Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
You can have a license to fish for a specific reason. For example, you might be allowed to catch lobster to eat yourself but not to sell commercially. The people selling this lobster did not have the right license.
Some native bands negotiate for these fishing licenses since they might, for example, subsist off of something year-round. And it may be perfectly sustainable as long as it's 200 people eating the fish, while it might be unsustainable at commercial export scale.
|
Parts of the 2nd and 3rd quotes I posted are where my confusion lies, specifically:
Quote:
|
The food, social and ceremonial license conditions prohibit the sale of the catch.
|
and
Quote:
|
the case has nothing to do with the landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling that recognizes an Indigenous right to fish for a moderate living.
|
So if it's prohibited to sell the catch, and this has nothing to do with fishing for a moderate living... I would guess we can draw from this that they were being sold illegally. But then, how come only the non-Indigenous person gets trouble for it?
Or... is it legal for Indigenous to sell to anybody, even a business, but it's only illegal once the business sells it. If that's the case, wouldn't knowingly selling to a business who exists to resell lobster also be a crime?