Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 28, 2003
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 7:14 p.m. to examine and report from time to time upon the matters relating to straddling stocks and to fish habitat.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: From the Taku River First Nation, we have a number of witnesses. I would ask that Mr. Ward introduce his colleagues. I understand they have a presentation they would like to make.
Mr. John Ward, Spokesperson, Taku River Tlingit First Nation: On behalf of the Taku River Tlingit, I would like to say thank you to the members of the committee. We appreciate this opportunity. I know our country is going through a rugged time.
We have a success story to share with you about harmony and working together. Our presentation is called ``Harmony on the Waters.'' Mr. Richard Erhardt, our biologist is here with me today. Mr. Erhardt has been instrumental in helping me to try to understand how we are going to bring the two philosophies together and start working in harmony. I appreciate that Mr. Erhardt had the patience to come to that point with me. To my right is Mr. Peter Kirby, who is the CEO of Taku Wild, and he has a presentation about the products that he is involved with.
The Chairman: We welcome you this evening. We understand it is quite an impressive experience that you have had putting this together. We look forward to your presentation.
Mr. Ward: In starting, you can see some slides of my Uncle Jack in the middle. There is a bear mask to the right. Commercially, people would say is value-added product, but this is something we have been doing for generation after generation — fixing fish like that. We still do that today.
For countless generations, our people have always maintained good stewardship and protected our boundaries. We have cultured quite a relationship with the land; we became one with the land over generations. Now they struggle in imparting that oneness with the land with this generation.
I will speak for myself. Sometimes I can be pretty thick-skulled, and they have difficulty driving things into my head. They have been successful in helping us to see a more holistic view, which is part of this presentation. Our elders gave us the tools to continue moving forward and carry out that responsibility for stewardship of the land — in this particular case, the wild salmon in our watershed within our traditional territory.
Our territory is a little less than 20,000 square kilometres — that is just a part of our traditional territory. It is pristine in nature. There is no current industrial development going in our traditional territory; there are no roads. All the various ecosystems, the different types of forestry, forest covers and the wildlife are pretty much intact. It is a neat place to visit. I do not know of any place like it. When I go home I appreciate being home for its beauty, and knowing what is there.
We have a great and unique opportunity. There are not too many places like ours. I have heard professionals say that they would not mind coming to study our territory because there are not too many other places like it in the world. Everything is there: salmon, wildlife and healthy ecosystems and forests. They find that intriguing. There are not too many places they could study where everything is there.
Our elders challenged us. We also had constitutional challenges to exercise stewardship. We could not do it by ourselves. Over the years, we have cultured a good relationship with our regional Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, programs. On the West Coast, there are many Aboriginal fishing strategy programs ongoing; the Taku River Tlingit have one of those. That is where we started to culture and develop the relationships with the federal government — particularly DFO.
We came across a guidebook that was developed by the federal government and the British Columbia government outlining developing frameworks for planning. I had discussions with the Regional Director of DFO, and we thought it was a good idea that we could jointly pick this up and work together on it. Mr. Erhardt has been managing the whole planning process and he has been doing a great job. When I have observed the dynamics during the working-group sessions, I have seen a lot of excitement — sometimes to the point of celebration.
I believe that experts who went to school to learn specific things sometimes feel a little bit chained to administrative desks. They see this process as an opportunity to let loose with their expertise. Mr. Erhardt has been very open and patient in trying to understand our traditional ecological knowledge and weave it into it this process. There is an excitement with all of these other parties, one of them being the Alaska Fish and Game Department. They are also part of the process, and they have been very cooperative in helping to create harmony.
In the end, we hope to have ongoing healthy ecosystems, for future generations, not only for the Taku River Tlingit but also for all who have an interest in our traditional territory within the watershed.
Mr. Richard Erhardt, Biologist, Taku River Tlingit First Nation: Thank you for the opportunity to come here.
