. At a wedding, for example, the name the bride or groom inherited for their children, through their in-laws, would formerly have belonged to a deceased relative recognized as having hereditary rights to a lower canyon fishing spot. A 'speaker' hired on behalf of the family would explain which rights accompanied the name. The more genealogical detail the speaker provided, the greater the legitimacy of the privileges associated with the name. In this way, the new namesake acquired the rights associated with the name. Such names did not necessarily imply site ownership, but they did secure rights of preferred access. These rights were extended to all children and extended relatives resulting from the marriage union...for as long as the marriage endured. (Carlson and Eustace, draft 1997: 9-10) 57 Knowing one's ancestors was vital to demonstrat ing one's claim to family owned f ishing sites. Knowing one's ancestry meant knowing those sites to which one's names where at tached. Sonny McHalsie descr ibes the system of access through names as explained by Carlson and Eustace: Family names, individual names and different names had a ranking to either upper class, middle class and lower class. Those names were at tached to the land. W h e n you got a name you had to earn that name.... Then at tached to that name would be a resource because f rom that name everyone would know from the name that you carr ied where you could f ish for instance, where you could pick berries...(1995:6-7) However, access through names did not mean exclusive use as other members of the extended family had names that were at tached to the ground as wel l . Again, Sonny McHals ie notes: ....it's not like just there's only a few names like you can't go to one f ishing spot and say, "Wel l for this f ishing spot the person that carr ies this one name is the only person that can f ish here." (1995:7) Excerpts f rom D u f f s f ield no tebooks 1 6 describe the ownership of canyon f ishing rocks and f ishing grounds. "Rocks were owned by people from all over the place. Every f ishing rock had a name; every f ishing ground had a name" (Book 5). In his analysis of St6:l6 collective identity, Car lson (2003) d iscusses the role of the extended family in economic relations traces sett lement patterns, drawing on Suttles' work regarding regional networks that l inked sett lements as a means of procur ing foods and deal ing with t imes of resource scarcity. Car lson notes Suttles' identif ication of the family as the core corporate/economic unit. Car lson wri tes that 1 6 Notebooks 2-6 were used in this sect ion regarding f ishing sites and f ishing techniques. These notebooks reflect conversat ions with Patrick Charl ie and Robert Joe (Books 2 & 3), Patrick Charl ie, August Jack, Mr. and Mrs. Edmund Lorenzetto, Harry Joseph (Book 4) and Mr. and Mrs. Edmund Lorenzetto (Books 5 & 6) . 58 "according to Suttles, neither the vi l lage nor the tribe have necessari ly ever been the most important col lective units" (2003:56). Rather it was the family/kin group, or its head that owned the most important ceremonial rights and the most product ive natural resources (Carlson 2003:56 f rom Suttles 1987:210). Sutt les' descr ipt ion of Coast Sal ish resource ownership and family control of resources supports D u f f s observat ions of resource ownership and control among the St6:l6. Sutt les' and D u f f s analysis of St6:l6 resource economics form the basis of the argument advanced by some St6:l6 f ishers and countered by others in response to f isheries regulat ion as found in the discussions that follow. In the chapters immediately fol lowing, I focus on the early years of f isheries regulat ions and the historical c i rcumstances contr ibuting to regulat ion as wel l as the roles of the courts regarding the Aboriginal right to f ish. As I cont inue in my discussion of the f isheries I descr ibe the changes that resulted f rom the implementat ion of a new Aboriginal f isheries strategy in 1992 and how that "strategy" has contr ibuted to something just short of a breakdown in the systems that regulated the f ishery as descr ibed by Sutt les and Duff. How, as one Cheam band member noted to me, the DFO came to be Siya:m . 59 Chapter Two: History, Regulation and Resistance "We start when we are kids. We learn how to fish because that's where our parents and grandparents lived, in the camps, in the houses up there in the canyon and even down here. We made our own home, had our own fishing sites, family owned. In the summer the whole family would go to Yale to dry and can and salt salmon. Learning how to fish is like going to school. You go there, first you learn to start packing nets around, then after you're old enough you start setting 'em, after a while you start checking 'em and packing the fish out. The pretty soon you're doing it on your own." (St6:l6 f isher f rom Shxw'ow'hamel) In his overv iew of the industrial ization of the Pacif ic Coast sa lmon f ishery and what he calls the "legal capture" of the salmon in British Columbia, Douglas Harris draws on the work of Edward Said to explain how that legal capture was made possible. Notes Harris: In terri tories claimed for the British Crown, particularly those that became settler colonies, establ ishing English law was essential to the colonial project. W h e r e necessary, European colonial powers used other, blunter instruments of force, including gunboats and infantry, to secure control but it was not only v iolence that secured the European posit ion. Less obviously sources of power, the numerous cultural assumpt ions about family, dress, language, work, and the apparent ly mundane detai ls of ordinary life reproduced part icular hierarchical relations between colonial rulers and subjects. Edward Said, in his immensely influential study Orientalism, managed to portray the ' formidable structure of cultural dominat ion' that enveloped the West 's relat ionship with the Middle East. It was this cultural dominat ion - the ability to name, to label, to categorize an oth r - that permeated the relationship..,. Culture was not, in Said's study, 'merely decorat ive or "superstructural," ' but a source of great and under-examined power in the West 's relat ionship with the East. (2001:187-8) Said could have very easi ly been writ ing about the relat ionship between the British Crown and the First Peoples of British Columbia, a compar ison so aptly made by Harris. Wh i le Abor iginal peoples have used this created Indian other as a means of 'holding on ' in the face of the numerous changes to their way of life, it was by way of this Indian other that first Colonial governors and eventual ly Dominion lawmakers were 60 able to "legally capture" the salmon resource of British Columbia and subsequent ly regulate Indian f ishers to the economic margins. This is evident in the opening paragraphs of a Gerald Howard's 1944 report prepared for the International Pacif ic Salmon Fisheries Commission in New Westminster, BC. Wr i tes Howard: One port ion of the total run consists of the valuable commercial f ishery and also the relatively less important Indian f ishery. In each year the number o f f i s h taken by the Indians is actually much smaller than either the number caught by the commercial f ishery or the number escaping to the spawning grounds. However, as it becomes necessary to give the small and nearly extinct race the protection required for their rehabil i tat ion, representat ive statistics for the Indian f ishery must be avai lable if regulat ion of the commercial f ishery is to be carr ied out intelligently. (1944:65) Undoubtedly, St6:l6 society was signif icantly changed by the coming of whi tes to the region. In addit ion to the fact that white diseases had reduced vi l lage populat ions long before the first white explorers, trappers, miners, f ishers or missionaries visi ted the Fraser Val ley, impacts on the natural resources of the region - in part icular the salmon -proved devastat ing. By this t ime, d isease had already signif icantly reduced Native populat ions. Mining activit ies, sett lements, railway construct ion and the introduction of commercial canner ies on the Fraser severely infr inged on the Abor iginal f ishery. In this sect ion I discuss the changes experienced by the St6:l6 people as a result of the influx of whi tes into the region. I focus primarily on the growth of cannery operat ions in British Columbia that resulted in var ious regulatory actions directed at Sto: Id f ishers. H i s to r i ca l P rev iew Most B.C. Indian societies, including the St6:l6, never s igned treaties with the federal government and in essence never rel inquished their claim over the land and resources. Control and management of the land, rivers, and their resources remain, for all these First Nations peoples, the responsibil i ty of Indian leaders and people. Notes 61 Newell: For thousands of years before Europeans arrived, Indian economies on the Pacific slope centred on marine resources; the sea and coastal rivers were at least as important as the land. There were regular, prolific salmon migrations into fresh-water areas of very Aboriginal society...Aboriginal peoples harvested prodigious quantities of local resources, especially salmon, which they processed and used for personal consumption, trade, and ceremony. Such well-managed enterprises allowed them to support a pre-epidemic population numbering in the hundreds of thousands without destroying the fishery resource. (1993:3) The St6:l6 had extremely effective fisheries strategies in operation when, in 1793, Alexander MacKenzie made his way to the coast in the first overland expedition. These strategies were noted more than fifteen years later, in 1808, by Simon Fraser, after establishing posts at McLeod Lake, Fraser Lake and the south end of Stuart Lake, made his journey down the river later named for him. By 1827 the Hudson's Bay Company post at Fort Langley on the Fraser River was established relying heavily on the fishing expertise of the nearby Indians (Fort Langley Journal 1827/30; Morton 1989). These posts, and others in the region, were the major centers of the fur trade in the area named New Caledonia as well as major centers of trade for the Indians of the region. The fur trade clearly brought change to the Indians of the region, yet it was change that the Indians directed and therefore their culture remained intact (Fisher 1992:47). Through inter-marriage between Sto:Id women and the HBC employees posted at the Fort in Langley, the St6:l6 were able to control many aspects of the Fort's economy (Carlson 1997, Fisher 1992). Beginning around 1829, St6:l6 fishers became the backbone of a major cured fish industry at Fort Langley. Recognizing the expertise of the Indian fishers, HBC employees relied on the St6:l6 to provide the vast quantities of salmon necessary to 62 maintain the new industry. Salmon, procured from St6:l6 f ishers, was processed for export (Carlson 1997, Fisher 1992, Fort Langley Journal 1827/30). Three permanent HBC salt ing stat ions were establ ished on the Fraser River whereby Indian f ishers would "sell" f resh salmon to be processed for shipment to the Sandwich Islands (FLJ 1827/30, Morton 1989). By the late 1850s the discovery of gold a long the Fraser River brought an ever greater number of whi te miners and settlers into the area along with a change in the Indian/white relat ionship in the Fraser Valley. The discovery of gold a long the Fraser River in 1858 not only saw an end to the fur trade industry but also an end to the cooperat ive relat ionship between the newly arr ived white populat ion and the Indian peoples of the region. From the beginning there was violence between the miners and the Indians. The influx of miners into the region adversely affected the St6:l6 f ishery. Indians and miners vied for the use of the waterway, the Indians for their tradit ional f ishery and the miners for their alluvial gold mining as literally dozens of creeks were diverted into scores of man made ditches for transport ing water (Carlson and Eustace 1997). Further affected were tradit ional St6:l6 f ishing sites. Carlson and Eustace note the existence of two placer mining companies directly on f ishing sites as shown on the Indian Super intendent Vowel l 's 1906 map of Yale f ishing sites. Both Vanzandt Hydraul ic Mining and Yale Placer Hydraul ic Mining had twenty year leases to mine at f ishing sites which had been recognized and reserved by the federal government (Carlson and Eustace 1997). Duff notes that the richest gold-bearing bars on the Fraser were found between Hope and Yale (1952:41). Indians panned gold themselves or worked for the miners 63 for $2 to $4 a day abandoning their winter canyon vi l lages. Fisher notes: Many Indians were caught by the mania for gold, and some probably neglected their tradit ional summer food-gather ing, either to mine or to provide ancil lary services for the white miners.. . .many Indians were able to support themselves and their famil ies by becoming wage earners. Others, however, obviously miscalculated their winter needs. The pressure of starvat ion forced some Indians to steal f rom Europeans. Also, Indians of the canyon, attracted by the possibil i ty of trade and work, abandoned their winter vi l lages and began to congregate around the mining towns. (1994:101) Wi th the exodus of miners f rom the region came the arrival of whi te settlers. It was at this t ime that James Douglas began an Indian policy on the mainland that included the creat ion of Indian reserves. Douglas recognized the Indian patterns of land and resource use and attempted to provide some semblance of protect ion regarding access to tradit ional f ishing sites. Whi le no treaties were s igned, tracts of land throughout St6:l6 territory were set aside as Indian reserves. However, Douglas' policy would be greatly al tered in years fol lowing Douglas ' retirement in 1864 when Joseph Trutch began to reduce or el iminate the elements of Douglas ' Indian policy that were beneficial to Indians (Tennant 1992:39). Indian reserves cont inued to be created when British Columbia jo ined Canada in 1871 and crucial decis ions over the size and number of reserves in the coastal and inland river areas cont inued into the early twentieth century (Newell 1993:55). Contr ibut ing to the specif ic affects of sett lement on Abor iginal peoples was the fact that Indians in British Columbia had agreed to the small reserves al located them on the understanding that their rights to the f ishery were guaranteed (Lane and Lane 1978, as quoted in Pinkerton 1987:251 and Notzke 1994:45). Acreage and location of reserve lands were determined by joint Indian Reserve Commissions operat ing f rom 1876 to 1877, 1879 to 1880, 1880 to 1898 and by the joint Royal Commission operat ing 64 f rom 1913 to 1916 (Notzke 1994:45) . 1 7 Federal officials were convinced that Indians in British Columbia did not require large reserves such as those set aside in other provinces, as long as Native f ishing practices remain protected. For the St6:l6 Indians this protect ion of f ishing rights was of paramount importance as they had already faced signif icant reduct ions in reserve land holdings in 1868 when under Joseph Trutch's direct ion all central Fraser Val ley St6:l6 reserves were officially resurveyed result ing in a signif icant reduct ion in the land base. This reduct ion amounted to ninety-one percent of the St6:l6 reserve land base being al ienated from their control (Carlson 1997) . 1 8 The Growth of British Columbia Canneries and the Industrialization of a Fishery W h e n British Columbia jo ined Canada in 1871 changes in the Abor iginal f ishery were imminent as the first salmon-canning factory appeared that same year. Initially there was no government regulat ion of any kind over Indian f ishing (Newell 1993:46). W a r e refers to this period between 1858 and 1880 as a t ime of non-regulat ion and protect ion of Aboriginal rights with no restrictions (1983:12). Accord ing to Newell regulat ions were minimal so as to al low growth of the salmon-canning industry (1993:46). The role of Indians in the growth of the salmon-canning industry was acknowledged by the government and regulat ions indicated in part icular that Indians had the right to carry on their tradit ional f isheries (Newell 1993:46). In addit ion, as part icipants in cannery operat ions Indian men and women operated the gill net f leets, 1 7 l n addit ion, Carlson and Eustace, The Lower Fraser Canyon Aboriginal Fishery: An Historical Analysis of Access and Control, (report prepared for St6:l6 Nat ion 1997) descr ibe the creat ion of canyon f ishing reserves. 1 8 Kei th Carlson, in chapter 4 of You Are Asked to Witness, provides a table reflecting the size of St6:l6 reserves in 1864, the amount of land included in Trutch's 1868 reduct ions and the current reserve acreage in 1996 (1997:74). 65 and Indian women and chi ldren did most of the handl ing of raw f ish (Newell 1993:47). The year 1870 saw the first commercial canning of salmon in Brit ish Columbia (Lyons 1969:142). Cont inuous canning did not begin on the Fraser until 1 8 7 1 , when Alexander Ewen launched his operat ion and went into product ion (Meggs 1991:20). As Meggs descr ibes: In the first year, Ewen and his partners produced 300 cases for export to the United Kingdom. Each case held 100 one-pound cans. After 1871 , only 48 one-pound cans were placed in a case and a 48-pound case became the industry standard. (1991:20) Addit ional canner ies were opened such as the one by T.E. Ladner who establ ished his first cannery on the south bank of the Fraser near its mouth. In the ten years fol lowing Ewen's first pack, new canneries were establ ished almost every year. Again Meggs descr ibes: At the end of the decade, the province boasted eleven canneries, including ten on the Fraser. The pack on the Fraser rose f rom a few hundred cases in 1870 to 42,155 in 1880 and 142,516 a year later. (1991:22) By 1919 there were 97 canner ies on the coast f rom the Fraser River to the Nass River, on Vancouver Island and in the Queen Charlottes, employing more than 9,000 people, the majority of whom were Indians and more that one-third of all salmon f ishermen were Indians (Pearse 1982:151). Initially, Native f ishers dominated the cannery labor force as the majority of early gi l lnetters were Native people, hired on a daily basis to f ish cannery boats (Meggs 1991:22). Meggs notes, thousands of Native people were drawn into cannery labor, as work was avai lable for the whole family (1991:22). Ernie Crey told me how his older sister, Mary, had worked in the canneries. Archived, oral histories make mention of 66 St6:l6 people travel ing down river to the canner ies to work. After the turn of the century, Indian f ishers had to struggle to maintain their posit ion as Japanese f ishers became more active part icipants in the cannery f ishery, especial ly on the Fraser River and Vancouver Island (Newell 1993, Souther 1993). Addit ional ly, according to Newell : By 1913 Indian f ishers were a minority in the Fraser district: of the 2,359 l icenses issued, 1,088 went to Japanese, 832 to whites, and only 430 to Indians. (1993:85) Not only were Indian f ishers replaced by Japanese f ishers, on the Fraser River Japanese women were replacing Indian women on the canning line (Newell 1993:85). An Era of Regulation Emerges W h e n examining the implementat ion of f isheries regulat ions it is important to consider how regulat ion altered tradit ional economic patterns and hindered the development of new ones. As descr ibed by Newell , the salmon canning industry represented a new economic opportunity compatible with tradit ional economic activit ies (1993:65). However, by the late 1880s Indians were seen as a major obstacle to cannery profits and f isheries officials were pressed by cannery owners to introduce new regulat ions to l icense the industrial f ishery. Direct competi t ion for f ish between commercial canners and Indian domest ic f isheries was evident by the turn of the century (Notzke 1994:45). Table 1 lists some of the early regulat ions directly affecting the spiri tual, social, and economic relat ionship between the St6:l6 people and the Fraser River salmon resource. Regulat ion designed to reduce the competi t ion between Native f ishers and cannery owners required Indians to acquire l icences to f ish commercial ly (only in tidal waters) but al lowed them the f reedom to catch salmon to feed themselves. This policy 67 Table 1. Chronology of Fishery Regulation for the Province of British Columbia 1876 The Fisheries Act was made applicable to B.C. Allowed the federal Minister to licence or lease water to 'certain Indians' permitting them to fish for their own use. Fishing manner and timing could be specified and spearing could be permitted. 1878 The first Salmon Regulations for the Province of British Columbia were adopted by Order-in-Council. No reference was made to Indians. The Regulations restricted drift netting of salmon in tidal waters, limited the obstruction of rivers by nets and banned salmon fishing during specified weekend hours. A letter from the Minister of Alexander Anderson, the first B.C. Fishery Inspector, gave him authority to suspend the regulation for Indians. 1879 A general Fishery Regulation for Canada was adopted which prohibited salmon fishing without a lease or licence from the Department of Marine and Fisheries. 1888 New Regulation contained more comprehensive controls over salmon and trout fishing, including prescribed open and closed periods and methods of net fishing. The prohibition remained against net fishing without lease or licence, net fishing in fresh water and obstruction of more than one third of any river. Penalties were how provided for violation. The Indian food fishery was exempt from these Regulations and Indians were to 'at all times have liberty to fish for the purpose of providing food for themselves, but not for sale, barter or traffic by any means other than with drift nets or spearing.' 1894 New Regulation prescribed more detailed limits on net size, the use of seine nets and the fishing season. Introduced the distinction between 'commercial' and 'domestic' licences; Indians were prohibited said that 'Indians and take food fish without permit in any place from taking fish by spear, trap or pen on spawning grounds or fish any place reserved for fish propagation and were now subject to the close season. Indians could, with permission, use dip nets for food fishing. 1908 All net fishing without licence was prohibited and no net fishing could take place in fresh water. The clause in the 1894 Regulation which allowed Indian food fishing with permission was regulation of fish packing; and a catch reporting requirement, deleted. The only reference to Indians was a clause which required them to report the place, time, quantity and type of fish to the nearest fishery officer. 1910 The 1908 Regulations were replaced by the Special Fishery Regulations for the Province of British Columbia, which reintroduced the 1894 controls on the Indian fishery that had been rescinded in 1908 (requirements for permission for food fishery, etc.) One key change - Indians were not required to respect the closed season. 68 Table 1. Continued 1917 More restrictive in an effort to stop the sale of salmon caught under food fish permits. Established principles which are central to the regulation of the Indian food fishery from 1917 until 1977. Empowered inspectors to specify in the food fish permit the location, methods and timing of the fishery. 1925 An amendment to the Regulations added that anyone who bought a fish that was caught without permit in an area for which permits were not granted was guilty of an offense. 1967 The amendment said that the provision for Indian food fishing under permit applied even where there was a ban on fishing for salmon with commercial gear in the mouth of the Fraser during winter (Dec. 1 - March 31). The 'permit' of earlier regulation became a 'special licence.' Licensee required to carry the food fish licence while fishing in case of inspections. All salmon and steelhead taken under licence were to be marked by the licensee after capture by cutting off the end of the nose and dorsal fin. Gill nets and sets were to clearly display the licence number. It was specified that no person should buy or accept fish unless it was lawfully caught under a commercial licence. 1981 Complete revisions were made to the food fishing sections - key features: a food fishing licence could be issued to an Indian or Indian Band; the licence could specify the location, timing, species, quantities, gear and marking methods; the requirements for carrying the licence, marking the fish, identifying nets remained and the prohibition against selling or buying fish caught under food licence was strengthened. 1984 Another complete re-drafting of the food fishing provisions -'Indian food fish licence' was defined as 'a licence issued by the Minister to an Indian or a band for the sole purpose of obtaining food for that Indian and his family or the band.' The person fishing was required to produce on demand his licence, a copy of the band licence or band authorization. All nets were to be marked as specified and no one other than an Indian could 'have in his possession fish caught under the food fish licence. Source: Indian Fishing Rights in British Columbia, Ferguson Gifford, March 18, 1989. created a separate food f ishery among the Aboriginal peoples where none had existed in the past (Ware 1983). As Newell describes: The Indian food-f ishing regulat ion equated Indian f isheries strictly wi th subsistence harvest ing: ' Indians shal l , at all t imes, Have liberty to f ish for 69 the purpose of providing food for themselves but not for sale, barter or traffic, by any means other than with drift nets [floating net that drifts freely with the tide or current], or spearing.' This provision in theory capped production in the Aboriginal fisheries in order to reserve supplies for the fishing industry. (1993:62) It was under this regulation that 'the economic use of salmon by St6:l6 and other Aboriginal peoples was outlawed' (Glavin 1993). Again Newell explains: The Indian food-fishery regulation raised two separate but profound issues....First, it separated Indian harvesting and personal consumption offish from economic, social or cultural purposes... the distinction between fishing for food and fishing for any other purpose was foreign to Indian cultural and practice. Second, it separated production of resources from management of them, officially transferring all management of this crucial food and commercial resource from Indians to the state [the state in this case being the federal fisheries agency]. (1993:62) Subsequent regulation saw significant restrictions on Indian 'food fishing.' Offensives were launched against the use of weirs and fish dams, a permit system was established, attacks on Indian fisheries intensified, and attempts to abolish all nets and even attempts at a total prohibition of Fraser River Indian fishing were instituted (Ware 1983:12). As the needs of the canneries escalated, so did the restrictions on Indian fishing. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the direct effects of regulation on access to fisheries resources in the late 19th and early 20 th centuries. Table 2. Fisheries Regulations Impacting Aboriginal Access to Fisheries Resource 1880 Sale of "food fish" outlawed 1904 Fishing weirs banned on Skeena River 1917 Purchase of food fish banned 1919 Beach seines outlawed Source: Souther, 1993 Phases 2 - 5 of Ware's chronological framework corresponds directly with Souther's list 70 of f isheries regulat ion. Table 3 outl ines Ware 's chronology regarding f isheries regulat ions. Table 3. Chronology of Governmental Regulation with Special Emphasis on the Fraser River Phase 2 1858- 1880s Non-regulation of BC Indian fisheries. Protection of these Aboriginal rights with no restrictions. Phase 3 Early 1880s-1892 First attempt to separate Indian participation in the commercial fisheries from "food fishing." First regulatory clauses in Fisheries Act and BC Regulations. Early attempts to "administer" fishing laws against Indians. Phase 4 1894 -1914 Significant regulation and restrictions of Indian "food fishing." Offensive launched on weirs and fish dams. "Permit system" established. Phase 5 1914- 1922 Intensified attack on Indian fisheries. Attempts to abolish all nets; then attempts at total prohibition of Fraser River Indian fishing. Source: Ware 1983 Indian peoples lost control and management over the f isheries as new waves of regulat ion were continual ly introduced. For the Sto:Id, compl iance with f isheries regulat ions meant f ishing in prescribed places at prescr ibed t imes with prescr ibed technology. The Indian f ishery had already been designated as strictly a ' food f ishery' when a wave of regulat ion between 1894 and 1914 out lawed specific, important technologies such as trawling, drift ing or bag-nett ing; important f ishing technologies used below the canyon. Traps and weirs were also out lawed in this wave of regulat ion as was the practice of ' torchlighting' (f ishing at night). Set gill nets became the only legal technique between the delta and the canyon areas as this technique made 71 monitor ing by f isheries authorit ies more easy (Bierwert 1997; Newell 1993; W a r e 1983). Regulat ions required that Indian nets had to be tagged making them clearly recognizable to f isheries authorit ies (Ware 1983). Ernie Crey sums up the circumstances faced by St6:l6 f ishers: From 1888 onward, the great tribal f isheries of the Fraser River watershed were under attack. Fisheries officers were sent throughout the interior to tear down our f ishing weirs, to dismantle our traps, and to keep us away f rom the river. (1993) Early Struggles With Regulation Aris ing from increased pressure f rom the nascent canning industry, new f ishing regulat ions were implemented in 1888 that would greatly reshape Aboriginal f isheries and touch off confl ict that persists to this day. Comprehensive controls over salmon and trout f ishing, were put into place, including prescr ibed open and closed periods and methods of net f ishing. The prohibit ion remained against net f ishing without lease or l icence, net f ishing in fresh water and obstruct ion of more than one third of any river. Penalt ies were now provided for violat ion. The Indian food f ishery was exempt f rom these Regulat ions and Indians were to 'at all t imes have liberty to f ish for the purpose of providing food for themselves, but not for sale, barter or traffic by any means other than wi th drift nets or spearing. ' Jos Dyck, in his discussion of early resistance movements on the part of Native peoples, notes that St6:l6 f ishers responded almost immediately. In the summer of 1888, St6:l6 f ishers united to express concern about the cannery-related f ishing that was taking place near the river mouth. St6:l6 chiefs sent a petit ion to the Department of Indian Affairs stating that their people were in danger of not having enough salmon for the winter. According to Dyck, the St6:l6 c la imed that few salmon were gett ing past the nets at the river mouth and the ones that did were 72 rope-marked and spent (1991:28)19 The 20 t h century saw a steady growth of confrontations and net seizures on the Fraser River. In particular the years 1913-1914 witnessed an escalation in federal attacks on Indian fishing rights as a series of ecological disasters devastated the 1913 and 1914 Fraser River salmon runs. If one single event can be seen as adding fuel to the fire of fisheries regulation, it is the Hell's Gate disaster. The 1913 rock slide at Hell's Gate in the Fraser Canyon proved to be an ecological disaster of immense proportion. Explosions by railway construction crews triggered a massive rock slide effectively blocking the 1913 return migration of Fraser River spring and sockeye salmon. Cannery operators, facing economic crisis at the impending loss of future sockeye runs, exerted increased pressure on fishing authorities to further limit the Indian fishery. Federal officials responded by strictly enforcing previously unenforced clauses of the fisheries regulation banning nets in inland waters and by completely closing the early July Indian fishery between Hope and Lytton (Ware 1983). Over Indian protests, this level of restriction continued for the next few years culminating in the complete closure of the river to 'Indian fishing' for the 1919-1921 fishing seasons. Enforcement of the Fraser River closure was dropped when it was realized that it was unenforceable short of physical occupation of the villages (Ware 1983:33). Ware reports that all the tribes from Chilliwack up river resisted the prohibition. Dip netting at night was one method they used. According to Ware, J.P. Babcock reported: 19Canada, Department of Indian Affairs, RG10, NAC- UBCIC. R. C-10140, F. 50341, V. 3802. Petition from the Chiefs assembled at Yale to Indian Agent McTierman, 13 August 1888. 73 . . .notwithstanding the Dominion's order prohibit ing the Indians f rom taking Salmon above.. Mission Bridge, a considerable number of Sockeye were taken by them in the canyon. (1983:33-4) Prior to the protests over the total closure of the Fraser, St6:l6 f ishers protested regulat ions that targeted tradit ional f ishing technologies. Even after the use of drift or bag-nets ( important St6:l6 f ishing methods for f ishing below Yale) were out lawed, St6:l6 f ishers cont inued to rely on these tradit ional f ishing techniques. During the 1883 f ishing season, the local f ish guardian seized a large number of nets in the Fraser River and Indians from Yale to Squamish 'protested loudly and angri ly ' against the seizures (Ware 1983:17). A.C. Anderson, Fishery Inspector, quickly issued an order to return the nets. This however, was not always the response on the part of the government and net seizures cont inue to the present. Cameron (1997) notes that in 1916 Aboriginal people in the province united in an organizat ion cal led the Al l ied Tr ibes of B.C. to press Aboriginal claims for land and resources. However, in 1927, just before the tr ibes went to Ottawa to press their claims, the federal government inserted a provision in the Indian Act prevent ing Aboriginal people f rom obtaining legal assistance (1997:146). Transcr ipts of the 1913-16 the Royal Commission test imonies and transcripts of oral histories reveal that many St6:l6 people cont inued to sell f ish to make ends meet and to obtain sugar and other grocery items. Felix Joe of Seabird Island reported to Commissioner Shaw in 1914: W h e n asked if they ever sell - "Yes, when seasons for f ishing are good, we catch f ish and sell some for other food. Chief Wi l l ie Glades of Popcum in 1914 reported to Commissioner McKenna: "Occasional ly go out f ishing and sometimes sell some of the f ish in order to 74 exchange it for groceries." Assistant Chief Henry Edwards of Cheam reported to Commissioner McDowell in 1914: "We depend quite a bit on the salmon, and we sell fish also." Chief Charlie of Matsqui reported to Commissioner McKenna in 1915: "Some Indians fish during the fishing season and some do not because have to buy a licence. Some fish for the canneries. Sometimes sell fish to whites to get sugar and tea." Some reported to the Commission that at one time they fished for the canneries, some using cannery boats and outfits, but for the most part the money they made barely covered the expense [of the licence and the gasoline]. Chief Harry of Chilliwack reported to Commissioner Shaw in 1915: "Some Indians go to the canneries to fish." Sub Chief Johnnie Lewis of Kilgard reported to Commissioner McKenna in 1915: "Indians used to go to the canneries to fish, don't now. Catch fish for their own use." Fishing For Themselves Struggles over fisheries regulations would continue throughout the 20 th century and into the 21 s t. The St6:l6 faced restrictions on when and how they could fish. An examination of those restrictions and the responses to them by St6:l6 fishers reveals a picture of a hard fought battle for the right to fish. Turning again to Gerald Howard's words from his 1944 report: The Indian fishery on the Fraser River is controlled by the Dominion Department of Fisheries. This department has the power to specify the locations for fishing, the gear to be used, the number of fish to be taken, and the time during which the fishery is pursued. The Indians are permitted to take the salmon only for their own consumption; they are not allowed to sell them. Hence this is not a commercial fishery. (1944:65) 75 The Sto: 16 talk of a t ime when they f ished seven days a week. In an interview conducted in 1985, Grand Chief P.D. Peters who was 73 at the t ime of the interview, spoke of hear ing his grandfather talk about f ishing in the river. Notes Grand Chief Peters, "when I was a kid, I think they were f ishing seven days a week" (St6:l6 Tribal Counci l Oral History, July 12, 1985, p. 5). Mrs. Edna Douglas of Cheam also talks of a t ime when St6:l6 people f ished seven days a week. Notes, Mrs. Douglas who was 65 at the t ime of the interview, "...we had seven days a week, we could f ish all we want" (Oral History January 16, 1985, p. 4). But as Mr. Howard reminds us, Indian f ishing was regulated, often strictly. Data regarding the number of al lowable f ishing days is only avai lable for a t ime beginning in 1951 , however it does reflect that the days avai lable to the St6:l6 for f ishing were indeed regulated by the federal government . 2 0 Drawing on the avai lable data regarding al lowable f ishing days for the summer sockeye run, we f ind that in the years f rom 1951 through 1961 open per iods in the Fraser River Indian Food Fishery ( IFF) 2 1 were limited to four days per week, year round - 1 8 0 0 hours Wednesday to 1800 hours Sunday. From 1962 through 1966, the number of al lowable days would be reduced to three as concerns began to mount regarding the early Stuart sockeye r u n . 2 2 The number of al lowable f ishing days was cut 2 0 T h e more detai led account ing of the f ishery that Gerald Howard cal led for in his 1944 report to International Salmon Fisheries Commission resulted in the more detai led account ing of Indian catches found in the reports after 1951 . 2 1 l nd ian Food Fishery or IFF was the official designat ion of the Abor ig inal f ishery prior to 1992 and the implementat ion of a new Aboriginal Fishing Strategy (AFS). 2 2 T h e early Stuart run is the first sockeye salmon run of the year, so named because they return early in the f ishing season to spawn in the Stuart River system in northern British Columbia. This run has been a serious conservat ion concern for decades and l imited, if any f ishing has general ly been al lowed. This run is of importance to the canyon wind dry f ishers in that it occcurs dur ing the per iod of t ime 76 drastical ly when, in 1967, the river would be closed to f ishing f rom July 3 to July 23, again to protect the early Stuarts. In 1968 there was a one day opening the first two weeks in July. This pattern of l imiting f ishing to one day a week f rom late June to early July wou ld cont inue through 1973 as part of a mandate by f isheries officials to conserve the early Stuart sockeye run. In 1976, after a brief return to three days a week openings, concerns for the early Stuart run would force a return to the more restr icted openings, whereby openings would then be limited to one day per week dur ing this critical run time. In 1980 no f ishing was al lowed f rom the end of June until mid July, again in an effort to protect the early Stuart sockeye run. It has been the restricted f ishing on this run that has led to the numerous confrontat ions and protests that cont inue to present. Not only does this t ime period in late June mark the arrival of the first sockeye into the river, it is the only t ime that sockeye can be wind dr ied in the Fraser Canyon. The wind dry f ishery being an important f ishery then as now. Families, primarily f rom Seabird Island, headed to the canyon to take advantage of a very small w indow of opportunity for w ind drying their salmon. This w indow of drying t ime is l imited to approximately two weeks during the month of July. Over the years, 'closures' to protect this run have resulted in confrontat ions between St6:l6 f ishers and DFO as wel l as confrontat ions between wind dryers and other St6:l6 f ishers. The restriction on al lowable f ishing days was only one of the ways St6:l6 f ishers were assaulted by f isheries regulations. W h e n interviewed in 1985, Mrs. Edna Douglas of Cheam talked of the humil iat ing encounters with f isheries off icers. Mrs. Douglas spoke of how different f isheries officers [in the canyon] would enforce different when canyon weather and wind condit ions are optimal for drying the salmon on racks. 77 restrict ions. Quot ing Mrs. Douglas: There was a t ime so bad, in around, between 48 and early 50s, there was an officer in the Yale district, that was so bad that, it was just like you had a tyrant over you, or some truant officer. (Oral History transcript, January 16, 1985, page 6) W h e n asked what sorts of things he did, Mrs. Douglas responded: We l l he made you count your f ish in front of him, and he'd come, and see maybe in a week he'd come and see, where you put it and how you did it or if you salted it he'd try and count in the barrel and he'd see where you put your canning was, he'd look into your deep freezer, see if you put it there. (Oral History transcript, January 16, 1985, page 6) W h e n asked if the officers actually entered her home, Mrs. Douglas responded in the aff irmative: If he seen them, say, wi th, say about 30 f ish and to his est imation you only had about 15 in your jars, wh ich he f igured you might have had 15, he 'd want to know what you did with the other 15 they stop you anywhere if you were shopping in town they'd come and look in your trunk. People knew that they were looking in your trunk for something. (Oral History transcript, January 16, 1985, page 7) Prior to 1967 Indian f ishers were only required to have a permit to f ish. In 1967 the permit of earl ier regulat ion became a special l icense which f ishers were required to carry whi le f ishing in case of inspection. The gill nets - the only al lowable gear at that t ime - were required to display the l icense number. In one conversat ion Corky Douglas of Cheam (Edna Douglas ' son) told me a story of t ime when he w a s very young f ishing with his mother. It suddenly dawned on his mother that her l icense number was not on the net. As she ran back to the house to get the tag for the net, she instructed Corky not to let the f isheries officers come near the net. Non-compl iance with the regulat ion could have resulted in the loss of net and any f ish caught. Corky Douglas told me that 78 he, whi le a small chi ld, defended his mother 's net. But equal ly as troubl ing to St6:l6 f ishers was the requirement that all salmon taken under the l icense were to be marked by the l icensee after capture. This marking took the form of cutt ing off the end of the nose and dorsal f in before removing the f ish f rom the site (see Figure 1). St6:l6 f ishers with whom I spoke talked of the years when salmon were required to be marked. Some said they refused to cut their f ish. One f isher was quite blunt when he remarked to me, "My comment to f isheries officers was, how would you like your nose and dorsal f in cut off?" A review of court records revealed at least one convict ion of a f isher in 1977 for fai lure to "mark" his catch. The accused pleaded guilty on August 7, 1977 and was placed on probat ion for a period of one year. As a term of his probation order, he was directed to surrender his permit to f ish for a period of one m o n t h . 