The possibility of charges has prompted a response from the Native reserve charging that such a move would violate the “moderate livelihood” portion of the Marshall decision, which upheld Native treaty rights to hunt and fish.
Bob Allain, Regional Director for Fisheries Management in the Gulf, says, “DFO is in the process of reviewing information gathered over the course of this past summer and fall in regards to alleged non-compliance with conditions of DFO’s communal license issued to the band in August. The license does not permit a commercial harvest of lobster — only for food, social and ceremonial purposes.”
Allain adds, “The band maintains that treaties entered into in the 1700s permit commercial fishing outside established fishing seasons. In any event, DFO will be providing its information to the Federal Department of Justice for their review, likely within the next one to two weeks [late November].”
He also noted that the Department of Justice, not Fisheries and Oceans, has the mandate to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support charges of breach of license, i.e. allegations that lobster were sold. “We anticipate decisions from DOJ either late December or sometime in January 2002.”
But Burnt Church spokesman Lloyd Augustine maintains that DFO will face a problem because of the Supreme Court’s decision. “This means we can make a moderate livelihood and that means we can sell our catch.”
Meanwhile, a lobster poaching trial underway on Prince Edward Island does not represent upgraded enforcement by the federal government, despite area news reports, according to a spokesman for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
“The violations were in an area of high incidence rate, LFAs 24 and 25.” said Bobby MacInnis, acting DFO chief of conservation and protection for P.E.I. “We’ve always put fair, not to mention considerable, enforcement efforts into that area.”
MacInnis added that because of conflict at Burnt Church in New Brunswick last season, when DFO officers were in fact pulled from P.E.I., this year’s coverage, though back to normal strength, seems like increased effort.
Seven fishermen have been charged with poaching — fishing in a closed area — during last season.
“It’s possible that we may introduce conservation impact statements where we would have our biologist testify or present documentation before the courts,” MacInnis says. “We may also want to introduce victims’ statement, in other words, how poaching affects legitimate fishermen.”
The trial has been continued to January 10, 2002, and according to MacInnis the complexity of the case could lead to further delays.