This is a pictorial flowchart that depicts the fisheries management structure in our transboundary region. Because it is an international transboundary, we also have a cooperative working relationship with our Alaskan neighbours, largely through Alaska Fish and Game, but also through other associations.
The working group that was formed to facilitate this process is meant to provide information to the various committees and panels, although at this time there is no formal connection. We are quite fortunate that Mr. Ward has been participating on a new transboundary panel on the Pacific Salmon Commission. This has also been an opportunity for us to develop such partnerships. These types of partnerships and co-management practices have been in the making even before this process started, largely through Mr. Ward's political outreach on behalf of the First Nation.
Watershed-based fish sustainability planning, WFSP, is a cooperative strategic planning process, much like those used in the corporate world and certainly in the political world. We have applied the strategy of prioritizing time, resources and staff to fisheries co-management. We have a ``fish-first'' approach, whereby we focus upon the sustainability for the long term. We have created a ``living plan,'' in the sense that it is not to be a report collecting dust on the shelf. Rather, it is an ongoing process. The body of the work has been done now in terms of setting the priorities, but this process is meant to continue as a monitoring and measuring tool to ensure we stay on track. It is like a ``blueprint'' for a co-management regime: Everyone has agreed on the design, they know exactly what it is going to look like in the end and the steps are there that we take to build that.
WFSP is also community driven. We are able to have our workshops in our region in the tradition territory of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation, TRTFN. This past winter we set up workshops in Juneau, Alaska to engage the different technical agencies and the partners on that side of the border.
The initial framework for this process was developed jointly by DFO and the province of B.C. as a guidebook. However, there was no program associated with it; there was no one to run with it, which is what we have done here. It is a four-stage process. We are in stage three now, developing action strategies. We are in our second year.
The chart on the lower right of screen shows the method that we followed. At the beginning, we prepared a profile and an overview. The profile is a large amount of homework to collect all of the biological information that exists — whether it is a report in a file cabinet or whether it is the traditional knowledge of an elder that would outline on a map where a spawning area is. Those types of things provide invaluable information that has not been organized in one central source.
With regard to the overview, we gathered information on government legislation and policy, the First Nation values and principles and community interest. We then used that information to come up with our priorities and strategies by referencing all of that information.
First, we separated the region into five planning units based on separate watersheds. Each of these watersheds has unique characteristics in terms of ecological processes and that is how they were selected. It makes it easier for us in selecting planning units.
The regional profile is a compilation of existing biological data, traditional and local knowledge that describes ecological processes and conservation status. The example I have displayed here shows a map of sockeye salmon distribution and spawning areas that we created on our GIS system. This information was not displayed on a map, but now we have a visual depiction of how that specific species uses the watershed. This is a fairly large-scale map — 1:250,000 — but it gives us a basic idea. I will show you a habitat-mapping model that we are developing later that gives a closer perspective. All the information from the regional profile is on there.
As I mentioned, the regional overview comprises information relating to government legislation and policy, the First Nations values, and community interests and concerns. Each of the First Nations involved submitted their ``principles'' of fish sustainability. Our workshops included community participation: members participated in various ways — from drawing maps, relaying their own experiences and observations on the river. Members of the community could see how their concerns were being incorporated into the model. On the screen I have a sample of one of the charts we prepared that summarizes the principles and current legislation and policy that relate to this fish sustainability planning.
To select our planning priorities, we used the same method we did to prepare the profile. We looked at all of the information and used a ``filter'' of questions to narrow in on the most important thing we should be doing to sustain fish and fish habitat. Questions we asked included: Is this priority? Was it mentioned or referred to in the current government legislation policy? Was it a First Nations concern? Was it part of the community outreach input received?
The selected planning priorities are not all of the same scope or priority. For example, we chose the lower Taku River as a priority because it is such a pristine and diverse area. The second priority was a management approach, which we term ``stock-specific,'' where we look at individual stocks instead whole populations for the region. The third priority — wild chum salmon — is a fish population that has raised concerns and requires investigation. It is very integrated.