2 3 Other restrictions included a limited transportat ion area for salmon caught in the Fraser. Imaginary boundar ies were establ ished throughout St6:l6 territory over which salmon could not be transported. In 1988 Bruce Crey f rom Cheam was prohibi ted from transport ing f ish he caught at his home reserve at Cheam when returning to his residence in Burnaby after a day of f ishing. Bruce Crey f i led a discrimination case with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, asking for an investigation into the regulat ion that forced him to "leave his dinner in Chil l iwack when he returned to Burnaby" (Valley T imes August 30, 1988). In Bruce Crey's case, the boundary was in the vicinity of Matsqui . A f ishery officer f rom the Chil l iwack sub-district responded to Bruce Crey's complaint wi th a statement publ ished in the Val ley T imes indicating that the law to R. v. Gladstone [1978] 40 C.C.C.92nd) 42 79 Figure 1. Notice to Native Fishers How to Mark Salmon Department of Fisheries & Oceans Notice, 1977 NOTICE TO INDIANS B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A Tftfi British Columbia fishery regulations require that all salmon and stsslhead trout caught under authority of an Indian permit be marked for identification purposes by removal of the dorsal fin and the end e( the nose or snout immediately after capture and before removal ffom the fishing site. REMOVAL OF DORSAL FIN AND END OF NOSE WILL BE CARRIED OUT AS ILLUSTRATED BELOW: END OF NOSE REMOVED Plar.e B y O r d e r Dote M i n i s t e r of Fisheries f o r C a n a d a This Poster may be Displayed in Post Office Lobbies by Authority of the Postmaster General F-333; :Rev.l/74l 80 which Bruce Crey had been referring was "found to be outside the Federal power to regulate and had not been enforced for many years" indicating that it was lawful for Bruce Crey to transport his f ish home. St6:l6 f ishers with whom I spoke talked of this regulat ion and how it had been used against them. They talked of enforcement officers fol lowing them home to see just how they far they were travel ing with the salmon they had caught. The f isheries officer went on to counter Bruce Crey's remark that he had no choice about where he was to f ish, by repeating the department 's policy on the issuance of Food Fishing Licenses. According to the officer: The department 's policy respects the tradit ional f ishing areas of the local bands and the authority of the Chief of that band to determine who other than band members will f ish in that area. Should a status Indian f rom another area wish to f ish in a tradit ional area, he must first obtain wri t ten permission from the band chief to do so, whereupon the department would issue him a l icense to f ish. (Valley Times, September 2, 1988) The officer further noted, that had Bruce Crey obtained the wri t ten permission, the Department would have issued him a l icense to f ish. Presumably, Bruce Crey could have been able to obtain the required permission al lowing him a l icense to f ish away from his reserve. However, whi le claiming to respect tradit ional f ishing areas, the off icer's response to Bruce Crey's complaint reflects a lack of understanding of the connect ion between St6:l6 people and their tradit ional f ishing sites. Throughout the late 1960s - the point in t ime when early Stuart conservat ion concerns forced the closure of the river to Indian food f ishing in late June to early July -St6:l6 f ishers began to protest restrictions on their right to f ish. In July of 1967 Chief Albert Douglas of Cheam commented to the press regarding the seizure of Indian f ishing nets. Quot ing Albert Douglas: 81 The f isheries department is seizing Indian nets and running a 24 hour patrol off the Cheam reserve near Rosedale whi le the lower Fraser is open to commercial f ishers. Our people are being arrested and having their f ishing gear conf iscated whi le acting within their hereditary rights. All dur ing the closure the commercial f ishermen were al lowed to use eight- inch nets. But the department ruled w e couldn't use nets of any size. The government has 15 to 20 men patrol l ing the area by boat and car and others are sneaking through the bush. This is nothing but discrimination against Indians. Those were our f ish long before the white man came and w e still have a right to them. (The Province, Thursday July 20, 1967) Indians protest ing the curtai lment of their f ishing rights sought relief through the 1763 proclamation by King George III. A Vancouver attorney prepared a brief sent to Ot tawa by the Indians indicating that the proclamation gave them the right to hunt and f ish on unoccupied Crown land. Twenty St6:l6 worked on the brief, including Chief Wi l l iam Mussel l of Chil l iwack. Noted Mussel l , the straw that broke the camel 's back was not just the reduct ion to three days of f ishing per week, but also the complete closure of the river to conserve the early Stuart run (The Province, October 24, 1967). Again in 1968, Indians pressed for an end to federal regulat ion of their f ishing rights and chiefs warned that some would be ignoring those regulat ions. Of pr imary concern was the closure of the river in early July, the t ime when "there is a good wind to dry the f ish" (Vancouver Sun, May 3, 1968). St6:l6 f ishing famil ies sought clarif ication of the f ishing regulat ions affecting them when , in 1 9 7 1 , they requested a meeting the Jack Davis, then federal environment minister. One the complaints made by Mrs. Edna Douglas, spokesperson for the group of Native peoples meeting with Mr. Davis, focused on the fact that f isheries officers were going onto reserves and seizing f ish f rom homes. However, the Native group's pleas fell on deaf ears, when the Fisheries spokesman for Chil l iwack 82 indicated that the basis for the complaint was the continuing desire of Indian people to sell fish. Commenting on Mrs. Douglas's specific complaint, the spokesman said that officers had the right to search without a warrant. He also reminded the fishers of their obligation to 'mark' their fish. Such was the relationship between St6:l6 fishers and the government as the 1970s began. By 1978 St6:l6 fishers would protest the imposition of a new IFF license resulting from the implementation of the "Salmonoid Enhancement Program," a project designed to deal with the phenomenon of the mixed stock fishery and to increase British Columbia's salmon resources through the construction of a large number of artificial spawning channels. According to Aboriginal leaders the new IFF license that was to be enforced in relation to this program would transform Indian fishing rights into Indian welfare privileges (St6:ldNation News, Coqualeetza, August 1978, No. 35). Hostilities escalated when in 1983 Indian fishers decried the use of raids on their homes in an effort to lay poaching charges. As a result of a 1982 sting operation, raids on Indian homes resulted in seized vehicles and salmon poaching charges against 129 Indian fisherman. Quoting the Native Brotherhood of B.C. president, Ed Newman: They didn't go into the white community and wave money around. They didn't go into white people's homes and seize cars The rights of Indian people in BC are on trial. {Vancouver Sun, January 20, 1983) In 1894 various St6:l6 chiefs presented a letter to the Indian superintendent expressing their concerns about fishing regulations and over-fishing. Over one hundred years later, St6:l6 fishers would find themselves engaged in warfare on the water, protesting those same regulations and the conservation measures necessitated by industrial over fishing. In 1986 violence erupted at Gill Bay near the Cheam reserve 83 between f isheries officers and Sto: 16 people when Sto: 16 f ishers protested the closure of the river and set their nets. Up to ten Sto: 16 would face charges of mischief, obstruct ing a f isheries officer and illegal f ishing in connect ion with the protest f ishery at Gill Bay including Sam Douglas of Cheam and Lester Ned of Sumas. In protest, 60 members of the Cheam and Sumas Indian bands returned federal food-f ish l icenses to the f isheries department (Vancouver Sun, August 25, 1986). The incident at Gill Bay will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four. In 1989 the St6:l6 Tribal Council and St6:l6 Nation Canada came together to plan a strategy to deal wi th the fact that the St6:l6 were being continual ly forced off the river, part icularly dur ing the very important weeks in late June and early July. Meet ing in the Seabird Island community hal l , Elders f rom several St6: l6 bands rose to speak of the loss of f ishing opportunit ies. Ray Silver, and elder of the Sumas band, talked of how people there had suffered because of the shortage. Quot ing Mr. Silver: W e ' v e got a long house on the reservation now. And lately we 've had a few part ies and when people come they expect to eat salmon. ...It's goddamned sad that w e have to sit back when the f ish come up the river and we can't feed our guests. It's pretty bad whey you have to go out and buy salmon. (Chilliwack Progress, Wednesday May 3, 1989) Mr. Silver added that his band didn't catch f ish dur ing their 24-hour limit a few weeks ago and had to purchase some from a f ish company. Other Elders present at the meet ing spoke of the ongoing problem. Jimmy Fraser, an Elder f rom Seabird Island noted that: We ' re lucky if we have enough f ish to count on both hands. The way things are going now it would be cheaper for us to go to Safeway and buy our [Chinook] salmon. Wi th the 24 hours we' re just not gett ing enough to eat. (Chilliwack Progress, Wednesday May 3, 1989) Reflect ing the sent iments made clear when St6:l6 leaders met to negotiate with DFO, 84 Clarence Pennier (then chairman of St6:l6 Tribal Council and chief of the Scowlitz band) made clear the necessary steps to be taken: The only way we'll ever see any change is through a concerted effort of the people to go fishing. Negotiations aren't going to happen. If we believe that that's our right, then we have to do it because we've exhausted the other avenues. (Chilliwack Progress, Wednesday May 3, 1989) Summary and Discussion While many factors have contributed to the loss of access to fishing sites, regulation imposed as a result of the industrialization of the fishery has most profoundly shaped the St6:l6 fishery in the historic period. St6:l6 fishers had adopted an array of fishing technologies as part of their traditional fishing strategies. Nearly all of those technologies were banned as a result of pressure from cannery operators. Restrictions were placed on where, when and how fish were to be harvested. Fishing times, sites and techniques were no longer decided upon by Siya:m but by fisheries officers. In essence, Fisheries officers became Siyam 2 4 As evidenced by oral history testimony, interview data and archival newspaper reports, it is clear that federal fisheries officials worked systematically to remove St6:l6 fishers from the river and push them further to the economic margins. These actions that so clearly echoed the sentiments of Gerald Howard regarding the perceived unimportance of the Indian fishery "hardened the mortar" around a fractured fishery that had been created by regulations more than one hundred years earlier. By the 1990s it would be left to the courts to address the Aboriginal right to fish. In the following chapter I explore how the courts have reshaped the St6:l6 fishery by creating an in-24Described by Ernie Crey as the result of decisions regarding access and management were transferred from Indian leaders to fisheries officers (1998). 85 river Indian commercial f ishery. I also examine how percept ions of an in-river Indian commercial f ishery factor into the responses of St6:l6 f ishers. 86 Chapter Three: The Courts Reshape the Fishery In 1988 Native f ishermen f rom various bands headed to the Fraser River at Rosedale (Cheam territory) wi th plans to defy the regulat ions governing the so-cal led Indian food f ishery, in which Native Indians were permitted to catch f ish for food, but not sell them. As reported by the Globe & Mail, a coast wide protest f ishery was scheduled to mark the 100 t h year of food-f ishery regulat ions on the Wes t Coast (August, 1988). The protest fol lowed a court rul ing that upheld several of the regulat ions Native f ishermen were protesting that day (Globe & Mail, August 1988). In 1989 more arrests would fol low as Aboriginal peoples f ished in spite of river closures. In late May of 1989, Melvin Mal loway was arrested near Yale after exercising his Aboriginal right to f ish. Reports the Chilliwack Progress, three people were arrested, including Melvin Malloway, and two nets were seized along with six Chinook (spring) salmon, a boat, motor and trailer. The incident would be the second t ime in less than a week that f isheries officers had arrested people for al leged f isheries violat ions (May 24, 1989). It was also reported in the Chilliwack Progress, that about ninety percent of the 280 charges laid by Chil l iwack Fisheries officers that season were for f ishing dur ing a closed t ime - Native peoples sett ing their nets when the food f ishery was c losed (Wednesday, September 20, 1989). Regulat ions a imed at the Native f ishery were met with resistance when meetings with f isheries officials in the mid 1980s fai led to secure any understanding of the economic importance of the f ishery to Sto: Id people. Instead, Abor iginal leaders were informed by f isheries officials that short of relief f rom the courts 87 or direct act ion on the part of the f ishers, no change in policy would occur . 2 5 Aboriginal leaders took the f isheries officials at their word and responded; not only turning to the courts but also relying on organized acts of civil d isobedience. The protest f ishery at Gill Bay, which resulted in actual combat on the river, was the direct result of the DFO ult imatum. Bands would cont inue to f ish in def iance of regulat ions and charges would cont inue to be laid. It would be in the last decade of the 2 0 t h century that the courts would become a new batt leground on which the Aboriginal right to f ish would be fought. It is clearly evident that the years prior to the battle making its way into the courtroom were wrought with turmoil for the Sto: 16 people. Two cases would make their way to the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1990s that would lay the groundwork for future claims regarding the Aboriginal right to f ish: Sparrow and Vander Peet. The rul ings in Sparrow and Vander Peet would prove to be important markers in history as both cases brought to the fore the quest ion of an Aboriginal right to f ish. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R v Sparrow ( [ 1990 ]1 S.C.R. 1075) that the Aboriginal f ishery took precedence over the commercial f ishery, second only to conservat ion in priority. In Vander Peet ( [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507), the right to sell in-river caught salmon was again chal lenged. Whi le the Supreme Court ult imately supported the ban on sales, the lower court did acknowledged that a Native right to sell f ish has existed in the past. As a result of the courts' rul ings, signif icant changes were made in the f ishery. 2 5 l n a conversat ion with one St6:l6 leader, a particular situation was descr ibed where an off the record comment was made to the St6:l6 leaders assembled regarding what would be necessary to effect any change in DFO's policy. This was not the only such incident related to me, where it was made clear to St6:l6 leaders that the needs of St6:l6 f ishers were of less importance than those of the industrial and sports f isheries. 88 In addit ion to acknowledging that the Aboriginal f ishery was to take priority over all other f isheries, a new Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) was implemented that included a Pilot Sale program providing for the legal sale of in-river caught sockeye for the first t ime in over one hundred years. In this chapter I provide an overview of the specif ic court cases, beginning with Sparrow and Vander Peet that directly and indirectly reshaped the St6:l6 f ishery. I also discuss the St6:l6 f ishery in the years since Sparrow, focusing on the "creation" of a commercial f ishery and the construct ion of a bureaucracy charged with managing the post-Sparrow f ishery. As a part of that discussion I seek to explicate how this bureaucracy not only did little to repair a f ishery f ractured by regulat ion, but also contr ibuted to the many f issures wi th in the "Indian f ishery" as wel l as between the Indian and industrial f isheries. Ind ian F i sh e rs a n d the C o u r t s As in the past, f ishing remains a critical component of St6:l6 life. Mari lyn Bennett noted, in her statistical study of Indian f ishing, that in 1972, tradit ional f ishing places were still used by Indians of the Fraser River system. Eighty-nine percent of the key respondents to her study said that the band of which they were members had f ishing places that have been in use for many years (1975:16). Mapping projects conducted in the 1990s and again in 2002 graphical ly depict the importance of f ishing to St6:l6 people (see Figure 2). Support ing the map data are oral histories descr ibing a time when "Indians could f ish seven days a week." Interviews I conducted with elderly f ishers descr ibe a t ime when fewer restrictions were placed on al lowable f ishing days. However, as out l ined in the previous chapter, f ishing began to be curtai led in the early 1960s. Restrict ions on al lowable f ishing days would cont inue throughout the late 89 J St6:ld Nation Fishing Site Inventory Projects Projection: UTM P l o - , e c t l , 0 ^ _ Sole: l:22S,0OO Contour Interval 200ro ;<j^ . DATE 2OO3/05.O9 Company Slojfi Valjoo, Aboriginal Right* and Title Dept. IQOl Fish Jrwerrtory 1977 Fishing Site Study Family Owned Sins "Fishing* LTD Large Fishing Areas / \ / R o a d s /\y Hydrology /\y Railroads I ' 1 Islands Water The St&ld Nation Aboriginal Rights] and Title Dept. (AR&T) accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the data shown on this map. Data is compiled 6 0 m various sources and ^j]the most recent digital files mayor may not be stored at A R & T . T R I M Data (Terrain Resource Integrated Mapping) Courtesy of W L A P . Date last revised [an. 1992. STO:LO F I S H I N G SITE Data Conducted by Terry Clavin Team members includes Henry Ned. Lester Ned, Ray Silver, Tony Malloway and Vince Busto. July 15th - ajrd, 2002 AH above data translated and compiled by Stolo Nation, Aboriginal Rights and Title Dept. Leeanna Rhodes, GIS Technician A u g 15th, 2002 T i CO c —I CD jv) 3 CJ "D O cn ?: O" T l 55" • T 5" cn 5-' CD 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as f ishers faced signif icant changes in the industrial f ishery as a result of policy changes directed first, at deal ing with an over-crowed f ishery and dwindl ing resource and second, at deal ing with the implementat ion of the mandates fol lowing f rom Sparrow. W h e n f isheries officials resorted to the curtai lment of Abor iginal f ishing as a means of deal ing with changes in the industry, Abor iginal f ishers protested government interference in their f ishery. For example, near Chil l iwack dur ing the 1970 salmon f ishing season, 100 young Indians conducted a 'fish in. ' Over the years, newspaper accounts would chronicle the on-going struggle over f ishing rights as St6:l6 f ishers cont inued to maintain their Aboriginal right to f ish, that f ight g iven new fuel by the court rulings of the 1990s. As Indian f ishers turned to the courts to settle the struggle over f ishing rights, a number of court rul ings proved signif icant regarding Aboriginal rights in general and more specif ical ly in regards to the Abor iginal right to f ish. Not only did these cases reshape the Abor iginal f ishery, they also shaped and reshaped perceptions of the importance of the Abor iginal f ishery among both St6: l6 f ishers and commercial f ishers. Table 4 lists some of the court cases f igur ing prominently in regards to Aboriginal rights. These cases were ment ioned most often to me by St6:l6 f ishers when talking about the role of the courts in protect ing the Aboriginal right to f ish. In my discussions with St6:l6 f ishers regarding the Abor iginal right to f ish, the conversat ions usually began with a discussion of the role of f ishing as a tradit ional element of St6:l6 life, and each conversat ion ended with that role of tradit ion discussed within a context of the advances in the courts as wel l as the protect ion of Aboriginal rights as part of the Canadian Consti tut ion Act of 1982. In many instances, the roles of tradit ion, the courts and the Consti tut ion in the 91 aff irmation of Aboriginal rights seemed inextricably interconnected, much like the mesh of the Sto: 16 f ishing nets. Wh i le all of the aforement ioned cases have had some affect on the Sto: 16 Table 4. Aboriginal Fisheries Court Cases Case Trial Supreme Court Date Appeal R v. Guerin 1975 1984 R v. Sparrow 1984 1990 R v. Jack, John, and John 1989 1995 R v. Vander Peet 1987 1996 R v. Nikal 1990 1996 Delgamuukw v. British Columbia 1998 R v Marshall 1998 1999 R v. Kapp, Bemi, Neef, Leslie Leslie, McDonald, Nguyen Iran, Iran 1988 2003 2 6 Sources: Souther 1993; Trial documents 1995, 1996, 1999, 2003. f ishery, as previously noted the most important court case was the Sparrow case (Boxberger 1993, Cameron 1997, Glavin 1996, Meggs 1991 , Newell 1993, Souther 1993). In 1984, Ronald Sparrow, a member of the Musqueam band from near the mouth of the Fraser River, was arrested for using a net longer than al lowed under his Indian food f ishing l icence. Ronald Sparrow admitted that his food f ishing l icense did not permit him to f ish with such a long net; however, he defended his act ion by arguing that he was exercising an Aboriginal right to f ish (Cameron 1997). At tempts to defend Sparrow's act ion led, six years later, to the first Supreme Court decis ion relying on Sect ion 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982, acknowledging exist ing Abor iginal rights 2 6 T h e B.C. Supreme Court ruled July 12, 2004 that whi le the exist ing Native-only commercial f ishery program had serious f laws it did not discriminate against non-Nat ive f ishermen. 92 (Cameron 1997). In May 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Sparrow v. The Queen that the Coast Sal ish right to f ish was an existing Abor iginal right protected under Sect ion 35(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982; specif ically including the 'Aboriginal right to f ish for food for social and ceremonial purposes, a right taking precedence over other user groups and second only to conservat ion of the resource' (Boxberger 1993). Immediately, Aboriginal f ishers put Sparrow to the test. As the ink was drying on Sparrow, protest f isheries were launched contest ing DFO's conservat ion concerns and their decis ion to close the river to Aboriginal f isheries. In two protest f isheries, members of the Cheam and Sumas bands, including Chiefs Sam Douglas f rom Cheam and Chief Lester Ned of Sumas, were charged with illegal net f ishing. Eighteen gill nets were seized over the July 7 weekend and twenty-three over the previous weekend. The band members f ished in protest when a Fraser River sport f ishery for Chinook (Spring) salmon was reopened after a brief closure. The river had been closed to protect the early Stuart sockeye run, a run that enters the river in late spr ing as the first sockeye runs b e g i n . 2 7 A n d as noted earl ier the restrictions placed on the Aboriginal f ishery as part of DFO's plan to conserve the early Stuart run, were at the center of many, if not all of the confrontat ions on the river. Cheam Chief Sam Douglas quest ioned the conservat ion claims made by the government in light of DFO's decision to al low a sport f ishing opening in the ocean as wel l as in the river (Progress, Wednesday , July 18, 1990). Wi th in two months of the Sparrow decis ion twenty-one 2 7 A s noted earlier, restrictions on the Aboriginal f ishery began in the early 1960s as concerns over the early Stuart run began to arise. 93 Native Indian f ishers were charged with illegal f ishing in protest of the closure of the Indian food f ishery. Test ing of the Sparrow rul ing cont inued when Melvin Mal loway was arrested by two f isheries off icers near Yale [where Ken Mal loway f ishes in the Canyon] . Again the protests centered on DFO's decision to close the river to Abor iginal f ishers due to a conservat ion concern. Two other Native f ishers were also charged. The defense c la imed that they were exercising their Aboriginal right to f ish as def ined in the Sparrow rul ing. Mal loway was found guilty of obstruct ing a f isheries off icer and f ined for f ishing violat ions {Progress, Wednesday, September 5, 1990). The Vander Peet case also had signif icant implications for the St6:l6 f ishery. In Vander Peet, whi le accept ing the fact that the history of Aboriginal peoples is passed f rom one generat ion to another through oral tradit ions and that test imony regarding pract ices and customs may come in the form of elders' oral accounts, the court did not f ind that sufficient evidence existed to support the fact that a 'commercial ' sa lmon f ishery is integral to St6:l6 culture or heritage. Examining the case, Dorothy Vander Peet, a St6:l6, was charged with il legally sell ing ten salmon caught by her husband, Chuck Jimmie under an Indian food l icence. As with Mr. Sparrow, Mrs. Vander Peet did not contest the charges, arguing that she was exercising an existing Aboriginal right. The first trial judge held that the St6:l6's Aboriginal right to f ish for food and ceremonial purposes did include the right to sell f ish. However this rul ing was reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1996. A great deal of confusion surrounded the original rul ing in Vander Peet. Originally, the court ruled that a Native right to sell f ish existed. But the ruling was not 94 that clear cut. B.C. Supreme Court Justice Wi l l iam Selbie ruled that a Native right to sell f ish had existed in the past, but he left it up to a lower court to decided whether that right had been ext inguished by federal f isheries regulat ions. Many Sto: 16 f ishers took this rul ing to mean that they could sell f ish without the threat of charges. But that was not the case. Sto: 16 f ishers were indeed charged for sel l ing the f ish they caught in the Native food f ishery. Notes the Chilliwack Progress, dozens of Native were charged for sel l ing f ish f rom roadside stands and door-to-door. Buyers of the f ish also faced the possibil i ty of being charged (September 4, 1991). Referr ing to the comments made by W a y n e Furness, Chil l iwack senior f isheries officer to the press, "Newspaper headl ines about the Supreme Court ruling were misleading and put a lot of people in jeopardy of being charged for sel l ing f ish" (September 4, 1991). But St6:l6 Tribal Counci l spokesman Clarence Pennier said that until the lower court ruled on the quest ion of ext inguishment, the right to sell f ish existed. Quot ing Pennier: Y o u can sell the f ish, that's what the judge said. W h e n those charged f inally come to court, I hope the judge throws the charges out." (Chilliwack Progress, September 4, 1991) Accord ing to Indian Fisheries Coordinator Gus Jaltema, "the federal f isheries' posit ion hasn't changed and those buying or sell ing f ish caught in the Native food f ishery would be charged under exist ing laws" (Chilliwack Progress, September 4, 1991). In 1993 the B.C. Court of Appeals ruled that Mrs. Vander Peet did not have the right to sell f ish. St6:l6 f isheries leaders, Ken Mal loway and Ernie Crey, expressed concern over the effects of the Vander Peet rul ing on the exist ing Pilot Sale Agreement, the second such agreement and legal sale opportunity since the implementat ion of the A F S in 1992. Whi le industrial f ishers and members of the B.C. Fisheries Survival 95 Coali t ion hoped the Vander Peet ruling would signal the end of the pilot sale program, the program did cont inue wi th Sto.lo f ishers part icipating in it over the next four years. In 1996 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeals rul ing when it ruled that it was not shown that the trade in f ish was integral to St6:l6 culture prior to European contact. This concept of "integral to" became the criterion for whether or not a band could sell f ish (Abbottfords & Mission News, Saturday August , 3 1 , 1996). Addit ional court cases have had a direct impact on the Aboriginal right to f ish. In the case of R. v Jack, John, and John ([1995] CA 014766), the court held that permitt ing recreational f isheries at or near the location of the Aboriginal food f isheries whi le prohibi t ing Abor iginal food f ishing violated the priority of the Abor ig inal food f isheries as out l ined in Sparrow. Joseph Jack, Arnold John and Mart in John of the vi l lage of Tahsis were charged with f ishing in an area and at a t ime not author ized by the Fisheries Act. His Honor Judge Sarich of the Provincial Court of B.C. held that the DFO had unilateral ly imposed the f ishing al locat ion by not d iscussing the closure of Leiner River with the Indians. According to Judge Sarich, this did not reflect the special trust-l ike relat ionship between the Crown and the Indian people. In the case of R. v Nikal ([1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013), the court ruled that the l icense required by DFO did not itself impose an infr ingement of an Abor ig inal r ight to f ish. However, the condit ions imposed on the l icensee did consti tute an unjustif ied infr ingement of the appel lant 's right to f ish. Jerry Nikal a Wet 'suwet 'en Indian and member of the Moricetown Band was f ishing in the Moricetown canyon, where Wet 'suwet 'en Indians have f ished since t ime immemorial . He was charged wi th f ishing without a l icense. Native persons, al though required to have a l icense, were entit led to 96 a free permit to f ish for salmon in the manner they preferred. Nikal had been gaff ing sa lmon in the Bulkley River where it f lows through his reserve. He took the posit ion that the l icensing scheme infr inged on his Aboriginal rights as provided in Sect ion 35(1) of the Consti tut ion Act of 1982 and was therefore inapplicable. In this case the Court determined that l icensing was not an infr ingement in genera l , but that a n infr ingement did exist in part icular to Mr. Nikal 's situation. At least two cases focusing directly on Aboriginal rights have f igured prominently in the cases involving f ishing rights. T h e first be ing R. v. Guerin ( [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335). The case involved the lease of 162 acres of the Musqueam Reserve to accommodate the prest igious Shaughnessy Golf and Country Club. In short the Department of Indian Affairs leased the land to the Club on substantial ly different terms than those agreed upon by the Musqueam Band. The initial case was f i led in 1975 and heard by three levels of courts. Finally, in November of 1984 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Musqueam's favor and reinstated the trial award of $10 mil l ion in compensat ion. The Supreme Court upheld the Musqueam's claim of a pre-exist ing Abor iginal title to their reserve, and that those rights existed independent ly of any recognit ion or action by government. Addit ional ly, the court addressed the fact that the government had breached its f iduciary duty in accept ing a lease contrary to the Musqueam's st ipulations. A monumental decision regarding Aboriginal rights and title was the Delgamuukw decis ion in December of 1997. Delgamuukw ( [1998] 3 S.C.R. 507) addressed the issues of ext inguishment of Aboriginal title and establ ished the test for Abor ig inal title. Most importantly, the Supreme Court corrected the errors of fact made 97 by the trial judge, in establ ishing that oral histories were indeed legit imate for establ ishing Aboriginal title. As regards f isheries (and other natural resource issues), Delgamuukw st ipulated that constitutionally recognized Aboriginal rights may be infr inged upon by the federal government, but that infr ingement must be justi f ied and cannot come without consultat ion with First Nations. Another pivitol rul ing directly regarding f isheries was the landmark decis ion in R. v. Marshall ( [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456) in the Fall of 1999. In Marshall, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the rights of Mi 'kmaq Indians in Nova Scotia to catch and sell f ish in accordance with their tradit ional practices. Whi le applauding the Courts recognit ion of Mi 'kmaq treaty r ights in regards to their f ishery, St6:l6 f ishers wi th w h o m I spoke expressed concern over the potential effects of R v. Marshall in regard to their ability to profit f rom a salmon f ishery. Of specif ic concern by St6:l6 f ishers were the limits the courts placed on the profitability of the Mi 'kmaq f isheries. Donald Marshal l , a Mi 'kmaq Indian, w a s charged wi th three offenses set out in the federal f ishery regulat ions - the sel l ing of eels without a l icense, f ishing without a l icense and f ishing dur ing a closed season with illegal nets. He admitted that he had caught and sold 463 pounds of eels without a l icense and with a prohibited net within c losed t imes. Accord ing to the court documents, the only issue at trial was whether or not he possessed a treaty r ight to catch and sell f ish under the treaties of 1760-61 that exempted him f rom compl iance with the regulat ions. Under close scrutiny was the trade clause in the treaty. An overview of the history of the treaty reveals that during the negotiat ions leading to the treaties, the Aboriginal leaders asked for t ruckhouses "for the furnishing them wi th necessaries, in Exchange for their Peltry". The wri t ten document contained only the 98 promise by the Mi 'kmaq not to "Traffic, Barter or Exchange any Commodit ies in any manner but with such persons, or the Manger of such Truckhouses as shall be appointed by His Majesty's Governor." In short, the purpose of the clause was to ensure peace between the Mi 'kmaq, who previously been all ied with the French, and the Brit ish. The clause obviated the need of the Mi 'kmaq to trade wi th the enemies of the British. Initially, Marshal l was convicted on all three counts. The Court of Appeals upheld the convict ions, concluding that the trade clause did not grant the Mi 'kmaq any rights. The September 1999 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada ruled there was more to the treaty than the merely the right to bring f ish and wildl i fe to t ruckhouses. Absent f rom the treaties were the oral promises made and all the terms and condit ions mutual ly agreed upon. The Court rel ied heavi ly on the phrase "securing necessaries" establ ishing that what is contemplated was not right to trade general ly for economic gain, but rather a right to trade for necessaries. Further the Court noted that the right could be contained by regulat ion within its proper limits. Specif ically, catch limits that could reasonably be expected to produce a moderate livelihood for individual Mi 'kmaq famil ies at present-day standards can be establ ished by regulat ion and enforced without violat ing the treaty right. It is this phrasing - moderate l ivel ihood - in the rul ing that t roubled St6:l6 f ishers. For them, Marshall is not to be seen as a template for on-going treaty relations among the Sto: Id and the federal and provincial governments. Nor do the many St6:l6 f ishers wish for Marshall to be a template in future negotiat ions for sale agreements. These f ishers contend that the abil ity to profit 99 f rom the salmon f ishery is indeed a part of St6:l6 t rad i t ion . 2 8 Finally, turning to the Kapp decision, St6:l6 f ishers were handed a devastat ing blow when the sales agreement they had negotiated in the summer of 2003 was wi thdrawn by DFO in the wake of Judge Kitchen's July 2003 rul ing that the Aboriginal f ishery was a race based f ishery and therefore illegal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was the first agreement s igned since the summer of 2 0 0 1 . According to the court documents: the Aboriginal Communal Fishing Licences Regulations, Sections 8 and 9 of the Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Fisheries Act (Miscellaneous Program), SOR/2002-225 (the "Amending Regulation") and the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy in general violate Section 15 of the Chater of Rights and Freedoms in that they authorize exclusive commercial fishing by an organization whose membership is based on race, a prohibited from of racial discrimination. ( [2003] BCPC 0279) Before the court were a number of non-Nat ive commercial f ishers who, in August of 1998, f ished in protest of an Indian f ishery opening. At stake was the constitutionality of the Abor iginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) and the subsequent sales agreements implemented as a part of that plan. St6:l6 f ishers were left that summer without the agreement for the legal sale of salmon. The Kapp decis ion would be overturned the next year, and a sales agreement between Fisheries and Oceans and St6:l6 f ishers would be reached in the summer of 2004. The Creation of a Commercial Fishery and the Potential for Shared Management In the mid to late 1980s St6:l6 f ishers pressed for a more active role in the management of the f ishery. Soowahl ie Chief Doug Kelly spoke out in 1986 about the need for a "Native partnership" in the management of the f ishery {Chilliwack Progress, 2 8 M o r e discussion regarding wealth accumulat ion is found in chapter 6. 100 Wednesday, September 10, 1986). Chief Kelly noted that the Native fishery was the last in line and received the least amount of the catch and the most enforcement. Chief Kelly also pointed out the hatchery projects and stream enhancement projects underway by a number of the St6:l6 bands. According to Chief Kelly, "Projects such as these, clearly demonstrated a responsible attitude towards conservation of salmon on the part of the Native people" (Chilliwack Progress, Wednesday, September 10, 1986). In an effort to obtain the goal of co-management, the St6:l6 Tribal Council submitted a formal fisheries co-management proposal to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in April of 1988. Their proposal was simply filed away, with no action taken. The implementation of a new AFS in 1992 would give St6:l6 fishers hope for an increased role in managing the fishery as a part of the AFS. Originally the AFS was a seven year program charged with a number of specific goals designed to serve all users of the resources: meeting Sparrow obligations to Natives in a manner which supported resource conservation and strong commercial and recreational sectors phasing in the transition to commercial sale of the Aboriginal catch through limited testing in years one and two involving stakeholders in crafting the strategy funding to Natives to promote maximum employment and involvement in resource conservation clarifying the Aboriginal allocation in order to provide greater stability, predictability and profitability to all sectors To accomplish these goals over 80 agreements were reached with groups representing the majority of BC Aboriginal people. As a part of implementing the AFS, Fisheries and Oceans earmarked $140 million dollars nationally over seven years with most of this funding to go to help develop and implement on-the-job-training programs and to increase Aboriginal participation in fisheries management. To offset any reallocations 101 of f ish f rom the commercial sector to the Aboriginal communit ies, DFO introduced a voluntary License Retirement Program (LRP). The LRP was to ensure no increase in the total amount of f ish being harvested on the Pacif ic Coast. The federal government made $7 mil l ion dol lars avai lable for the LRP. At total of 75 commercial l icense holders voluntari ly retired their l icenses in the spring of 1993. On June 29, 1992 DFO announced that a plan was to go forward as a means of phasing in the transit ion to a commercial sale of the Aboriginal catch. A 'Pilot Sale Arrangement ' (PSA) was establ ished as part of the AFS whereby various Native groups in British Columbia and elsewhere were permitted to sell f ish subject to agreements specifying al locat ions and management regimes. The arrangements were intended to test how Native sales would work within specif ied al location levels and identify potential problems (Gardner Pinfold 1994). Three groups were selected to part icipate in a program al lowing the sale of Native-caught f ish. Test sale agreements were s igned wi th the fol lowing groups: • the Lower Fraser Aboriginal Fishery Commission on the lower Fraser River represent ing the St6:l6 Indian Bands (St6:l6 Tr ibal Counci l and St6:l6 Nation Canada) and the Musqueam and Tsawwassen Indian Bands; • Tsu-ma-uss Fisheries in the Alberni Inlet-Somass River area on the west coast of Vancouver Island represent ing the Tseshaht and Opetchesaht, two of the Nuu-Chah-Nul th First Nations; and, • each of the Tsimshian Tribal Counci l , the Gitksan and Wet 'suwet 'en Watershed Authori t ies, the Nat 'oot 'en First Nations on the Skeena River. Wh i le the agreements negotiated in 1992 represented the first legal sale of sockeye in over one hundred years, the agreements were superceded by a small project conducted in 1986 between DFO and the Chehal is Band. As noted in the Chilliwack Progress, Chehal is Indians made f ishing history after they began harvest ing 102 salmon commercial ly on the Harr ison River (Wednesday, November 5, 1986). The band received a federal permit to harvest 9,000 chum salmon by December 20, 1986 as part of a surplus chum salmon fishery. This marked the first t ime commercial f ishing had been permit ted on an inland tr ibutary of the Fraser River system. Ernie Crey, who was employed by DFO at the t ime the Chehal is project was approved, explained to me that what was important to note about the Chehal is project was that it was not a 'rack harvest ' (meaning a harvest taken at the hatchery) but a harvest taken in the river. In our conversat ion regarding the Chehal is f ishery, Ernie Crey remarked on the number of serendipi tous events leading to the approval of this f ishery; some people being in the right place at the right t ime, whi le others being away at the right t ime. Ernie Crey also remarked about how he "caught hell" f rom Sam Douglas when word of the project got out; Sam Douglas wonder ing why Ernie Crey was not able to obtain such a proposit ion for the Cheam band - his own band. The historical agreements s igned in 1992 by DFO and the various Fraser River Abor iginal groups author ized the commercial sale of sockeye salmon within specif ied numerical limits, negot iated each year, and in 1992, based on historical catches and f isheries authorit ies Native accommodat ions on harvests in recent years (Gardner Pinfold 1994). As a part of this first agreement negot iated by the newly formed LFFA, 325,000 sockeye were al located to the St6:l6 Tribal Counci l and St6:l6 Nat ion Canada, collectively. St6:l6 f ishers bel ieved they were on the threshold of a turning point in history. Al l that remained for the formal staff ing of an Abor iginal agency designated to oversee the implementat ion of the agreement. On June 30, representat ives from St6:l6 Nation Canada (Aboriginal leaders 103 George Campo; Ken Malloway; Joe Hall and Mike Whe lan a non-Nat ive biologist employed by St6:l6 Nation Canada) a long with representat ives f rom the St6:l6 Tribal Counci l (Aboriginal leaders Clarence Pennier, Sam Douglas, Lester Ned and Doug Kelly) met to determine who would manage the newly created bureaucracy required to oversee the pilot sale f ishery: The Lower Fraser Aboriginal Fisheries Author i ty ( L F F A ) 2 9 . Prior to coming together as part of the LFFA, the St6:l6 Tr ibal Counci l and St6:l6 Nat ion Canada operated f isheries departments. Chief Doug Kelly f rom Soowahl ie told me the story of how Ernie Crey came to be hired to oversee the newly emerging f isheries office. According to Chief Kelly, it was decided that the individual to be hired should be St6:l6, should be a f isherman, should have worked for the government, should know the industry and should have management experience. On July 1, 1992, Ernie Crey a member of the Cheam band was h i red . 3 0 Just the day before Ernie Crey had resigned from his posit ion as Vice-President of the United Native Nations. Ernie Crey had been employed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2 9 T h e name of this entity would change the next year to the Lower Fraser Aboriginal Fisheries Commission and would eventual ly become the St6:l6 Fisheries Department when the two groups came together in 1994. 