Daly River land claim
- Matt Flynn
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 16196
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 9:30 am
- Location: Somewhat Southerly
- Contact:
- theodosius
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 3267
- Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:46 pm
Re: Daly River land claim
Hopefully this goes better than the Finniss!
- dannett
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Dalyu River land claim
Anyone ever seen a traditional owner in a dugout canoe at the mouth fishing with a spear?
- Jeno
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:11 pm
- Location: Wulagi NT
- Contact:
Re: Dalyu River land claim
No, I have never seen that.....I have seen them chase down turtle and dugong in tinnies with outboards though!
No matter where you go, there you are!
- theodosius
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 3267
- Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:46 pm
Re: Daly River land claim
The TOs should have control of their land if the claim is ratified. They should also be allowed to hunt and fish how they want, but all waterways connected to the sea should remain shared use for recreational fishos. There is a continued use and connection that fishermen have with that river, and without rec fishing there's not much economic activity to be had out there
- dannett
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Daly River land claim
Forget about economic activity for a second, the best way to divide this nation is to lock out a demographic based on their race. The use of outboards, nets, four wheel drives, shot guns etc is not traditional and frankly, the Aboriginal people were not the first inhabitants either. But that is why the clown who ran gill nets off the Shady boat ramp and across the Howard river continues to get away with it. He is not the only one using the banner of "traditional owner" to justify absurd behaviour that does not bode with what the community expects is reasonable.
I don't have the answer, I wish I did. But a policy that excludes one group for the benefit of another is definitely not the correct solution. Especially when additional concessions such as immunity to closed seasons and bag limits are granted as well.
I don't have the answer, I wish I did. But a policy that excludes one group for the benefit of another is definitely not the correct solution. Especially when additional concessions such as immunity to closed seasons and bag limits are granted as well.
- theodosius
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 3267
- Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:46 pm
Re: Daly River land claim
Traditional owner still means owner so why shouldn't they be able to use modern techniques? It's a bit absurd to expect people to use bone hooks and hand weave nets mate
-
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:18 am
- Location: Darwin
Re: Daly River land claim
Some years ago I was involved in a similar process in queensland. The term "traditional" was one of the contentious issues raised by the commercial sector. I recall during that time someone being engaged to look at the term and provide some guidance as to what traditional actually means in respect to fishing. The conclusion of that report was that "tradition" has no time parameters. The act of fishing and the use of equipment for fishing by traditional inhabitants/owners is ever evolving. No beginning, no end. I know this probably sounds very lose for some but I thought I would throw it out there as a bit of food for thought. I'm very much in the Theodosius camp. Hopefully common sense will prevail.
- dannett
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Daly River land claim
Marro wrote:Some years ago I was involved in a similar process in queensland. The term "traditional" was one of the contentious issues raised by the commercial sector. I recall during that time someone being engaged to look at the term and provide some guidance as to what traditional actually means in respect to fishing. The conclusion of that report was that "tradition" has no time parameters. The act of fishing and the use of equipment for fishing by traditional inhabitants/owners is ever evolving. No beginning, no end. I know this probably sounds very lose for some but I thought I would throw it out there as a bit of food for thought. I'm very much in the Theodosius camp. Hopefully common sense will prevail.
I heard that recently too, I think it was the fishery in NSW where that came up. I believe it's a poor decision in the terms of the law because arguably these new "traditional" methods enable much better catch rates. Which brings me to this.
theodosius wrote:Traditional owner still means owner so why shouldn't they be able to use modern techniques? It's a bit absurd to expect people to use bone hooks and hand weave nets mate
Yes I do actually. I would 100% respect that and say "you should be allowed to do that regardless of any white man law". Because it is sustainable. Modern techniques are not. And it's reasonable, that's what was happening before we arrived.
We have closed season, protected areas, bag limits, commercial fisheries and licensing. Modern techniques are effective and are rapidly improving with more technology. To not have these rules would result in over catching whether intentionally or just through participation rates. Million Dollar Fish is a prime example of that, through participation 13% of the fish were recaptured in just a few months.
I was always taught that the Aboriginal people were not owners of the land, rather caretakers of it. Under their traditional law no one owns any of the land, it can't be bought or sold, you can't lock the other clans out. In our law pastoralists do not own the waterways that cross their lands, they have to allow access to it and are permitted to only take a quantifiable amount of the resource so much from it.
It seems that we both have a common law, and even constitutional right to access land and water.
So, I am for any decision that grants everyone the same level of access to our waterways. If they want to set aside areas for traditional fishing only, then that is reasonable. Do that, make decisions for the effective conservation and sustainable use of their land. And apply it equally to everyone. If that means that I then get to go and access new areas in more traditional methods, great. Maybe I can use a modest pre-described limit on modern gear (like at the barrage) and with take limits.
Make it so that if you want to go an area you need to go on a traditional 3 day walk about first so you understand the area. That would be a permit worth paying for.
Equal access to Aboriginal managed waterways would benefit the Aboriginal people more than any segregation action ever has.
Dan
- scottmac
- Jedi Seadog
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:30 pm
Re: Daly River land claim
If you use the ’modern’ gear, then you should be subjected to the ‘modern’ rules. Simple!
-
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:02 pm
Re: Daly River land claim
According to the NLC webpage there are 20 year agreements already in place to access the Daly River area and Anson Bay areas, both expire in 2032 and 2033
https://www.nlc.org.au/uploads/pdfs/NLC ... r-2017.pdf
Do these agreements not include the lower part? Does anyone know?
Did it not come out after old mate was being a dick with nets recently at the Howard and Shady that "traditional" referred to the use of fish or eating fish and not to the way in which the fish are caught? either way, probably view as many as unaccepptable ways to fish.
It sounds like access to water ways and fishing grounds is going to be a hot topic in the coming months/years
https://www.nlc.org.au/uploads/pdfs/NLC ... r-2017.pdf
Do these agreements not include the lower part? Does anyone know?
Did it not come out after old mate was being a dick with nets recently at the Howard and Shady that "traditional" referred to the use of fish or eating fish and not to the way in which the fish are caught? either way, probably view as many as unaccepptable ways to fish.
It sounds like access to water ways and fishing grounds is going to be a hot topic in the coming months/years
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 2 Replies
- 1044 Views
-
Last post by Matt Flynn
-
- 17 Replies
- 2812 Views
-
Last post by c9h14n
-
- 37 Replies
- 5188 Views
-
Last post by Jeno
-
- 2 Replies
- 2055 Views
-
Last post by NT Wombat
-
- 2 Replies
- 1563 Views
-
Last post by theodosius