Currently in the third stage, we are looking at developing action strategies for each of these priorities. Again, we have used the same method — profile and overview — but in more detail for each of these priorities. One example we mentioned, we chose the lower Taku River as a priority area for habitat conservation. One of the action strategies from that was developing this habitat-mapping model.
This was a project that TRTFN began as a pilot project prior to this process. It was good timing in that process. I will explain this model, because there is an interest here in habitat. On the right-hand corner of the screen is an aerial photo of an area of the lower Taku River called King Salmon Flats. We can use aerial photos or satellite imagery. On top of that, we overlay in our GIS mapping program the different types of habitat.
This allows you to click on one of the areas and pull up a description of the type of habitat, fish species and water quality. We do field work, but it would be optimistic to think that we could ever collect the habitat information from this entire region. The advantage of this model is that we sample strategic areas and then the model expands. Based on the aerial photo we are able to pick out different types of habitats and explain that model.
The other advantage is that the end product is something that can be used. You do not have to be a fisheries biologist to use it; it is a tool that can be used by other people for land-use planning or risk assessment and so forth, because it visually depicts how the fish utilize that watershed.
I will turn things over to Mr. Kirby, who will talk about a separate initiative — called ``Taku Wild'' — that is related in terms of having benefits for sustainability.
Mr. Peter Kirby, Chief Executive Officer of Taku Wild Products, TRTFN Capital Projects Manager and Economic Development Officer, Taku River Tlingit First Nation: Thank you for the opportunity to present this information to the committee. I am here to talk about Taku Wild smoke salmon products. It is a derivative company of the watershed- based fish sustainability planning that Mr. Erhardt and Mr. Ward have described.
Taku Wild is a corporation wholly owned by TRTFN in Atlin, B.C. We produce a retort-packaged salmon that is sustainably harvested from the Taku River. We market that product in Canada, the United States, Japan and Europe.
Our objective is to create sustainable economic development for the people who live in the Atlin Taku region and to bring some of the work that is now occurring in the United States back to Canada.
The fish is caught in the Taku River and is put on ice that the fishers chip off the glacier there. The fish is then hauled the three-hour trip down to Juneau to a processing plant where it is high-heat processed and has a shelf-stable life of seven years. Our experience in marketing and selling the product to people is that it does not typically last more than seven minutes, much less seven years.
The processing currently takes place in Juneau, Alaska. According to our current sales projections, we should be able to afford to build a facility in Atlin and create some sustainable long-lasting jobs that do not follow that boom- bust cycle. We hope to use this project as part of an overall sustainable strategy for the Atlin-Taku Region.
Through our marketing efforts, we have been able to provide a little higher price to the fisherman on the river so that they have an improved income and better life in the Atlin Taku region.
Mr. Ward: With this presentation we have a couple of recommendations to think about for future generations and for the ongoing sustainability of salmon in our watershed.
This may be deemed as a pilot initiative, but as Mr. Erhardt said, we are working towards an ongoing living document that will always be there. As long as we incorporate what is important to people — science, traditional, ecological knowledge of our people, especially our elders, who want to see it. Every time we make a presentation, the elders want to see that their knowledge is getting into us, and being passed on.
With this particular project, though, there is great harmony at the regional level, with the DFO and with the Alaska Fishing and Game Department. There is a seat there for British Columbia, but they are too busy getting their government off the ground. We are not here to bash anybody. This is a good success story.
We have done everything we could to include all the expressed concerns and interests in salmon in our traditional territory. I believe this is a great model that can be used in other watersheds to help assist different philosophies and to encourage a great meeting of the minds and great technical structuring. As Mr. Erhardt said, it is a great tool for bridging these gaps and inclusive of all the knowledge that Mr. Erhardt brought.
The habitat-mapping model is really Mr. Erhardt's creation. Now it is part of this plan. It is an example of an openness and ability to share with other people in hopes that we can have harmony. We currently have harmony, and we are looking for support for these kinds of recommendations so there will be ongoing harmony into the future.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ward. It has been an interesting presentation. We are not all that familiar with watersheds, so this is adding a whole new dimension to our committee members.