3 0 U p o n taking the posit ion with the LFFA, Ernie Crey would f ind himself at home, finally. Forcibly removed from his home in Hope at the age of 12 after the death of his father and his mother 's decl ine, Ernie Crey was also removed f rom the St6:l6 way of life he had learned from his parents. On what can only be descr ibed as a Saturday adventure, Ernie Crey took me by his uncle's home in Hope as he del ivered f ish before heading to Lester Ned's boat below Mission Bridge. As we drove, Ernie Crey told me about his family; about how his father would sit in the park in Hope and visit, speaking f luent Halq;emeylem with those coming up-river and f luent N' laka'pamux with those coming down river. If the person with whom he was talking spoke neither language, he wou ld communicate wi th them in Chinook jargon. Ernie Crey asked his father to teach him 'his' language, but his father insisted on Ernie and the chi ldren speaking Engl ish, as Engl ish would be the language they would need to get by in the wor ld . 104 f rom 1984 to 1990 as an Aboriginal extension officer. Through this posit ion with Fisheries and Oceans he had become well known to St6:l6 f ishers. Wi th in two weeks of taking the posit ion Ernie Crey found himself deal ing with a chaot ic f ishery as wel l as deal ing with a court injunction f i led by the Yale band protest ing St6: l6 f ishing in the canyon. An on-going battle has existed between the St6: l6 Nat ion and the Yale band regarding f ishing in the canyon. Two-thirds of the Sto:Id f ishery is conducted in the canyon, where such highl iners as Ken Mal loway have f ished for many years. In my interviews with Sto: Id f ishers I was told of some the fist f ights that have taken place between Sto:Id f ishers and Yale band members over the canyon f ishery. Ken Mal loway talked to me about tangl ing with the Hope brothers f rom Yale. Crisca Bierwert notes how during the Yale band's court case, Ernie Crey took a group of supporters to lunch including several chiefs in at tendance at the trial. Wr i tes Bierwert, "he faci l i tated a council- l ike discussion with the chiefs whi le another member of his management team pumped in advice and information via the cel lular phone" (1999:249). In July of 1992 Yale Indians claimed that the newly formed LFFA had not received permission f rom the Yale Band to f ish in the Fraser C a n y o n . 3 1 On July 16 t h 3 1 l n 1879 Reserve Commissioner G.M. Sproat reserved f ishing stations in the lower canyon, these reserves today being held by the Yale Band (aside f rom the one reserve transferred in 1913 to the Ohamil band. Members of the Yale Band have consistently tr ied to force Sto: Id f ishers out of the canyon and what they say is their territory, access to which they have not granted to outside f ishers. Keith Carlson and Sarah Eustace prepared a report for the Sto:Id Nation (while employed with the Nation) that detai ls the contenous situation. In July of 2002 the Ya le Band (or Ya le First Nat ion as they refer to themselves) s igned a memorandum of understanding with the representat ives f rom the federal and provincial governments implement ing a land protect ion treaty-related measure, cover ing 181 hectares of Crown land in the Hills Bar area near the Yale First Nation community. I was present at the Sto:Id f isheries meeting wh e n a copy of the announcement and accompanying map of the area was distr ibuted to the band chiefs and f isheries representat ives present. There was a great 105 the band peti t ioned the court for an injunction prevent ing other Natives f rom f ishing in what they c la imed were their waters (Province, July 17, 1992). The Yale band was not granted their injunction and the f ishery went on as scheduled the next weekend. The Yale band would, again in 1995, seek exclusive f ishing rights in the canyon. Yale band members had hoped to reach a f isheries agreement in treaty talks with federal and provincial negotiators in June of 1995 (Chilliwack Progress, Apri l 1, 1995). The Yale band took their plea, yet again, to court in 1998 seeking another injunction to stop the DFO from issuing l icenses to other St6:l6 bands f ishing in their tradit ional territory. The band claimed it had occupied that territory "from t ime immemorial" (Chilliwack Progress, May 5, 1998). And again in 2002 the Yale Band tr ied to assert a claim over the canyon f ishery by using a "site specific" f ishing claim as their defense in court wh e n several members of the band appeared to answer charges laid in the deal of discussion regarding the fact that the area under quest ion contains St6:l6 f ishing spots. Report ing on Yale 's actions in the October 2002 issue of the Sqwelqwels Ye St6:l6, Chief Ron John from Chawathi l noted that the Yale Band was laying claim to all the canyon f ishing sites that had been used in common "centuries upon centuries." Note Chief John, " W e have several grave sites up there to prove it" (page 9). Again that summer I was present in the courtroom in Chil l iwack where members of the Hope family f rom Yale faced charges of f ishing dur ing a closed time. As a part of their defense, they seek to establ ish they possess a site specif ic f ishing right and presented evidence seeking to put forth the fact that their closest family connect ions are with First Nations people in the canyon area above them - N' laka'pamux territory. They were seeking to disconnect f rom their St6:l6 relatives in an effort to nullify any St6:l6 f ishing rights in the canyon. In 1905 the B.C. superintendent of Indian Affairs met with a large group of St6:l6 leaders in the Fraser Canyon and mapped fami ly-owned f ishing sites. Most of the owners of the sites resided in down river communit ies (Carlson 2001:59). The names of the canyon highl iners do not appear on the map, a fact that was brought up in court test imony as part of the case I observed. However, ethnographies and other works wri t ten about the St6:l6 make clear the privi leges extended to family members. Therefore the fact that the last name of Mal loway does not appear on the map does not necessari ly mean he has not family connect ion in the canyon. Names associated with famil ies in Cheam do appear on the map. 106 summer of 2000. At present, the final ruling in that case remains pending. Despite Yale's attempt to halt the sale fishery in 1992, the first legal sale of in-river caught salmon in over one hundred years began in a whirlwind fashion. From their base in the old Tzeachten community hall, Ernie Crey and his team set about processing requests from fishermen for designation cards and information regarding where to fish. A map of the river adorned with stick pins marking fishing spots hung on the wall. Notes Ernie Crey in one of the many discussions we had regarding the PSA, the number of "licensed" fishermen would grow from approximately 800 to over 1500 as a result of the Pilot Sale fishery. Newspaper headlines recorded this monumental moment in time: "Indians fish without fearing the law for the first time" (Vancouver Sun, July, 1992). Scott Simpson, Sun Native Affairs reporter writes that: When Chief Sam Douglas nosed his aluminum punt out into the swirling olive current of the Fraser River at dawn on Friday, it didn't feel like a particularly special morning. Up and down the Fraser he could hear the faint buzz of power boats as dozens of other St6:l6 Indians skittered out at daylight to see if salmon had tangled themselves in the nets laid out the evening before in the shallow eddies Quoting Sam Douglas, "Everyone has asked me the same question, how it felt. I guess I've felt for so long that it was our right that didn't really faze me that on that one day we were going to be able to sell them." Three years ago, an Indian-caught sockeye might have fetched $2 on the black market, bought at the back door by fish markets, small-time processors or pub patrons. This year the same fish is worth $1.60 a pound and for the firsttime in his 51 years, Sam Douglas doesn't have to look over his shoulder when he offers it for sale. Quoting Sam Douglas, "We can load them up in the back of the pickups and we don't really care who sees us with a fish-tote on the back. Before if we drove down the road with a fish-tote, fisheries was right behind us, following us to where we were going." (Vancouver Sun, July, 1992) But the program in 1992 got off to a rocky start as the early Stuart sockeye were already running up-river when the agreements were announced in late June (Pearse 1992). This rocky start was compounded by the fact that the 1991 season had been 107 marred by confl ict and tension as a standoff had existed between Indian f ishers and DFO again, over conservat ion measures concentrated on the early Stuart run. Some Indian f ishers refused to obtain l icences and there were many violat ions regarding closures, net sizes, net markings and illegal gear. Pearse notes that the first year of the PSA was p lagued with numerous problems, specif ically up river in the St6:l6 area f rom Langley to Sawmil l Creek and further upstream in the canyon where no agreements were in p lace . 3 2 In addit ion to the unprecedented number of f ishers, this first year was besought with management confusion and weak survei l lance and enforcement. According to Pearse there were problems of overcrowding, intimidation and even violence ensued. There were many reports of stolen f ish and f ishing gear (1992:17). Pearse reported that the peak count of nets in the lower river doubled f rom 434 in 1991 to 885 in 1992, straining the establ ished system of tenure regarding f ishing places (1992:17). According to Souther, in her discussion of the AFS, the f ishing effort increased by an est imated seventy-f ive percent due to the influx of individual f ishers seeking to 'make their fortune' in the new commercial in-river f ishery (1993). Long-time f ishers expressed concern over the crowded situation on the river and the loss of f ish to those f ishing strictly for food and to the wind-dr ied f ishers at the "Elder's Camps" (Cranmer 1995). In 1992 camp owners were pressured by newcomers and elders compla ined their f ishing sites were be pre-empted by outsiders (Pearse 1992:17). Problems cont inued to mount after the first year of the PSA. Reports of 'missing f ish' began to appear in the newspapers and industrial f ishers b lamed Native f ishermen 3 2 Bands up river from the St6:l6 were not part of the Pilot Sale project and this resulted a contentious relationship between those bands and the St6:l6 bands. 108 f ishermen and the newly instituted PSA. Notes the Chilliwack Progress: Accusat ions are almost outnumber ing the salmon as the D F O scrambles to account for the al leged "disappearance of hundreds of thousands of Fraser River Sockeye. Latest government f igures est imate about 300,00 f ish are missing, but the United Fishermen and Al l ied Workers ' Union ( U F A W U ) has said that possibly as many as 1,000,000 f ish have been illegally caught. (Wednesday, August 26, 1992) Ernie Crey, f isheries manager of the Lower Fraser Fishing Author i ty chalked the missing f ish phenomeon up to Mother Nature and denied that i l legal f ishing by St6:l6 Natives could account for the missing sockeye. Crey noted that patrols of the river and Native f isheries made it impossible for the Native f ishermen to have harvested thousands o f f i s h il legally without anyone noticing (Chilliwak Progress, Wednesday , August 26, 1992). Explains Crey in his letter to the Editor of the Vancouver Sun: Federal f isheries managers announce that they are unable to account for between one mil l ion and 1.5 mil l ion Fraser bound sa lmon, and your newspaper of September 12 [1992] devotes space on its front page, on page B1 and B2 to al legations about enforcement problems and "Indian Poaching." Forget for a moment that nowhere in your art icles do you ment ion that Reform MP John Cummins, who so bravely unvei led the " leaked" government document to your reporters, w a s one of the founders of the Fisheries Survival Coali t ion, the single-issue organizat ion opposing Abor iginal f ishers. Forget for a moment that it would take about 10,000 pickup trucks ful ly loaded with sockeye in a bumper to bumper convoy f rom Chil l iwack to Vancouver with crazed Indians at the wheel of each truck, in order to steal that many salmon. A n d we wou ld have had to pull this off wi thout anybody noticing. A n d forget for a moment that in the brief century since the likes of Mr. Cummins assumed control of Fraser River salmon management f rom the lying, cheat ing, steal ing, poaching Indians, four f ifths of the Fraser River's sockeye salmon have "gone missing" a long with four-f i f ths of the pink salmon, half the chum salmon, six-sevenths of the coho, and four-f i f ths of the chinook salmon. (Ernie Crey, September 22, 1994) 109 University of British Columbia Economics professor Dr. Peter Pearse and semi-retired f isheries scientist Dr. Peter Larkin were cal led upon to investigate the mystery of the missing f ish. As a result of their investigation, Pearse and Larkin advised that an est imated total of 482,000 sockeye bel ieved to be in the river bound for their natal streams fai led to reach their spawning grounds; not the 1,000,000 al leged by commercial f ishing groups. The report did support the fact that most of the missing f ish appeared to be taken between Mission and Lytton - which made up the bulk of the PSA f ishing area. Notes Pearse and Larkin: W e are conf ident the bulk of the missing f ish resulted f rom intense f ishing on the river last summer. Most of these f ish were taken in unrecorded catches, but some died from stress after f ight ing their way through a gauntlet of nets. W e cannot say who took these f ish or how they were disposed of or where they went. Nor can we say they whether they were caught illegally. (Chilliwack Times, Tuesday, December 8, 1992) Pearse and Larkin further remarked on the first PSA experimental year, by noting that the "Indian f ishing agreements, which al lowed the LFFA to manage their own f isheries and sell their catch commercial ly for the first t ime ever, worked wel l in some places, but poorly in others. The report chalked the problems in the first year of the f ishery up to the fact that arrangements were made at the last minute with insufficient preparat ion. St6:l6 f ishers felt they were indeed vindicated by the Pearse/Larkin report. Essential ly the report stated that 201,000 of the missing f ish were caught in gil lnets, whi le another 248,000 died in the river, half f rom natural causes and half f rom 'gil lnet' induced stress. Another 33,000 were accounted for in errors made in the spawning bed counts (Vancouver Sun, December 8, 1992). The report was indeed critical of the way the f ishery had been conducted that first year, but the report made it clear that far fewer 110 f ish were missing than some commercial f ishing groups claimed. Changes were made in the program in an effort to address the problems present in the first year, such as the problem of unrecorded catches. Among the changes made were the instituting of a plan to count all salmon immediately upon landing, the creat ion of a Aboriginal enforcement unit and a change in the structure of the l icensing as part of the AFS. Looking first at the new l icensing structure, issued on June 16, 1993: His Excel lency the Governor General in Counci l , on the recommendat ions of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, pursuant to sect ion 43 of the Fisheries Act, is p leased to hereby revoke the Abor iginal Fisheries Agreements Regulat ions, made by Order in Council P.C. 192-1456 of June 26, 1992 and to make the annexed Regulat ions respect ing f ishing carr ied on in accordance with Aboriginal communal f ishing l icenses, in substi tut ion therefore. (Fisheries Act SOR/93-332) Previously l icenses were issued directly by DFO to individual St6:l6 f ishers. Under the new l icensing regulat ion, communal f ishing l icenses would be issued as descr ibed in the DFO Backgrounder dated March 26, 1993: All Abor iginal f isheries in 1993 will be governed by way of Communal Licenses granted to Bands or Tribal Counci ls. Each band or counci l wil l be responsible for issuing designat ion cards to all f ishers in their area. Other signif icant changes were instituted in 1993 as spel led out in the March 26, 1993 Backgrounder included: controls on f ishing effort, such as a limit on the overall number of nets being f ished, were included in negotiat ion of f ishery agreements, s tandardized marking required on f ishing gear, and f ishing plans to establ ish where and when f ishing would be author ized. all f ish caught under AFS agreements, whether used for sale, personal consumpt ion, ceremonial , or social purposes will be accounted for in a comprehensive catch monitor ing program. Mandatory report ing provisions to be negot iated as a component of f isheries agreements. Adherence to report ing requirements will be the responsibi l i ty of Aboriginal groups through band appointed observers and Native Guardians, and to be strictly enforced by 111 Fisheries Officers. Aboriginal f ishing authorit ies required to assure the department that all f ishers in compl iance. del ivery of f ish caught under the authority of communal l icenses to designated landing sites to be required and f ishers to declare to the landings site they intend to use when receiving their designat ion cards (e.g. where will you be f ishing). W h e r e sales permitted, f ish may only be sold to persons holding a Provincial buyer 's l icense to ensure full compl iance with report ing o f f i s h , observers to be in place at each landing site dur ing f isheries openings until all f ish are landed. Paramount among the changes in 1993 was the creat ion of a new enforcement team comprised of Aboriginal f isheries officers. In May of ,1993, four teen Aboriginal f isheries officers part icipated in graduat ion ceremonies after being trained by the federal government to monitor and enforce f ishing regulat ions. LFFA-appointed officers included: W a y n e Bobb, Jr. (Seabird Island), Todd Chapman (Skawahlook), Clay Charl ie (Chehal is), W a y n e Kelly, Jr. (Soowahi le), Anthony Mal loway (Sardis), and Lester Ned, Jr. (Sumas). This newly graduated group, was bel ieved to be the first in Canada. This accompl ishment was heralded as "a start of a new beginning for St6:l6 bands along the Fraser River," as reported by W a y n e Bobb, Sr. to the Chilliwack Progress, Wednesday , May 5, 1993. In addit ion to DFO's addressing the problems of the 1992 f ishing season, the St6:l6 themselves sought to deal with a number of concerns arising that first year. In 1993 a community consultat ion process was instituted in an effort to determine the problems and needs arising f rom the PSA in an effort to address those problems and needs before the 1993 sockeye f ishery. A series of community hear ings were held throughout St6:l6 territory wherein a number of issues were addressed including the number of nets per f isherman/family; the possibil i ty of habitat restorat ion projects as part of the AFS; the protection of food f isheries, in particular the dry rack f ishery; 112 equitable distr ibution of f ish; the number of newcomers on the river; to possible areas of economic development related to the commercial f ishery. A comprehensive, two-part report was prepared by Terry Glavin in his capacity as publ ic l iaison for the LFFA. The report, entit led Rebuidling St6:ld Fisheries Law: Report of the Community Consultation, noted the concerns expressed within the many affi l iated St6:l6 bands and covered a wide range of categories: the problems caused by the existence of "signatory" and "non-signatory" bands (differing f ishing t imes, confl icts over sales; the dramatic volume of "new" f ishermen on the river; the percept ion that many U.S. cit izens were suddenly appear ing on the f ishing grounds; diff iculties in communicat ion between LFFA and St6:l6 f ishermen; and the emergence of volati le and widespread f ishing-site disputes; access to the f ishery and quest ions about the nature of the right to f ish; limit on number of nets in the river; and need to respect accustomed family held f ishing sites The ult imate goal of the process was to develop a f isheries 'code' or similar statute - in effect St6: l6 f isheries law (Glavin 1993:8). No authority existed to deal wi th this issues, as Ernie Crey explained to me and to countless new f ishers dur ing his tenure managing the f ishery, without any collective mandate f rom the numerous St6:l6 bands, the funct ion of the LFFA and all of its subsequent incarnations, was to prosecute the terms and condit ions of the f isheries agreements not settle disputes arising among the f ishers. The community consultat ions had been designed to establ ish an authority to handle disputes, but no formal code was ever developed. Many of these same concerns would be addressed again in the summer of 2002. And as in 1993, most, if not all of the 2002 concerns went un-addressed. St6:l6 f ishers f ished under sales agreements in the years 1992 through 1997. An agreement was not reached again until 2 0 0 1 . Fraught with problems over al location 113 amounts, priorit ies over the f ishing areas and fears regarding the ext inguishment of Abor iginal r ights negotiat ions fai led to produce s igned agreements in the years after 1997. Compounding the problems just l isted, was the increase in the threshold number of s ignatory bands mandated by DFO. In an effort to bring as many St6:l6 bands as possible into compl iance, DFO began to require a greater number of bands part icipating in the agreements before al lowing any of the bands to participate. This posed a signif icant problem as large bands such as Seabird Island stopped signing agreements in 1997 and the often descr ibed militant Cheam band also ceased part icipation in the program. In 1997 there were approximately 1417 f ishers l icensed to part icipation in the "sale f ishery." Another 124 were l icensed as part of a food f ish only f ishery; including 94 f ishers f rom Cheam. Industrial Fishers and the Pilot Sale Arrangement The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy and the Pilot Sale project, drew heavy crit icism from the commercial f ishing sector. By the t ime of the 1992 AFS, the industrial f ishery had gone through a number of changes including a buy-back program as a part of the Davis Plan implemented in 1968 as part of an effort to reduce the number of vessels in the f ishery. A reduction in the size of the industrial salmon f leet would cont inue through the 1970s, result ing in only 4,707 vessels remaining, down f rom 6,104 in 1969 when the Davis Plan was implemented (Meggs 1991). In reaction to yet another potential erosion in the industrial f ishery, in 1992 the Pacific Fisheries Al l iance and the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coali t ion sought an injunction in B.C. Supreme Court to suspend the A F S in the Lower Fraser on the grounds that "1.2 mil l ion" sockeye had "gone missing" in the Lower Fraser River's tribal f isheries. Notes Ernie Crey in his 114 speech to the Act ion Agenda for Sel f -Government conference, "Their case was thrown out of court, but the damage was done" (November 7, 1993). In the months prior to Ernie Crey's speech to the Sel f -Governance conference, municipal i t ies in B.C. including Maple Ridge and Langley township had picked up on the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coali t ion's call for an end to special f ishing rights for Indians, sending letters of protest to Fisheries Minister John Crosbie (Vancouver Sun, Saturday, Apri l 24, 1993). In light of the missing f ish phenomena of 1992 and 1994, addit ional restructuring of the industrial salmon fleet was brought about in 1996 with the implementat ion of the Miffl in Plan. Prior to the Mifflin Plan, there were over 4000 l icensed boats of four gear types: seiners, trailers, gil lnetters, and combinat ion gillnet-troll vessels (Copes 1997). The Miffl in Plan included a program of voluntary retirement through l icense buy-backs as wel l as a program of area l icensing. Under this area l icensing program f ishers could only f ish in a l imited geographic area without purchasing or "stacking" addit ional l icenses. Under this plan, 'combinat ion' boats were banned and those w h o previously f ished both troll and gil lnet gear were forced to choose just one unless l icenses were 'stacked' (Power 2003). As industrial f ishers faced the changes incorporated in the Mifflin Plan, they also faced the continuation of the pilot sale program. As part of what they v iewed as survival tactics, industrial f ishers adopted many of the strategies that had been so successful for the Aboriginal f ishers. Industrial f ishers protested in the streets of downtown Vancouver, p laced full paged ads in area newspapers and turned to the courts for relief. In June of 1995, industrial salmon f ishers sued the federal government for mis-managing the salmon f ishery on which they depended. They al leged that St6:l6 f ishers 115 took the f ish that were lost under bungled DFO management {Chilliwack Progress, Wednesday , June 7 1995). In the fall of that same year, industrial f ishers strung nets across a downtown Vancouver street and occupied DFO's fourth-f loor off ices after r ipping the doors off the federal f isheries department Pacific region headquarters (Vancouver Sun, Sunday, September 16, 1995). B.C. Survival Coal i t ion executive director Phil Eidsvik expla ined that "non-Nat ive commercial f ishers couldn' t sit around any longer and watch Natives scoop sockeye from the Fraser River. Eidsvik also demanded the end to the four-year-old (at that t ime) Aboriginal f ishing strategy that have commercia l Native f ishers priority over non-Aboriginals (Vancouver Sun, Sunday, September 16, 1995). In an effort to drive home their point regarding the perceived inequity inherent in the AFS, industrial f ishers took out a full page ad in the Province, a Vancouver newspaper, to il lustrate 'the facts ' regarding the sa lmon f ishery as they saw them (see Figure 3). Again in 1998, industrial f ishers f ished in protest what they cal led the cont inuat ion of a "race based" Aboriginal f ishery. At the t ime the f ishers put their nets in the water, the f ishery was closed to the industrial sector but open to the Musqueam, Burrard and Tsawwassen Indian bands under the authority of the Abor ig inal Communal f ishing License Regulat ions. The industrial f ishers were charged with violat ing federal f isheries regulations. In 2003 their convict ion was overturned when Judge Kitchen ruled that the AFS was, among other things, a race based f ishery and therefore i l legal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Abor iginal sales occur only if industrial sales occur at the mouth of the river and al locat ions are capped by a percentage formula of the industrial catch (TAC). 116 Figure Figure 3. Industrial Fishers Respond The Province, Friday September 15, 1995 Friday, September IS, 1995 T h e P r o v i n c e A2 The Facts about the Fraser River Salmon Fishery The Storlo/Musqueam have enjoyed a private commer-cial fishery since 1992. Other Canadians who attempt to fish in the Sto:Io/Musqueam-onIy commercial fishery are subject to criminal prosecution by the Department of Fisheries. When the Fraser River sockeye salmon run was reduced from 16.4 million sockeye in 1994 to 5 million in 199S the ail-Canadian commercial fleet cut their harvest by 9.5 million sockeye. The Storlo/Musqueam refused to reduce their commercial harvest claiming that their commercial fishery receives the same Constitutional protection enjoyed by the native food fishery. The Storlo/Musqueam claim they haven't had enough fishing time yet (hey fished 37 days since mid-June, including 17 straight days beginning August 16th. So fax this year, the Sto:lo/Musqueam-only commercial fishery has caught 36% of the total Canadian Fraser River sockeye harvest. They make up less than 0.2% of B.C.'s population. Some argue that this Sto:lo/Musqueam-only commercial fishery is a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sparrow. They deceive you. The courts have ruled that there is no aboriginal right to sell fish but "that is not to say persons of aboriginal ancestry are precluded from taking part, with other Canadians, in the commercial fishery. But they must be subject to the same rules as other Canadians who seek a livelihood from that resource." {Regina v. Van der Peel) This judgement was no surprise since over 30% of the participants in the all-Canadian commercial fishery are aboriginal. This includes many Sto:lo and the majority of the Musqueam who also fish in the Sto:lo/Musqueam-onIy commercial fishery. Actual Catches to Sept 11795 (total run 5 million) Days of fishing on the Fraser (.'nne nth to September 12/9S) Net days of fishing on the Fraser (June 17th to September 12/95) (t net day = 1 net fishing for 24 hours) One Canada, One Law* commercial fishery for all Is that too much to ask? Paid for without taxpayer dollars by concerned Canadians. 117 If there is no industrial f ishery at the mouth then there is no in-river Abor iginal commercial sale. The fol lowing table reflects the actual catch data for the St6:l6 sockeye f isheries in the years a sale agreement was signed compared with negot iated al lotment totals. The data reflect that the fears and concerns of the industrial sector were based more on their specif ic understanding of entit lement incumbent in the regulat ions of late 1880s than actual catch data. The data taken from 'sales' years include totals avai lable for food, social and ceremonial uses as wel l . Table 5. Catch Data For Fraser River Sockeye Year Aboriginal Catch Aboriginal Allotment 1992 227,812 325,000 includes Katzie and Yale 1993 430,900 620,000 includes Musqueam.Tsawwassen, Burrard & Kwayhquitlam, Katzie, Chehalis, Yale 1994 358,355 500,000 includes Katzie, Yale, Chehalis 1995 326,700 500,000 includes Katzie, Yale 1996 296,631 *350,000 includes Katzie, Yale 1997 403,716 *350,000 includes Katzie, Yale 2001 215,126 *350,000 includes Katzie, Yale Compiled from data from Fisheries & Oceans Canada *base amount plus share of Canadian TAC Summary and Discussion In summary, regulat ions adopted in 1888 divided the Native f ishery into the " T o t a l s represent catches for the area above Mission Bridge to Sawmil l Creek; ' tradit ional ' St6:l6 f ishing territory whereas al lotments cover area from Port Mann Bridge to Sawmil l Creek. 118 categories of commercial f ishery and food f ishery, mandated the implementat ion of a l icensing system, out lawed the sale of f ish not caught under l icenses issued for the tidal areas of the river and str ipped Aboriginal peoples f rom their role as managers of the resource. St6:l6 f ishers cont inued to f ish and sell their catch and looked to the courts for relief f rom the economic disenfranchisement imposed by those early regulat ions. Through the courts changes in the Aboriginal f ishery have come. The implementat ion of the new Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy has had far reaching effects on the profi le on the Native f ishery, the most important being the potential for signif icant changes in the relat ionship between Native f ishers and federal f ishing authorit ies. Many St6:l6 f ishers cont inue to hold out hope for the cont inuat ion of a legal sale f ishery. Negotiat ions cont inue each year for a sale agreement. However, the courts have not solved all the problems. In fact, on some level they have increased the power of the government to infringe on Abor ig inal f isheries in the name of conservat ion with Sparrow being the basis of the act ions for both sides. In 1998 Elders were chased away from their drying racks in the Fraser Canyon by armed f isheries officers when the river was closed to f ishing to protect the early Stuart sockeye run (Sqwe'qwels Ye St6:l6, 1998:12). Placing their trust in the courts, St6:l6 peoples f ished in def iance of DFO's decision to close the river in an effort to provide f ish for their Elders. Notes Ken Mal loway in a meeting between St6:l6 leaders and D F O at the canyon f ishing camp of Grand Chief Archie Char les: W e know Delgamuuku, Sparrow and Guerin - this is not a protest f ishery, w e are exercising our rights! I'm f ishing for the Elders, the Elders haven' t got f ish for years! I have to protect our rights, for my mother, and for my boys. W h a t w e are doing is modest, we are out to catch f ish for our Elders, for drying and canning. W e pay every year for "conservat ion." (Sqwe'qwels Ye St6:l6, 1998:12) 119 Ken Mal loway and his young sons f ished for the elders in the canyon in July when the river was c losed due to conservat ion concerns over the early Stuart sockeye. Ken Mal loway was charged for his part icipation in this f ishery. His legal bills would run in the tens of thousands to be paid by St6:l6 Nation. The charges were eventual ly dropped. Protests to river closures in the name of conservat ion wou ld cont inue throughout the remainder of the 2 0 t h century and Cheam f ishers would f ind themselves in actual combat with DFO officers. Members of the Seabird Island community would eventual ly seek an alternative method of deal ing with their own community members charged with f isheries violat ions. And commercial f ishers would f ind themselves f ight ing not only DFO for a legally sanct ioned right to sell their catch, but other St6:l6 f ishers as wel l . In the fol lowing chapters I examine three specif ic responses to f isheries regulat ions, shaped by the court rul ings of the 1990s and arising f rom the changes implemented as part of a new Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. The specif ic responses on which I focus depict not only a f ishery fractured by regulation but also one confounded by pressures f rom within. Two constants seem to bind the responses: 1) affirmation of tradition as an essential part of each response, and 2) affirmation of the Aboriginal right to fish. 120 Chapter Four: Warriors on the Water 3 4 It's a sunny day in August as I sit by the Fraser River at Cheam Beach. I watch as fishers take their places in the queue - mother and son, father and daughter, employer and employee - launching their 12 to 18 foot boats in roughly 15 minute intervals. One by one the boats return, their occupants calling out the number of fish caught in their nets. This sequence is repeated throughout the day as children play along the water's edge and the adults share their secrets of 'where the best fishing spots' are. This is the life of these people who have lived along this river since ancient times. Just before 10:00 a.m. on May 13, 2003 Head Band Counci lor Sid Douglas was violently accosted by DFO officers. Douglas was pepper sprayed at close range, wrest led to the ground, roughed up and handcuffed by three DFO of f icers . 3 5 In response to this act ion, some 50 band members surrounded the DFO truck, informed the officers they could leave on foot and also blockaded the rai lway track [running through the reserve] for the rest of the day. Whi le this recording of the incident is only one side of the story, it very clearly depicts the acr imonious relat ionship that has existed between Cheam f ishers and the federal f isheries authorit ies for one hundred y e a r s . 3 6 In the last f i f teen years alone, numerous violent incidents involving Cheam f ishers and f isheries officers have erupted on and off the river. The level of v iolence was so high by the end of the summer of 1999, that before f ishing began in the summer of 2000, Chief June Quipp made an unprecedented move and negot iated a safety protocol between DFO and the Cheam Band. According to June Quipp, this act ion was 3 4 Ti t le taken from August 3 1 , 1999 Chilliwack Progress front page headl ine. 3 5 U B C I C Joint Policy Council NAIIP News Path, Tuesday, May 13, 2003. Also reported in the Chilliwack Times, May 15, 2003 and the Chilliwack Progress, May 15, 2003. 3 6 T h e situation resulted in no charges being laid against Sid Douglas and no act ions taken against the f isheries officers involved in the incident (Chilliwack Times, November 4, 2003) . 121 taken to prevent the certain loss of life that was sure to fol low if the situation cont inued without intervention. In this chapter I examine the Cheam band's turbulent history with federal Fisheries authorit ies. I begin with a brief demographic overv iew of the Cheam community before discussing Cheam's particular posit ion regarding "the Abor iginal right to f ish" and the role of tradit ion in the creat ion of their persona of "Warr iors on the Water" . As a part of this discussion, I examine how Cheam's part icular stance regarding the Aboriginal right to f ish shapes the band's overall relat ionship with other St6:l6 bands. C o m m u n i t y O v e r v i e w The name Cheam means "wild strawberry place." Straddl ing the Fraser River, the community consists of two reserves - Cheam IR #1 compris ing 305.1 hectares and Tseatah IR #2 compris ing 157.8 hectares (with only 100 hectares actually above the high water mark). The reserve hectarage is currently under review. Table 6. Cheam Reserve Name Location Hectares CHEAM NO. 1 NEW WESTMINSTER. DIST. IN SECS. 6&7, TP.3, R. 28, SECS 1&12, TP3, R29, W.6M LFT BANK FRASER RVR & N SHORE CHEAM LAKE 305.1 TSEATAH NO. 2 NEW WESTMINSTER DIST. IN TP3, R28, W.6M, ON RIGHT BANK OF FRASER RIVER, 2 MILES SOUTH OF AGASSIZ 157.8 Source: Stats Canada First Nation Profile The most recent census data report a total populat ion of 436 - 1 8 0 on reserve, another 2 5 6 3 7 residing off reserve (Stats Canada, Registered Populat ion, Oct. 2004) . Employment opportunit ies on the reserve are l imited. The majority of those work ing on 3 7 0 f this 256 residing off reserve, 71 reside on other reserves. 122 the reserve are employed by the administrat ion office, either directly through the office or through the reserve landfill opera t ion . 3 8 Fishing, hunt ing and various forms of hourly wage labor are rel ied upon by many as a way of making ends meet, with f ishing being the primary variable in that equat ion. One community member with whom I spoke, Isaac Aleck, descr ibed to me how he relied on all of these methods, primarily f ishing, to support "his Mrs." (as he cal led her) and his two daughters . 3 9 However, as was explained to be me by the communi ty members with whom I spoke, f ishing is more than a way to put food on the table or earn a living; f ishing is a way of life. T h e Bat t le L i n e s A r e D r a w n The Aboriginal right to f ish has been hard fought by all the famil ies in the Cheam community, including the often high profi le Douglas family. In 1988, whi le at tending the annual general meeting of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Cheam band Chief Sam Douglas warned that "Indians may have to resort to direct act ion if Native claims - including f ishing rights - aren't soon sett led in the courts or at the negotiat ing table" (Chilliwack Times, Tuesday, November 22, 1988). Wh i le Douglas stressed the 3 8 0 n e band member with whom I spoke noted that most of his community 's people could not maintain regular, long term employment off the reserve. 3 9 0 n e of Isaac Aleck's jobs is as a f ish monitor, col lect ing catch data for report ing to DFO as to the number of salmon taken during each opening. During the summers of 2002 and 2003, Isaac Aleck 'monitored' Cheam beach catches. But in the summer of 2004 a sales agreement had been negotiated and signed between DFO and St6:l6 f ishers so he worked a landing site designated for col lect ing catch numbers as mandated in the sales agreement. Interestingly enough, Cheam was not a signatory band to that agreement, therefore Isaac Aleck and other members of the Cheam community were not able to part icipate in the sales f ishery for which he was count ing salmon. 