Indigenous nationhood and herring governance: strategies for the reassertion of Indigenous authority and inter-Indigenous solidarity regarding marine resources

Abstract

The modern-day reinvigoration of individual Indigenous nations around the world is connected to broader simultaneous movements of Indigenous nationhood worldwide. The origins, implications, philosophies, and diversities of Indigenous resurgences and resistances continue to be discussed in the growing body of literature on Indigenous governance. This article builds on these discussions by focusing on the applied tools and strategies of Indigenous resurgence. In the context of the Pacific herring fishery in British Columbia, Canada, this research explores the strategies and tools used by three Indigenous coastal nations to apply pressure on the colonial government to abdicate its asserted authority over herring governance. Motivated by a time-honored relationship to herring, we discuss how these Indigenous nations have strategized to try to regain authority over herring governance to protect species and Indigenous access to the fishery. We then discuss this ocean-based resurgence in the context of global Indigenous movements for the reassertion of self-determining authority.

Keywords

Indigenous resurgence Indigenous nationhood herring fishery inter-Indigenous solidarity and collaboration marine resource management

Introduction

Indigenous nationhood movements are taking place worldwide: stemming from Indigenous individuals, leaders, and communities, to the levels of national and global movements. An Indigenous resurgence paradigm offers insights into how Indigenous movements are interconnected and dynamic expressions of Indigenous self-determination and nationhood. Resurgence scholars view shape shifting colonization as an ongoing process of domination premised on erasing Indigenous peoples and nations from the physical and political landscapes and seascapes. As a reframing of decolonial praxis, resurgence re-centers Indigenous nationhood in political movements and focuses on the complex interrelationships between place-based relationships and community-centered practices that reignite everyday acts of renewal and restoration. Cree/Dene scholar Jarrett Martineau (2014) defines Indigenous resurgence as the “renewal and re-emergence of vibrant Indigenous nations, societies, and Individuals in contention with colonialism, but not defined by it” (p. 1). Collectivization is central to resurgent action: it moves from individual ideas and actions, through families, to the level of the community, and so on (L. B. Simpson, 2011). Indigenous resurgence is focused on the regeneration, expression, and reinvigoration of autonomous governance, nationhood, and cultural, political, and spiritual practices (Alfred, 2005; Corntassel, 2012; Martineau, 2014; L. B. Simpson, 2011; Wildcat, Irlbacher-Fox, & Coulthard, 2014).

The authors use the term resurgence (singular) in this article to describe both single instances of and the broader global movement of Indigenous reconnection with homelands/waterways and reinvigoration of nationhood. However, the diversity of Indigenous cultures, contexts, and ways of being means that resurgences are inherently plural, even with the interconnectedness of Indigenous resistances. To this end, Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg scholar Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (2011) argues that

building diverse, nation-culture-based resurgences means significantly re-investing in our own ways of being: regenerating our political and intellectual traditions; articulating and living our legal systems; language learning; ceremonial and spiritual pursuits; creating and using our artistic and performance-based traditions. (p. 8)

Within these individual and connected resurgences, Indigenous nations are reasserting their ability to represent themselves on their own terms. Indigenous autonomy and self-determination are fundamental to Indigenous resurgence as Indigenous nations maintain and reformulate their distinct communal identities (Palmater, 2011) and (re)collect ways of reproducing/renewing Indigenous nations (L. B. Simpson & Coulthard, 2014).

The decolonization and repatriation of Indigenous lands are fundamental to Indigenous forms of resurgence. In a resurgent response to ongoing colonial attack and with a concern for future generations (Alfred, 2005; L. B. Simpson, 2011), Indigenous peoples are reframing decolonizing by reinvigorating the laws and epistemologies that were supplanted by settlers (Tuck & Yang, 2012), and reinvigorating their relationships with Indigenous land and life (Alfred, 2005). Ultimately, decolonization “eliminates settler property rights and settler sovereignty. It requires the abolition of land as property and upholds the sovereignty of Native land and people” (Tuck & Yang, 2012, p. 26). Because Indigenous lands and waters are fundamental to Indigenous ways of being relational with all the elements of life (Mucina, 2013), resurgence is intimately connected to the decolonization/repatriation of Indigenous homelands. Across Canada, Indigenous resurgence has been shaped by the Indigenous feminist ideologies of Idle No More, which has centered the voices of Indigenous women and LGBTQ2S+ folks without needing to mediate their voices through Indigenous men or colonial power structures. As Anishinaabekwe (Ojibwe) activist Winona LaDuke (2014) puts it, “‘Idle No More’ is Canadian for ‘That’s enough BS, we’re coming out to stop you” (p. 143). Idle No More is particularly important to this article because some of its challenges to Federal Bill C-45, which proposed changes to the Indian Act, specifically targeted the weakening of the Fisheries Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and the Navigable Water Protection Act as a way to make it easier for the colonial state to assume control over reserve lands. Idle No More has also been important for pushing us as scholars to reflect on how and where Indigenous women’s voices materialize with reference to herring fishery in British Columbia (BC), Canada.