You have been active in putting a brand new structure together. I understand you are at stage two now, but it is advancing quite well. You bring enthusiasm to this marvellous project. It is helpful for us to hear a positive story rather than all of the negative stories we have been hearing over the past several months. It throws a positive light on this committee.
I do not know if you are familiar with it, but our habitat study is to try to come up with positive stories rather than the negative ones. We wanted to look at habitat and how people are contributing to improving habitat. This is the kind of story that we want to hear. I would like to leave the questioning to members.
Senator Cochrane: I am pleased to hear about the positive approach to fisheries. It is not so common that we hear about positive partnerships and consensus building these days. I thank you for bringing this to our attention.
I come from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As you may be aware, the province is now seeking to share management of the provinces fisheries with the federal government. Premier Grimes has recently proposed the creation of a Canadian/Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries management board to try to do something with co- management. It seems to me that my province would certainly learn from what you are doing out West.
How is this co-management approach first initiated? You mentioned DFO, but tell me about the whole thing. Mr. Ward, you are from the First Nations, I am interested in knowing about that. Who was involved? What did each player bring to the table? What advice would you give others who would like to replicate your success in developing this co- management initiative?
Mr. Ward: This initiative started from a document that was produced by the federal government and B.C. government. I do not have a name for this document, but it is guide for developing these kinds of initiatives. Mr. Erhardt came across it. We talked about it. I asked him to explain it to me — he does my all my deciphering for me.
When we understood it well enough, we thought it looked like a valuable tool. I approached the regional DFO decision-maker in our area and asked if he would be willing to jointly pursue this further and implement this planning process. He was very open to that. The rest is where we are now.
Senator Cochrane: Why did you do this? Was there a problem with the salmon? Was there a problem with the junior stocks?
Mr. Ward: I think Mr. Erhardt could better explain the status of the stocks and the salmon.
I went because we recognized this as a potential process for bringing harmony to us. I had felt frustration in trying to make two worlds come together and the constant clashing of the philosophies among the First Nations and worldviews and management regimes versus science. That has been going on for sometime now.
I was very fortunate to be able to find Mr. Erhardt, who happened to be looking for a job at the time. We talked about this. We had worked together for a couple of years before we saw this document and recognized that it was the vehicle we needed to bring the two worlds together and to secure commitment on the part of the government and the Taku River Tlingit government to undertake to practice openness and to appreciate the values brought to the table.
Mr. Erhardt: The basic framework for the process was there, but the details needed to be worked out.
In respect of the condition of the stocks and the habitat, our situation was quite different. In relative terms, this is a pristine jewel of a region and the stocks are healthy. That does not mean there are no concerns and problems, but this process is meant to help prevent crises. It is also meant to put out fires. That is the approach that we have taken.
The basic framework could be applied anywhere. There are some little details you would have to work out in terms of what the focus would be. Would it be rehabilitation? In our case, it is advantageous for us to take a proactive approach in protecting these stocks and the habitat because it is much easier to do that in the long run than to try and rehabilitate depleted stocks and habitat.
In terms of the projects and the players, we are in our second year now. The body of the planning work is done now. Now we are developing action strategies and plans and determining who is going to do what and what everyone's responsibilities are. Our working group comprised a variety of people from agencies and departments — both habitat and stock assessment. We worked closely with the habitat folks on the Alaskan side to development the integrated approach and the habitat model. Now we are looking at creating seamless base maps that do not end at the Canada/ U.S. board. We are looking at creating a mapping model that is consistent on both sides of the border. Those are some of the things that came up as a result of this specific process.
Senator Mahovlich: Were you ever approached by aquaculture — fish farming? That looks like a nice district for a fish farm.
Mr. Ward: I really do not know much about fish farming. Maybe it is to some people a good place, but my elders would not agree with that. They would take me out and shoot me.