123 point that support f rom the public through peaceful protest was the desired outcome, he noted that "when armed f isheries officers come down in force, then that 's when it gets militant" {Chilliwack Times, Tuesday, November 22, 1988). Douglas ' comments came two years after a violent incident at Gill Bay down river f rom the Cheam Reserve. The Gill Bay incident marked the first violent exchange between DFO and Cheam f ishers. This incident would set the tone for the relat ionship between the Cheam Band and federal f isheries authorit ies for the next two decades. Prior to the conflict at Gill Bay Cheam fishers, for the most part, had observed the openings and closings establ ished by DFO. In 1986 violence erupted when Sam Douglas and other members of the Cheam Band decided they no longer wanted to be last in line behind the commercial and sports f ishers. As descr ibed to me by Corky Douglas, openings for the Indian Food Fishery (IFF) would be f rom Thursday to Sunday each week, however, these openings would come after the commercial sector had f ished those same stocks earl ier in the week leaving few fish in the river for most of the IFF opening. Meet ings with Fisheries officials had done little to alter this pattern. Sam Douglas and others f rom the community decided to stage a protest against a one-day closure of the f ishery. More than a dozen people were charged with f ishing during a c losed t ime and obstruct ing a peace officer. Sam Douglas was charged and convicted of assault ing a Fisheries officer with a boat oar. Douglas ' criminal convict ion was under appeal when, in a ruling regarding a civil suit f i led by the Fisheries officer, the judge found Douglas was justif ied when he struck the f isheries officer (Vancouver Sun, Thursday, July 6, 1989). As noted in the Vancouver Sun article, the 1986 melee erupted after said 124 f isheries off icer arr ived at the scene of the protest f ishery with 25 armed f isheries officers who proceeded to confiscate nets set by Douglas and members of his family, who were protesting the closure. It was revealed in the proceedings of the civil suit, that Douglas was justi f ied in his use of force as the f isheries officer had swung an oar 12 t imes in the direct ion of the Douglas boat, until Sam Jr. was struck in the head and fell backwards. The civil suit also revealed that f isheries officers arr ived on the scene armed with knives and .357 magnum revolvers, travel ing in seven vessels and a helicopter. T h e batt le erupted on the water after the f isheries officers were approached by an equal number of St6:l6 who had left their knives and f ish clubs on the shore before putt ing out in their boats. The Gill Bay incident was one of many confrontat ions that occurred between the Cheam community and f isheries authorit ies. In the coming years, the a rea newspapers wou ld be r iddled with reports of f ishing disputes involving the Cheam band. News headl ines of b lockades and photographs camouf laged-clad Natives wou ld contr ibute to Cheam's identity as "warriors on the water" and local newspapers would be rife with art icles descr ibing the often extremely volati le relat ionship that existed between the federal government and the Cheam band. As a result of the Gill Bay incident in 1986, two federal Fisheries officers were charged with common assault and a hel icopter pilot was charged with mischief in connect ion with altercations involving Native Indian food f ishermen. The two officers were charged with assault ing Chief Clarence Pennier (from Scowlitz) and Cheam band members Sam Douglas and Albert Chester Johnson. The pilot was charged with mischief in a "life threatening situation." Fisheries officers charged 18 Indians with a total of 54 offenses, including assault and il legal f ishing in 125 connect ion with the protest f ishery [Vancouver Sun, Apri l 7, 1 9 8 7 ) . By May of 1989, the possibi l i ty of r iver v io lence was again imminent w h e n Fisheries authori t ies announced the river would not open to Indian f ishing at least three days each week dur ing the months of June and July, the same reason that prompted the violence at Gill Bay. In an interview wi th a reporter f rom The Progress, Cheam Chief Sam Douglas expressed his concern that there would be physical confrontat ion between Natives and Federal Fisheries officers if the Natives were not al lowed to f ish three days a week in late June and July when the early Stuart sockeye are running. Fisheries had indicated that, based o n early est imates, the Indian Food Fishery ( IFF) wou ld be open just one day a week through June 25, and then two days a week after that. The St6:l6 Nation Society and the St6:l6 Tribal Council notif ied DFO in wri t ing, saying that Natives would voluntari ly f ish only three days each week in order to preserve salmon stocks. Recogniz ing the need for conservat ion, Sam Douglas indicated Cheam f ishers wou ld agree to a sel f - imposed four-day-a-week closure even though they did not recognize Fisheries' authority over Native f ishing practices (The Progress, May 3 1 , 1989). Fisheries was put on notice that, St6:l6 f isherman would ignore IFF regulat ions if they restr icted them to just two days' f ishing. By 1 9 9 1 , the situation had escalated to the point of 'nearly no return' when gun shots rang out over the water. In July of 1991 , "shots were f ired in a confrontat ion between federal f isheries officers and Cheam Band members as Natives claim more f ishing rights" (The Progress, July 24, 1991). Th is is the first l ine in the article chronicl ing yet another violent incident between Cheam f ishers and f isheries authorit ies. As noted in the 126 article, two Natives in a canoe were discovered f ishing il legally by a night-t ime f isheries patrol on the Fraser River on July 17. A third Native on shore f i red a rifle in the direct ion of the canoe even though another officer on land had ordered him to drop the weapon. All three were charged with illegal f ishing and the Native on shore was also charged in connect ion with discharging a fire arm. It is also noted in the article that the Fisheries officer on the shore also f ired a shot to the side and into the water. The shot f i red f rom the Native on shore went over the heads of the officers in the patrol boat who "instinctively" drew their revolvers. Yet again, the altercation s temmed f rom a closure of the IFF to conserve the early Stuart sockeye run. A n d again, Cheam band Chief Sam Douglas, put the federal government on notice that Cheam f ishers (as wel l as all St6:l6 f ishers) were going to f ish despite the closure of the Native f ishery. As noted by Sam Douglas, " Indians have a consti tut ional right to f ish - instead of the "privi lege" to f ish that others gain by paying for a l icense. Sam Douglas stated, "We' l l go f ishing when the f ish are there, instead of when the DFO dictates" (The Progress, July 24, 1991). Douglas ' press statement reflected Cheam's standing that restrict ions and changes to l icense condit ions were to be negot iated rather than legislated. This was a sent iment recounted to me by his sister, June Quipp, when she told me that "we were not part of the process that went into the decision making that resulted in the f isheries regulat ions imposed on First Nations peoples." In 1993 tensions escalated dramatical ly a long the stretch of the Fraser running through the Cheam Reserve when a blockade erected by the Cheam Band brought Canadian National (CN) rai lway freight transport to a standsti l l . Cheam band members blocked the rai lway with pickup trucks after a weekend of confrontat ions with f isheries 127 enforcement off icers that ended with twenty-two Native nets being seized and charges being considered against twelve people. CN was awarded a court injunction to have the blockade removed, however, as stated by Sid Douglas, brother of Cheam Chief, Sam Douglas, one of the blockade organizers, "we are going to stay until our leaders tell us otherwise." Once again, the act ion was in direct react ion to Fisheries' decision to close the river to Native f ishing, albiet this t ime in the face of an agreed upon al locat ion as part of an agreement negot iated between St6: l6 f ishers and the federal government. At the center of the Cheam protest was DFO's decision to close the river to Native f ishing before Indian f ishers reached their negot iated al lotment of 620,000 sockeye. In the summer of 1993, Cheam as wel l as other St6:l6 Bands, were f ishing under a Pilot Sale arrangement negot iated as part of the newly implemented Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. Chief Sam Douglas noted that the 620,000 al locat ion was imposed on the St6:l6 (Vancouver Sun, August 3 1 , 1993). The problem emerged when Pat Chamut, Pacific region director-general for DFO, made the decision to keep the river c losed dur ing the previous weekend, saying that the al location would be fi l led once other St6:l6 f isheries were taken into account. DFO contended that a 48-hour opening, which the Cheam f ishers wanted, would have added up to 100,000 salmon to the Aboriginal count, pushing the number far over the al location (Vancouver Sun, August 3 1 , 1993). Wh i le f isheries authorit ies indicated that the protest came from Cheam alone, Sam Douglas stated that all St6:l6 bands were upset over sa lmon al locations. Fisheries and Oceans would f ind the latter to be true when other St6:l6 leaders spoke out in support of Cheam's action. George Campo, president of St6:l6 Nat ion Canada, 128 publically backed Sam Douglas and the Cheam band (Vancouver Sun for September 1, 1993). In the end, 10 bands would show support for Cheam's act ion, an act ion that Sam Douglas stated would only end if the deputy f isheries minister would come to the reserve for talks {Vancouver Sun, September 1, 1993). The situation would become markedly worse before a resolut ion could be achieved. St6: l6 Indian leaders met overnight to decide if the barr icades on the CN main line to Vancouver were to come down or if the track was to be r ipped up before a court injunction could be served. A bul ldozer was posit ioned, ready to tear out the tracks passing through the reserve; a decision that was to be up to all St6:l6 bands, not just Cheam. (Vancouver Sun, September 2, 1993). By Saturday, September 4, 1993, the RCMP were poised to move in to enforce a previous injunction against the Natives (Chilliwack Times, September 4, 1993). The blockade remained in place for f ive days, ending only after DFO agreed to the demands of Cheam B a n d . 4 0 The possibil i ty of violence remained high as Cheam f ishers cont inued to 4 0 l n the course of my conversat ions I was told that the bul ldozer upon which Sam Douglas was perched was incapable of actually digging up the rai lway tracks; it was out of gas. Whether or not the gas tank of the bul ldozer was full or empty, one fact seems certain. Cheam f ishers were keenly aware of their ability to disrupt the larger economy through the blockade of the railway. In his article entit led, '"Shut the Province Down' : First Nations Blockades in British Columbia, 1984-1995," Nicholas Blomely notes that b lockades have been an effective tool used by First Nations across Brit ish Columbia for a number of years. Blomely points out that major transport routes have also been the target of b lockades as wel l as access routes to resorts and parks. Blomley discusses the vulnerabil i ty of the provincial transport system, noting that road and rail l ines frequent ly pass through reserves, which were the usual locations for many of the blockades. Addit ionally, the vulnerabil i ty of the transport system is further aggravated by the provincial topography - the rugged terrain ensures that val ley bot toms become transport corr idors - again placing major transportat ion corr idors in close proximity to Native reserves as reserves are also often located in val leys, near rivers (1996:18-19). 129 exercise their right to f ish over the next few years. Fishing cont inued regardless of closures and charges were laid. In July of 1998, Cheam f ishers def ied a federal ban and f ished in protest. Chester Douglas, a long with his wife and son were spotted by f isheries officers f ly ing over head in a helicopter. As descr ibed by Chester Douglas in the Chilliwack Progress, "First they brought out a hel icopter to shine its lights on us, and then nine f isheries officers came and gave us a f ine" (Sunday, July 12, 1998). An agreement to remove their nets was reached after band members met with Fisheries off icers. At the meet ing Cheam f ishers made clear that they expected the ban to be enforced equal ly against sports f ishermen. Quot ing band member Isaac Aleck, "...As long as the sportsmen are off the river f rom the mouth up, then we will abide by it. As long as the sportsmen are out, we' l l be out" (The Province, July 12, 1998). This sent iment was expressed over and over again among the Cheam f ishers with whom I spoke. Nearly every conversat ion I had with f ishers contained the phrase, "If the sport ies are out; we' l l be out." The prevai l ing sentiment among Cheam f ishers is that, if there is a legit imate conservat ion concern, then the sports f ishery would not be open. In regard to that sentiment, DFO contends that the pressure on the early Stuart run f rom the rods and reels of the sports f ishery are insignif icant when compared to the nets of the Cheam fishers. As the summer of 1999 blended into fal l , v io lence again erupted along the Fraser at Cheam. And again, this violence stemmed f rom river c losures in the name of conservat ion. As they had done the previous year, Fisheries and Oceans banned f ishing on the Fraser in the early summer months to protect the critical Stuart River sockeye run. According to the ruling in Sparrow concerns over conservat ion are the 130 only just i f icat ions for closing the river to Aboriginal f ishers. However, dur ing the beginning of the 1999 sockeye season, Aboriginal f ishers were forced off the river whi le sports f ishers were al lowed to cont inuing f ishing for chinook salmon, releasing any sockeye inadvertently hooked. Many f ishers, in particular those at Cheam, bel ieved DFO's was act ing in the same abritrary fashion they had in the pre-Sparrow years. They felt that D F O w a s using the language of Sparrow to re-priorit ize the f ishery in that sports f ishers were required to release any inadvertently caught sockeye, therefore they were not deemed to be contr ibuting adversely to the conservat ion problem. Cheam f ishers had a different take on the situation based on their own observat ions of the sports f ishery. Cheam f ishers w h o had def ied a similar f ishing ban the previous year, (for the same reasons) set their gill nets with the support of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and about 100 others reportedly f rom other bands around the province (Chilliwack Progress, Tuesday, July 13, 1999). Fisheries off icers, t rying to enforce the river c losure, acted more aggressively, travel ing the river at night cutt ing and confiscating ' i l legal' nets (see f igure 4). Tensions cont inued to mount as f isheries officers, wear ing Flak jackets and carrying automatic weapons descended on f ishermen at their nets - usually elders women and chi ldren -seeking out, what June Quipp cal led the weakest link (Chilliwack Progress, Tuesday, August 3 1 , 1999). As Quipp reported to the press, "...They have pushed us, grabbed our kids, rammed our boats and always threatened with some kind of v iolence" (Chilliwack Progress, Tuesday, August 3 1 , 1999). By the end of the summer, signs of a possible ful l - f ledged war were clearly visible. Fisheries off icers found themselves face to face with an army of young people from around British Columbia and Alberta, 131 F igu re 4. " G e t A w a y F r o m My N e t " C o n f r o n t a t i o n at C h e a m B e a c h Photo by Rick Collins, Chilliwack Progress, September 7, 1999 132 standing f irm on the beach. Referr ing to themselves as a security force, this group of young people belonging to the Native Youth Movement arr ived at Cheam to lend support for Cheam's Abor ig inal right to f ish. Descr ibed to the press by Fisheries and Oceans as "an armed and dangerous menace on the water," they did indeed look the part of the warrior. Dressed in camouf lage fat igues and equipped with radios, night-vision goggles, maps, f lashl ights, air horns, whist les and hand drawn plans, this group of young people stood watch over the b e a c h . 4 1 By the end of the weekend, ten f ishermen would be under investigation, eight nets and one hundred and ninety sockeye seized (Chilliwack Progress, Tuesday, August 3 1 , 1999). By Fall, both sides would demand that charges be laid (Chilliwack Progress, Tuesday, September 28, 1999) and both sides would come to the conclusion that a change in protocol was essential . The summer of 2000 found Cheam f ishers and Fisheries officers operat ing under a new sys tem. 4 2 4 1 S o m e members of the "security force" were members of the Cheam Band, but for the most part, the group was made up of young Aboriginal men and women from outside the community. Labeled criminals, terrorists and thugs by Fisheries and Oceans officials, this group was actually composed of educated individuals - most university students at the t ime - highly trained in a variety of military techniques. They considered themselves f reedom fighters. A l though they admitted their military dress was meant to be intimidating, their role was strictly defensive (Chilliwack Progress, Tuesday, August 3 1 , 1999). 4 2 J u n e Quipp remarked to me o n the how her approach to f isher ies struggles dif fered from that of her brother Sam. She explained to me that Sam Douglas had not been happy with the presence of the 'security force' on the reserve. Others told me that Sam Douglas preferred to place himself in the direct line of f ire when deal ing with f isheries off icers, rather than putt ing others in that spot. Wh i le not above relying on forceful forms of direct act ion, Sam Douglas also rel ied on more subtle ways of exercising the varying forms of power his community possessed. A rather amusing anecdote was relayed to me by Ernie Crey. According to Ernie Crey, tempers began to flair dur ing a meeting between f ishers and DFO. Ernie Crey, becoming caught up in the heat of the moment, jo ined in with others who had raised their voices at the 133 A Cease Fire of Sorts In an effort to head off the injury or loss of life that was certain to occur in the upcoming summer sockeye f ishery, (then) Chief June Quipp negot iated a safety protocol wi th Fisheries and Oceans. Subsequent ly renegot iated each year, the safety protocol was designed to define the principles and values that informed the relat ionship between the Cheam First Nation and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ( D F O ) . 4 3 f isheries official. Notes Ernie Crey, Sam Douglas tapped him under the table to get his attention. Once outside after the meeting Sam Douglas rather loudly and colorful ly told Ernie Crey he would be f i red if he did that again. Sam Douglas knew that Ernie Crey had worked for DFO prior to taking up employment in the St6:l6 f isheries program. He know that DFO staff was comfortable deal ing with Ernie Crey. Ernie Crey had never been charged with so-cal led f isheries infractions. In addit ion, Ernie Crey was (at that t ime) a member of the Pacif ic Salmon Commission's Fraser Panel (the panel that determines f isheries' openings). Sam Douglas wanted Ernie Crey to keep the lines of communicat ion open to DFO. He wanted Ernie Crey to remain the diplomat; Ernie Crey was to leave the hard-nosed bargaining to the Chiefs. Notes Ernie Crey, "while many may not have wanted to bel ieve it, Sam Douglas had a great deal of respect for nearly everyone he came in contact with, including negotiators for the DFO. Sam Douglas l iked people. However he knew that somet imes he needed to be forceful in his deal ings with DFO in order to help the St6:l6 gain a larger share of the f ishery." Sadly, Sam Douglas was lost in a f ishing accident in the river off the Cheam reserve the summer of 2001 before I had an opportunity to speak with him. His sister June Quipp, Ernie Crey and Doug Kelly very generously shared their 'Sam stories' wi th me. 4 3 T h e protocol agreement negot iated in 2003 after the May 13 incident in which Sid Douglas as pepper sprayed and arrested, is the most limiting to date. The 2003 agreement appl ied to all enforcement activit ies by f isheries on land or water. The agreement l imited water-based enforcement to one boat with no more than three or four off icers on board. Land based actions were limited to two vehicles with no more than two officers. The agreement required that any f isheries officers having business on the reserve report to the head council lor before going to the beach. Cheam leaders were seeking to prevent any future situations such as the May 13 incident involving Sid Douglas. They were also seeking to prevent many of the incidents that occurred on the water dur ing the extremely volati le summer of 1999. During one of our conversat ions, June Quipp descr ibed the events of 1999, as Cheam boats were rammed by DFO vessels. June Quipp talked of the eery feel ing she exper ienced as she looked into the eyes of one of the off icers aboard the DFO vessel as it approached her boat at full speed. According to June Quipp, the potential for the loss of life was very real that day. 134 Listed first and foremost was safety for Cheam First Nations people, DFO and St6:l6 Nation Fisheries personnel. Addit ionally, a code of conduct for operat ions was spel led out in the agreement. A number of specif ic concerns were addressed in that code of conduct, some of those concerns included: safe operat ion of DFO vessels and hel icopters identif ication of spokesperson for each side specif ic procedure for deal ing with unattended nets need for courteous and respectful behavior on the part of each side notif ication of f isheries officers' presence prior to contact wi th Cheam f i s h e r s 4 4 This agreement was heralded for its success when Fisheries and Oceans Canada Director Pablo Sobrino, speaking at a conflict resolut ion workshop, credited Chief Quipp for the peace on the river that came in the summer of 2000, saying "She took the risk of enter ing into a formal agreement with federal f isheries to avoid confrontat ion" (Chilliwack Progress, Tuesday, February 20, 2001) . Wi th in three years the agreement would be touted as a "special enforcement deal" by Bill Otway, president of the Sportsf ishing Al l iance (Chilliwack Times, June 20, 2003) . Non-Aboriginal f ishing groups have maintained that the safety protocol has inhibited DFO's abil ity to effectively manage the resource. Sport f ishing leaders contend that the lack of DFO officers on the beach at Cheam al lowed for the so-cal led lawlessness prevalent in the Cheam fishery. In an interview granted to the Chilliwack Progress, Bill Otway, of the Sports Fishing Defense Al l iance, accused Fisheries Minister Robert Thibault of being complicit in al lowing an ' i l legal' f ishery to continue, 4 4 At the t ime of the confrontat ion between Fisheries officers and Sid Douglas, some quest ion arose as to whether the safety agreement s igned the in 2002 had carr ied over until a new agreement had been s igned. The officers that confronted Sid Douglas had not checked in at the band office before attempting to come down to the beach; prompting Sid Douglas ' reaction. 135 al leging that Cheam gil lnets had been in the water for 29 days as of date of his letter to the Solicitor General (July 25, 2003) . Otway and his group also accused Cheam f ishers of stockpi l ing weapons along the beach. In his letter to the Solicitor General , Otway wanted to make the [solicitor general 's] office aware of the type and quanti ty of f i rearms being stockpi led on the reserve (Chilliwack Progress, July 25, 2003) . Before it was over, Otway and his group would demand that the federal government bring in the army to deal wi th the situation that he contended existed on the reserve. In the end, the RCMP and DFO rejected Otway's charges. I spent many weekends at Cheam beach dur ing the summers of 2002 and 2003; I saw no evidence of a weapons stockpi le or of a f ishery gone wi ld. Comment ing on the absurdi ty of Otway's charges, some Cheam f ishers joked with me of having magazines at home with pictures of guns in them. Interestingly enough, some St6:l6 f ishers have made similar comments regarding DFO's ability to effectively manage the resource when access to the beach at Cheam is essential ly denied. Pointing out that the safety protocol s igned between St6:l6 Nation and DFO (coming a year or two after Cheam's) does not keep DFO officers away f rom the f ishing grounds as does Cheam's, it was posited that Cheam's agreement actually contr ibutes to the acr imony on the river rather than al leviat ing it. As it was explained to me, St6:l6 Nation's agreement worked to bring DFO into a dialogue of resource co-management rather than relegating them to the side lines in as much as that si tuation can actually exist. Given that some legit imacy may exist in regards to the limits on resource management inherent in the Cheam safety protocol, it clearly has not hampered the 136 government 's ability to observe f ishers and lay charges. Both DFO officials and members of the Cheam community told me that the number of charges laid each year for so-cal led i l legal f ishing have increased since the implementat ion of the safety protocol. According to June Quipp, the number of charges have increased dramatical ly. Notes band member Ernie Crey, hundreds of cases f rom the 2000 and 2001 f ishing season are still pending. Is this the cost of peace? W a s Cheam's ability to negotiate a peace on the river via their safety protocol a result of direct act ion on the part of Cheam warr iors? On what have the members of the Cheam community rel ied when consider ing their aggressive stance regarding their Abor iginal right to f ish? Have these warr iors on the water gained any measure of true autonomy on the water? Many quest ions remain. Life Along the River - the Practice of a Tradition "See that area over there?" asks Robert Douglas gesturing toward a spot upriver. "My grandfather fished there, my father fished there and now me and my son, we fish there" "It doesn't matter what they decide," says Mr. Douglas. "This is our life. I have to feed my family. As long as there's fish in this river, my family won't go hungry" says Ronnie Douglas, Jr. (Chilliwack Progress, July 12, 1998) As I sat a long the river during the summers of 2002 and 2003, only faint evidence of the "wars" of the past years was visible. Gone were the fox holes and camouf laged soldiers. What remained was the matter-of-fact manner in which the community cont inued its way of life, the way of life reflected in Ronnie Douglas' 1998 statement. The importance of f ishing as a part of that way of life was clearly evident, not only by the fact that famil ies l ined the beach to f ish, but a lso by the emphasis placed on community responsibi l i ty and the transference of knowledge. A long the beach some famil ies camped overnight as they f ished, others returning to their homes 137 across the road, enjoying picnic style mid-day meals whi le along the river. Chi ldren were everywhere on the beach; playing at the water 's edge or accompanying their parent(s) in the boats. As explained to me in my interview with Corky Douglas, "That's how w e pass the knowledge on, w e take our kids out and show them how to f ish. If you look at our community, we all br ing our kids down." Cheam people share their history so that future generat ions will know that history. As we talked, Corky Douglas shared bits of knowledge that had been taught to him growing up, as did his sister June Quipp when I talked with her. Isaac Aleck shared with me important information about the landscape that his father had taught him. On one of my visits to the beach, Isaac Aleck took me out on the water and showed me important spots along the river; one being the dry rack spot of his great-great grandmother. According to Isaac Aleck, she had the only dry rack outside of the canyon; knowledge of one's past being an essential part of St6:l6 tradit ion. Isaac Aleck 's great-great grandmother 's family name - Ollalie - can be found in the St6:l6 Historical At las, l isted on the 1905 map of the St6:l6 Canyon Fishery (2001:59). The 'passing of knowledge' is also evident in community projects. Through conversat ions with members of the Cheam community, I was told of the communal canning project that takes place every summer. Fish are donated by Cheam f ishermen and for two weeks each summer, salmon is canned around the clock. One Cheam elder who oversees the project each year, told me that the practice began in 1998 and still cont inues. Initially the project just served members of the Cheam communi ty-elders or those who had lost f ishing sites, however it has since grown to include all St6:l6 elders. Accord ing to June Quipp, the summer canning project was to provide 138 salmon to any elder who wants to bring a jar so that those who can't f ish, can obtain salmon. An elder f rom the Soowahl ie band spoke to me of her part icipation in the canning project, "Elders wou ld show up and drop off their jars to be f i l led." Communi ty members who do not f ish, help with the canning. During the summer of 2002, 600 dozen jars of salmon were produced. Between three and four thousand people part ic ipated in the two week canning project, with twelve canners going around the clock. According to the elder, "Jars - half- pints, pints quarts - vanished f rom the store shelves all over the area. There wasn' t a jar left to sell." As we ta lked about the canning project, this elder also ta lked with me about her family and f ishing. She talked of how, way back, her parents went up to Yale to f ish. She also talked of how changes along the river (some natural, some man made) and populat ion increases have contr ibuted to the loss of f ishing sites; making the canning project so important. She also talked of how St6:l6 people had always sold their f ish or exchanged them for other necessit ies. According to the Cheam elder, f ish is a main source of food for St6:l6 people. Comment ing on the regulat ions that have cont inued to limit access to that essential source of food, she simply noted, "Some folks may go with the way it is. Others take a stand." The choice of the Cheam community is readily apparent. Managing Their Own Fishery As a part of their decision to take a stand, Cheam f ishers formed a f ishing commit tee in 1999 of eight to ten members to decide w h e n and for how long Cheam f ishers would f ish. Prior to f ishing each year, the chief and counci l meet to outl ine the f ishing plan for the coming year, posting notices to band members advising them of the 139 dates and t imes of openings. This is the same process that takes place each year within the larger Sto: 16 Nation via the f isheries committee composed of representat ives of the var ious Sto: 16 bands. However, the decisions made by the Cheam community often differ dramatical ly f rom those of the larger Sto: 16 Nation in that the "Nat ion" general ly adheres to conservat ion restrictions regarding the Early Stuart run, seeking only dispensat ion for a l imited number of 'pieces' for the canyon dry rack f ishers. Accord ing to Corkey Douglas, Cheam's committee examines the data f rom the Pacif ic Salmon Commission's early forecast of salmon runs to plan how Cheam will conduct their f ishery. The committee decides if they are going to accept DFO's run forecasts, then sett ing the t imes and dates of their f ishery based on their examinat ion of the data. After sett ing their own f ishing dates and t imes, Cheam sends a letter to DFO outl ining their f ishing plan. Cheam's policy is based on the fact they have never given up or negot iated away their f ishing rights. Members of the Cheam community bel ieve that they have priority over any salmon catches, relying on the Sparrow decis ion to support their claim. In my many conversat ions with community members, it was made clear to me that whether or not the individual with whom I was speaking had voted for the particular members of counci l currently seated, they did demonstrate support for the decisions of that chief and counci l in regard to f ishing. As descr ibed by Corky Douglas, "Here [at Cheam] it is a whole community effort. W e support what chief and counci l does and they support what we do. It's kind of a mutual thing between chief and counci l and the membership on the f ishery issue." Based on my conversat ions with f ishers and my observat ions of f ishing in action, this community cohesiveness was true for the most 140 part. At t imes there was some disagreement over how the f ishery would be conducted. However, in regards to deal ing with the public, the unif ied front remains intact. Wh i le the Aboriginal right to f ish remains a constant for both Cheam and St6:l6 Nat ion, the decis ions regarding the practice of that right, more regularly than not, differ f rom those of the larger St6:l6 Nation f ishery committee. Cheam's aggressive approach to exercising their Aboriginal right to f ish comes after decades of al lowing f isheries authori t ies to dictate when and how they would f ish. As noted earlier, beginning in 1986, Cheam f ishers decided to protest f isheries attempts to close the river to conserve threatened sockeye runs. Fol lowing the Sparrow rul ing in 1990, came the implementat ion of a new Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, al lowing for the sale of in-river caught sa lmon for the first t ime in over 100 years (a right the Cheam and St6:l6 maintain was never rel inquished). Beginning in 1992, "sales agreements" establ ishing f isheries al lotments were negotiated. Sam Douglas, who had led the protests in 1986 and 1993, was one of the principle individuals negotiat ing the early agreements and establ ishing the newly created Aboriginal management authority. However after four years of f ishing under the sales agreements, Cheam f ishers decided that the terms became so restrictive that f ishers were limited to a few days of f ishing per year, because of the increasing limits on their f ishery. Their response was to pull out of the agreement process. From the t ime that Cheam pul led out, St6:l6 Nat ion and the DFO were unable to reach an agreement in all but one of the years f rom 1998 to 2002 in part because of DFO's insistence that Cheam sign. As explained to me by one DFO official, "if Cheam does not s ign, there will be no [sale] a g r e e m e n t . W e ' v e proceeded in the past without Cheam's signature, but not any more." Consequent ly, the decisions on the 141 part of DFO and Cheam prevented the legal sale of salmon by Sto: 16 f ishers. W h e n interviewed, Corkey Douglas made mention of the fact that Cheam's refusal to sign the sale agreements did indeed prevent a 'sales' f ishery f rom taking place. Cheam's posit ion in regards to how the salmon f ishery should be conducted is set out in the Reasons of Judgement as part provincial court case R. v. Arthur Aleck, et al (/2000] BCPC 0177). The case of R. v. Aleck involved the arrest of seventeen members of the Cheam band for f ishing within their tradit ional terri tory on the Fraser dur ing a t ime w h e n that f ishery had been closed by DFO. Coming several years after the priorit ies establ ished under Sparrow and the new AFS, the case clearly reflects Cheam's disdain over the post-Sparrow management of the salmon f ishery. Cheam f ishers were cont inuing to f ish in accordance with their own management scheme. Noted in the court documents is the fact that the Cheam band had not agreed to a f ishing plan since 1996 and that the Cheam Band disagreed with DFO's definit ion of conservat ion - one based on stock rebui lding as required under the Pacif ic Salmon Commission, and one that Cheam contends was developed solely to secure future industrial f ishing opportunit ies at the expense of the Aboriginal f ishery. This notion is held f irmly by the Cheam community and by one band member in particular. Isaac Aleck quite proudly relayed to me one afternoon that as a part of his defense regarding f ishing charges laid against him he was able to get the Fisheries official to admit, as a part of his test imony, that the government did indeed manage the f ishery 'to the industrial sector. ' Isaac Aleck did not tell me the name of the individual f rom whom he 142 extracted that statement. 5 As was spel led out in this case, Cheam did not accept the l icensing procedure part icularly as regards the dry rack f ishery. Cheam f ishers with access to canyon f ishing sites informed me that they did not feel they needed a l icense to f ish the early Stuarts for their dry racks. Their family connect ions to the dry rack sites were all that was necessary for them to 'fish the canyon. ' In response to comments found in court documents on how Cheam should conduct their f ishery, Cheam f ishers vo iced a reluctance to adopt alternative selective f ishing methods such as beach seines and f ish traps (one or two being al lowed per Band). Under this plan, the number of f ishers wou ld be limited. This was of serious concern to some Cheam f ishers with whom I spoke. Isaac Aleck spoke of his concern regarding the concentrat ion of the f ishery into the hands of only one or two famil ies should DFO's selective, alternative methods be adopted. His comments did not arise from concerns regarding any part icular family, but rather they ref lected a concern over any family's potential loss of access to the fishery. Addit ional ly, Cheam f ishers stressed the point that the methods suggested by DFO were not tradit ional f ishing methods of the Cheam and they were concerned about their abil ity to catch f ish and the potential dangers such methods may br ing to them ( R. v. Aleck, 2000:5) . Discussion Cheam fishers, will tell you they are fol lowing tradit ion when exercising their Abor iginal right to f ish. Whi le tradit ion may appear no deeper than, "we f ish as we did 4 5 l s a a c Aleck was acting as his own counsel in that case. Isaac Aleck told me he did quite often act as his own counsel because he did not feel the lawyers pressed strongly enough to get such statements f rom DFO officials. 143 in the past," as reflected in Robert Douglas's quote "my grandfather f ished there, my father f ished there and now me and my son f ish there," for the Cheam fishers, tradit ion has become a means of justi fying the present through remember ing the past. As Mauze notes, cultural facts (or practices) reif ied in ethnographic monographs not only refer to the past; they also become the foundat ion for present as wel l as future identit ies (1997:9). Cheam's on-going and high profi le battle with the government regarding the Abor iginal right to f ish rel ied on a past that, at t imes, included actual warfare; a past that establ ished their identity as "Warr iors on the Water." But as Sider notes, these cultural facts or practices (and the subsequent identit ies that emerge) cannot be v iewed in isolation of history or struggles with outside forces; often forming the basis of internal antagonisms when set in opposit ion to continuity (1993, 2003) . Wi th regard to Cheam, f ishing as a tradit ional practice has been f i l tered through over 100 years of regulat ion and recent court rul ings that have upheld the constitut ionali ty of Abor iginal rights as wel l as establ ishing a priority of those rights over others, albeit wi thin strict limits. This 'f i l tering' has resulted in a complex interconnect ion of past and present in addit ion to fuel ing equal ly complex internal antagonisms. Cheam f ishers will say that not only do they have an Aboriginal right to f ish because their ancestors have f ished the Fraser long before the coming of non-Nat ives to the region, but also because the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Consti tut ion 'says' that Aboriginal right exists. They will also say that their protection of that right must be vigilantly guarded, some saying, at all costs. This notion of interconnectedness of past and present is examined by Sider in his discussion of the complex connect ions and opposit ions between tradit ion and 144 continuity; part icularly as regards internal antagonisms. Notes Sider, it is necessary to look closely at the forms of social relations, part icularly among dominated peoples, to which the word "tradit ion" refers; relations he maintains that often turn out to express claims for autonomy or partial autonomy in the midst of poverty and power lessness much more than they express continuity with a real or imagined past (1993:11). Cheam's posit ion rests not only on the fact that Cheam f ishers have been f ishing Fraser stocks over mil lennia, but also on the Thursday through Sunday food f ishing schedules al located by DFO in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, as wel l as on legislative and court act ions occurr ing in the last 22 years; 1982 Consti tut ion Act and the 1990 Sparrow decis ion. This approach taken by Cheam reflects the dynamism of tradit ion as wel l as the antagonisms between past and present, that are, as notes Sider, often tak ing shape not in dramatic polit ical struggles and incipient confrontat ions, but ordinary moments of daily life such as f ishing Thursday through Sunday as was the case for much of the post regulat ion era. It was the repeated disrupt ion of this Thursday through Sunday schedule that, in 1986, prompted what could be considered the most violent moments on the river. For Cheam the Abor iginal right to f ish is manifest not only in the exercise of f ishing, but in determining when that exercise may take place set within a f ramework of this 'f i l tered tradit ion. ' It also means posit ioning their manner of managing the f ishery above DFO's management plan. For decades Cheam (St6:l6) f ishers were held to Fisheries and Oceans conservat ion regulat ions designed to rebui ld stocks for the industrial f ishery, adher ing to closures such as the c losure of the IFF for nearly the entire month of July in 1967. However in1986, Cheam f ishers decided "not to put up 145 with it anymore, the way they determine conservat ion." As Corky Douglas descr ibed to me, "Regarding stocks bound for the upper tr ibutaries of the Fraser River, if any f ishery is al lowed ahead of us - industrial, sport or other First Nation - then it shows us there is no conservat ion concern." In effect, Cheam has attempted to manage the resource, relying on a definit ion of conservat ion consistent with practices of the past rather than one designed to serve the industrial f ishing sector. Members of the community with whom I spoke indicated that through their hard fought batt les they bel ieved they had gained some measure of autonomy on the river. The safety protocol has brought peace to the reserve, however at the cost of increases in the number of charges laid. In the years since 1996, Cheam has refused to sign sales agreements negot iated between DFO and St6:l6 Na t ion . 4 6 A sale agreement was reached in 2001 without Cheam's part icipation. I was told by Chief Quipp in January of 2003 that Cheam had not taken a f irm stand of automatical ly refusing to sign the agreements. In what would appear to be breaking f rom their posit ion of al lowing Fisheries and Oceans any say in when they may f ish, Cheam has negot iated it own agreement with Fisheries and Oceans regarding f ishing dates and t imes. Whi le not providing the for the legal sale of salmon, the agreement did offer some protect ion f rom prosecut ion and the claims of i l legal f ishing leveled by f ishers in both the industrial and sports sectors. Cheam's agreement has also rendered al lowable establ ished f ishing practices, such as drift ing, that had been out lawed over a century ago. As was spel led out in the 4 6 Accord ing to June Quipp, St6:l6 f ishers, including Cheam fishers, were al lowed only 16 f ishing days in the 1992 sockeye season f ishing under the first sale agreement. 146 agreement Cheam negotiated this past summer, drift ing is a l lowed in the establ ished f ishing areas of the Cheam. Again, the agreement offers protect ion f rom sports f ishers who protested this summer, accusing Cheam f ishers of uti l izing out lawed technologies. The ' legal ' abil ity to drift in the waters off the Cheam reserve has been a particularly volati le issue as high concentrat ions of sports f ishing sites are located in the area surrounding Cheam Beach. Some Cheam f ishers have taken issue with the agreement, quest ioning the ability of the plan to provide adequate f ishing opportunit ies due to the high concentrat ion of sports f ishers a long the river bars off Cheam Beach. I was sitt ing a long the beach at Cheam when Chief Sid Douglas gave Isaac Aleck his copy of the new agreement which had just been s igned. After examining the document, Isaac Aleck expressed his concern over the limited f ishing opportunit ies that would result f rom the fol lowing this plan. Isaac Aleck remarked to Lester Ned's son who had just wa lked up to chat, "Hey, tell your uncle (Chief Sid Douglas) these t imes aren't going to work unless the sport ies are moved out of the area." Addit ional ly, this agreement may have further distanced the Cheam community f rom the remaining St6:l6 communit ies. Cheam's agreement provided for f ishing days and t imes not open to other St6:l6 b a n d s . 4 7 Cheam's often cal led ' renegade' activity is a double edged sword: advancing the right of all St6:l6 f ishers whi le simultaneously limiting opportunit ies for the legal sale of in river caught sa lmon by those same St6:l6 f ishers. This was evident in 1998 when "However , members of the remaining St6:l6 communit ies who have family t ies with the Cheam community have f ished under Cheam's new agreement. Lester Ned's son, Henry Ned is a regular face at Cheam Beach, his mother being a member of the Douglas family. 