""Harvesting undersize lobster is shameful and unacceptable. That's what "*I* don't get.""

Well, I guess it all depends on what you mean by "undersized lobsters" Most of those caught in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (the canners) would be "legally" considered "undersided" in the rest of Atlantic Canada, down into the USA. Is this shameful and unacxceptable to you?

Can you be more specific. Are you saying that some native and non-native people both break conservation laws (let's be clear on that term, conservation laws).Or, are you saying that the native community as a whole are breaking conservation laws, unlike the non native fish harvesting community?

What I don't get is when a non-native lobster fisherman does sonmething illegal, you merely see him as an individual asshole. But, when a native does the same thing you see this person as reflecting the entire native community. Can't you see the different lenses you are using to portray native peoples and their society from those of your own?

Some native people do not live on reserves, nor do they claim to be bound by Band rules. Canada's Supreme court ruled that this native right is communial, not individual.(I suspect this will be challenged some day).

Bands allow some of their "off reserve" members to fish two or three lobster traps per year. Bands employ members to fish under their band rights, and in most cases fish under a fishing plan, approved by government. They share some of the catch with on and off reserve members. They also have the right to sell their catch commercially, as they see fit (government tried to challenge the commercial aspect, but the right to sell the catch was confirmed by the Supreme Court).

The native community also has a right to harvest a limited number of species (fish, moose etc) for religious and cermonial purposes. This is very limited and controlled.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Government has the responsibility to manage natural resources, like fish, including the native harvest.However, they are bound by the conservation rules, mentioned earlier.

In the Canadian "Marshall" Suprreme Court ruling, it was made clear that the native rights and treaties are not "frozen in time". It also ruled that, since it had, contrary to the treaties, limited native access to commercial fisheries for hunderds of years, the Government of Canada has the responsibility to ensure that the native fishery advances to it's rightful place, alongside the non-native harvest.

It is not realistic to expect that native fishermen could develop this fishery while competing with commercial fishermen with considerable knowledge. So, special provisions are made to allow natives access to a fishery when non-native commercial fishermen are not fishing. This can be done as long as it does not impact the conservation needs of the species.