Senator Mahovlich: There are fish farms all around Vancouver now and on the East Coast in a lot of the harbours. The Norwegians began fish farming and went to Chile. They moved up the rivers there and set up fish farms. They are having some problems with it.
Has anyone ever approached this area for fish farms?
Mr. Ward: Not seriously because there is not a real need for it.
Senator Mahovlich: There was not?
Mr. Ward: No.
Senator Mahovlich: There was not a necessity for it. There is enough fish up there as it is. That is interesting.
In your ``Harmony on the Waters'' plan, does the watershed go into the Yukon?
Mr. Ward: Not this particular watershed. There is a map at the beginning of the slide handout; I am sorry I did not elaborate on the area. We are almost at the very northwestern tip of British Columbia.
Senator Mahovlich: It is north of Prince Rupert?
Mr. Ward: Prince Rupert is about mid-way up the province. We are British Columbia's most northwestern community.
Senator Mahovlich: Is the watershed also in the Arctic?
Mr. Ward: Atlin is at the headwaters of the Yukon River, which eventually gets up into the Bering Strait a couple of kilometres just south of Atlin Lake. Atlin Lake is the largest, natural fresh body in British Columbia. The divide is a couple of kilometres in between and everything drains from there into the Taku River, which spills out about 20 miles south of Juneau, Alaska.
Senator Mahovlich: This is very interesting and it sounds like it is working. I am happy for you. I hope harmony you have up there can continue. Most of the fishing areas around our country are having big problems, and it is nice to hear that you are doing well. I hope you keep listening to your elders.
Mr. Ward: Yes; I hope so too.
Senator Phalen: How long is the Taku River?
Mr. Erhardt: The main stem is about 75 kilometres, but the tributaries that go into it go long above that. There are several main tributaries.
Senator Phalen: Did you map all of this?
Mr. Erhardt: We used various base maps, but the entire mapping that I showed on there is what the Taku River Tlingit did.
Senator Phalen: Is it a shared resource with the Americans?
Mr. Erhardt: Yes, it is.
Senator Phalen: Where are the spawning grounds and are there many of them?
Mr. Erhardt: There are.
Senator Phalen: How many are we talking about, do you have any idea? You have not mapped it out yet.
Mr. Erhardt: That is why we are doing our modeling. It is a very diverse, rich area. The system is a nursery for wild salmon right now.
Senator Phalen: There are always checks in the rivers with which we are familiar. They know how many fish they put in the river, and they check to see how many fish are coming back.
You do not seem to have those checks, do you?
Mr. Erhardt: Yes, we do. We have a strong, regular stock assessment program that is jointly run among ourselves, DFO and Alaska Fish and Game. We do mark and recapture; we use fish wheels and fish weirs; we conduct aerial surveys to monitor the abundance. As part of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, we are into abundance-based management, which is a very good approach, whereby the fishery is managed based on the relative run strength each year.
Senator Phalen: Are you determining what kind of a return you are getting?
Mr. Erhardt: In-season management, based on the run size.
Senator Phalen: Do you have a sport fishery there in Taku River?
Mr. Erhardt: Yes, there is. It is not a very big one because of the isolation. One must fly in by helicopter. It is a unique fishery.
Senator Phalen: I think it is incredible.
The Chairman: Could you explain the abundance-based assessment method again?
Mr. Erhardt: It is called abundance-based management and it is part of the current treaty. This was started many years ago by the various transboundary and DFO technical people.
The allowable catch is split up as a percentage. Unfortunately, we only get 18 per cent on the Canadian side. It is 82 per cent on the U.S. side.
Senator Phalen: Why?
Mr. Erhardt: That is what is in the current treaty now until 2009.
Senator Phalen: I have a problem with that. I do not understand that.
Mr. Erhardt: We do not understand either.
Senator Phalen: Is there any protection on the rivers? Is there poaching, or is that not a problem?
Mr. Erhardt: It is not much of a problem, because the access is quite limited. It is a fly-in commercial drift gill net fishery.