147 after only 48 hours the river was closed to Native f ishing but not to sports f ishing. Fishers f rom Cheam f ished to provide food for elders. However Cheam's act ions were seen as protest f ishery by many, including the canyon wind dry f ishers who were call ing for the arrest of those f ishing during the closure. Compounding the problem was the fact that the so-cal led illegal f ishery forced greater concerns over the run. The same f ishers who have rall ied to demonstrate support for Cheam f ishers in t imes of confrontat ion have at other t imes railed against the actions taken by Cheam f ishers that resulted in confrontat ion. Cheam f ishers have readily accepted the label of 'warriors on the water ' and the corresponding role as protectors of a way-of- l i fe for all St6:l6 people. Band member Isaac Aleck spoke with me at length of the importance of assert ing the Abor iginal right to f ish, regardless of any hardship. For his part, Isaac Aleck has found himself in court defending his Aboriginal right to f ish, wi th the assistance of legal counsel and at t imes, without. In essence Cheam f ishers have relied on their tradit ion of f ishing as means of dif ferentiat ion, a means of resistance to outside forces of oppression as descr ibed by Sider in his discussion of the Lumbee Indians and their struggle for identity, or as Mauze notes, "tradit ion has become a metaphor for identity" (1997). Because the battle l ines have been drawn around their Aboriginal right to f ish, or more particularly, the infr ingement of that right by colonial and state governments, acts of direct act ion on the part of Cheam work to further establ ish their identity as f isher people. Cheam f ishers seek to distance themselves from the industrial f ishery that has contr ibuted to the infr ingement of their Aboriginal right to f ish, whi le at the same t ime part icipating in it, on their terms. It is for this reason that Cheam f ishers discont inued their part icipation in 148 the sale component of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, a right for wh ich many generat ions of Cheam f ishers fought tirelessly. As I sat along the beach at Cheam over the summers of 2002 and 2003, I l istened as f ishers exchanged comments over the latest 'tricks' pul led by DFO or incidents of near confrontat ion with the sport ies who line the bars surrounding Cheam's stretch of the river. However, for the most part the conversat ions centered on who was f ishing where, what they were catching, how many they were catching, what length of net is best or more importantly, who 's up next in l ine to drift. T h e latter comment general ly being fol lowed by "Are you going after him?" In short what I observed was what has come to consti tute a tradit ion of f ishing. Cheam f ishers will tell you St6:l6 f ishers are the original commercial f ishers. In the battle for the f ish between DFO and Cheam, both sides claim autonomy over the river, whi le neither side has autonomy over the river. Cheam leaders say their decision to cont inue f ishing and sell ing f ish in def iance of DFO regulat ions is not specif ically an act of resistance or rebel l ion; it is simply l ived life and their connect ion to the past. In the next chapter, I examine the Seabird Island band's very different response to f isheries regulat ion. Whi le on the surface Seabird Island's response appears to be in direct opposit ion of that of the Cheam band, community leaders, as wel l as other St6: l6 leaders, maintain that the steps they took in work ing out a Just ice Protocol agreement with Fisheries and Oceans is as much an aff irmation of the Aboriginal right to f ish as Cheam's acts of p ro tes t . An agreement of another sort, negot iated between Fisheries officials and the Seabird Island Band seeks to lessen the burden of regulat ion on community f ishers. And as with the Cheam band, Seabird Island leaders consider 149 their specif ic response to f isheries regulat ion to be rooted in tradit ion. In chapter 5 I discuss the components of this unique agreement as well as address a number of quest ions in connect ion with the approach taken by the Seabird Island community. Addit ional ly, I explore the possible connect ions between Seabird Island's particular response to regulat ion and their unique history as wel l as the wind dry f ishery so closely associated with them. 150 Chapter Five: Would It Have Been Easier to Go to Court? We needed an avenue to take care of our own people. So we sat down with Sgt. Emil Spitkoski, Chuck and Tyrone McNeil and DFO to try to prove to the rest of the world that we can sit at the same table, work towards the same goals, and have the same vision. This is giant step for our people. Clem Seymour, Councillor, Seabird Island (Sqwelqwels Ye St6:ld, November 2002). On October 16, 2002 representat ives from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Justice Canada, Federal Prosecut ion Service (FPS) and the Seabird Island First Nation met to sign a Protocol for a Communi ty Based Initiative for Fisheries Offenses. The occasion was marked by a chorus of drummers and singers as wel l as over 100 members of the community and dignitaries. Comment ing on the agreement, Band Counci l lor and member of the agreement negot iat ing team, Clem Seymour remarked that "It used to be that only certain people were held accountable. Wi th this agreement, all people will be held accountable in terms of looking after the resource, I felt that was important. This is the foundat ion of a new relat ionship" (2002, Justice Canada, Vol 3 No. 1). Clem Seymour also explained that "Fish is a resource. The signing of this protocol was in hopes of preserving this resource for our grandchi ldren. There is no one group that can save the salmon alone, we have to work together" (Sqwelqwels Ye St6:l6, November 2002). Comment ing further on the agreement, Joe Aleck, an elder and facil i tator for Qwi.qwelstom, referred to the agreement as "win-win situation." Noted Joe Aleck, "In the normal court system, one case could cost as much as $13,500 to bring to terms. Whi le on the other hand, referr ing the case to Qwi:qwelstom could only cost $1500" (Sqwelqwels Ye St6:l6, November 2002) . Quot ing Chief Mark Point of Skowkale, "all of us are stakeholders in salmon. The salmon are in peril. If there are no salmon, what good is an Aboriginal 151 r ight?" (Sqwelqwels Ye St6:ld, November 2002). The Seabird Island agreement fol lows that of the Esketemc First Nation in British Columbia in 2 0 0 1 . After hearing of the Esketemc First Nations agreement, members of the Seabird Island band counci l began meeting with DFO the RCMP and, eventually, the Department of Justice to design an agreement that would serve their community. As part of a discussion he and I had regarding the protocol agreement, Tyrone McNei l of Seabird Island explained to me that, initially, the agreement was to be a way of deal ing with the communit ies ' relatively few numbers of in f ract ions. 4 8 Wh i le lauded by some as "a milestone in the long road of restoring First Nation communi ty-based just ice in Canada," important quest ions arise regarding the agreement - some regarding the practicali ty of the agreement and others regarding its effects on Abor iginal f ishing rights. Addit ional ly, I quest ion to what extent have the unique history of the Seabird Island community and the unique characterist ics of the wind dry f ishery - a f ishery steeped in tradit ion and at the center of conservat ion concerns each summer -contr ibuted to the development of Seabird Island's Justice Protocol agreement. Of part icular interest is Seabird's emphasis on conservat ion and recognit ion of the importance of a col lective approach to the f ishery as spel led out in the agreement. Before addressing this quest ions, I begin with a brief demographic overv iew of the Seabird Island community as well as a brief history of the reserve. 4 8 Notes Clem Seymour regarding the number of Seabird Island infractions are signif icantly lower than the neighboring Aboriginal community of Cheam. Clem Seymour reported that in most years there were usually no more than f ive community members charged. Most years, no charges. Compare that with the hundreds of cases from the 2000 and 2001 f ishing season still pending in the Cheam community, a community a half of the size of Seabird Island. 152 Community overview Seabird Island is the largest of the St6:l6 reserves in hectarage and is located in the Fraser River about seventy miles east of Vancouver. The island is cut off f rom the mainland by Mar ia Slough. Seabird Island consists of one reserve, compris ing 2,140 hectares of which approximately 730 hectares are cult ivated. The remainder of Table 7. Seabird Island Reserve Name Location Hectares SEABIRD ISLAND YALE DIST IN TPS 3&4, R28, W.6M ON SEABIRD ISLAND IN FRASER RIVER, 2 MILES EAST OF AGASSIZ 2,140.8 Source: Stats Canada First Nation Profile the land base is used for residences, community buildings, r ights-of-ways and economic development. The reserve has its own fire hall and fire equipment. Addit ional services provided on the reserve include a postal service and numerous health and social service agencies. Many of the social programs are administered directly by the Seabird Island band. T h e populat ion is sufficient enough to provide for an elementary school located on the reserve. The most recent census data report a total populat ion of 749 - 503 on reserve, another 228 residing off rese rve 4 9 (Stats Canada, Registered Populat ion, Oct. 2004). Employment opportunit ies on the reserve are somewhat less limited than with the Cheam community. The majority of those working on the reserve are employed by the administrat ion office and various agencies and businesses providing services to community members. Other economic activit ies include Seabird Island Cafe, Seabird Island Farms, a gas bar, a truck stop and a gift store. Farming, f ishing, hunt ing and 'Of this 228 residing off reserve, 18 reside on another reserve. 153 var ious forms of hourly wage labor are rel ied upon as a way of making ends meet. Again, as wi th most Sto: 16 communit ies, including Cheam, f ishing is an essent ial component in individual household economies. T h e C r e a t i o n o f a C o m m u n i t y The Seabird Island community has a unique history. The name Seabird comes f rom the Amer ican steamer which ran aground on this island in 1858. The reserve land was establ ished in 1879, however, the land was held in common by the six upriver bands until Seabird Island Indian Band was created in 1958. The reserve community includes individuals relocated from surrounding St6:l6 and N' laka'pamux communit ies a long the Fraser River in an attempt to promote agricultural pursuits among the Native peoples. Initially the residents of Seabird Island did not take easi ly to the role of farmer (Leacock 1949:192). Eleanor Leacock notes that w h e n she visi ted the is land in 1945, 66 years after famil ies were relocated to the area, there appeared to be only one farm on the island, two other farms having fal len into disrepair. The majority of the Indians gardening haphazardly, relying principally on wage labor as loggers, rai lway workers and seasonal hop and berry pickers much the same as most in the valley. Regardless of Leacock's observat ions in the mid 1940s, the Seabird Island reserve has more acreage devoted to agriculture than any of the other St6:l6 reserves with approximately thirty-four percent of the reserve land given to agricultural practices. As with other St6:l6 communit ies, f ishing always been important to their way of life. The importance of salmon f ishing was reaff irmed by the members of the Seabird Island community with whom I spoke. Many of the present day Fraser canyon wind-dry f ishing spots are owned by members of the Seabird Island community. In recent years 154 the wind-dry f ishery has come to be considered a hal lmark of tradit ional St6:l6 life and the dry-rack famil ies the keepers of that tradit ion. The wind dry f ishery will be d iscussed in more detail in subsequent sections of this chapter in an effort to explore the link between that 'supra-tradit ional f ishery' and the decision on the part of the Seabird community to enter into the Justice agreement. Funded under the Abor iginal Justice Strategy, a federal initiative of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General , Seabird Island's unique Protocol agreement represents col laborat ion with the federal government in response to the government 's regulat ion of the f ishery. Through this col laborat ive effort all part ies to the agreement worked to achieve the goals each party deemed essential to a successful process. In summary, the Protocol provides for diversion both before and after charges are laid. Addit ional ly, d iversion under the Protocol is consensual . If the accused, the community, DFO or the Crown (after charges have been laid) do not consent, the matter remains in the court system. If the accused does not agree to the disposit ion reached through the circle, the matter is referred back to the Crown. As a part of the agreement, Seabird Island negotiators insisted that the diversion be al lowed to take up to one year, gaining some concession from the government on that point. Seabird Island negotiators also st ipulated that the preamble to the Protocol contain a reference to the importance of a "collective process" with regard to the conservat ion o f f i s h , and the place of "trust, respect and honesty" as the foundat ion of heal ing and wel lness of its cit izens. But can this col laborat ion designed to bring resolut ion funct ion within a f ramework of regulat ion, that, for some in the community (as wel l as for St6:l6 f ishers outside the community) has no resolut ion when set within the context of the Aboriginal 155 right to f ish? Before addressing this quest ion, I descr ibe the program designated to handle individual cases electing to proceed under the protocol agreement: Qwi:qwelst6m. As a part of that discussion I will also address the compatibi l i ty of the protocol agreement with the exist ing Qwi:qwelst6m structure. I begin, first, wi th a look at Qwi:qwelst6m. J u s t i c e as Hea l ing Comment ing on the appropr iateness of Qwi:qwelst6m as a part of the Seabird diversion opt ion, Grand Chief Clarence (Kat) Pennier remarked: If you use Qwi:qwelst6m, you talk about the incident and look at the circumstances behind why it happened and how it impacted on the individual and the family as wel l as the [impact] on DFO on one side and the person who created the problem on the other side - and come to some kind of resolut ion. It br ings into play the individual and his family and the extended family too. (Justice Canada, Vol . 3 No 1, 2002) Qwi.qwelstdm is the Halq 'emeylem word that best descr ibes "justice" according to Sto: Id worldview. It reflects a "way of life" that focuses on relat ionships and the interconnectedness of all l iving life. The Qwi:qwelst6m program was init iated in 2000 as a confl ict resolut ion program rooted in tradit ional Sto: 16 just ice. It is descr ibed as being based upon tradit ional St6:l6 forms of dispute sett lement whereby affected family and community members are cal led together to discuss what has happened and to reach an agreement on how to best repair the harm and restore balance and harmony to the disrupted relat ionship. The program offers an alternative to the mainstream criminal and family court systems. Individuals who qualify can have their cases diverted f rom the mainstream court system to the Qwi:qwelst6m system. Cases come to Qwhqwelstom f rom potential ly four sources: self referral, community referral, RCMP referral or Crown Counsel referral. Referrals are made to a 156 St6:l6 Nation just ice worker who determines how the case is to proceed through the system. Cases that are either more complex, or in need of moderat ion only, are referred directly to the Elders council and may or may not proceed through the remainder of the system. Once confirmation has been received that all part ies have consented to the process, a facil i tator is assigned. The next step involves convening a "circle" that can include the "offender" and supporters, victims and supporters, community members and leaders, Elders and community resources workers. The circle meets to determine a plan of act ion or resolut ion. The resolut ion is monitored by a community member monitor and a St6:l6 Nation just ice worker. It can happen that more than one circle meeting is necessary to obtain resolut ion, as was the case with the Seabird Island band member who elected to part icipate in the new protocol system. As spel led out in the protocol agreement, the Seabird Island First Nation with Qwi:qwelst6m, DFO and FPS are to part icipate jointly in the development and implementat ion of this alternative, communi ty-based enforcement. Identif ied and def ined in the agreement were a number of terms such as "defendent" - the person who is al leged to have commit ted an offense and "offense" - meaning an offense under the Fisheries Act and any related legislation. These two terms proved problematic in the processing of the first and only case under the protocol agreement . 5 0 As noted in the protocol document, any cit izen of the Seabird Island First Nation is el igible for diversion, however, the cit izen or defendant must accept responsibi l i ty for the act or 5 0 T o date only one case has been processed through the joint Protocol/Qwi:qwelst6m system. According to Clem Seymour, a few others with charges pending were consider ing the diversion process, however charges were never officially laid against any of those individuals. 157 omission that forms the basis of the offense and be wil l ing to discuss the matter with Qwi:qwelst6m, making every effort to reach an agreement with Qwi:qwelst6m. A n d as spel led out in the agreement, provisions are made for pre-charge and post-charge opportunit ies for diversion to the Qwi:qwelst6m system. So, how does the diversion to the Qwi:qwelst6m system work? Once the defendant has consented to the diversion process, Qwi:qwelst6m is contacted to organize a tradit ional circle. As spel led out in the language of the protocol document, Qwi:qwelst6m is to conduct sessions at a location that is suitable to all part ies, as soon as possible and in a way that integrates Seabird Island First Nation oral tradit ional knowledge in respect of the protect ion o f f i s h and wildl i fe and dispute resolut ion. The officer or another representat ive of DFO is given the opportunity to relate information about the impact of the offense on the f isheries, the habitate and the community to Qwi:qwelst6m either orally or in wri t ing. Again drawing directly f rom the language of the agreement, at the end of the tradit ional circle, an agreement is drafted outl ining the disposit ion reached between Qwi:qwelst6m and the defendant. The disposit ion of the case is to be monitored by the St6:l6 Nation just ice worker or community member and is to be completed within a year. Qwi:qwelst6m is responsible for keeping records of each case so as to monitor and evaluate the diversion program. In an effort to draw conclusions as to the 'fit' of the protocol agreement in the Qwi:qwelst6m f ramework as wel l as the practicality of uti l izing a diversion program to adjudicate f isheries offenses, I wil l relate the particular c i rcumstances of the first and only f isheries case submitted to Qwi:qwelst6m for resolut ion. My information regarding this case comes f rom my many conversat ions with Clem Seymour and f rom my 158 conversat ion with the individual electing to part icipate in the newly created diversion program. Mr. R's Day in 'Court' In December of 2003 ,1 visited with Mr. R in his home on the Seabird Island reserve. At that t ime Mr. R was making money by cutt ing Evergreen tress to be sold as Christmas trees. Reluctantly, I had to turn down his offer to sell me a tree as I would be crossing the border on my trip home. In the course of the interview, Mr. R ta lked of his f ishing exper iences and that this was not the first t ime he had been charged with sell ing f ish. His story regarding past f ishing offense charges mirrored those related in earl ier chapters; Fisheries' off icers searching his truck for f ish, conf iscat ing f ish and nets. He also ta lked of how he had part icipated in the Pilot Sale f isheries in the years that Seabird Island had s igned agreements and he pointed out the items in his home he was able to procure with the funds he received in those f isher ies. 5 1 Finally Mr. R relayed the story of how he came to participate in the new diversion program. In 2002 a member of the Seabird Island community - Mr. R - was charged with i l legally sel l ing f ish caught under a food f ish l icense. Mr. R had been laid off f rom his job and was receiving government assistance checks. One month, he received a smaller check due to the fact that wages earned in the previous month had been subtracted f rom what he was to receive. Needing those 'lost funds ' to make ends meet, he decided to sell f i f teen f ish he had caught under a food f ish l icense. He was charged with violat ing the Fisheries Act for the sale of those f ish. In deal ing with this specif ic s l S i n c e 1997 the Seabird Island band has refused to sign sales agreements and the present band leadership remains f irm in its refusal to sign sales agreements in that they look upon the agreements as an infr ingement of the Aboriginal right to f ish. 159 charge, Mr. R elected to util ize the new opt ion made avai lable under the newly s igned protocol agreement and divert his case to Qwhqwelstdm rather than going to court. Accord ing to Mr. R it took nine 'circles' to f inally settle his case. Th ings got off to a rocky start when the f isheries officer showed up at the first circle meet ing in uniform, complete with his side arm. According to Clem Seymour, heated arguments ensued and the meeting ended when the principals involved walked out. Mr. R was eventual ly able to tell his side of the story, with his check stub in hand. Throughout the numerous circle meetings that took place, the number of individuals involved in the circles ranged f rom nine to twelve, including folks f rom other Sto: 16 bands. During the fourth circle, folks showed up to tell Mr. R "he was in the wrong - what he had done was wrong." Throughout the numerous gather ings, folks, including elders, showed up to chal lenge the appropr iateness of what was considered by them as "in essence" admitt ing guilt to an offense they deemed an Aboriginal right. Mr. R noted that the elders were on his side all the way through. Throughout the entire process, the debate over the Aboriginal right to f ish and the authority of DFO to limit that right cont inued. As Mr. R explained to me, "There really wasn' t anything I could do, but sit quietly and listen as it was inappropriate to interrupt the person holding the feather." Resolut ion was finally reached, and as a part of the resolut ion agreement Mr. R. was required to provide thirty f ish to community elders. He was also required to talk with school chi ldren about what f ishing means to Sto: 16 people. W h e n I asked Mr. R how this process compared to what he could have expected had he "gone to court," he told me, "This process dragged on for eight or nine months. My court date was set for four months after I was charged. The f ine wou ld have 160 probably been around one hundred dollars and I could have paid that over t ime. W h e n I look back on it, it might have been easier to just go to court." However, Mr. R did tell me that he felt good about the outcome of the circles. A n d he especial ly felt good about giv ing f ish to the community and speaking with the school chi ldren. He considered both requirements to be important contr ibut ions on his part to his community. Alternative Justice and the Aboriginal Right to Fish: A Good Fit? T h e Seabird Island agreement is not the first attempt by St6: l6 peoples to handle so-cal led f isheries offenses outside the courts. According to Ernie Crey, former Executive Director of the Lower Fraser Aboriginal Fishery Commission, just such an attempt was made in the early years of the pilot sale program. Ernie Crey notes that a member of the Sumas band was charged by St6:l6 enforcement off icers, the specif ic charge being, "f ishing not in keeping with the terms of the Pilot Sale agreement" s igned by the Sumas Band. A chief 's signature on the sale agreement binds all members to the terms of the agreement for the year in quest ion. The St6:l6 enforcement officer approached the Sumas chief, then Lester Ned, as to how to handle the situation. DFO accepted the Band's proposal that the 'offending band member, DFO and the St6:l6 enforcement officer appear before the Sumas band counci l . The band counci l determined that the individual was to have his l icense suspended, a penalty similar to those ordered by the courts in past f isheries cases. The Seabird Island Protocol is not the first attempt to bypass the court system, but it is the first attempt at a formal agreement with the government agencies regulat ing the f ishery as wel l as the first attempt at instituting a formal just ice protocol to deal with 161 f isheries violat ions based on tradit ional practices. In the case of the Sumas band member, the offense commit ted was termed a violat ion of the terms of a specif ic agreement s igned by his band rather than a violation of f isheries regulat ion in general , whereas in the Seabird case, Mr. R was charged with a violat ion the Fisheries Act. In the case of the Sumas offense, no discussion took place as to whether or not the decis ion to turn the matter over to the band for remedy was a n infr ingement o n that individual 's Abor iginal right to f ish. Wh i le some in the Seabird community v iewed Mr. R's decis ion to use the Qwi:qwelst6m program rather than going to court as an aff irmation of Aboriginal rights, "a way of showing we can take of things ourselves" others remained steadfast in their belief that part icipation in the newly implemented just ice program was an admission of guilt for breaking the white man's law; a law not recognized in the context of the Aboriginal right to f ish. In an early interview with Grand Chief Clarence Pennier in the summer of 2002, at that t ime in his posit ion as Executive Director of the Abor ig inal Rights and Tit le portfol io for Sto: 16 Nation, I must admit that the first quest ion I posed to Grand Chief Pennier regarding the Seabird Island agreement dealt with limits on Aboriginal f ishing rights. Specif ically, I asked Grand Chief Pennier, "Isn't s igning an agreement designed to deal wi th f isher ies of fenses an acceptance of DFO's right to limit that r ight?" Accord ing to Grand Chief Pennier, it was more an acknowledgment than an acceptance. I would pose this same quest ion to Clem Seymour on more than one occasion as we talked over the next weeks leading up to the signing of the agreement in the fal l of 2002. It is on the issue of Abor iginal r ights and tit le that some members of the Seabird Island as well as other Sto: 16 bands quest ion the appropr iateness of such 162 an agreement. Wh i le the community was somewhat divided on the agreement, Clem Seymour noted that concerns over the agreement in regard to Abor ig inal f ish ing rights came f rom outside the Seabird community for the most part. Given that there is no mandate to part icipate in the diversion option made possible by the protocol agreement, the decis ion to sign and implement the agreement did not have to be put before the community for a vote. Individuals choose for themselves whether or not they wish to participate. Individuals may elect to have their cases heard in the courts. The courts have been the batt leground over which gains have been made in regards to Aboriginal rights, and f ishing rights in particular. Those choosing to affirm their rights through the courts are indeed left wi th that opt ion. Not surprisingly some members of the Cheam community with whom I spoke do consider part icipation in the protocol agreement as an infr ingement on the Aboriginal right to f ish - an acceptance of regulat ions that were implemented without consultat ion and without benefi t to Abor iginal peoples. Some members of the Cheam community went so far as to state that regardless of the hardship - f inancial or otherwise - one did not rel inquish the fight for the Aboriginal right to f ish. The comments I received from other St6:l6 f ishers ranged f rom, "I don't know anything about the agreement" to "I think it's a good thing" to "they can do whatever they want, they don't come to the f ishing meetings anyway." St6:l6 leader, Soowahl ie Chief Doug Kelly commented to me that he bel ieved the agreement was "a good thing." Addit ional ly, D F O and RCMP officers wi th w h o m I spoke, also praised the agreement. Beyond the quest ion of appropr iateness in regards to Abor iginal rights, quest ions arose as to whether or not the Qwi:qwelst6m program was designed to 163 accommodate cases regarding f ishing violations. I spoke with Mr. R's just ice case worker over lunch one afternoon and she talked of some of the problems encountered in this f irst at tempt to merge the two programs. Most of the problems stemming, of course, f rom the fact that this was a new situation with which no one had any previous experience. General ly the cases that are diverted to Qwi:qwelst6m require that the "offender" admit his or her guilt and then set about restoring harmony and balance with the aid of those part icipating in his or her circle. Wh i le harmony, balance, resolut ion and heal ing are, all, indeed the goals contained in the language of the Seabird Island Protocol agreement, that harmony, balance, resolut ion and heal ing must come without any admission of guilt on the part of the offender, at least that is how it is supposed to work as it was repeatedly explained to me. However for some in the cold, stark light of day it remains punishment for a crime. The phi losophy of Qwi:qwelst6m is to bring resolut ion such as to prevent the of fense f rom occurr ing again. Given the situation today in regard to the f ishery - limits on f ishing, f requent closures and the inability to part icipate in legal sales f isheries in that Seabird Island refuses to sign the agreements, how can there be a resolut ion? W h a t was reiterated to me was the importance of the agreement in heal ing old wounds and establ ishing a partnership with the federal government - a way for the Seabird Island community to look after itself within the context of a tradit ionally recognized importance of the col lective process with respect to the conservat ion of f ish. This part icular not ion of conservat ion bound in tradit ion is specif ically expressed in the Justice protocol agreement. Embedded in that tradit ion is also the not ion of harmony and resolut ion and the rel iance on community based just ice to achieve that harmony 164 and resolut ion. Before discussing the agreement within a theoretical context, a trip to a Fraser Canyon dry rack camp provides the context necessary to explore the role of tradit ion in the development and implementat ion of the Seabird Island Protocol. L i fe L i v e d a s T r a d i t i o n The sockeye f ishery that takes place in the canyon each summer is a swirl ing contradict ion, much the same as the summer waters in the canyon. Each summer a number of separate f isheries take place all within the conf ines of the narrow canyon walls. W i n d dryers compete with food f ishers as wel l as those f ishers identif ied in the var ious St6:l6 communit ies as commercial f ishers (these f ishers will be discussed in fol lowing chapter) . Cont inued government interference in the canyon f ishery has placed these f isheries in opposit ion to each other. At present the St6:l6 wind dry f ishery is made up of f i f teen famil ies who travel to their canyon f ishing camps along the Fraser River just above Yale, BC every summer . 5 2 The f ish that are caught in the camps are processed on site by cutt ing them into fi lets and hanging them on racks to dry in the canyon winds. Quite often there will be more than one family "on" a single rack. W h e n I asked Clem Seymour about how many Seabird Island famil ies had wind dry camps, he l isted seven famil ies f rom the Seabird Island community out of f i f teen wind dry camps. In her thesis entit led, "Regulat ing Tradit ion: Sto: 16 W i n d Drying and Aboriginal Rights," Carol ine Butler discusses how "today, w ind dried salmon is valued as 5 2 The number of avai lable wind drying l icenses has been capped at the 15 establ ished famil ies who own/occupy the existing sites. The limit on the availabil i ty of a site and/or a l icense contr ibutes increased 'cultural ' s ignif icance of the wind or dry rack f ishery. 165 something more than food; it is constructed as a link to the past and to the river and as such, is considered an important cultural activity" (1998:1). Notes Butler, St6:l6 wind dryers now label dried salmon as tradit ional food (1988:2). Contr ibut ing directly to the increase in cultural signif icance of the wind dry f ishery has been the ever increasing government regulat ion that has limited access to the salmon resource. In her investigation of the wind dry f ishery, Butler spoke to a number of the wind drying famil ies. One wind dry f isher with whom she spoke summed up the att i tude of many, but certainly not al l , of the wind drying famil ies regarding the f ish taken for sale: ...with commercial f ishing and drying, the one that is older, the one that is more culturally intact should be priorit ized. (Butler 1998:13) Compl icat ing the discussion is the fact that several of the wind dryers are also involved in the St6:l6 commercial f ishery as wel l as the fact that some famil ies with dry rack spots have used their spots to f ish 'commercial ly ' taking their catch home un-processed or slightly processed, purportedly for sa le . 5 3 But I'll come back to that discussion. It is " T h a t is simply speculat ion on the part of some f ishers who take issue wi th the act ions of these f ishers. I personal ly wi tnessed no such activity. The story was relayed to me one day whi le I was at Seabird Island. I was told of folks coming up ostensibly to part icipate in the dry rack f ishery, but rather than processing their catch in accordance with the st ipulat ions in the dry rack l icense, they simply hauled their catch away unprocessed. I was told of the nuances of the dry rack f ishery and how you could tell w h e n f ishers were ser ious about processing their f ish for the dry rack. When prepar ing the f ish to be f i leted for the dry rack you have to let the blood drain completely out. In order to do that you need to 'get cutt ing' on the f ish right away whi le the blood will drain out. It takes a certain amount of t ime to accompl ish this task. Someone who has f ish pil ing up around them because he/she is pull ing the nets in too fast was "is probably not there to hang all their f ish" (Referr ing to sockeye for this example, wh ich is the critical run for dry and the run given the most attention by DFO. Spr ing salmon that may still be running with the early Stuart sockeye were usually canned. But nonetheless they too had to be processed on site in accordance with the dry rack l icense). Whether any validity can be assigned to the story or not, its importance lies in the fact that it clearly i l lustrates a situation of opposing uses in the salmon f ishery as wel l as the varying opinions as to the priority of those uses. Such act ions are not 166 necessary at this point to focus on the dry rack activit ies of one Seabird Island family in an effort to understand the 'supra'-tradit ional designat ion this f ishery has received. Upon revisit ing this discussion, I will descr ibe the events of the 1998 f ishery observed by Butler as compared to my observat ions of the 2002 canyon f ishery. On July 20, 2002 I visited the dry rack camp of Grand Chief Archie Charles and his common law wife of thirty-four years, T ina Jack f rom the Chawathi l First Na t ion . 5 4 One of the first things I not iced was just how dangerous f ishing f rom the side of the canyon can be. Just two weeks earl ier the water level in the river had been at a thirty-year high and was quite dangerous. Just one week before my visit, Grand Chief Charles ' nephew had fal len from the side of the canyon at their camp site and drowned. Grand Chief Charles was born in Lakahamen in 1921 , but was adopted by Mary Char les of Seabird Island in 1924. Mary Charles was also mother to Edna Douglas of Cheam. During my visit with Grand Chief Charles, who was 83 at the t ime of our interview, he told me that he had been travel ing to his family 's dry rack site regularly since 1946. Initially he talked a bit about the loss of f ishing opportuni t ies over these last 58 years and how conservat ion concerns regarding the early Stuart sockeye have forced the closure of the river to Aboriginal f ishers. As the early Stuart run coincides with the optimal w ind drying condit ions, the increasing number of c losures has given uncommon with groups relying on natural resources in crisis. The early Stuart sockeye run is the only run that can be wind dried because it is the only sockeye run coming in dur ing the critical period of t ime when canyon condit ions make drying possible. This run has been closely monitored by DFO for several decades; such monitor ing often forcing river closures leaving the wind dry f ishers with no f ish to hang on their racks and no dr ied salmon in their cupboards. 5 4 Chie f Archie Charles was honored as Grand Chief on June 1 1 , 1993 for 22 years service to Seabird Island. 167 rise to tensions on the river over the years. At the t ime of my Friday afternoon visit only a small port ion of his very large (as many as 30 members) extended family was there, the remainder due in that night and the next day. Turning to a more l ighthearted discussions, Grand Chief Char les talked of f ishing with his mother in earl ier t imes at the very site where w e sat chatt ing, relating an amusing story of how he had left the nets to head down to the pub since the f ish did not seem to be running. W h e n he arr ived back at the camp, he discovered eighteen f ish in the net his mother had pul led out of the water by herself. As importantly, Grand Chief Charles talked of passing the knowledge of f ishing onto the young people. He talked specif ically of teaching the chi ldren how to cut the f ish. To my amazement I watched young chi ldren use knives with great skil l. As seemed to be his way, Grand Chief Charles told yet another amusing story of how he had taken great care in sharpening a knife for one of the youngsters. He handed the boy the knife who proceeded to beat the blade on every rock on his way down to the cutt ing area. Notes Grand Chief Charles, "That knife wasn' t sharp anymore, cut like a saw." Becoming serious again, Grand Chief Charles talked of the restrict ions on the f ishery in the name of conservat ion result ing in the loss of winter stores of dr ied salmon. Usually arr iving at his camp the first of July to begin f ishing in t ime to utilize the canyon winds, I not iced that twenty days after being in his camp, very few pieces of sockeye were hanging and those that were hanging, had not been hanging very long; their f lesh still bright red. Grand Chief Charles commented that DFO had shut them down because of conservat ion concerns regarding the early Stuart run (the run critical to the needs of the dry rack f ishers and the run on which DFO has placed the most 168 restr ict ions as d iscussed in this and previous chapters). The dry rack f ishers were, again, in danger of losing the warm, dry canyon winds that would dry their catch before the f l ies arr ived, signal ing the end of the season. Grand Chief Charles said he would probably remain in his camp until the middle of August, two weeks longer than his family usual ly stayed in an effort to get his f ish. However the condi t ions so critical to the wind drying process would probably not hold out that long. Grand Chief Charles expressed his disdain for the government policies that forced dry rack f ishers to either f ish prior to DFO's opening the river and risk being charged, or to wait and hope that an opening wou ld come in t ime to utilize the canyon winds. He relayed a story of an encounter he had with a Fisheries official who had come from Ottawa. In an effort to get his point across in the terms of one culture to another, Grand Chief Char les remarked to the gent leman, "I never tell you when to go to McDonald 's and get a hamburger. W h a t if I made a law saying you can't have hamburgers after eight o'clock on Sunday night? How would you like it?" Grand Chief Charles remarked that he got no answer f rom the gent leman. Returning to the discussion of the events wi tnessed by Butler dur ing her f ie ldwork in 1998, I compare her observat ions with that of mine in the summer of 2002 in an effort to bring together the discussion of tradit ion as it relates to the f ishery as well as Seabird Island's protocol agreement. As a part of this d iscussion I focus on the St6:l6 dry rack f ishing plan for the summer of 2002; a plan that draws heavi ly on the notion of tradit ion. Evident f rom this discussion are reasons Grand Chief Charles has remained so concerned regarding f isheries regulat ion and Aboriginal f ishing rights for 169 most of his fifty-eight years in the canyon fishery.55 In the summer of 1998, 48 hours into the wind dry fishery, fishing on the Fraser was halted due to low water levels and record high water temperatures that were expected to significantly increase salmon mortality. Participants in the wind dry fishery pulled their nets in compliance with the DFO closure to protect the early Stuart run, while a sports fishery was still permitted in some areas of the river. This precipitated what has been described by most as a protest fishery, but referred to as a fishery for the elders by those initiating and participating in the fishery. In any event, the pressure placed on the sockeye by the protest/elders fishery was used as a further justification to keep the river closed to Aboriginal fishing, resulting in the denial of any further wind dry openings. Wind dryers from Seabird Island demanded to know why the protest fishery was not shut down and demanded the arrest of their friends and cousins who were protesting for the constitutionally protected rights of the wind dry fishers (Brown and Butler 1999). Fishers from several St6:l6 communities congregated at Archie Charles' fish camp in to talk with fisheries officers about the dire situation. Many present at the meeting spoke of how they were standing up for their elders. Many referred to the court cases that have shaped Aboriginal rights: Delgamuukw, Sparrow, Guerin. Some talked of being able to trace their family history to the Yale fish camps for over 500 years. Some would be charged for their participation in the fishery. But in the end, only a total authorized catch of 1600 sockeye was allowed (Chilliwack Progress, July 14, 1998). Looking at the summer of 2002, once again conservation concerns kept dry rack "Grand Chief Archie Charles had good reason to be concerned. Heightened concern over the early Stuart run forced strict closures in the 1970s. 170 f ishers off the river for most of their critical drying time. A n examinat ion of the catch data for the last week of June and first week of July reveals no sockeye catches. For the second week in July a catch of only 20 sockeye was recorded, but these were not caught under a dry rack l icense. In short there were no catches for the dry rack f ishers until very close to the end of the optimal drying t ime. It's no wonder that when I visited Archie Charles' f ish camp near the end of July, I saw very few f ish hanging. Just the week prior to my visit at the Charles' camp I at tended a f isheries meet ing at Sto: 16 Nation where f ishers were expressing grave concern over the fact they had not been al lowed on the water. Most had lost faith in DFO's conservat ion restrict ions, cit ing their own observat ions as a reason to begin f ishing. Most were convinced that the early Stuarts had passed through Sto: 16 territory and that DFO's decis ion to keep them off the river was arbitrary and counter to the mandates of Sparrow. It was a Wednesday af ternoon and by the end of the meeting many had decided they were going f ishing with or without approval f rom DFO; "their tradit ional Thursday through Sunday f ishery" as I heard f rom a voice across the room. The f ishery opened for the first t ime that summer on Thursday, July 18. Discussion Bringing this back to the Seabird Island Protocol Agreement, as I l istened to Clem Seymour talk about the importance of the conservat ion of f ish for the Seabird Island First Nat ion - language printed in the first page of the agreement -1 began to piece together a picture in my mind of a connect ion l inking the unique history of the Seabird Island community as well as the struggles faced by the wind dry f ishers whose f ishing opportunit ies are so closely monitored by DFO. Protection of the closely 171 monitored run could come in the form of a protocol agreement that 'establ ishes i tself as an effective tool for the protection and conservat ion of that salmon resource. Whether rooted in a real or imagined tradit ion, the protocol agreement works to establ ish the Seabird Island community as the ult imate guardians of their salmon resource. In order to understand how the Seabird Island f ishery is supported by tradit ion, again whether real or imagined, I refer to the protocol agreement itself, the 2002 Dry Rack f ishing plan drafted by Sto: 16 Nation and the mission statement of the Qwi:qwelst6m program; all three being directly connected to the Seabird Island Communi ty and all three repeatedly aff irming a connect ion with a tradit ional Sto: 16 past. Examining each, beginning with the protocol agreement itself, this agreement seeks to remove the adjudicat ion of f isheries offenses f rom the court room and relocate them into a system based on a Sto: 16 worldview; a wor ldview that focuses on restoring balance and harmony to disrupted relationship and a wor ld v iew based upon so-cal led tradit ional forms of dispute sett lement. Regarding the 2002 dry rack f ishing plan, as I sat in the f isheries meet ing just prior to my visit to the Charles' f ish camp, I heard several f ishers speak of a reluctance to commit any plan, catch total, anything to paper in that DFO had a history of cast ing in stone any concessions made by Sto: 16 f i shers . 