Senator Phalen: Poachers are not coming up in planes and taking all the fish they want?
Mr. Erhardt: No. There is not an extensive amount of enforcement, but it is self-enforced between the fishers that are down there.
Senator Phalen: What types of salmon species do you have at Taku River?
Mr. Erhardt: All five species of salmon. The main commercial ones are sockeye and Coho.
Senator Mahovlich: Am I correct in saying that the Taku River does not have Atlantic salmon?
Mr. Erhardt: Not yet.
Senator Mahovlich: You have the natural species that are known in that area?
Mr. Erhardt: Yes.
The Chairman: What are the Pacific breeds that go up the Taku River?
Mr. Erhardt: In terms of salmon there is sockeye, coho, chinook, chum and pink.
The Chairman: You get all the species that use the watershed?
Mr. Erhardt: That is right. There are 27 known species right now. Because it is a coastal drainage, we get the Pacific fish coming in. There is also Yukon interior species in these watersheds.
The Chairman: Are stocks in the Taku River in fairly good condition now?
Mr. Erhardt: Compared with other areas in the nation, they are. There are differences of levels of risk. The First Nations and the elders have seen a change over time in the abundance of fish.
The Chairman: Do they still go out to sea?
Mr. Erhardt: There are concerns there. Through this process, we are working them out.
The Chairman: The region is large relative to what we are used to dealing with. Are there watersheds other than the Taku River in the Tlingit region?
Mr. Erhardt: Yes, there is also the Stikine watershed. That is part of the whole transboundary management. We meet with them.
The Chairman: There are not too many transboundary rivers in British Columbia. The Stikine is one of them. There is the Taku. Is the Alsek also one of them?
Mr. Erhardt: Yes.
The Chairman: These would be the only three transboundary rivers on the B.C. coast — and in Canada. They all fall within the Tlingit territorial region. It is quite interesting. What is the size of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation?
Mr. Kirby: There are approximately 400 Taku Tlingit. The majority of people are under 25 years of age and plenty of those who have kids. We have had a bit of a population boom.
The Chairman: What is the population in that region of the non-Tlingit, would you have an idea?
Mr. Kirby: There are approximately 350 non-Tlingit people living in the territory.
The Chairman: Are they native or non-native?
Mr. Kirby: Non-native.
The Chairman: I understand one of your close neighbours to the south would be the Nisga'a Region. The Nisga'a negotiated an agreement that recently became law. Have you looked into negotiating something similar for your region, or would you not need it because you have a very defined territory right now?
Mr. Ward: We are still in a treaty process as well. We will have to cross that road as the Nisga'a did. What we are doing now can only enhance and prepare us for that time to come.
The Chairman: I understand that you do not have any territorial boundary difficulties at the present time, is that correct?
Mr. Ward: No, we do not. Thanks to our elders who take care of things like that.
The Chairman: They were on the ball.
The territory, which you recognize as Tlingit River territory, would be fairly well defined. Would there be any First Nation claims to some of the territories that you now have?
Mr. Ward: There will be some overlap. We will be working those out with our neighbouring nations.
The Chairman: I am intrigued by this transboundary situation. It must get tricky sometimes, having to deal with a foreign nation like the U.S.
The fish swims up the American part of the river, and you hope that it is not caught by the time it gets to your part. You do have an advantage by having the spawning areas. You are left carrying a majority of the value of the Taku River —the spawning areas. Are you able to use that when the Americans want too much?
Mr. Ward: We are bound by the current treaty. However, we know that it will be up in a few short years and we will have to negotiate another treaty. We hope that the kind of work we are doing will get all of us on the Canadian side on the same page so that we can have a better treaty the next time around.
The Chairman: How long ago was the treaty signed?
Mr. Erhardt: It expires in 2009.
The Chairman: When was it signed?
Mr. Erhardt: I believe it was 1997.
The Chairman: It is a 10-year treaty. Judging by the numbers, it does not seem to be on your side. However, we will hope for the best in 2009.
Mr. Erhardt: It is a matter of perspective, too. The First Nations have been there for generations. The commercial fishery on the Canadian side did not start until 1979. Prior to that, the Alaskan government agency was doing all of the fishing and management in there. Things have worked out.
This abundance-based management in which we are jointly involved is a victory in terms of our side, and also in terms of sustaining these fish populations, because that never existed before. My understanding was that prior to the treaty there was nothing in place that allowed for an effective fishery on the Canadian side.
The Chairman: Are there First Nations on the Alaskan side of the transboundary area of the watershed who are now accessing the fish going up the watershed?
Mr. Erhardt: Yes, there are. The situation is a little different in that we are still in a treaty process and they already have a settled treaty. They are involved as commercial fishers, but not so much in the transboundary management regime. However, they were included as part of our planning, working group.
The Chairman: Mr. Kirby, you are trying to develop a market for one of the most saleable products, if it is properly handled. The fish is natural, and comes from pristine waters and a region that is perceived to be one of the finest, natural areas of the world. I know there is still a lot work to be done. It must be fun working with this kind of product to which you have access.
What is the main area of your markets?
Mr. Kirby: We started a little more than a year and a half ago. We started with the coho salmon, because it is very abundant. We started at a time of year when the run was coming — in the fall — and marketed it.
The coho was well received in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and other places. However, it was not well received in the U.S. market and the lower mainland of British Columbia because it is in short supply in many of those rivers and, in fact is endangered.
Some people are very aware of that. So storeowners told us that they would take sockeye in a minute — it is beautiful and delicious. However, because of the messaging in the marketplace related to coho, they did not want it in their stores.
We continued to sell coho where it is well received in the market, but we switched to sockeye for the United States and lower Mainland and other places in Canada.
We have a brokerage arrangement with a Canadian company and we are developing a relationship with the Western region of an international cooperative called ``Mountain Peoples Co-op.''
In Japan, some smaller distributors have taken our product and they have become repeat buyers. One of the things that I learned by talking to the Japanese marketing people is that they are very interested in our salmon because of the location of our river — its proximity to the Bering Strait and the colder water temperatures, which are very important. A conversation with a Japanese buyer was a real education for me. He asked a lot of detailed questions and the amount of research I had to do to respond was amazing. For me it underscored the responsibility we have to maintain that for us and for the world.
Part of the reason that we are fortunate in not having aquaculture near the mouth of our river is that Alaska does not allow it. There is a benefit to having a transboundary river.
Senator Cochrane: I read that the British Columbia government approved the Tulsequah Chief Mine and road project in December of last year. I understand this approval went against directions by the British Columbia Supreme Court and the appeal court, as well as against the wishes of this First Nations group and many others.
Could you highlight your concerns with this project and brief us on any new developments in 2003?
Mr. Ward: The other committee asked us this question as well. We would hope that in sharing our views on this particular issue would not mar this good news of cooperation that we have brought to Ottawa.
My people take issue with this particular project. We are not against industry or mining. We take issue with the way the B.C. government has been stickhandling this situation — forcing it into our territory, determining what is good for us, and determining what level of sustainability management should occur in our traditional territory. It does not line up with what our elders have been teaching us.
They do not want go there with us. They do not want to raise the level of standard and be more responsible in their approaches to opening up different areas and starting mines and carrying out their industrial activities. We view them as people who want to make money. We can appreciate that, but not at the cost of future generations. There is not much territory around other parts of the world right now. It is really difficult to try to communicate that. The decision- makers in the B.C. government do not want to have that kind of talk. It is too green, too environmental. We say we have got to make some positive changes; otherwise, we are going to be out on the street together with nothing to eat.
My people relied on salmon on for generations. We want to protect that resource for future generations. We want to talk about that in ways that we feel comfortable and respected. It is annoying when our elders stand up to other people and pour their hearts out about their relationship with the land and resources, and others pay them lip service.