5 6 However the 2002 dry rack plan sets down on paper very specif ic limits regarding the f ishery; a f ishery based on those guidel ines not designed just to fill the cupboards of Sto: 16 famil ies with dr ied salmon for 5 6 l n the late 1970s wind dry f ishers compl ied when asked to give up their f ishery f o r o n e y e a r o n l y . However, the ban remained in effect for several more years. Notes June Quipp, "We were never al lowed to f ish at this t ime of the year for quite a few years" (Chilliwack Progress, July 14, 1998). 172 the winter as much as to protect a tradit ion. The stated purpose of the f ishing plan: to guide the activit ies descr ibed hereunder to be carr ied out by members of the Sto: 16 people to ensure and orderly and tradit ional f ishery and to al low for the instruction of St6:l6 community members by elders in proper techniques for processing f ish by drying on racks. (Sto: 16 2002 Dry Rack Fishing Plan, page 1) Dip nets can only be used after proper instruction by an elder and no one may part icipate in the f ishery without the permission of family elders having jur isdict ion over the f ishing and processing sites. As noted Butler in her 1998 examinat ion of the dry rack f ishery, for many of the f ishers the f ishery had become the hal lmark of St6:l6 tradit ion. This conceptual izat ion of the f ishery is indeed reinforced in the f ishing plan submit ted to DFO that sets out the guidel ine for how the f ishery would be conducted. All three examples have at their core, a connect ion with the past; tradit ion. In his examinat ion of the history of the Lumbee Indians in North Carol ina, Sider explains that tradit ion cannot be v iewed in isolation of history or struggles with outside forces. But he also tell us that tradit ion is a means of resistance, a way of distancing oppressed groups f rom their oppressors found in that history of struggle. Notes Sider: Tradi t ion names processes of cont inuing cultural and social construct ion through which they seek to distance themselves f rom the dominant society. (1993:72) Addit ional ly, Mauze tells us that "tradition interprets the past according to the needs of the present" (1997:6). Both Sider and Mauze's notions regarding tradit ion and its funct ion have far reaching implications for examining the movement on the part of Seabird Island to initiate and sign a Justice protocol as well as for establ ishing a connect ion between that agreement and the conceptual izat ion of a tradit ional f ishery. The connect ion cannot be drawn in bold marker and there is no smoking gun, it is 173 rather, a subtle connect ion that reflects the conceptual izat ion of a f ishery; a way of life; community, family - a connect ion to a past that may well be more imagined than real. This understanding the f ishery is created not only by distancing f rom the oppressor, but also f rom other Sto: 16 communit ies with opposing agendas, as regards the f ishery. A number of the wind dry f ishers have sought to distance themselves f rom the commercial f ishery, whi le at the same time part icipating in it, albeit on their own terms and in a fashion they deem more palatable. The idea of harmony also informs the narrat ives of tradit ion, part icularly as regards Qwi:qwelst6m. Qwi:qwelst6m means to live in harmony, help one another to survive, to care and share amongst all people. Nader (1990) in her examinat ion of indigenous just ice movements rooted in notions of tradit ion and harmony, notes that these ideologies have been shaped by the colonial encounter, and that they reflect and mask the internal struggles that arose as a consequence. This is indeed evident when appl ied to examinat ions of just ice systems but interactions with dominant powers in regard to access to natural resources - salmon. Drawing on Nader 's d iscussion, Bruce Miller explains that using this argument, communit ies are said to manage their relations with the outside wor ld by emphasiz ing a purportedly cooperat ive, harmonies past and de-emphasiz ing social confl ict and contradict ion in the present (2001:13). In the case of the Seabird protocol, resolut ion is sought f rom inside the community through an ideal ized past. Through the protocol agreement, the community is seeking to establ ish a partnership with the authority that, for the past century and a half, has had ult imate control over that past and cont inues, regardless of the presence of any agreement, to have control over the present. 174 In the next chapter and final case study, I focus on the Sto: 16 commerical f ishery, specif ical ly on part icipation in f isheries conducted within the boundar ies of the law. Considered in my discussion is the notion held by many that, part icipation in such f isheries runs counter to their Aboriginal right to f ish. A lso considered in my discussion is the intersection of that f ishery with other canyon f isheries such as the dry rack f ishery. More importantly I examine the Sto: 16 commercial f ishery within a context of resistance and I specif ically seek to connect that f ishery with Sto: 16 tradit ion as it is used to affirm an Aboriginal right to f ish. 175 Chapter Six: Highliners and Moneymakers It's late July and I'm finally getting a chance to "go fishing" and in the canyon no less. Ken Malloway, his wife and I head out to set the nets. Along the way Ken Malloway points out his mother's now run down dry rack at Lady Franklin Rock and relates stories of fishing in the canyon. In a couple of hours we will return to check the nets and bring them in. Little did I know just how exciting my first fishing trip would be....but that's a story for another time. In early July of 2002, the prospect for a sales agreement was bleak. By mid month it would be determined - no agreement would be s igned. The sale of any Indian caught sa lmon wou ld have to be conducted in the shadows. Flash forward to early July 2003, an agreement is s igned. Sto: 16 f ishers would be able to sell their catch without the fear of prosecut ion and without the fear of losing their boats, trucks, nets, totes and f ish. Fishers awaited word as to when the river would be open for f ishing under the newly s igned sales agreement. But on July 28, 2003 the word they got was "NO." The prospect of a legal, commercial f ishery was gone when Judge Kitchen ruled that, among other things, the Aboriginal f ishery was a race based f ishery and therefore illegal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 5 7 Fisheries and Oceans responded by wi thdrawing the agreement. Sto: 16 f ishers would cont inue to f ight for a legally sanct ioned right to sell their catch, in the hopes that constraints on the disposit ion of their catch wou ld be a thing of the past. How that f ight has played out on the water over the years has generated debate and discussion within the Sto: 16 f ishery as wel l as the larger industrial f ishery. Paramount to that debate among the Sto: 16 bands has been the not ion held by many that part icipation in such agreements runs counter to their Abor iginal right to f ish. For many years, bands would not sign the agreements 5 7 R v. Kapp et al. 2003 BCPC 279 (Kitchen Prov. Ct. J.). 176 claiming that part icipation in the sale agreement f isheries infr inged on the Aboriginal right to f ish. Wi th in the larger industrial f ishing community, the debate hinges on the specif ic language of the f isheries regulat ion adopted in 1888 declar ing that Native peoples had the right to f ish for food, social and ceremonial purposes but not for sale or barter outside the l icensing structure created by that regulat ion; language that has created a somewhat narrow understanding of the importance of f ishing in Sto: Id household economies. As previously ment ioned, the Pilot Sale f ishery changed the face of the Fraser River salmon f ishery in regards to the industrial f ishery as wel l as the Aboriginal f ishery. The change has been clearly evident in the St6:l6 f ishery, part icularly as regards the canyon f ishery. As noted earl ier the number of ' l icensed' f ishers doubled immediately upon implementat ion of the project. Though not all of those who obtained a designat ion card for f ishing, f ished, the numbers of f ishers on the river did increase signif icantly. And almost as immediately, long establ ished f ishers began to voice their concern over the increased pressure on the resource as wel l as the effects of over-crowding on the water. As noted in the previous chapter, among the most vocal in that regard were the Seabird Island wind dry f ishers. A lso of concern was the increased level of v iolence on the water as f ishers literally fought for f ishing space. A number of f ishers with whom I spoke, talked of how they did not return to their canyon f ishing spots after the first couple of years of the PSA because of the crowding and violence. Notes one f isher f rom Shxw'ow'hamel with whom I spoke, "our f ishers have become mean." In one of our many conversat ions Sonny McHalsie talked of increased incidences of 'corking' or the placing of nets directly in front of other set nets. 177 Accusat ions of greed also permeated the new fishery. Remarking on her decision not to f ish in 1993, the second year of the PSA, one St6:l6 f isher told her story to the press. Sherry Tschetter reported to the Abbottsford/Clearbrook Times, that she was shut out of the Aboriginal f ishery in 1992 (the first year of the PSA) "because too many band members became greedy" (March 10, 1993). In the same article, Ms. Tschetter noted "that since the A F S came into effect, the concept of f ishing to provide food for the winter has fal len by the wayside." Ms. Tschetter reported that others had their nets cut and they were threatened. Remarks Ms. Tschetter, "My nets didn't get cut because I couldn' t get them in the water" (Abbottsford/Clearbrook Times, March 10, 1993). In my conversat ions with Ken Mal loway he noted that for some, it was indeed all about the money. A chance to make, what some bel ieved to be, enormous profits did lure many to the river who had not f ished in the past, driving off many who regularly f ished for food and sales. However for those f ishers whose l ivel ihood was already t ied to the sale of in-river caught salmon, in particular those f ishers known to the St6:l6 community as commercial f ishers, the PSA was as much about the ability to cont inue that l ivel ihood no longer at risk for losing their catch, boats, vehicles and equipment as it was an opportunity to exercise their Aboriginal right to f ish as tradit ional St6: l6 f ishers. 5 8 Notes Bruce Miller in his discussion of Coast Sal ish just ice issues, "For many elders, greed is a primary issue, including the hoarding of money, but, especial ly, hoarding of resources avai lable to the band as a whole" (2001:132). In more than one of our conversat ions, Ken Mal loway discussed with me the accusat ions of greed leveled at him. Interestingly enough, when Ken Mal loway's name was ment ioned to me, it was to tell me a story of how "Kenny had given f ish away." One St6:l6 f isher with w h o m I spoke told me that, when Ken Mal loway discovered the St6:l6 cater ing business couldn' t afford to serve salmon because they had to buy it at the grocery store, "Kenny picked up the phone and cal led the place where he stores his (frozen) salmon and told them to give the caterers all the salmon they needed and only charge them the cost of storage." 178 In this chapter I discuss the legal sale of salmon as it has been conducted under the auspic ious of sales agreements and commercial l icensing. Wh i le engaging and at t imes expanding on Bierwert 's discussion of out law f ishing and its role as an assert ion of agency, I specif ically focus on two St6:l6 highl iners and moneymakers: Ken Mal loway and Lester Ned. By examining ' legal f ishing' as it relates to an opportunity to make a l iving within a context of resistance and accommodat ion, I seek to uncover the simultaneously converging and diverging agendas within the Sto: 16 canyon f ishery; the canyon f ishery being important to all three of my case study groups. Further I seek to reveal how part icipation in a legal sales f ishery represents a form of agency. St6:l6 f ishers such as Ken Mal loway and Lester Ned have been f ight ing for an Abor iginal right to f ish and the right to a legal commercial f ishery for many years. Both have been active in Sto: 16 polit ics and are leaders in the cause of the Abor iginal right to f ish. Lester Ned has fought for an Aboriginal right to f ish that includes the abil ity to legally sell in-river caught salmon, not only in his role as part of the original negotiat ing team in 1992, but also as the first Fisheries Portfolio holder in the newly formed St6:l6 Nat ion in 1994. Ernie Crey commented to me as to what a powerful force Lester Ned was in his posit ion of Portfolio holder; pressing for agreements that would al low St6:l6 f ishers an opportunity to make a living off the f isheries resource. Prior to the formation of the St6:l6 Nation in 1994, Lester Ned was the f isheries representat ive for the St6:l6 Tribal Counci l , one of the entit ies coming together in 1994 to form the St6: l6 Nat ion. As a f isher who has sold his catch in the years prior to the Pilot Sale Arrangement in 1992, Lester Ned has worked to secure a f ishery free of arrest and the possible loss of f ish and equipment. This is very important to Lester 179 Ned, whose capital investment is great when compared with that of most Sto: 16 f ishers. However, Lester Ned's commitment to the Aboriginal right to sell f ish runs much deeper than that. A number of f ishers with whom I spoke, talked highly of Lester Ned's leadership in the f ishery. As one individual remarked to me, "The f ishermen respect Lester." As has Lester Ned, Ken Mal loway has fought hard for the legal right to sell his catch and has held leadership posit ions in regards to the f i shery . 5 9 Ken Mal loway also part ic ipated in the negotiat ions in 1992 when the first pilot sale f ishery was implemented. Ken Mal loway began f ishing on his own as a teenager, and he has always sold s a l m o n . 6 0 Even as a teenager, Ken Mal loway was outspoken regarding an Abor iginal right to legally sell salmon. He talked to me of his first attempt at publ ic speaking, when at the age of 18, he addressed a group regarding the legal sale of Indian caught salmon. As Ken Mal loway descr ibed it, "I was so nervous. I had everything I wanted to say writ ten down, but I was too nervous to read it." But that was over thirty years ago, and since that t ime, Ken Mal loway has cont inued to f ight for the Aboriginal right to f ish, a right that he maintains includes the right to sell his catch. Quot ing Ken Malloway: 5 9 At present, Ken Mal loway is co-chairman of the BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, manager of the St6:l6 Fisheries Committee and a member of the Fraser Panel of the Pacif ic Salmon Commission. ^ K e n Mal loway told me stories of how as a teenager, he had made enough money by sel l ing salmon at $2.00 each to purchase a number of cars he hoped to eventual ly 'fix up'. The cars began to clutter Ken Mal loway's mom's front yard and f inally after repeated requests to "do something about the cars" had gone unheeded, she had the cars hauled away. Ken Mal loway smiled as he noted, "I had some real classics, wou lda been worth a lot of money today." 180 I don't make any bones about sell ing f ish. I a lways have and always wil l . I'm not the first, my father wasn' t the first, my grandfather wasn' t the first. (Chilliwack Progress, November 9, 1988) This f ight has resulted in thousands of dol lars in legal fees and the loss of nets and salmon. In February of 1989, Ken Mal loway was set to appear in court on charges of il legally sel l ing f ish. His defense hinged on the constitut ional right to f ish; the chal lenge based on the evidence that Natives historically sold and bartered f ish as recorded specif ical ly in the Fort Langely Journals, and that as a result, Natives have an Aboriginal right to f ish. This was the same defense set forth in the Vander Peet case, however ult imately to no avail . In one of our interviews Ken Mal l loway told me that he was charged with i l legally sell ing f ish roughly the same time as Dorothy Vander Peet (whom Ken said he later found out was a cousin of his). Notes Ken Mal loway, rather than using his case or one of Sam Douglas' , St6:l6 Nation leaders opted to press forward in their claim of an Aboriginal right to f ish focusing on the charges laid against Mrs. Vander Peet. Interestingly enough, at that t ime Ken Mal loway w a s charged wi th sel l ing only eighteen salmon, eight more than Mrs. Vander Peet. St6:l6 f ishers maintain they are the original commercial f ishers and that their Abor ig inal right to f ish includes the right to trade, sell or barter their catch. Quot ing Ken Mal loway again: W e were the first commercial f ishermen of B.C. until we were squeezed out by the government, the commercial f ishing industry and the canneries. (Chilliwack Progress, November 9, 1988) St6:l6 elders and others with whom I spoke talked of their parents trading with the members of the local communit ies for goods they could not produce, a practice that was il legal after 1888. A Sumas Band elder with whom I spoke, ta lked of his parents 181 t rading or sel l ing f ish with the local farmers to obtain eggs, butter and milk; the very things we now regularly pick up each t ime we pass a grocery store. June Quipp, f rom Cheam notes, "As far as I can remember my dad was in the business to buy and sell f ish which he passed on"(Aboriginal Fisheries Journal , October 2000:3) . In her discussion of the Sto: 16 f ishery within the context of publ ic forms of resistance, Bierwert notes that: On both sides of the border Sal ish people f ished on their r ivers, outside of permit ted openings, often literally in the dark, eluding confrontat ion and publ ic protests alike. (1999:242) Bierwert goes on to pose such quest ions as, "Were these act ions merely the overt opportunism of people on the economic margins already, or were they assert ions of agency by people act ing wit in their r ights?" (1999:242). Cont inuing her discussion, Bierwert asserts that: .. .children had watched the adults having to f ish by cover of darkness.. . .Those chi ldren grew to know f ishing as a surrepti t ious, almost embarrassing activity f rom a diminishing culture, better forgotten in the pursuit of more convent ional occupat ions in the larger non-Indian society. (1999:242) The quest ion I pose: is Bierwert 's out law f ishing and the cont inued trade, barter or sell of salmon an act of resistance or simply life, l ived or both? More importantly, is not the part icipation in that f ishery an assert ion of agency on the part of a peoples seeking to control some measure of their own dest iny? In her discussion of power relations, Bierwert provides her observat ions of the St6: l6 f ishery within the context of struggle for power, f rom both within and the outside. She notes that the practices and confl icts that def ine out law f ishing reveal the pressures exercised both from Indian f ishers and upon them. I posit that the same can 182 be said regarding the legal sale f ishery. Participation in the sale agreements is thought by some - even some participating in them on the one hand whi le disput ing their validity on the other - to be an infr ingement on the Abor iginal right to f ish. As expla ined to me by Ken Mal loway and others, the agreements do not def ine or suspend the right, rather they simply set terms and condit ions under which a part icular f ishery can be conducted. Fishing methods are specif ied - set gill nets. Fishing t imes are set. Most importantly, the size of the total catch is l imited to a negot iated allotment. It is important to note that these condit ions also exist in the non-agreement years. Fishers support ing the agreements openly push for the implementat ion of the agreements, whi le s imultaneously speaking out against the restrictive condit ions contained in the agreements. According to the f ishers support ing the agreements, the Abor iginal right to f ish exists whether or not sales agreements are in place. For these Sto: 16 f ishers part icipation in such f isheries is no less tradit ional. Viewing part icipation in sales agreements as less than tradit ional, f reezes tradit ion in t ime and space rendering it useless within a paradigm of resistance and agency. Whi le comment ing on how restrictive the negot iated agreements have come to be, both Lester Ned and Ken Mal loway consider them as important steps in aff irming the Aboriginal right to f ish. H i g h l i n e r s in t he C a n y o n As noted previously, nearly two thirds of the Sto: 16 f ishery is conducted in the roughly 20 miles of river located between the present day town of Hope and Sawmil l Creek located f ive miles above the present day town of Yale, these boundar ies consti tut ing the canyon fishery. In my conversat ions whi le in the f ield, three famil ies were repeatedly ment ioned as canyon highliners: Commodore, Jimmie and Malloway. 183 Accord ing to Ken Mal loway the number is four: Commodore, Jimmie, Mal loway and Malloway. As explained to me by Ken Mallowy, a number of years ago he set out on his own; operat ing his own boat. Whi le this may appear as a break in family t ies, it is not. Kinship t ies form the base of social organizat ion whereby corporate activity and family are l inked and essential to the business of f ishing. This fact is ref lected in way that the canyon f ishery is conducted by famil ies such as the Mal loways and the other canyon higl iners. The nuclear family often make up f ishing crews. Extended family members were also rel ied upon as crew members. But more importantly, family t ies provided access to prime f ishing spots and in some cases were essential to the ability to part icipate in the f ishery. 6 1 A closer examinat ion of the Mal loway family 's part icipation in the sale f ishery and in particular Ken Malloway's part icipation in the f ishery will make clear this dist inction as well as addressing many of the situations and issues touched on by Bierwert. Ken Mal loway carries the hereditary name of Wileleq, which means one who is always careful and always aware. To the Sto: Id people with whom I spoke, he is known as Kenny. Ken Mal loway has f ished all his life, primarily in the Fraser Canyon, specif ical ly in that stretch of the river f ive miles above Yale. His mother 's now abandoned dry rack can still be seen in its spot at Lady Frankl in Rock which marks the 6 1 Car lson notes that based on his analysis of Sutt les' work, and drawing on Bruce Mil ler 's study of St6:l6 kinship ties, that whi le relations with extended family members and in part icular in-laws were important in access to resource sites, c lose kinship t ies wi th distant people could also work to a family 's d isadvantage, especial ly if a kin group held ownership rights over a particularly valuable resource with a unique geographical expression, such as Fraser Canyon f ishing sites. Notes Car lson, exchange with close kith and kin was reciprocal, but trade with strangers was designed to turn a profit (2003:65). This observat ion on Carlson's part reinforces the notion of exchange for profit as part of St6:l6 society. 184 'official ' entrance into the canyon. During our interview t ime together, Ken Mal loway told me many f ishing stories through which he explained to me the life of the Sto: 16 fisher. At t imes I was so full of quest ions I could not contain myself. Ken Mal loway would stop me and say, "My stories are like the TV show and your quest ions are the commercial i n t e r r u p t i o n s . " Somewhat red faced, I would attempt to sit more quietly, hoping to remember all that I wanted to ask. In reality, his stories were more entertaining and educat ional than anything found on TV. Ken Mal loway's stories were windows into a way of life; a way of life that is the essence of Sto: 16 identity. Addit ional ly, Ken Mal loway's stories made clear to me that it isn't a lways about the money, it is about a way of life and sharing that way of life with his chi ldren. Ken Mal loway will tell anyone who asks, and perhaps even those who don't ask, that he is not just a f isherman; he's the best (Abborstford Times, Tuesday, December 9, 2003) . This designat ion of 'best' was reinforced when sitt ing in court observing the proceedings of a f isheries offense trial, I heard DFO officials refer to Ken Mal loway as a highliner. As a teenager, Ken Mal loway would hop the Canadian National freight train that made its way from Chil l iwack through the c a n y o n . 6 2 The run through the canyon was Wednesday and Saturday and according to Ken Mal loway "You had to be ready, have all your f ish packed up the hill, because you never knew what t ime the train would be coming through." The payment for train passage into the canyon was six sockeye. Over the years Ken Mal loway earned enough to purchase a boat, upgrading when funds permitted until he acquired the boat he now operates which is a 20 foot, flat 6 2 S i d Douglas also talked to me about taking the CN freight train into the canyon to f ish. Ken Mal loway said that this practice ended in about 1977 or 1978. 185 bottom aluminum craft, a current investment of approximately $20,000 including motor . 6 3 W h e n I talked with Ken Mal loway about his part icipation in the Pilot Sale f ishery, he explained how f ishing under a sales agreement differed f rom non sales years. Ken Mal loway ment ioned how he f ished with his immediate family work ing as paid 'crew' whi le the remainder of his sibl ings f ished with his brother Melvin Mal loway. According to Ken Malloway, a record of family catches over the years adorns his brother Melvin's boat. Notes Ken Malloway, "You should really get a picture of my brother Melvin's boat. He's got an account ing of everyone's catch painted all around his boat. I don't know what he's going to do when he runs out of room. Paint the boat and start over, I guess." However, according to Ken Malloway, some of his sibl ings did f ish with him at t imes, or he would f ish for them. On one occasion when I f ished with Ken Malloway, members of his family made up his crew. For the most part, the 'crew' worked whi le Ken Mal loway regaled me with stories of his many years of f ishing the canyon waters. Numerous t imes his sister would have to remind him of the task at hand as newly caught salmon were being returned to river; a distracted Ken neglect ing to pull them out of the net as it was passed to him. This more leisurely approach to the f ishery is in sharp contrast to the Pilot Sales f isheries. Fishing under the sale agreements is very different wi th operat ions under the sale agreements resembl ing those of the industrial f ishery down river in that crews are hired for these f isheries and openings are general ly shorter wi th f ishing being 6 3 K e n Mal loway purchased his current boat in 1991 prior to the launching of the Pilot Sale program in 1992 and 'his accumulat ion of great weal th. ' His motor however is relatively new, purchased within the last two years. 186 conducted around the clock to make the most of the short t ime on the river. Wi th the decreased number of hours avai lable for f ishing, nets are checked and emptied more frequent ly or 'hot-picked', the term Ernie Crey used when descr ibing some defining characterist ics of the 'sales' f ishery. Landing and count ing sites are set up at var ious points a long the river to comply with the terms of the Pilot Sale program, therefore, f ishers have shorter distances to travel to off load and dispose of their catch as buyers line up on the f ishing grounds to make their purchases. Accord ing to Ken Malloway, "even though the openings are shorter, the prospect for good numbers were there if one f ishes hard enough." Whi le for Ken Mal loway f ishing in all years is a business, it has been in the sales agreement years that the f ishery in general has taken on the appearance of a bus iness . 6 4 B o n a f i d e C o m m e r c i a l F i s h e r m a n The business of f ishing need not be separated f rom the St6:l6 tradit ion of f ishing whether conducted illegally in the shadows of night or legally in the light of day. Whether agency is exercised within or outside the 'acknowledged' system of tradit ion, when v iewed in the context of Gavin Smith's (1989) discussion of l ivel ihood and resistance, connect ions to that acknowledged tradit ion are visible. Compar isons can be made between Smith's discussion of peasant l ivel ihoods and Indian part icipation in the industrial f ishery. This Indian part icipation in the industrial f ishery is chronicled in such works as Dianne Newell 's Tangled Webs of History (1993). Her discussion focuses on that part icipation as it existed in the early years with the introduction of the 6 4 Bierwer t notes the cranes and scales, newly appear ing on the f ishing grounds in 1992 with the implementat ion of the Pilot Sale program. Also noted was the newly built warehouse that held f ive trailer trucks that col lected the St6:l6 catches (1999:250). 187 industrial f ishery and as it exists presently within the larger commercial industry. For this discussion I focus f ishing activit ies of a "Bona f ide Commercia l Fisherman." Lester Ned, who jokingly refers to himself as a bona f ide commercial f isherman because he holds a commercial l icense, has a long history of part icipation in support of Abor ig inal f ishing rights. Lester Ned will tell you that the Sto: 16 have been f ishing on the Fraser for at least 10,000 years and, throughout that t ime, management and harvest ing of salmon has been central to St6:l6 cultural, societal, economic and ceremonial life. He will also tell you that, suddenly in 1888, the government establ ished what is cal led the Indian Food Fishery, and displaced St6:l6 f ishers f rom their role as managers of the resources. This was indeed the history lesson I received f rom Lester Ned when I first sat down to interview him in his home in Abbotsford. But that is only of half the lesson. As he did with me, Lester Ned talked of the responsibi l i ty of protect ing salmon for the benefit of all, "like our ancestors." Equally as essential is protect ing the Aboriginal right to f ish. As Lester Ned said to me many t imes, " W e cannot s leep on our right." Lester Ned will also tell you, as he did me, that the St6:l6 were the first commercial f ishers and that he has earned a l iving f rom f ishing all of his life. Lester Ned operates a thirty foot gil l-netter (bow picker) just below the Mission Bridge under an A- l (Area E) Indian commercial l icense he has held for about 25 years for which he pays $380 annual ly to maintain. The value of his boat and l icense is est imated at approximately $160,000. In addit ion to f ishing under his A-1 Indian commercial l icense, Lester Ned also f ishes under the Sumas Band communal food 188 f ishing l icense. Lester Ned's posit ion in the f ishery is unique for a number of reasons in addit ion to his A- l commercial l icense. In 1986 or 1987 DFO approached Lester Ned about relocating his f ishery f rom Devils Run to avoid the further taking of co-migrat ing Steelhead. He agreed to relocate f rom Devils Run if DFO would al low him to operate a drift net above the Mission Bridge. In an effort to save the wi ld steelhead, DFO agreed to do so on a trial basis and Lester Ned was issued a l icense to drift above the Mission Bridge. Prior to 1990 Lester Ned f ished his tradit ional spot at Devils Run, the tradit ional f ishing spot for the Sumas Band community when part icipating in Indian f isheries.. After 1990 Lester Ned had completely relocated to the area around the Mission Bridge. However, this situation was further compl icated with the implementat ion of the Abor iginal Fisheries Strategy in 1992. DFO found it difficult to operate their acoust ic count ing device in the area just above the Mission Bridge with Lester Ned in the water. Aga in they approached him about relocating. Lester Ned agreed to move to an area just below the Mission Bridge and has f ished in that area since 1993. Whi le this relocation may have helped to solve DFO's conservat ion problems, it created new problems for the newly formed Lower Fraser Fishing Authori ty which would eventual ly become the Sto:Id Nation Fisheries. The stretch of the river where Lester Ned would eventual ly settle is the tradit ional territory of the bands along the stretch of 6 5 "Food f ishing" is a term Lester Ned takes great except ion to, contending that the separate designat ions of food and commercial are government constructs holding no validity to the Stoilo. He prefers the term "Native f ishing." W h e n I conducted my first interview with Lester Ned on July 9, 2002, he noted that as of that date there had been no opportunit ies for f ishing under his commercial l icense - no openings. Opportunit ies for commercial f ishing were also limited in 2 0 0 1 . 189 the river near Mission, specif ically the Matsqui and Lakahaman bands. Both Matsqui and Lakahaman were signatories of the sales agreements in the years f rom 1992-1997. These agreements specif ied the gear types to be used and the areas where those gear types could be employed in the f ishery. For Lester Ned to cont inue to operate his "lazy whi te man's boat" as he jokingly refers to his gillnetter, in the Pilot Sale f ishery (or any f ishery), he wou ld have to remain in the area below the Mission Bridge. Accord ing to Lester Ned, he was able to reach what he descr ibed to me as a 'gent leman's agreement ' wi th the Lakahaman Band to operate his boat in that area, however, the Matsqui Band complained of Lester Ned's presence in their tradit ional terr i tory 6 6 . Complaints were made to DFO and to the Lower Fraser Fishing Author i ty in the early years, and the St6:l6 Nation Fisheries more recently. Both Ernie Crey, formally of the St6:l6 Fisheries Department and Bert lonson of DFO ment ioned to me that they had been cal led upon by the Matsqui Band to remove Lester Ned f rom their territory. Lester Ned's entrepreneurial approach to the salmon f ishery is clearly evident. However, in my many conversat ions with him, Lester Ned spoke of f ishing as a St6:l6 activity, integral to his identity as St6:l6. In my first interview with Lester Ned in July 2002, he talked of f ishing at his family site at Devil 's Run, where his father f ished before him and he f ished. He talked also of the obl igat ion to provide salmon to band elders and others who are not able to f ish. In contrast to the family f ishing exhibited by the very large Mal loway family and other canyon highl iner famil ies, and even the ^ T h i s situation was ment ioned to me by Lester Ned during our first interview. The situation was also descr ibed/explained to me by Ernie Crey, who was appointed Executive Director of the newly formed f ishing authority in 1992 and by Bert lonson of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 190 famil ies f ishing off Cheam Beach, Lester Ned f ishes alone, his son choosing quite often to f ish off Cheam beach with his Cheam cousins. Joking with me that day I visi ted him onboard his boat, Lester Ned remarked, "No-one in my family wants to be on the boat wi th me." However, Lester Ned and his wife are very much partners in their f ishing business. W h e n I interviewed Lester the second t ime in March of 2003, I received a guided tour of his f ish processing facil ity at his home in Abbottsford as he explained to me how his commercial operat ion worked, explaining all the health guidel ines under which he had to operate, including the numerous inspections of his boat and processing facility. More recently Lester Ned and his wife borrowed $25,000 to upgrade his f ish processing facility, putt ing in stainless steel tables, f lash freezers and more overhead l ighting. Eager to show me the upgrades Lester Ned invited me to come by for another tour of the facility. Regretfully, I have not yet visi ted his newly renovated f ish processing facility. Lester Ned's capital expenditures in his boat and processing facil i ty are the except ion rather than the rule among the Sto: 16 f ishers in the area above the Mission Bridge. As explained in a subsequent sect ion of this chapter, the Sto: 16 f ishing fleet operates on its proceeds rather than ahead of them. Lester Ned is wel l aware of the gamble he has taken given the existing constraints on Aboriginal f ishing and that the fact that his f ishing t imes are limited by his is employment with the Southern St l 'atr imx Band Health Society as the health director. This posit ion requires that Lester Ned spend f ive days a week in Pemberton, British Columbia, affording him limited f ishing dur ing weekend openings. This is compounded by the fact that commercial openings 191 have been considerably shorter than openings for the Aboriginal f ishery. However he and his wife are optimistic that they will be able to make good on their recent capital investment. As in my conversat ions with Ken Malloway, Lester Ned has also expressed concern of the implications of the Marshal l decision on Sto: 16 f ishers. Both Ken Mal loway and Lester Ned contend that the treaty language contr ibut ing to the court rul ing affording only a moderate living to Mi 'kmaq f ishers is inconsistent wi th St6:l6 way of life. D i s c u s s i o n In spite of the law, Sto: 16 f ishers have sold their catch. This phrase was repeated to me by nearly every f isher with whom I spoke. The local newspapers periodical ly reported "Tons of Seizures" and sting operat ions launched to uncover the black market t rade in salmon (see f igure 5 ) . 6 7 It was reported that in one season Chil l iwack f isheries officers seized approximately eight tons of salmon valued at about $60,000, plus close to 400 illegal nets and several outboard motors, boats, cars and trucks. As noted in previous sections, in past years, f isheries off icers at tempted to crack down on the illegal sale o f f i s h caught under the Indian Food Fishing l icense which prior to 1992 was, the only l icense avai lable to Native peoples for f ishing above Mission Bridge where the St6:l6 reserves are located. In some years as many as 160 charges were laid against more than 60 individuals. Fines for those charges were somet imes as high as $5,000 plus the forfeiture of a vehicle. On top of having to pay f ines and forfeit vehicles, f ishermen also faced the loss of their food f ishing l icense. In 6 7 Bierwer t (1999) gives a very detai led discussion of the 1982 st ing operat ion conducted against St6:l6 f ishers. 192 Figure 5. Black Market Fish Chilliwack Progress, Saturday, November 19, 1988. A4_THECHILL1WACK PROGRESS ADVERTISER EDITION, Saturday. November 19. 1988 Black market salmon — Photo by Rian Maeher These fish were among a load of illegally caught salmon w h i c h were s e i z e d by federal officers with the Ministry of Fisheries a n d O c e a n s during October. Charges have been laid and the cases are pending in Chil l iwack Provincial Court. 193 1992, the legal right to sell f ish that Ken Mal loway had lobbied for as a teenager, was real ized, albeit in a very restricted fashion. St6:l6 "commercial f ishers" were able to sell their catch without the fears of the past. The opportunity offered under the sale agreement al lowed f ishers such as Ken Mal loway and Lester Ned to acquire substantial amounts of capital for reinvestment in upgrading their boats and other equ ipment . 6 8 It was dur ing the sale years f rom 1992-1997 that large sums of money were made by some St6:l6 f ishers. Notes, Ken Mal loway, in more than one of our many conversat ions, this accumulat ion of weal th was not new to the St6:l6. Suttles (1974, 1987) in his examinat ion of Coast Sal ish social organizat ion noted that Coast Sal ish society resembled an inverted pear in regards to class division, with most of the populat ion fal l ing into the upper class. In his conversat ion with me regarding St6:l6 society and its class system, Ken Mal loway descr ibed the system as a bit more complex than that, mirroring somewhat the present day, larger Canadian society. There was an upper class, middle class, lower class/slave class. Ken Mal loway noted that mobil i ty f rom middle/ lower class was possible through the accumulat ion of wealth. As he explained to me, extraordinary f ishing abil ity afforded one method of ascension to a higher class. However, this could be a bit problematic in that lower class individuals were designated as such because 6 8 0 n e such f isher, who is referred to in his community as a commercial f isherman, very politely refused my request for a formal interview. However I did observe his part icipation in a sales f ishery, lending him my cell phone so that he could assemble his crew. My information about his capital investment and f ishing pract ices comes f rom Ken Mal loway as well as my own observat ion. Ken told me that he and this f isher "seem to be staying head to head as far as size and capabil i ty of boats and motors. Each of us upgrading very soon after the other." 194 "they did not know their past or family" and hence had no connect ion to the rights af forded by family connect ions to resources. Nevertheless, the point Ken Mal loway was striving to make was that wealth, specif ically the concentrat ion of weal th in the hands of a few, was indeed a part of Sto: 16 social order. He gave as an example his uncle Frank Mal loway's Halq;emeylem name, which means "one who gives big potlaches." 6 9 According to Ken Mal loway this name, going back 1000 years, demonstrates the fact that "obviously some Chil l iwack people were rich." Bierwert, wri t ing on the accumulat ion of weal th by some St6:l6 f ishers, notes that roughly 10 percent of the f ishers took about 40 percent of the catch (1997:252). Based on my observat ions I would say that her ratio holds true. However I contend that her ratio also holds true for non sales years as w e l l . 7 0 Not all St6:l6 f ish at the same level of intensity. Wh i le the initiation of a legal sale arrangement for Indian caught salmon did bring an addit ional 800 f ishers to the river, many of these f ishers were new to the river f ishery and would not be expected to factor into a high income cohort. This not ion of the accumulat ion of weal th as anthama to Sto.lo social order is a theme present in discussions of accumulat ion of weal th by some St6:l6 f ishers as well as those outside the St6:l6 community. These discussions hinged on the definit ion of 'communal right' it was set out in the language of Sparrow as wel l as in the language 6 9 Discuss ion persists regarding the fact that some examinat ions of Coast Sal ish society debate the fact that 'big ' potlatches were held. I contend that 'big ' is in the eye of the [cultural] beholder and such discussions reflect the differing accounts that can be obtained wh e n interviewing various levels of social strata. 7 0 "sa les years" refers to the years in which a negot iated agreement between St6:l6 and Fisheries and Oceans has been signed al lowing for the legal sale of Indian caught salmon. 195 incorporated in the individual sales agreements negot iated each year. Central to this argument is that the issuance of so cal led communal l icenses was to each B a n d . Based on that argument, the issuance of a "communal l icense" dictated that the catch or subsequent profits generated f rom the catch belonged to the band as a whole rather than the individual and that f ishers had an obl igat ion to insure that all B a n d members shared in that profit. According to Ken Malloway, whi le some contended that the communal right meant everyone was to have an equal share, that not ion was not consistent wi th the Sto: 16 pas t . " He went on to comment that, "Everyone has equal opportunity, but some f ish harder than others and some have better f ishing spots. W e are not communists." I bel ieve this part icular point of v iew regarding the communal disposit ion of f ish and profits stems from a number of things, but most importantly f rom the understanding of what should constitute an "Indian f ishery" s temming f rom regulat ion in the 1880 that separated the social and economic components of the St6:l6 f ishery. Going back to Bierwert 's example of weal th accumulat ion through the PSA, she descr ibes the large sums of money made by one f isherman as a result of the PSA f ishery. She talks of the f isherman who, "made over $30,000 one weekend handl ing over a dozen nets - and everyone knew about it. That same weekend, the man bought a new minivan, a new boat and outboard, and sent his family on a shopping spree for new clothes" (1997:252). Whi le Bierwert did not identify the fisher, Ken Mal loway acknowledged that she was probably speaking of him. Notes Ken Mal loway, "I bought my wife a new van and took my kids to the Edmonton Mall . I bought her another van the next year, 1994. She's still driving that one. It's ten years old." He went on to 196 comment on the percept ion of his weal th within the community, simply stat ing, "You've seen my truck, it's a piece of shit." W h e n I asked Ken Mal loway how many nets he f ished, he snidely remarked, "Wel l if you bel ieve the rumors, 23," explaining that he would, on occasion f ish for other family members or check their nets, leading to the rumors of excessive f i sh ing . 7 1 W h e n considered in the context of a family f ishery, the prospect for large cash hauls must be v iewed in a different light. As explained to me by Ken Malloway, "On an exceptional weekend - good year, good al location - my brother Melvin may make $70,000. But you have to remember, several family members are involved and the money generated from the f ishery is div ided among the family members." Cont inuing with his example, Ken Mal loway further notes, "Melvin's boat launch resembles a vi l lage, our family is so large." Whi le Ken Mal loway's family crew may be smaller than his brother Melvin Mal loway's, expenses in the form of gas, lodging and food for crew members must also be factored into the bottom line when calculat ing real income f rom the sale f ishery. Bierwert observes that the disparity in profi t-making in the Fraser River sales f ishery is characterist ic of that of other Native commercial f isheries in the Northwest (1997). Boxberger descr ibes the disparity evident in the Lummi f ishery in his examinat ion of Lummi part icipation in the Pacific coast salmon f ishery (1989). As notes 7 1 In 1996, Ken Mal loway found himself in Provincial Court facing three charges of f ishing more than one addit ional net on three different occasions dur ing the 1995 Chinook season. As noted in the Progress article, Native f ishermen are al lowed to f ish one addit ional net other than their own, providing they have permission f rom the other l icense holder. Chilliwack Progress, Wednesday, August 7, 1996. W h e n I asked Ken Mal loway about this, he told me it was an attempt on DFO's part to discredit him and that other similarly fr ivolous charges were laid against the other canyon highl iners. This charge and those laid against the other highliners were dismissed two days before each of the scheduled court dates. 197 Boxberger, the result of the Boldt decision, has been the over-capital izat ion of the treaty-tr ibe f ishing fleet (1989, 1993). This is ev idenced by the post-1974 bui ld-up of the Lummi fleet. In 1974 thirty-five to forty Lummis engaged in gi l l-nett ing with small skiffs on or near the reservation. Two Lummis operated seine vessels. By 1985 the Lummi were the strongest f ishing tribe in western Washington, taking, in some years, c lose to half the entire treaty al location. The present Lummi purse seine f leet consists of vessels ranging in cost f rom $100,000 to $750,000 U.S. (1993:9) As in the case of the Lummi, access to capital and capital investment in boats and machinery does indeed make a big difference in potential yield, part icularly in the canyon f ishery f rom where two-thirds of the Sto: Id catch comes. Whi le parallels can be drawn between the Lummi and St6:l6 f isheries regarding access to capital and disparity in profit making, a signif icant di f ference is noted between the two f isheries in regard to the level of capital investments. In the case of the Lummi, access to capital resulted in the over capital izat ion that occurred in the wake of the Boldt decis ion due to what was perceived as a guaranteed al lotment of f ish. Wh i le Boxberger (1993) al luded to the prospect of similar over-capital izat ion within the St6:l6 f ishery fol lowing the Sparrow rul ing, such over-capital izat ion has not occured in regard to the St6:l6 f ishers above the Mission Br idge . 7 2 The uncertainty of the cont inuat ion of a sale f ishery has worked to keep capital expenditures in check, however the primary reason for the lack of over capital izat ion in the Sto:Id f ishery was 7 2 E v e n though he actually f ishes just below the Mission Bridge, Lester Ned is f rom a reserve located above the bridge. His access to the area just below the bridge is explained in more detail in this chapter. Native f ishing below the br idge may well fall into a category more closely paral lel ing what Boxberger descr ibed regarding the Lummi f ishery. 198 the scale and structure of the f ishery. Bierwert descr ibes the signif icant dif ference in the structure of the commerical f ishery at the mouth of the Fraser and the one conducted in the upper reaches of the river. I observed boats ranging in length from 14 feet to 20 feet, wi th the except ion of Lester Ned's gil lnetter which operates just below the Mission Bridge. Addit ional methods that I observed included pole nets set f rom the side of the canyon and set nets put in place by two individuals in a canoe. Therefore, my observat ions of St6:l6 f ishing revealed the same f indings as Bierwert's; that whi le the capital expendi tures involved in upriver f ishing were signif icant for most St6:l6 f ishers such as Ken Mal l loway and the other canyon highl iners, "the St6:l6 f ishing 'fleet' operated on its proceeds rather than ahead of them" (Biertwert 1999:262). St6:l6 f ishers such as Ken Mal loway remain very aware of the bottom line costs, those costs including the costs related to arrests for violat ions. Aside f rom Lester Ned's expansion of his processing facil i ty for which he borrowed $25,000, most often the largest capital expenditures for St6:l6 f ishers involved the replacement of green plastic trash bags with the hard plastic containers or ' totes' required by health codes in the wake of the Pilot Sale program in 1992. These containers were quite large and notes Bierwert, "subscribing to the demands of health codes could cost as much as $300 for a container" (1999:250). As Boxberger notes, the Lummis were as much a part of the larger capitalist economy before the Boldt decision as they were afterward (1989, reprinted 2000: 178). In 1992 newspapers report ing on the newly instituted Pilot Sale Arrangement, heralded the beginning of Native industry. But for the St6:l6 that industry as wel l as part icipation in the larger capitalist economy has long been a part of St6:l6 life. Historical records 199 descr ibe Sto: 16 f ishers as entrepreneurs, initiating trade relat ions with the Hudson's Bay post at Fort Langley long before industrial canning reached the Fraser. That history is not lost on Ken Mal loway and Lester Ned. Both refer to this early business relat ionship with HBC when they talk of the importance of a Sto: 16 commercial salmon f ishery. Sto: 16 f ishers such as Ken Mal loway and the other canyon highl iners as wel l as Lester Ned have always sold their catch even in the pre-PSA years. Long standing suppl ier and customer relations have existed for several generat ions, quite often being 'passed down' through the family. In her chapter regarding the Indian f ishery, Beirwert d iscusses the black market in Indian caught salmon that existed as well as the informal economy that existed surrounding the sale of Indian caught salmon. Ment ioned are the long standing agreements between buyers and seller, ar rangements that were often handed down within the family. Indian f ishers had their regular customers (1999:244). As the debate rages within the larger Canadian commercial f ishing economy as to the place of an in-river, Aboriginal commercial f ishery, Ken Mal loway and Lester Ned cont inue to seek to make a living as f ishermen; as part icipants in the larger society in which they f ind themselves by relying on the tradit ions of the smaller St6:l6 society to which they belong. As in the case of the Lummi f ishers, the percept ion of expanded access to the f ishery, Ken Mal loway through his large kin network and corresponding access to f ishing sites and Lester Ned via his Indian commercial l icense and access to the industrial f ishery, compounds a percept ion of weal th accumulat ion through a "legal sale" f ishery that some claim is not tradit ional St6:l6 practice. Emerging are two distinct dialogues: one within the smaller St6:l6 society juxtaposing tradit ion and part icipation in a legally sanct ioned f ishery; the other between St6:l6 f ishers and the larger society 200 offering protected economic opportunit ies. Unlike the Lummi, however, the pre-PSA Sto: 16 f ishing economy existed in the shadows of the law. Notes Bierwert, this out law f ishing had a structured economy and polity, wi th boundar ies def ined in hotly contested practice (1999:243). However hotly contested the practice, its connect ion to the larger economy cannot be over looked. St6: l6 f ishers such as Ken Mal loway and Lester Ned have made a l iving as commercial f ishers in the pre-PSA years. As Ken Mal loway explained to me, it is the desire to part icipate in the larger economy without the fear of arrest and the loss of vehicles and equipment that has contr ibuted in part to his f ight for a in-river commercial f ishery. Part icipation in legally sanct ioned f isheries, or outside of the shadows, places St6:l6 f ishers such as Ken Mal loway and Lester Ned squarely within the larger economy and the security of its structure and polity, whi le al lowing them to also contr ibute to the smaller St6:l6 economy and it's structure and polity; tradit ion. Addit ional ly, part icipation in legally sanct ioned f isheries locates St6:l6 f ishers in a space between tradit ion and regulat ion; aff irming the Aboriginal right to f ish through part icipation in two economies. For Ken Malloway, Lester Ned and other St6:l6 f ishers the act ion of f ishing is not singly def ined by the particular l icense or condit ions under which f ishing is pract iced. The practice of f ishing conducted within the confines of the law does not deny the relevance of the practice as it contr ibutes to the act of resistance any more than part icipation in the hotly contested practice of out law f ishing def ines the condit ions of resistance. In short resistance and l ivel ihood become two sides of the same coin; inseparable and jo ined by tradit ion. W h a t is observed is the shift ing of the condit ions under which resistance, 201 rebel l ion and agency are manifest and how they are real ized in connect ion with Sto: 16 tradit ion and social identity when v iewed as part of an emerging history. In short what is observed is the reproduct ion of culture. As Smith notes, acts of resistance and rebel l ion cannot be v iewed as outside the creat ion of culture or dynamism of tradit ion. Accord ing to Smith, these acts must be v iewed as a mechanism of cultural reproduct ion or more specif ically the protection of a l ivel ihood which is interconnected with a social identity and must be v iewed in connect ion with the specif ic history and economy as well as within the context of a global history and economy. Therefore as Sider notes, "the fundamental language of these confrontat ional and incorporat ive dia logues is not found in words, or even symbols. It is, rather, in the domain of social organizat ion, in which words and symbols are contextual ized in a struggle to harness emergent differentiation or, f rom below, to develop and re-develop autonomy" (1987:22). 202 Chapter Seven: Fishing For Themselves Still: Conclusion " The fishery is what makes us Std.ld The fishery has always been important to us. Archaeologists have demonstrated, through radio-carbon dating and other scientific methods, that our ancestors have been fishing in the Fraser Valley for nearly ten thousand years. That's five hundred generations. In that time, we've become attached to our fish. Salmon are part of who we are. And in more ways than one.... We aren't taking more fish than we used to. In fact, we're taking an awful lot less." (Grand Chief Archie Char les f rom Seabird Island to the Chilliwack Progress, Wednesday July 3, 1996) St6:l6 f ishers have been f ighting governmental interference into their way of life for more than a century. This thesis has addressed that f ight by examining specif ic act ions on the part of St6:l6 f ishers within a context of accommodat ion and resistance. Whi le approaches rooted in processual analysis as well as act ion theory and dependency theory models contr ibute signif icantly to a meaningful f ramework for my examinat ion of accommodat ion and resistance, I push past the bounds of these approaches and models that focus on adaptat ion/ integrat ion and the overwhelming exper ience of external factors, relying instead on an approach that focuses on Sto: Id f ishers as active agents in the product ion of their history and reproduct ion of their culture within the context of the larger dominant history. Toward that end, I have provided a historically si tuated examinat ion of three separate and distinct responses to f isheries regulat ion on the part of a peoples identifying themselves as St6:l6 - a people with a common heri tage, common mythology and ritual - a people among whom social and economic t ies are establ ished across community boundar ies through marriage. The responses I have identif ied as acts of resistance include: the part icipation in direct acts of often militant protest on the part of the Cheam Band; the initiation of a justice diversion program the by Seabird Island Band; and the part icipation in legal sales 203 f isheries conducted under the auspices of negot iated agreements or government l icensing requirements. Sto: 16 f ishing takes place within a space bounded by tradit ion and state regulat ion. Through my select ion of three specif ic responses to f isheries regulat ion I have juxtaposed what can be seen as simultaneously converging and diverging acts of resistance and accommodat ion operat ing within that space. By way of my examinat ion of these acts, I have demonstrated that agency is manifest in resistance and accommodat ion and is not l imited to one single response to regulat ion. Wh i le I maintain that the predominate response to f isheries regulat ion is simply to go f ishing, by focusing on three differing and high profile responses to regulat ion, I have demonstrated that the Sto: 16 responses to regulat ion, whi le var ied, represent more than a shared ideology; but a common material and meaningful f ramework rooted in tradit ion for l iving through, talking about, and acting upon social orders character ized by dominat ion. It was in 1879 that a general Fishery Regulat ion for Canada was adopted which prohibi ted salmon f ishing without a Department of Marine Fisheries lease or l icense. By 1888 new regulat ions were implemented that would contain more comprehensive controls over salmon f ishing. As Native peoples became increasingly al ienated f rom their land and resources, numerous other steps were taken to al ienate them from their culture as wel l . Provisions added to the Indian Act in 1927 out lawed Native winter ceremonies and pot latches in an attempt to further strip Native peoples of their culture and way of life, forcing them to rely on avai lable wage labor jobs rather than their customary forms of provisioning themselves. Another key component in the hegemonic 204 process that fo l lowed in the wake of increased white sett lement was the residential school system whereby Aboriginal chi ldren were removed from their homes dur ing the school year and placed in white-run boarding schools. The residential school exper ience was one core instrument in the government 's attempt to assimilate Abor iginal peoples and chi ldren placed in the residential schools were separated from cultural practices and foods. Accord ing to Sider (1997), exper ience is social and relat ional; not only socially formed and continual ly shaped but also naming the major arena for chosen and unavoidable struggles of all forms and processes of differentiation. In the case of the Sto: Id, that arena is the f ishery. I have revealed that f rom and against the St6:l6's exper ience in, and around the f ishery, agency is manifest and in the case of the Sto:Id dif ferentiat ion is revealed. Consequent ly, I have brought into focus the historical moments of heightened resistance; that space where resistance and accommodat ion blurr, history is produced, culture is reproduced and identit ies emerge. The particular responses on which I have focused provide insight not only into a f ishery fractured by the regulat ions of the 1880s, but also into the varying ways through which St6:ld f ishers have asserted their Aboriginal right to f ish. Addit ional ly, I have examined the social relations within the smaller St6:l6 col lective as wel l as between the St6:l6 and the larger Canadian state; l inking agency with identity. The three responses examined in this work reflect not only varying expressions of agency, but also the varying ways by which St6:l6 f ishers wish to be identif ied. These identit ies arise from (and against) the exper iences of the residential school system, the regulatory system that essential ly made them out law f ishers and the 205 economic system that some seem wil l ing to exploit as a means of garner ing ' legit imate' capital. I have descr ibed in detail how the emerging identit ies reflect part icular agendas as regards the salmon fishery. Consequent ly I have revealed that identities such as the original commercial f ishers, warr iors on the water and guardians of the resource reflect the depth of the connect ion between Sto: 16 responses to regulat ion and Sto: 16 history and tradit ion. Sto: 16 f ishers have consistently protested government interference into their way of life. Wh i le those actions or responses have taken varying forms, all are purported to be rooted in tradit ion. Based on my examinat ion of agency as manifest in the Sto: 16 f ishery, I have demonstrated that for the Sto: 16, resistance is l inked to a tradit ional past as def ined and redef ined by the f ishers themselves. To say the Sto: 16 f ish and utilize the salmon resource as they did in the past, more particularly the pre-contact past, is at the same time, true and misleading. Such a statement assumes a static relat ionship with the salmon resource as well as with the micro and macro economies in which the Sto: 16 f ind themselves. Addit ionally, such a statement obscures the internal dif ferences as wel l as the varying needs of Sto: 16 f ishers. A century of intensive regulat ion greatly al tered the relat ionship between the Sto: 16 and the salmon resource; the Sto: 16 and their own people and the Sto: 16 and the larger society in which they f ind themselves. However, such a statement does link St6:l6 f ishers to their past; a past that is f inding use as a way of understanding and explaining the present as expressed through a somet imes constructed past. Sto: 16 f ishers have told me that their responses to f isheries regulat ion are rooted in tradit ion. For Sto: 16 f ishers tradit ion has become a means of just i fying the present through remembering the past; a way of interpreting the 206 past according to the needs of the present (Mauze 1997). The past becomes a succession of answers to quest ions about the present; taking on the status of an always correct answer to the quest ions asked (Mauze 1997:6-7). To understand what consti tutes the past, I have identif ied and descr ibed the outside forces that direct and redirect St6:l6 f ishing practices; as well as the internal forces shaping their responses to those forces that have become a part of St6:l6 history. Bound by a history of regulat ion, St6:l6 f ishers cont inue to f ish, many of them illegally, whi le protest ing government interference into their way of life. Whether exercised collectively around acknowledged community leaders; l iminally around notions of harmony; or independent ly around the simple act ion of maintaining a l ivel ihood, these responses discussed in this thesis are rooted in construct ions and reconstruct ions of tradit ion. As Sider (1993) notes, it is necessary to look closely at the forms of social relat ions to which the word tradit ion refers, relations he contends, that often turn out to express claims for autonomy or partial autonomy in the midst of poverty and power lessness much more than they express continuity with a real or imagined past. As a part of my discussion, I have demonstrated that the responses on the part of St6:l6 f ishers, responses which they contend are rooted in tradit ion, do indeed represent attempts to regain some measure of autonomy over the river and its sa lmon resources more so than a continuity with a real or imagined p a s t . By the late 1880s Indians were being seen as a major obstacle to cannery profits and f isheries officials were pressed by cannery owners to introduce new regulat ions to l icense the industrial f ishery. The Indian f ishery had already been designated as strictly a ' food f ishery' by 1888, when a wave of regulat ion between 1894 and 1914 207 out lawed specific, important technologies such as trawling, drift ing or bag-nett ing; important methods below the canyon. Traps and weirs were also out lawed in this wave of regulat ion as was the practice of ' torchlighting' (f ishing at night). Set gill nets became the only legal technique between the delta and the canyon areas. Sto: 16 people faced cont inued restrictions on when and how they could f ish. From as early as 1883, the St6:l6 have protested federal interference in their f ishery and way of life. Throughout the late 19 t h and early 2 0 t h century protests cont inued as government regulat ion heightened. These struggles would cont inue throughout the 2 0 t h century and into the 2 1 s t century. Newspaper accounts f rom the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s relate acts of def iance on the part of the St6:l6, those acts often taking the form of organized rebell ion or simply f ishing to feed their famil ies. Gavin Smith (1989, 1999) tells us that such act ions, whether organized acts of rebell ion or act ions directly connected to making a l iving, cannot be v iewed outside of the specif ic history of local and global economies connected to that history; as in the case of the St6:l6 such acts should be v iewed within the context of the forces acting directly and indirectly on St6:l6 f ishers. By relying on a historically situated examinat ion of the Sto.lo f ishery, I have answered Gavin Smith's call for historical real ism. Ar is ing f rom the division of the salmon f ishery in 1888 that effectively removed St6:l6 f ishers f rom the larger economy was an overall percept ion that grew within the industrial f ishery regarding the place of Aboriginal f ishers in the salmon f ishery. This percept ion was made clear in a 1944 f isheries report: One port ion of the total run consists of the valuable commercial f ishery and also the relatively less important Indian fishery... However, as it becomes necessary to give the small and nearly extinct race the protect ion required for their rehabil i tat ion... .(Howard 1944:65) 208 However, more troubl ing than the mere existence of this phi losophy is the fact that it has shaped the nearly 120 year old relat ionship between St6:l6 f ishers and the larger Canadian economy and remains evident today. St6:l6 f ishers cont inue to do battle with f ishers in the industrial and recreational sectors. Industrial f ishers have painted a picture of thieving Indians responsible for mill ions of missing f ish with anglers conjuring up a more maniacal portrait of Indians armed to the teeth, lying low on their reserve. Confounding the problem is the fact that the same notions regarding the f ishery held by the industrial f ishing community permeate the larger St6:l6 community as f ishers f rom both communit ies chase a dwindl ing resource. A century of regulat ion has altered the understanding as wel l as the actions of Abor iginal peoples as regards the fishery. As a part of my examinat ion of the St6:l6 f ishery, I have identif ied the diverging agendas as regards the salmon resource. As St6:l6 f ishers struggle with ever increasing river closures in the name of conservat ion, their unif ied front in the f ight for an Aboriginal right to f ish conceals the varying needs within the smaller St6:l6 economies as manifest in salmon f ishery. Pressure from without has generated pressure from within, placing acts of resistance in opposit ion: privi leging one over another, as in the case of the content ions relat ionship that exists in the canyon f ishery: Wi th commercial f ishing and drying, the one that is older, that is more culturally intact should be priorit ized. (Butler 1998:13) Accord ing to Butler, the wind dry f ishery has come to be considered, for some, as 'more tradit ional ' and 'more culturally intact' than other f ishing activit ies, part icularly the commercial sale of the f resh catch (1998:13). In this case hegemony is embraced; a specif ic v iew of the f ishery is acknowledged; a 'useless' past is denied and a history 209 over looked in order to fulfill the needs of one f ishing family over another in the face of increasing regulat ion and a dwindl ing resource. During the summer of 1998 this situation was brought into sharp relief when the overt act of il legal f ishing in support of an Abor iginal right to f ish col l ided with the simple act of feeding one's family. After 48 hours of f ishing the river was closed to Indian f ishing due of conservat ion concerns regarding the early Stuart sockeye run. Fishers at Cheam actively f ished dur ing the closure ' forcing' DFO to extend the closure because of the il legal f ishing. W i n d dry f ishers in the canyon cal led for the arrest their neighbors and cousins who were f ishing in support of the Aboriginal right to f ish. C a s e S t u d i e s In the three case studies compris ing this examinat ion, I have identif ied not only the diverging needs as regards the salmon resources, but also diverging approaches to the tradit ion of f ishing; approaches often in opposit ion. Sider descr ibes history as fraught with breaks, disjunctions, punctuated by dramatic incidents and episodes, or in Sider's words "far f rom seamless or running unbroken f rom past to present" (1993:10). It is a long these f issures that identity is created, history is produced and human agency revealed. It is this relat ionship between the product ion history and human agency that is central to my examinat ion of the act ions and reactions of the St6:l6 f ishers and how those act ion and react ions reflect different responses to government authority. I began my discussion of St6:l6 responses to regulat ion by focusing on the act ions and react ions of the Cheam community. I have chronicled Cheam's turbulent relat ionship with federal f isheries authorit ies as played out in the local press. More specif ical ly I have demonstrated that direct action on the part of the Cheam has served to create 210 Cheam's persona as warr iors on the water and has served to support other Sto: 16 f ishers in their Abor iginal right to f ish. The Aboriginal right to f ish has been hard-fought by all the famil ies in the Cheam community. The violent incident at Gill Bay down river f rom the Cheam reserve in 1986 set the tone for the relat ionship between the Cheam band and federal Fisheries authori t ies over the next two decades. As DFO cont inued to deny the regular Thursday through Sunday f ishing on the early Stuart run, v iolence escalated to near warl ike condit ions by the summer of 1999. News headl ines of b lockades and photographs of camouf laged-clad Natives standing watch on the beach contr ibuted to Cheam's identity as "warriors on the water." The wars of the summer of 1999 represented a culminat ion of the ongoing batt les between Native f ishers and the federal government over the Abor iginal right to f ish. Because the battle lines have been drawn around the Abor iginal right to f ish, or more particularly, the infr ingement of that right by the government, acts of direct action on the part of Cheam f ishers work to further establ ish their identity as f isher people. Mauze notes that tradit ion has become a metaphor for identity (1997). Cheam f ishers will tell you they are fol lowing tradit ion when exercising their Abor iginal right to f ish. For decades Cheam f ishers al lowed f isheries authorit ies to dictate when and how they would f ish - in short breaking from the tradit ional practice of fo l lowing the guidance of the community S i y a m But Cheam f ishers now say they have returned to a tradit ional practice of relying on knowledgeable community leaders to determine when they would f ish. However, that ' traditional knowledge' now comes as much f rom forecasts f rom DFO biologists and other bureaucracies created to monitor and predict 211 f ish movement as wel l as f rom leaders within the community. Wh i le recorded oral histories of Cheam elders reflect a past when people could f ish whenever they wanted, it is a past that includes limits and restrictions such as the Thurdays through Sunday f ishing schedule that has come to be the norm; a past that is now used to support an Abor iginal right to f ish. It was when the Thursday to Sunday schedule was disrupted that v iolence broke out on the water. Eventual ly the courtroom would replace the river as the batt leground, and victories on this new batt leground would make their way into the tradit ion of f ishing. Cheam f ishers maintain that they have an Abor iginal right to f ish not only because their ancestors f ished all f ive species of sa lmon in the Fraser, but also because the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian consti tut ion affirm that an Abor iginal right to f ish exists. Whi le tradit ion has become a means of just i fying the present through the past, I have shown that the past on which the Cheam rely is ever closer to the present. In regard to the specif ic response on the part of the Seabird Island community, I have demonstrated that the Seabird Island Justice Protocol agreement is indeed an act of resistance as shaped by that community 's unique history in addit ion to the supra-tradit ional f ishery so closely associated with the Seabird Island band. On the surface the community 's response appears to be in direct opposit ion to the aff irmation of the Abor iginal right to f ish as expressed in the direct act ion responses on the part of the Cheam community. However, Seabird Island community leaders, as wel l as other Sto: 16 leaders, maintain that the steps they have taken in work ing out an agreement with Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Justice, Canada in regard to f isheries violat ions is as much an aff irmation of the Abor iginal right to f ish as Cheam's 212 acts of def iance. According to the individual directly responsible for init iating the Justice Protocol, this move offered the Seabird Island band an opportunity to show the federal government that the community could police itself in regard to the salmon f ishery by relying on past practices of Aboriginal justice. Heralded by some as the foundat ion to a new relationship, the Seabird Island Justice Protocol Agreement is said to incorporate the concept of tradit ion as it relates to Seabird Island's recognit ion of the importance of the collective approach to the f ishery. An agreement of another sort, Seabird Island's Just ice Protocol agreement seeks to lessen the burden of regulat ion on community f ishers by providing for part icipation in a diversion program which removes the responsibi l i ty of adjudication from the formal court system; transferr ing it to an establ ished Aboriginal justice program. And as with the Cheam band, Seabird Island leaders maintain that their specif ic response to f isheries regulat ion is rooted in the tradit ional past; a past I maintain, is bound up in a tradit ion that reflects the unique history of the community and connects them with wind-dry f ishery that is so closely associated with them. The Seabird Island community was created in 1879, when famil ies f rom the surrounding St6:l6 and N' laka'pamux communit ies a long the Fraser River were relocated to the area in an attempt to promote agricultural pursuits among the Native peoples. Until the Seabird Island band was created in 1958, the land was held in common by the six upriver bands relocated to the area. The community has since grown to the be largest of the St6:l6 reserves in land mass and populat ion. Addit ional ly, the Seabird Island band administers many of its own social programs directly; many of the same programs administered by the larger St6:l6 Nat ion for 213 remaining affi l iated bands. I argue that all of these factors contr ibute to a slightly different relat ionship between the Seabird Island band and the local, provincial and federal governmental bodies than those of the other Sto: 16 bands, paving a way for the implementat ion of the Justice Protocol agreement. As with other Sto: 16 communit ies, f ishing has always been important to the way of life of the Seabird Island community. The importance of f ishing was reaff irmed by the members of the community with whom I spoke. Many of the present day Fraser canyon wind-dry f ishing spots are owned by members of the Seabird Island community. In recent years the wind-dry f ishery has come to be considered a hal lmark of tradit ional Sto: 16 life and the dry-rack famil ies the keepers of that tradit ion. My visit to the Charles family canyon dry-rack camp revealed, not only the importance of f ishing to the community, but also a f ishery in crisis. Usually arriving at his camp the first of July to begin f ishing in t ime to util ize the canyon winds, my visit, nearly 20 days into the month, revealed that the Charles family's dry-rack contained few f ish wi th l imited t ime avai lable before canyon condit ions were no longer right for drying. Grand Chief Char les talked of the restrict ions on the f ishery in the name of conservat ion; restrict ions that have cont inued to result in the loss of winter stores. According to those involved in negotiat ing the agreement, the signing of the protocol is an attempt at preserving the salmon resource for future generat ions by relying on tradit ional practices. This notion closely mirrors the supra tradit ional approach reflected in the dry-rack l icenses negot iated between Sto: 16 f ishers and DFO. Specif ical ly noted in the agreement is the fact that all would be held accountable in conserving the resource as a part of a collective, tradit ional approach to the f ishery. In 214 an effort to accompl ish that goal, the Protocol agreement provides for the diversion of f isheries related offenses away from the courts and into the realm of Abor iginal justice practices. In the case of the Seabird Island agreement, cases were to be diverted to the Sto: 16 Nations justice program establ ished in 2000 - Qwi:qwelst6m. In my discussion of the implementat ion of the agreement, I have descr ibed the St6:l6 program designated to handle individual diversions cases elect ing to proceed under the agreement. Qwi:qwelst6m is the Halq 'emeylem word that best descr ibes "justice" according to Sto: 16 wor ldv iew and is descr ibed as being based upon tradit ional Sto: 16 forms of dispute sett lement whereby affected family and community members are cal led together to discuss what has happened and to reach an agreement on how to best repair the harm and restore balance and harmony to the disrupted relat ionship. Whi le at this t ime the only opt ion avai lable to those wishing to have their cases diverted from the 'white man's court, ' I call into quest ion the use fu lness of system that has, as its mission, the bringing about of a resolut ion such as to prevent recurrence of the offense when consider ing the outcome of case that involves the Aboriginal right to f ish. Given the situation today regarding the f ishery - limits on f ishing; f requent c losures and the inability to part icipate in legal sales f isheries in that Seabird Island refuses to sign the sales agreements that would provide an opportunity for Seabird Island f ishers to legally sell their salmon - how can there be resolut ion? Whi le some in the Seabird community v iew the use the Qwi:qwelst6m program as an aff irmation of Abor iginal rights; "a way of showing w e can take care of things ourselves," others remain steadfast in their belief that part icipation in the newly implemented justice program is an admission of guilt for 215 breaking the whi te man's law; a law not accepted within the context of the Aboriginal right to f ish. In the summer of 2002, I posed that quest ion to Sto: 16 leader Grand Chief Clarence Kat Pennier, "Is part icipation in the diverison program an acceptance of DFO' authori ty over the f ishery?" The just ice protocol s igned by Seabird Island is said to represent an adopt ion of tradit ional practices as a means of deal ing with f isheries regulat ions. As a part of his examinat ion of Aboriginal just ice programs, Bruce Miller points out how colonial processes have transformed and distorted the polit ics of indigenous communit ies, including the ways in which community members understand their own prior practices of just ice (2001:201). Addit ionally, in her discussion of indigenous just ice programs rooted in not ions of tradit ion and harmony, Laura Nader (1990) notes how these ideologies have been shaped by the colonial encounter. According to Nader, they reflect and mask the internal struggles arising as a consequence. In the case of the Seabird Island agreement, resolution is sought f rom inside the community through an ideal ized past. I contend that Miller and Nader 's observat ion of Abor iginal just ice programs is directly on point when applying their discussion of an ideal ized past to an examinat ion of the Seabird Island Protocol Agreement. Through the protocol agreement, the community is seeking to establ ish a partnership with the authority that, for the past century and a half, has had ultimate control over the past, and cont inues, regardless of the presence of any agreement, to control the present. There isn't much in the experiences between the Native peoples of British Columbia and the Federal and Provincial governments on which to hang one's star. In the case of Seabird Island, a past comprised of assimilat ion programs, residential 216 schools, increased f isheries regulat ions and economic marginal izat ion is being set aside as part and parcel of a grand vision. By examining the connect ion between the unique history of the Seabird Island community in connect ion with the f ishery so closely aff i l iated with that community, I have revealed that the Justice Protocol agreement works to establ ish Seabird Island as the ult imate guardian of their sa lmon f ishery as part of that grand vision and that by embracing an idealized past, one f ishery is pr ivi leged over another based on a conceptual izat ion that one is more tradit ional or more cultural. This conceptual izat ion arises out of a larger colonial history that long ago separated the social and economic aspects of the Abor iginal salmon f ishery as well as a need to maintain a way of life within the context of a system that provides little opt ion for any other action. By way of the protocol agreement, the Seabird Island community seeks to possibly preserve access to a resource in crisis by agreeing to work cooperat ively to conserve that resource. Wha t was reiterated to me was the importance of the agreement in heal ing old wounds and establ ishing a partnership with the federal government; a way for the Seabird Island community to look after itself based on a tradit ionally recognized col lective process with respect to conservat ion. This particular not ion of conservat ion bound in tradit ion is specif ically expressed in the language of the agreement. Embedded in that ' language' of tradit ion is also the notion of harmony and resolut ion and the rel iance on a community based just ice to achieve that harmony and resolut ion. Through my discussion of the Justice Protocol as it relates to a tradit ion of conservat ion of a resource, I have demonstrated that a connect ion exits, albeit subtle and nest led in the language of conservat ion, between the salmon resource and wind dry f ishery so 217 closely associated with the Seabird Island community. These are two of the responses to f isheries regulat ion on which I focused in this work. The third response, much as the first two, seeks to establ ish some measure of autonomy on the river. In an effort to descr ibe yet another react ion to f isheries regulat ion, in my third case study I have discussed the Sto: 16 commercial f ishery as it has been conducted under the auspicious of sales agreements and commercial l icensing. I focused on two St6:l6 f ishers descr ibed as 'highl iners' or 'moneymakers ' . By examining legal f ishing as it relates to an opportunity make a living within a context of resistance and accommodat ion, I have demonstrated that part icipation in the Sto: 16 commercial f ishery, whether conducted outside the boundar ies of the law or as part of legally negot iated sales agreements, represents a form of resistance when v iewed in connect ion with Sto: 16 tradit ion as well as a part of an emerging history. This relat ionship has been advanced in the courts (i.e. Vander Peet) when connect ions were made between sell ing salmon to a neighbor and bringing boat loads of sa lmon down to the saltry at Ft. Langely. Numerous St6:l6 f ishers with whom I spoke maintain that the St6:l6 were the first commercial f ishers; a designat ion they claim is rooted in tradit ion and one they did not give up in the face of a century of regulat ion that worked to separate Sto: 16 f ishers f rom the economics of f ishing. Fishers such as Ken Mal loway who not only part icipate in the agreement f isheries, but push each year for their signature, chal lenge the notion that the agreements represent an infr ingement on the Aboriginal right to f ish. Wh i le these agreements may set limits on the practice of f ishing, the Abor iginal right to f ish exists whether agreements are in place or not. These f ishers also chal lenge the notion that 218 part icipation in sales agreements should be v iewed as less than tradit ional. The practice of f ishing conducted within the conf ines of the law does not deny the relevance of the practice as it contr ibutes to the act of resistance any more than part icipation in the practice of out law f ishing defines the condit ions of resistance. As a part of my discussion of the legal sale of salmon I have demonstrated that for the Sto: 16 resistance and l ivel ihood represent two sides of the same coin; inseparable and jo ined by tradit ion. There is no quest ion that the initiation of the Pilot Sale f ishery changed the face of the Fraser River salmon f ishery as regards the industrial f ishery as wel l as the Abor iginal f ishery. Consider ing just the Aboriginal f ishery, the number of ' l icensed' f ishers doubled immediately upon the implementat ion of the project as many who had not f ished in the past f locked to the river in an effort to cash in on the right to sell their f ish. A n d almost as immediately, f ishers began to voice their concern over the increased pressure on the resource as well as the effects of over crowding on the water. This change has had specif ic ramifications when consider ing the contested arena of the canyon fishery. Wind-dry f ishers expressed concern over the increased numbers of f ishers and the potential effects on their part icular f ishery. However, long t ime canyon commercial f ishers such as the Mal loways maintain that it was about more than the money for them; it is about cont inuing the tradit ion of the Sto: 16 as the original commercial