At the end of the day, there is no change. They act like they have not heard the elders. Elders come with great respect and speak in respectful ways to people. That annoys me. We need change. We went down this road with this watershed planning process with hope that we could start this change and show that there are possible and positive ways.
Yes, we do take issue with the B.C. government's decision. There is a dark cloud looming.
Senator Cochrane: Do you have any economic concerns in your region? People are working; are they self-sufficient?
Mr. Ward: Not everyone is working, Senator Cochrane. Some people would like to see this particular project fail; they are not concerned about the way we think in the longer term.
There are ways to create a sustainable economy. Not only among the Taku River Tlingit, but among the non-native people in our traditional territory. Everyone can put their minds together and be creative about things like Taku Wild — which is the beginning of such an economy — and work with the land a little bit more instead of taking and not putting anything back.
The opportunity is there. We just need to not be so lazy about it and not want to get on these boom-and-bust or get- rich-quick schemes. However it is not as though we are starving, we are doing pretty well up there.
Senator Cochrane: I came across an article from April 1998 that listed the Taku River as one of the 20 most- endangered rivers in the U.S. This was according to the River Conservation Group of American Rivers. In that article, a representative of the group made reference to the Tulsequah Chief Mine and concerns about its potential effects.
Tell us, is the Taku River still considered endangered?
Mr. Ward: I think so. As long as there is a dark cloud looming over it, it is endangered.
Senator Cochrane: How long do you think that will continue?
Mr. Ward: We do not know. It is no secret that this case with Tulsequah Chief Mine is going before the Supreme Court of Canada in December. It is official. There will be a hearing and a decision made after December of this year. We have challenged the government for not following its own process. So far, the courts have agreed with us.
Senator Cochrane: We will wait and see I guess.
Senator Mahovlich: I sit on a few other committees and I have heard discussion about a pipeline coming from the Bering Strait into the United State. Would that affect that area at all?
Mr. Ward: There are two proposed routes, and one of them is to follow the Alaska Highway. That is skimming the peripheral of our boundaries. It could affect our areas in terms of increasing the population. It would attract a lot of attention.
Senator Mahovlich: It could be another dark cloud?
Mr. Ward: It could be, in disguise. It could have an indirect impact.
Senator Mahovlich: How much money is spent on scientific research on the Taku River?
Mr. Erhardt: I do not have the budget for the transboundary and the other agencies. I can tell you what the First Nation does.
Since 1992 under the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, the First Nation gets a base-funding amount of $375,000 per year. We are just one of three partners — DFO and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game being the other two that jointly do the stock assessment for that region.
One of the glitches is that there are some high expenses relating to access to the region. We do things such as aerial surveys and marking and tagging at the lower end of the river and then tag recovery through fish weirs — similar things that happen in other places, except we have to fly into these places and set up a camp. That is our base amount. I could not give you a number for the other agencies.
Senator Mahovlich: The government spends a lot more on agricultural than studies on fisheries. We are hoping that that changes over the next while.
The Chairman: Thank you. On behalf of the committee, it has been a real pleasure and honour to have you here this evening to share your experience. Throughout the evening, you have tried to tell us a good, positive story. This is what the committee was looking for and you delivered. We wish you well in enhancing your watershed systems for many generations to come. We wish you very well. I hope you become a model for other regions of Canada — not only for the West Coast, but also for all regions of Canada. Are there any last comments before we go?
Mr. Ward: On behalf of my people, I extend my gratitude for this committee taking the time out of your busy schedules to hear our story.
We as First Nations people are not a bunch of feisty people who like to cause problems. We take the time to learn and try to understand. As long as we listen to our elders, they will make us take the time to learn from other people and respect other people and be patient, until the time that we make ourselves be understood and that we want to be a part of solutions.
If you ever get the chance to ever visit our traditional territory, please come up and we will be glad to show you around. On behalf of my friends and colleagues, thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you for the invitation. I hope we would be able to take you up on that.
The committee adjourned.