f ishers. Whi le these f ishers sold their catch prior to the initiation of the Pilot Sale program, it has been in their part icipation in the 'agreement ' f isheries that has been cal led into quest ion by other Sto: 16 f ishers. As a part of my discussion of Sto: 16 commercial f ishers, I hold that connect ions 219 should be examined regarding a relat ionship between tradit ion and capital accumulat ion within the context of Sto: 16 social order. I have revealed an exist ing percept ion among industrial f ishers as well as Sto: 16 f ishers that maintains sel l ing f ish for capital accumulat ion has little place in the Sto: 16 f ishery; a percept ion arising f rom a past shaped by regulat ion and fueled by limited access to the resource. Sto: 16 sell their f ish. Many St6:l6 f ishers will say that they have always sold their f ish. However, I have demonstrated that it is not the act of sell ing, it is the specif ic context wi thin which it is conducted - sale agreements and governmental l icensing - that br ings into play the notion that a capital accumulat ion f ishery is less tradit ional; less cultural. Fishers such as Ken Mal loway maintain that indeed, the notion of capital accumulat ion is embedded in Sto: 16 culture and tradit ion. Ken Mal loway gives as an example his uncle Frank's [Mal loway] Halq;emeylem name, which means "one who gives big potlatches." Accord ing to Ken, his Uncle Frank's name goes back 1000 years and demonstrates the fact that "obviously some Chil l iwack people were rich." In my discussion of Lester Ned's part icipation in the industrial f ishery, I have shown that whether agency is exercised within or outside of the system of law, connect ions to tradit ion are visible. Lester Ned, who jokingly refers to himself as a bona f ide comercial f isherman because he holds an Indian A-1 commercial l icense, has a long history of part icipation in the advancement of Abor iginal f ishing rights. Lester Ned will tell you that the St6:l6 have been f ishing on the Fraser for at least 10,000 years and that, suddenly, in 1888 the federal government establ ished the Indian Food Fishery, separat ing the social and economic aspects of the St6:l6 f ishery. Wh i le Lester Ned's entrepreneurial approach to the salmon f ishery is clearly evident, f ishing for 220 Lester Ned is very much a Sto: 16 activity, integral to his identity as Sto: 16. I have demonstrated that f ishing as a tradit ional practice is not singularly def ined by the condit ions under which the f ishery is conducted, but rather also by how the individual f isherman identif ies himself, especial ly through his place in the community and the f ishery. Given these cri tera, I contend that Lester Ned is indeed a Sto: 16 f isherman whether f ishing f rom his mechanized gil lnet boat under his A-1 Indian commercial l icense or in his band's spot at Devil 's Run. As with the Cheam and Seabird Island communit ies, St6:l6 commercial f ishers such as Ken Mal loway and Lester Ned seek to gain some autonomy over the river through the tradit ional practice of f ishing. Perceptions and mis-percept ions of weal th and access to the f ishery have placed some St6:l6 f ishers in the space between tradit ion and regulat ion. Ethnographic accounts and oral histories reflect a t ime when f ishing was indeed bound by regulat ion, albeit f rom within St6:l6 society rather than f rom outside of it. As noted by Bierwert, f isheries regulat ions created a site of power and corporate enterpr ise at odds with the Canadian state as wel l as with other St6:l6 f ishers as St6:l6 f ishers cont inued to f ish and sell their catch. I argue that the site of power descr ibed by Bierwert should be expanded to embrace part icipation in the legal sale of salmon under programs and opportunit ies made avai lable via state regulat ion. Part icipation in the black market f ishery intersects with part icipation in the legal f ishery as the players in both are the same. Those f ishers profit ing in the black market are the same f ishers profit ing by part icipation in sales agreements. However, profit ing in the latter seems to draw scorn f rom others in the St6:l6 community. Notes Bierwert, out law f ishing as a practice came to be for some, a form of resistance to the repressive polit ics 221 of the state (1997:245). I have demonstrated that part icipation in the legal sale of sa lmon represents its own form of resistance when v iewed as a mechanism of cultural reproduct ion or more specif ically the protection of a l ivel ihood that is interconnected with a social identity. W h a t Fo l l ows . . . Accord ing to Gavin Smith: The productivity of culture increases at historical moments of heightened resistance and rebell ion: increases because the valued components of culture are chal lenged, threatened f rom without, and so must be art iculated within. And then, through this process, each participant constructs a means for identifying with or against each relevant component of culture. (1999:57) Smith's part icular discussion of resistance has directly informed my examinat ion of St6:l6 responses to f isheries regulat ion; responses that I have demonstrated to be acts of resistance within an historical context of colonial dominat ion. In his discussion of rebel l ion in Peru, Smith notes that past studies focusing on rebel l ion and peasants ' revolut ionary potential overlook how resistance is interl inked with development and development policies. Smith addresses this situation by careful ly construct ing the historical context surrounding peasant groups' l ivel ihoods and clearly i l luminating how that historical context, development and development policies are l inked to peasants ' l ivel ihoods and acts of resistance and rebell ion in the reproduct ion of culture. For the St6:l6 it has been development policies in the form of f isheries regulat ion that has provided the historical context surrounding the St6:l6 f ishery as wel l as the context shaping the varying responses to that history. More importantly, Smith stresses that it is essential to recognize [peasant] cultures as heterogenous, noting that the appearance of a homogeneous group 222 deriving their solidarity f rom their shared customs and tradit ions disguises the internal struggles and dif ferences inherent in the colonial experience. Whi le there exists an over arching Abor iginal narrative in regard to colonial ism and dominat ion among Aboriginal peoples of British Columbia, compris ing that larger narrat ive are the smaller narrat ives that reflect the particular history and exper iences arising f rom that larger history. For the Sto: 16, the appearance of a unif ied front by a homogeneous peoples disguises the dif ferences arising from separate needs within the f ishery as wel l as the external and internal struggles engaging the Sto: 16 people. As a part of this study I have brought to light not only the separate needs, but also the differing condit ions and exper iences direct ing those needs. Addit ionally, I have not only revealed that a link exists between the histories of the individual Sto: 16 communit ies and their specif ic responses to regulat ion, but I have engaged that history in my discussion of those responses on the part of Sto: 16 f ishers. Consequent ly, I have demonstrated that there are at least as many different Sto: 16 f isheries at there are species of salmon A gl impse into the wind dry f ishery is a gl impse into the Sto: 16 way of life descr ibed by ethnographers such as Wi lson Duff: famil ies travel ing to the canyon to f ish; entire famil ies congregat ing in camps to cut and hang sockeye f rom family racks as the canyon winds f low through the bright red strips. This is the picture that Bierwert juxtaposes with that of full totes of salmon ready to be deposi ted at DFO mandated landing sites; where shiny silver unprocessed sockeye are turned into hard cash. The red color so visible f rom the many racks along the river's edge remains hidden. A third picture of famil ies f ishing along the beach brings into v iew the t ransmission of knowledge f rom one generat ion to the next. Al l of these pictures reflect a Sto: 16 way of 223 life; St6: l6 f ishing. All are snapshots of tradit ion. All are snapshots of a life....l ived. Fishing is the essence of Sto: 16 identity and life. The Sto: 16 have fought to keep intact the social and economic aspects of their f ishery. Fishing represents not only a l ivel ihood - a way of making a living - but a life l ived. In short it is as simple as one line on the page: "We' re going f ishing." 224 References Abel , Kerry and Jean Friesen eds. 1991 Aboriginal Resource Use in Canada: Historical and Legal Aspects. Winn ipeg: University of Mani toba Press. Abbottsford/Clearbrook Times 1993 Fisherman charges greed overcoming Native f ishery. March 10, 1993. Abbottsford and Mission News 1991 Limited Abor iginal f ishing rights gets mixed reviews. August 3 1 : A4. Abor iginal Fisheries Journal Newsletter of the BC Aboriginal Fisheries Commission. 2001 Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy & True Co-Management. Vo lume 7 No. 1 January 2001 Pp. 4-5. 2000 Chief June Quipp of the Cheam Band Fighting for Her Abor iginal Rights, Vo lume 6 No. 4 October 2000. P 3. Al f red, Gerald R. 1999 Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press. 1995 Heeding The Voices of Our Ancestors: Kahnawake Mohawk Politics and the Rise of Native National ism. Toronto; New York: Oxford University Press. Amoss, Pamela 1987 The Fish God Gave Us: The First Salmon Ceremony Revived. Arct ic Anthropology, Vol . 24 No. 1 Pp. 56-66. 1978 Coast Sal ish Spirit Dancing: The Survival of an Ancestral Rel igion. Seattle: University of Wash ington Press. 1977 The Power of Secrecy Among the Coast Sal ish. In The Anthropology of Power: Ethnographic Studies from Asia, Oceania and the New Wor ld , R. D. Fogelson and R. N. Adams, eds. Pp. 131-140. New York: Academic Press. Asch, Michael 1997 Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 1993 Home and Native Land: Aboriginal Rights and the Canadian Consti tut ion. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Alexander, Geo. J 1938 The Commercial Salmon Fisheries of British Columbia. Victor ia, British Columbia. Printed by Charles F. Banfield, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty. Argue, A .W. Diana Campbel l , P.A. Gee and M.P. Shepard 1990 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Records of Annual Salmon Harvest by 225 British Columbia Indians Prior to 1951 . Report prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Program Planning and Economics Branch. Vancouver, British Columbia. Bailey, Frederick G. 1969 Stratagems and Spoils: A Social Anthropology of Politics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell . Barnett, H.G. 1938 The Coast Sal ish of Canada. Amer ican Anthropologist , n.s. XL. Pp. 118-141. Barth, Fredrik 1966 Models Of Social Organizat ion. Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper 23. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Bee, Robert L. 1981 Crosscurrents Along the Colorado: The Impact of Government Policy on the Quechan Indians. Tucson: University of Ar izona Press. Bennett, Mari lyn 1975 Indian Fishing and Its Cultural Importance in the Fraser River System. Vancouver: Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and Department of the Environment. Vancouver, British Columbia. Berringer, Patricia Ann 1982 Northwest Coast Tradit ional Salmon Fisheries Systems of Resource Util ization. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology. University of British Columbia. Bierwert, Cr isca 1999 Brushed by Cedar, Living By the River: Coast Sal ish Figures of Power. Tucson: University of Ar izona Press. 1986 Tracery in the Mistl ines: Semiotic Readings of Sto:Id Culture. Ph.D. dissertat ion, Department of Anthropology, University of Wash ington. Blomely, Nicholas 1996 'Shut the Province Down' : First Nations Blockades in British Columbia, 1984-1995. No 111 Autumn 1996. Pp. 5-35. Boas, Franz 1895a Sal ishan Texts. Proceedings, Amer ican Phi losophical Society. Vol . 34:31-48. 1895b Fifth Report on the Indians of British Columbia In The Tenth Report of the Commit tee on the North-western Tr ibes of Canada. Report on the Brit ish Associat ion for the Advancement of Science 6 5 t h meet ing. Pp. 522-592. 1895c Indian Myths and Legends from the North Pacific Coast of Amer ica. Translated f rom Verhandlumgen der Berliner Gesel lschaft fur Anthropologie, 226 Ethnologie Und Urgeshichte by Dietrich Bertz, edi ted by Randy Bouchard and Dorothy Kennedy. Victor ia, British Columbia. Indian Language Project, 1982. 1894 Indian Tr ibes of the Lower Fraser River. Report of the British Associat ion for the Advancement of Science. Ninth Report of the Committee on the North-w e s t e r n Tr ibes of Canada. Pp. 454-463. 1891 Thi rd Report on the Indians of British Columbia in the Seventh Report of the Commit tee on the North-western Tr ibes of Canada. Report of the British Associat ion for the Advancement of Science. 6 1 s t meet ing. Pp. 408-449. 1890 Second General Report on the Indians of British Columbia. Report of the British Associat ion for the Advancement of Science, 6 0 t h meet ing. Pp. 562-715. 1889 Notes on the Snanaimuq. Amer ican Anthropologist 2:321-328. Borden, Charles 1970 Cultural History of the Fraser Delta Region: An Outl ine. Theme Issue, Archaeology in British Columbia: New Discoveries. B.C. Studies Nos. 6 & 7. Fall and Winter . Pp. 95-112. Bornstein, Avram S. 2002 Crossing the Green Line Between the Wes t Bank and Israel. Phi ladelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Boxberger, Daniel L. 1993 Lightning Boldts and Sparrow Wings : A Compar ison of Coast Sal ish Fishing Rights in British Columbia and Wash ing ton State. Native Studies Review. 9(1): 1-13. 1989 To Fish In Common: The Ethnohistory of Lummi Indian Salmon Fishing. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1986 Resource Al locat ion and Control on the Lummi Indian Reservat ion: A Century of Confl ict and Change in the Salmon Fishery. Ph.D. dissertat ion, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Brewer, Anthony 1989 Marxist Theor ies of Imperialism. London and New York: Rout ledge. Brown, Kimberly Linkous and Carol ine F. Butler 1999 A Tale of Two Fisheries: The Management of Commercial Sales and Subsistence Harvests on the Fraser River. Paper presented at the Annual meet ing of the Society for Appl ied Anthropology, Tucson Ar izona, Apri l 21-25. Butler, Carol ine F. 1998 Regulat ing Tradit ion: St6:l6 W i n d Drying and Aboriginal Rights. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Cail , Robert E. 1956 Disposal of Crown Lands in British Columbia, 1871-1913. M.A. Thesis, Department of History, University of British Columbia. 227 Cameron, Laura 1997 The Aboriginal Right to Fish. In Your Are Asked to Wi tness: The St6:l6 in Canada's Pacif ic Coast History: Keith Thor Carlson, ed. Pp. 139-152 Chil l iwack, British Columbia: St6:l6 Heritage Trust. Campbel l , Blake A. 1974 An Assessment of the Salmon Vessel License Control Program, 1968-1973. Vancouver: Department of the Environment. Cardoso, F.H. 1977 The Comsumpt ion of Dependency Theory in the United States. Latin Amer ican Research Review. 12(3):7-24. Carl , G.C. and W.A. Clements 1948 The Freshwater Fishes of British Columbia. Handbook No. 5, British Provincial Museum, Victor ia, B.C. Car lson, Keith Thor 2003 The Power of Place, The Problem of Time: A Study of History and Aboriginal Collect ive Identity. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, University of British Columbia. Car lson, Keith Thor, ed. 2001 A Sto: 16 Coast Sal ish Atlas. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre. 1996 Your Are Asked to Witness: The St6:l6 in Canada's Pacif ic Coast History. Chil l iwack, B.C.: St6:l6 Heritage Trust. Carlson, Keith and Sarah Eustace 1997 The Lower Fraser Canyon Aboriginal Fishery: An Historical Analysis of Access and Control. Report prepared for Sto.lo Nation, Chil l iwack, British Columbia. Car lson, Roy 1994 Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric British Columbia In Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America. New York: Plenum Press. Carstens, Peter 1991 The Queen's People: A Study of Hegemony, Coercion, and Accommodat ion Among the Okanagan of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Chil l iwack Progress 2003 Army request cal led inflammatory. Jennifer Feinberg. Chil l iwack Progress. July. 2002 Food f ishery t imes debated. Jennifer Feinberg. Chil l iwack Progress. July. 1999 RCMP lay assault charge against Cheam. Robert Freeman. Chil l iwack Progress. October: A 1 . 1999 Get away f rom my net. Photo by Rick Coll ins. Chil l iwack Progress. September: A 1 . 228 1999 Warr iors on the Water: As the Cheam band takes to the Fraser they have protect ion from the 'enemy. ' Rick Colll ins. Chil l iwack Progress. August: A 1 . 1998 Yale and St6:l6 f inger point over stal led agreement. Sandra Thomas. Chil l iwack Progress. August. 1998 Prove need for conservat ion. Chil l iwack Progress. July: A 1 . 1998 St6:l6 plan to stand behind Cheam band. Chil l iwack Progress. July: A 1 . 1998 Cheam band members show no signs of fol lowing DFO restrictions. Sandra Thomas. Chil l iwack Progress. July. 1998 Yale takes f ish f ight to court. Robert Freeman. Chil l iwack Progress. May: A 1 . 1996 Natives defiant in the wake of Supreme Court ruling: 'This is our country, this is our f ish. ' Chil l iwack Progress. August. 1995 DFO facing massive law suit. Mark Falkenberg. Chil l iwack Progress. June: A 1 . 1995 Yale band wants exclusive Fraser Canyon f ish access. Robert Freeman. Chi l l iwack Progress. Apri l : A 1 . 1993 A new beginning for St6:l6 bands. Chil l iwack Progress. May: A2. 1992 Salmon just d isappeared. Michele Brunoro. Chil l iwack Progress. August: A 1 . 1992 Native industry begins. Chil l iwack Progress. July: A3. 1991 Natives protest net seizures. Chil l iwack Progress. August: A 1 . 1991 Gunshots fly in f ish dispute. Robert Freeman. Chil l iwack Progress. August: A 1 . 1991 Natives chal lenge f ishery charges. Robert Freeman. Chil l iwack Progress. January: A 1 . 1990 Natives found guilty. Robert Freeman. Chil l iwack Progess. September. 1990 Fishery results in arrests. Robert Freeman. Chil l iwack Progess. July. 1989 Illegal sales go unenforced. Rian Maeizer. Chil l iwack Progress. September. 1989 St6:l6 f ishermen say Fisheries used excessive force in arrest. Gary McDonald. Chil l iwack Progress. May. 1989 River v iolence a possibil ity. Rian Maeizer. Chil l iwack Progress. May. 1988 Black Market Fish. Photo by Rian Maeizer. Chil l iwack Progress. November 19: A4. 1988 Natives always sold f ish. Chil l iwack Progress, November: A2. 1988 Natives insist on right. Chil l iwack Progress, November: A2. 1986 Fishing history for Chehal is Band. Chil l iwack Progress, November. 1986 Natives want say in f ish control. Chil l iwack Progress, September. 1986 Fight on the Fraser. Chil l iwack Progress, August: A 1 . 1971 Indians seek meeting with Hon. Jack Davis. Chil l iwack Progress, August: A7. Chil l iwack T imes 1993 BLOCKADE: RCMP make last ditch move to end protest. Chil l iwack Times, September. Chisholm, Brian, D.E. Nelson and H.P. Schwarz 1983 Marine and Terrestr ial Protein In Prehistoric Diets on the British Columbia Coast. Current Anthropology. 24(3):396-398. Cohen, Fay G. 229 1986 Treat ies on Trial: The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Cohen, Fay G. A n d Vivian Bowde 1988 A Legacy Restored: Another Perspective on the Boldt Decision. Cultural Survival 12(3):50-54. Cole, Douglas and Ira Chaikn 1990 An Iron Hand Upon the People: The Law Against the Potlatch on the Northwest Coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Comaroff, Jean 1985 Body of Power, Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and History of a South Afr ican People. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Codere, Helen 1948 The Sxwaixwe Myth of the Middle Fraser River: the Integration of Two Northwest Coast Culture Ideas. Journal of Amer ican Folklore 61 (239): 1-18. Copes, Parzival 1995 The Profits of Justice: Restoring Aboriginal River Fisheries in Brit ish Columbia. Discussion Paper 95-2. Institute of Fisheries Analysis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Cranmer, Barb 1995 Laxwesa W a . Video. Nimpkish W i n d Product ion. National Film Board of Canada. Montreal, Quebec. Crey, Ernie 1993 Speech given November 7, 1993 to Act ion Agenda for Sel f -Government Conference. 1992 Aboriginal rights. Legal Perspectives. Apri l /May 1992. Crosby, Rev. Thomas 1907 Among the An-ko-me-hums or Flathead Tr ibes of Indians of the Pacif ic Coast. Wi l l iam Briggs, Dept of Agriculture, Toronto. Culhane, Dara (Speck) 1998 The Pleasure of the Crown: Anthropology Law and First Nations, Burnaby: British Columbia: Talonbooks. 1987 A n Error in Judgement: The Politics of Medical Care in an Indian/White Community. Vancouver: Talonbooks. Cul l ingham, James and Ann Bromley 1993 Counter Currents: The Fight for Fish on the Fraser River. Kelowna, British Columbia: Filmwest Associates 230 Denis, Claude 1997 W e Are Not You: First Nations & Canadian Modernity. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. Department of Fisheries & Oceans 2002 Annual First Nations Catches by species 1951-2002. Department of Fisheries Oceans. Ottawa, Ontario. 1993 DFO Fact Book. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Ottawa, Ontario. 1977 Notice to Indian. Poster. F-3335 (Rev. 1/74). Dombrowski , Kirk 2001 Against Culture: Development, Politics, and Religion in Indian Alaska. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press. Dos Santos, F. 1970 The Structure of Dependence. Amer ican Economic Review LX. Duff, Wi lson 1965 The Indian History of British Columbia, Volume 1 The Impact of the Whi te Man. Anthropology in British Columbia, Memoir No. 5, Provincial Museum of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. 1952 The Upper Stalo Indians of the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. Anthropology in British Columbia, Memoir No. 1. British Columbia Provincial Museum and Archives, Victoria, British Columbia. 1950 Field Notes. Stalo Notebooks Nos. 1-7. St6:l6 Nation Archives, Sardis, British Columbia. Dyck, Jos C. 1994 And Then W e Wil l Mind the Law: The Enforcement of Federal Fisheries Regulat ions in British Columbia and the Resistance of Native Fishers 1894-1916. MA thesis, Simon Fraser University. Editorial 1996 Chil l iwack Progress. Archie Charles. The f ishery is what makes us St6:l6. July. Elmendorf, W . W . 1971 Coast Sal ish Ranking and Intergroup Ties. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 27:353-79. Elr idge, Morley 1981 The Hope Highway Archaeological Salvage Project. In Annual Research Report I. Activit ies of the Heritage Conservat ion Branch for the year 1978. B. Simonsen, R. Kenny, J. McMurdo and P. Rafferty eds. Heri tage Conservat ion Branch, Victoria, British Columbia. 231 Fisher, Robin 1992 Contact and Conflict: Indian-European Relat ions in British Columbia, 1774-1890. Vancouver: UBC Press. Firth, Raymond 1964 Essays On Social Organizat ion and Values. London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, no. 28. London: Ath lone Press. Fladmark, Knut 1975 A Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory. National Museum of Man. Archaeological Survey of Canada. Mercury Series. Ottawa. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn H. Russell Bernard, ed. 1998 Ethics In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Pp. 173-202. Walnu t Creek: Al ta Mara Press. Fort Langley Journal 1827 By James Macmil l ian (June 27, 1827 - Oct. 8, 1828) and by Archibald 1830 McDonald (Oct. 10, 1828 - July 30, 1830). Transcr ibed by Winni f reda Macintosh, Jan. 9, 1963. Original Journal in Archives of British Columbia. Fournier, Suzanne and Ernie Crey 1997 Stolen From Our Embrace: The Abduct ion of First Nations Chi ldren and the Restorat ion of Aboriginal Communit ies. Vancouver/Toronto: Douglas & Mclntyre. Frank, Andre Gunder 1967 Capital ism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. NY: Monthly Review Press. Frideres, James S. 1988 Native Peoples in Canada: Contemporary Confl icts. 3rd Ed. Toronto: Prent ice-Hall, Canada. Gal loway, Brent 1977 St6:l6 Photographic Place Names File compi led by Dr. Brent Gal loway and St6:l6 Researcher Albert Philips in cooperat ion with Sto.lo Elders. Coqualeetza Research Centre, Library and Archives, Sardis, British Columbia. 1976 St6:l6 Geographical Place Names File compl ied by Dr. Brent Gal loway in cooperat ion with St6:l6 Elders with the Coqualeetza Elders Group. Coqualeetza Research Centre, Library and Archives, Sardis, British Columbia. Gardiner Pinfold 1994 An Evaluat ion of the Pilot Sale Arrangement of Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. Prepared for Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Garnder Pinfold Consul t ing Economists Limited. Vancouver, British Columbia. Gibson, James R. 232 1982 Smallpox on the Northwest Coast, 1835-1838. B.C, Studies. 1982-83(56) :61-8 1 . Gifford, Ferguson 1989 Indian Fishing Rights in British Columbia. Report prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Glavin, Terry 1996 Dead Reckoning: Confront ing the Crisis in Pacif ic Fisheries. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre. 1993 Rebui lding St6:l6 Fisheries Law: Report of the Community Consultat ion Process Parts 1 & 2. Prepared for the Lower Fraser Fishing Authority, British Columbia. Globe & Mail 1988 Bands head out to f ish in def iance of regulations, Globe & Mail , August, 1988. Gunther, E. 1926 A n Analysis of the First Salmon Ceremony. Amer ican Anthropologist Vol . XXVILL Pp. 605-617. Handler, Richmond and Jocelyn Linnekin 1984 Tradi t ion, Genuine or Spurious? Journal of Amer ican Folklore 77:273-290. Harkin, Michael 1997 The Heiltsuks: Dialogues of Culture and History on the Northwest Coast. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Harmon, Alexandra 1999 Indians in the Making: Ethnic Relations and Indian Identities Around Puget Sound, Berkeley: University of Cali fornia Press. Harris, Cole 1997 The Resett lement of British Columbia, Essays on Colonial ism and Geographical Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Harris, Douglas C. 2001 Fish, Law and Colonial ism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hewes, Gordon W. 1947 Aboriginal Use of Fishery Resources in Northwestern North Amer ica. Ph.D. dissertat ion, University of California, Berkeley. Hil l-Tout, Charles 233 1904 Ethnological Report of the StsEelis and Sk'aulits Tr ibes of the Halq;emeylem Division of the Salish of British Columbia." Journal of the Anthropological Institute, Vol . XXXIV. Pp. 311 -376, London. 1902 Ethnological Studies of the Mainland Halq.emeylem, a Division of the Sal ish of British Columbia. Report of the British Associat ion for the Advancement of Science. Vol . LXXII, pp. 255-349 and also in Report on the Ethnological Survey of Canada, Vol . V I . Pp. 3-99. Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983 The Invention of Tradit ion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Howard, Gerald 1944 Report prepared for the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. New Westminster, British Columbia. Irvine, Miora 1973 Prel iminary Report on Excavat ions at DjRi 7 (South Yale Site). Unpubl ished Manuscr ipt on fi le with the Heritage Conservat ion Board, Victor ia, Brit ish Columbia. Jenness, Diamond 1932 The Indians of Canada. Bulletin 65, National Museum of Canada, Ottawa. Johnson, Jeffrey 1998 Research Design and Research Strategies In Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. H. Russell Bernard, ed. Pp. 131-171. Walnut Creek: Al ta Mara Press. Jorgensen, Joseph 1990 Oil Age Eskimos. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of Cal i fornia Press. 1986 Sovereignty and the Structure of Dependency at Northern Ute. Amer ican Indian Culture and Research Journal . 19(2):75-94. 1978 A Century of Political Economic Effects on Amer ican Indian Society, 1880-1980. The Journal of Ethnic Studies. 6(3): 1-82. Kessing, Roger M. 1992 Custom and Confrontat ion: The Kwaio Struggle for Cultural Autonomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kew, J.E. Michael 1990 Central and Southern Coast Salish Ceremonies Since 1900. In Handbook of North Amer ican Indians Vol . 7 Northwest Coast. Wi l l iam Sturtevan, ed. Pp. 476 -480. Wash ington, D . C : Smithsonian Institution. 1988 Salmon Availabil i ty, Technology & Cultural Adaptat ions on the Fraser River In A Complex Culture of the British Columbia Plateau: Tradit ional St l 'atr imx Resource Use. Brian Hayden ed. Pp. 177-221. Vancouver: University of British 234 Columbia Press. 1970 Coast Salish Ceremonial Life: Status and Identity in a Modern Village. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington. Kew, J.E. Michael and Julian Griggs 1991 Native Indians on the Fraser Basin: Towards a Model of Sustainable Resource Use. In Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin. Anthony Dorcey, ed. Pp 17- 48. Research Program on Water in Sustainable Development, Vol. I, Westwater Research Centre University of British Columbia. Kew, J.E. Michael and Bruce G. Milller 1999 Locating Aboriginal Governments in the Political Landscape. In Seeking Sustainability in the Lower Fraser Bain. Michael Healey, ed. Pp. 47-63. Vancouver: Institute fo Resources and the Environment, Westwater Research. Kulchyski, Peter 1999 In the Words of Elders: Aboriginal Cultures in Transition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Kurtz, Donald V. 1996 Hegemony and Anthropology. Critique of Anthropology, 16(2): 103-135. Lamb, W. Kaye 1966 The Letters and Journals of Simon Fraser 1806-1808. Toronto: Pioneer Books. Leacock, Eleanor B. 1949 The Seabird Island Community. In Indians of the Urban Northwest. Marian Smith, ed. Pp. 185-195. New York: Columbia University Press. LeClair R. 1976 Investigations at the Mauer Site Near Agassiz. In Current Research Reports. Publication No.3. R.L. Carlson, ed. Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Lem, Winnie 1999 Cultivating Dissent: Work, Identity and Praxis in Rural Languedoc. New York: SUNY Press. Lerman, Norman H. 1952 An Analysis of Folktales of Lower Fraser Indians. M.A. thesis, University of Washington. 1976 Legends of the River People ed. Betty Keller. Vancouver. Linnekin, Jocelyn S. 1983 Defining Tradition: Variations on the Hawaiian Identity. American Ethnologist. 235 10:241-252. Lyons, Cicely 1969 Salmon: Our Heritage, the Story of a Province and an Industry. Vancouver: Mitchell Press. Macdonald, A.L. 1992 The Indian Food Fishery of the Fraser River: 1991 Summary. Prepared for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fisheries Branch. Annacis Island, New Westminster, British Columbia. Maud, Ralph ed. 1978 The Salish People The Local Contr ibutions of Charles Hil l-Tout Vo lume III: The Mainland Halkomelem. Vancouver: Talonbooks. Mauze, Marie 1997 Past is Present: Some Uses of Tradit ion in Native Societies. Lanham, MD: University Press of Amer ica. McDonald, James A. 1994 Social Change and the Creation of Underdevelopment: A Northwest Case. Amer ican Ethnologist 21(1): 152-175. 1985 Trying to Make a Life: The Historical Political Economy of Ki tsumkalum. Ph.D. dissertat ion, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. McHalsie, Sonny 1995 Issues in Aboriginal Justice: Clarifying Aboriginal Ownership of Fishing Grounds. Manuscr ipt held by Bruce Miller. Department of Anthropology and Sociology. University of British Columbia. Mcl l lwraith, Thomas 1996 The Problem of Imported Culture: The Construct ion of Contemporary St6:l6 Identity. Amer ican Indian Culture and Research Journal Volume 20, No. 4:41-70. McMul len, Cindy 1998 Bringing the Good Feelings Back: Imagining St6:l6 Justice. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Meggs, Geoff 1991 Salmon: The Decline of the British Columbia Fishery. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre. Menzies, Charles 1999 First Nations, Inequality, and the Legacy of Colonial ism in Social Inequality. In Canada: Patterns, Problems, and Policies, 3 r d Edit ion, Scarborough, Ontario: 236 Prentice Hall Al lyn and Bacon Canada, Inc. 1996 Indian or Whi te? Racial Identities in the British Columbian Fishing Industry. In Anthropology for a Small Planet: Culture Community in a Global Environment, Anthony Marcus, ed. Pp. 110-123, St. James, NY: Brandywine Press. 1994 Stories From Home: First Nations, Land Claims, and Euro-Canadians Amer ican Ethnologist, 21(4) :776-791. Miller, Bruce G. 2000 The Problem of Justice: Tradit ion and Law in the Coast Sal ish Wor ld . Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1999 Contemporary Tribal Codes and Gender Issues. In Contemporary Native Amer ican Cultural Issues, Duane Champagne ed. Pp. 103-126. Walnu t Creek: Al ta Mara Press. 1997 The Individual, the Collective, and Tribal Code. Amer ican Indian Culture and Research Journal 21(1): 107-129. 1995 Folk Law and Contemporary Coast Salish Tribal Code. Amer ican Indian Culture and Research Journal 19(3): 141-164. 1994 Who 's Looking After the Fish? Literary Review of Canada 3(7): 14-16. 1993 The Press, the Boldt Decision, and Indian-White Relat ions. Amer ican Indian Culture and Research Journal. 17(2):75-97. 1992 W o m e n and Politics: Comparat ive Evidence from the Northwest Coast. Ethnology, 31(4):367-383. Miller, Bruce G. and Daniel L. Boxberger 1994 Creat ing Chiefdoms: The Puget Sound Case. Ethnohistory 41(2):267-93. Miller, Bruce G. and Jen Pylypa 1995 The Di lemma of Mental Health Paraprofessionals at Home. Amer ican Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 6(2): 13-33. Miller, Jay 1999 Lushootseed Culture and the Shamanic Odyssey: An Anchored Radiance. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Mitchell , D.H. 1971 Archaeology of the Gulf of Georgia area, a natural region and its culture types. Syesis 4. Supplement 1. British Columbia Provincial Museum. Victor ia, British Columbia. 1965 Prel iminary excavat ions at a cobble tool site. DjRi 7 in the Fraser Canyon. British Columbia. National Museum of Canada Anthropology Papers No. 10, Ottawa. 1963 Esilao - A Pit House Vi l lage in the Fraser Canyon, British Columbia. MA thesis. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia. Mohs, Gordon 237 1990 The Upper Sto: Id Indians of British Columbia: An Ethno-Archaeological Review. Heri tage Consultant 's Report prepared for the Al l iance of Tr ibal Counci l , Sardis, British Columbia. Mooney, Kathleen 1976 Social Distance and Exchange: The Coast Salish Case. Ethnology Vo lume XV, Number 4 Pp. 323-346. Morton, Jamie 1848 - 1 8 5 8 Fort Langley, An Overview of the Operat ions of a Diversif ied Fur Trade Post. Nader, Laura 1990 Harmony Ideology: Justice and Control in a Zapotec Mountain Vi l lage. Stanford: Standford University Press. Newell , Diane 1993 Tang led W e b s of History: Indians and the Law in Canada's Pacif ic Coast Fisheries. Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press. Notzke, C. 1994 Aboriginal Peoples and Natural Resources. York, Ontario: Captus Press. Ong, A ihwa 1997 Spirits of Resistance In Situated Lives: Gender and Culture in Everyday Life. Louise Lamphere, Helena Ragone and Patricia Zavel la, eds. Pp. 355-372. New York: Rout ledge. Pacif ic Fisher ies Th ink Tank 1997 British Columbia Salmon A Fisheries In Transit ion. Workshop Paper. February 7, 1997, Simon Fraser University at Harbour Center, Vancouver, British Columbia. Pearse, Peter and Peter A. Larkin 1992 Managing Salmon on the Fraser. A Report Prepared for Department of Fisheries & Oceans On the Fraser River Salmon Investigation. Power, Melanie Deanne 2003 Fishing For Justice: A Groundwork for Ethical Fisheries Policies in Canada. Ph.D. Dissertat ion,Resource Management and Environmental Studies, Fisheries Center. University of Brit ish Columbia. Roseberry, Wi l l iam 1996 Hegemony, Power, and Languages of Content ion In The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a Wor ld of Power, Edwin N. Wi lmsen and Patrick McAllister, eds. Pp. 71-84. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1991 The Product ion of Culture in Local Rebell ion In Golden Ages, Dark Ages: 238 Imagining the Past In Anthropology and History. Wi l l iam Roseberry and Jay O'Brien eds. Pp. 180-207. Berkeley: University of Cali fornia Press. Royal Commission on Indian Affairs. Lytton Agency. Lytton, British Columbia. 1913-1916. Safety Agreement for the 2002 Salmon Fishing Season, Cheam First Nation June 14, 2002. Said, Edward 1978 Oriental ism. New York: Vintage Books. Salee, Daniel 1995 Identities in Conflict: the Aboriginal Quest ion and the Politics of Recognit ion in Quebec. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 18(2):277-314. Scott, James 1990 Dominat ion and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1985 Weaspons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Ya le University Press. Sider, Gerald 1997 Against Experience: The Struggle for History, Tradit ion, and Hope Among a Native People. In Between History and Histories: The Making of Si lences and Commemorat ions. Gerald Sider and Gavin Smith, eds. Pp. 62-79. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1993 Lumbee Indian Histories: Race, Ethnicity, and Indian Identity in the Southern United States. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1986 Culture and Class in Anthropology and History: A Newfoundland Il lustration. New York: Cambridge University Press. Smith, Dorothy E. 1987 The Everyday Wor ld as a Problematic: A Feminist Scoiology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Smith, Gav in 2004 Hegemony: Critical Interpretations in Anthropology and Beyond. Focal -European Journal of Anthropology. 43:99-120. 1999 Confront ing the Present: Towards a Politically Engaged Anthropology, Oxford, New York: Berg. 1991 The Product ion of Culture in Local Rebel l ion. In Golden Ages, Dark Ages: Imagining the Past in Anthropology and History. Jay O'Brien and Wi l l iam Roseberry, eds. Pp. 180-207. Berkeley: University of Cali fornia Press. 1989 Livel ihood and Resistance: Peasants and the Politics of Land in Peru Berkeley: University of Cali fornia Press. 239 Smith, Linda Tuhiwai 1999 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London, New York: Zed Books. Smith, Mar ian W. 1950 The Nooksack, The Chil l iwack, and the Middle Fraser. Pacif ic Northwest Quarterly. Vol . 4 1 , October 1950, pp. 330-341 . 1947 Col lected Manuscripts and Field Notes. Ms. NO. 268. Museum of Mankind and the Royal Anthropological Institute, London, England. Copy of f i le at Coqualeetza Research Centre, Library and Archives, Sardis, British Columbia. Sqwelqwels Y e St6:l6 1998 The Nations Elders Exercise Their Aboriginal Right to Get Their Fish. August 1998 Volume 1 Issue 6. 2002 Dry Rack Discussion, p. 9 2002 Seabird Signs a Community Initiative. November, 2002, pp. 12-13. Stats Canada 2004 Populat ion for Cheam and Seabird Island Reserves. October, 2004. Stoi lo Nation News 1978 Rebirth of a Nation. October 1978. No 37. Coqualeetza. St6:l6 Tribal Counci l 1988 Fisheries Co-Management Proposal for the Lower Fraser River Watershed. Prepared by the St6:l6 Tribal Council for submission to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Chil l iwack, British Columbia. Souther, Barbara C. 1993 Aboriginal Rights and Public Policy: Historical Overview and Analysis of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. MA thesis. School of Resource and Environmental Management. Simon Fraser University. Sutt les, W a y n e 1990a Central Coast Sal ish. In Handbook of North Amer ican Indians: Vo l . 7 Northwest Coast. Wi l l iam Sturtevant, ed. Pp.453-475. Wash ington D.C.:Smithsonian Institution. 1990b Central Coast Sal ish Subsistence. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 24(2): 147-152. 1987 Coast Sal ish Essays. Seattle and London: University of Wash ing ton Press. 1974 The Economic Life of the Coast Salish of Haro and Rosario Straits. New York and London: Gar land Publ ishing, Inc. 1963 T h e Persistence of Intervil lage Ties Among the Coast Sal ish. Ethnology 2(40):512-525. 1960 Aff inal Ties, Subsistence, and Prestige Among the Coast Sal ish. Amer ican Anthropologist 62:296-305. 240 1958 Private Knowledge, Morality, and Social Class Among the Coast Sal ish. Amer ican Anthropologist, 60:497-507. 1955 Katzie Ethnographic Notes = Anthropology in British Columbia Memoir No. 2. Sutt les, W a y n e and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish In Handbook of North Amer ican Indians: Vol . 7 Northwest Coast. Wi l l iam Sturtevant, ed. Pp.485-502. Wash ing ton Smithsonian Institution. Teit, James 1917a Tales f rom the Lower Fraser River. Memoirs of the Amer ican Folk-Lore Society. Vol . X I , pp. 129-134. 1917b Folk-Tales of the Sal ishan Tribes. Memoirs of the Amer ican Folk-Lore Society. Vol . X I , Part I, pp. 1-64. 1900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. Memoirs of the Amer ican Museum of Natural History Vol . 2 Pp. 163-392, New York. Tennant, Paul 1990 Aboriginal Peoples and Politics: The Indian Land Quest ion in British Columbia, 1849-1989. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. The Province 1998 Natives bow to Fraser f ish ban. Helen Plischke. The Province. July. 1995 The Facts about the Fraser River Salmon Fishery. The Province. September: A2 . Turner, Victor 1957 Schism and Continuity in an Afr ican Society. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Val ley T imes 1988 Crey fi les complain. Val ley Times, August. Vancouver Sun 1998 Feds, Native f ishermen reach deal. Lori Culbert. Vancouver Sun. July. 1996 The court weighs Aboriginal rights. Vancouver Sun. August. 1995 Commercial f ishers tie up city traffic with nets to protest Abor iginal f ishery. Vancouver Sun. September: A7 1993 Blockade's end sparks charge of blackmail. Rosetta Cannata. Vancouver Sun. September: A4. 1993 Standoff at Rosedale. Matthew Plumtree. Vancouver Sun. September: B 1 . 1993 Band boost CN main line blockade. Gordon Hamilton. Vancouver Sun. September: D2. 1993 Cheam Natives put chokehold on CN. Gordon Hamilton. Vancouver Sun. August: D2. 1992 Native leaders del ighted with report on sockeye. Mark Hume. Vancouver Sun. 241 December: B3. 1992 Indians f ish without fear ing the law for the first t ime. Scott Simpson. Vancouver. October. 1986 Nine remanded of f ishing counts. Vancouver Sun. September. 1986 Natives, officials in f ishing fracas. Vancouver Sun. August. 1986 18 Natives face charges in Fraser confrontat ion. Ben Parfitt. Vancouver Sun. August: A10. 1983 Ottawa 'will regret raids. Vancouver Sun. January: B7. 1983 Poaching charges revive rights issue. Ron Rose. Vancouver Sun. January. 1968 Indian says f ish curb humil iat ing. Chief warns regulat ions to be ignored. Vancouver Sun. May: 25. Wal lerste in, Immanuel 1979 The Capitalist Wor ld Economy . London: Cambridge University Press. Ware , Reuben 1983 Five Issues Five Batt legrounds. An Introduction to the History of Indian Fishing in British Columbia, 1850 - 1 9 3 0 . Coqualeetza Educat ion Training Centre, Sardis, British Columbia. 1977 St6:l6 History Field Notes (S.H.F.N.) Unpubl ished manuscript on fi le at Coqualeetza Research Centre, Library and Archives, Sardis, British Columbia. Compl ied by Dr. Reuben Ware during Sto:Id History Project. Wel ls , Oliver 1987 The Chil l iwacks and Their Neighbors. Ralph Maud, Brent Gal loway.and Marie W e e d e n eds. Vancouver: Talon Books. 1970 Myths and Legends of the Staw-loh Indians of South Wes te rn British Columbia. Sarids, Brit ish Columbia. 1969 A Vocabulary of Native Words in the Halq;emeylem Language. Second Edit ion. Sardis, British Columbia. 1966 Indian Terri tory 1858. Map, Sardis, British Columbia. 1965 A Vocabulary of Native Words in the Halq;emeylem Language. First Edit ion, Sardis, British Columbia. Wolf , Eric R. 2001 Pathways of Power: Building an Anthropology of the M o d e m Wor ld . Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of Cali fornia Press. 1982 Europe and the People Wi thout History. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of Cali fornia Press. 242 V- Inset Strait of Georgia -*m<m><®)—<m<m><m>~-Leeanna.Rhodes@stolonation.bc.ca 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0092409/manifest

Comment