The focus of this research is on Indigenous coastal nations’ resurgence in the context of the herring fishery in BC. Colonization has dispossessed Indigenous coastal peoples not only from land (Wildcat et al., 2014) but also from oceans, Indigenous relationships to marine life, and the sustenance within them. Settler colonialism on the BC coast has been focused on the usurpation of lands and marine resources. Settler exploitation of resources (such as forests, water, and fish) has provided new capital to settlers and continues to disrupt Indigenous relationships to land and water (Tuck & Yang, 2012; von der Porten & de Loë, 2013). In BC, residential schools, the reserve system, and Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) fish licensing have been among the historic and ongoing tools of settler colonialism on the BC coast (Harris, 2008) used together to try to eliminate “Indigenous life and Indigenous claims to land” (Wildcat et al., 2014). Despite these acts of violence, Indigenous coastal peoples have maintained a relationship to herring (Jones, Rigg, & Pinkerton, 2017). Using the lens of Indigenous resurgence, this research examines the way in which three coastal nations have fought to protect this relationship and resultant responsibility to herring.

Research objectives

The purpose of this research was to observe Indigenous resurgence in action, as well as challenges to resurgence, including colonial efforts to assert authority and rebuff the exercise of Indigenous self-determination.¹ The prominent struggle in BC between Indigenous coastal nations and DFO herring management was selected as the context to follow the actions of Indigenous resurgence related to the herring fishery. Specifically, this research sought to identify (a) role changes between DFO, Indigenous coastal nations, and the commercial fishing industry; (b) resurgence goals and actions; and (c) strategies and tools of resurgence. This study examined the relations among three Indigenous coastal nations, Nuu-chah-nulth, Heiltsuk, and Haida (Figure 1); the DFO; and the commercial fishing industry to follow the strategies and actions of Indigenous resurgence related to herring governance. We focused on a 2-year period, in the aftermath of Idle No More, from 2014 to 2015. These 2 years are not exceptional but offer a typical insight into the ongoing struggle between colonization and resurgence, and at the same time is a long enough period to witness a wide diversity of Indigenous resurgence strategies.

Figure 1.

Traditional territories of First Nations in British Columbia delineated by claim areas.

Despite colonization by the British Crown to ultimately create what is now called Canada, Indigenous coastal peoples in BC have not relinquished their traditional territories. Indigenous peoples existed, continue to exist, and have inherent rights within their nations that preexisted European settlement (Corntassel, 2003; Deloria & Wildcat, 2001; McGregor, 2004; Turner, 2006). This fact of unceded Indigenous territories (including lands, freshwater, and ocean) is pivotal to the tension surrounding the governance of Pacific coastal herring fishery: the Canadian Government, via the DFO, too asserts authority over marine resources, including herring. These discordant assertions play out in the assumptions held by each: Indigenous nations tend to view Canadian political agents as colonizers, part of settler society seeking to illegally and illegitimately impose colonial state authority over Indigenous peoples and their relationships with the land and water. Conversely, resource managers and policy makers view Indigenous peoples as one of many “stakeholders” or “user-groups” of resources (vs Indigenous nations) and under the laws of the colonial government (von der Porten & de Loë, 2014).

Methodology

Our methodology embodies a discursive theoretical framework (Taylor, 2001), which we hope conveys our actions to center decolonizing methods as we work to Indigenize our scholarship and research, while being conscious of our positionalities as relational Indigenous allies and settlers. This point is particularly important, as we are visitors to the Haida, Heiltsuk, and Nuu-chah-nulth Nations, we speak as relational guests invited to put our expertise as Indigenous scholars in the service of Indigenous peoples’ resurgence, without speaking for these peoples. To minimize our outside voices to the experience of the Haida, Heiltsuk, and Nuu-chah-nulth Nations, we have quoted heavily to center ownership of knowledge and voices. As Indigenous scholars and allies, we actively mentor Indigenous students and new Indigenous academic scholars to ensure that we do not become the experts of other Indigenous peoples’ resurgence. Our primary goal is not simply to increase academic understanding but also the achievability and strength of Indigenous resurgence, knowledge, and cultural (re)generation by engaging with those undeniably having the most expertise and being the most directly involved: Indigenous peoples themselves. As Anishinaabe scholar Leanne Simpson (2004) states, “we must be strategic about how we recover and where we focus our efforts to ensure that the foundations of the system are protected and the inherently Indigenous processes for the continuation of Indigenous Knowledge are maintained” (p. 376). Ultimately, one cannot separate land-based resurgence from Indigenous knowledge, language, living histories, ceremonial life, and Indigenous relationships with human and non-humans.

We draw on decolonizing methodologies as a way of restoring landscapes and center Indigenous knowledge in the discourse. It is through these experiences that we uncover the complexity of Indigenous worldviews and relationships. By seeking to decolonize the research process, we begin to center Indigenous “concerns and worldviews” (Smith, 2012, p. 41) to reclaim dignity, voice, and research from a community perspective.

If, as Blackfeet scholar Leroy Little Bear (2009, p. 7) urges, we think of methodology as “a validation process,” we can think of Indigenous ways of knowing, through decolonizing methodologies (Smith, 2012; Tuck, McKenzie, & McCoy, 2014) as processes that convey the language and complexities of Indigenous worldviews and knowledges. While Indigenous methodologies provide a validation process or “research destination” (S. Wilson, 2008, p. 39), methods are the “particular tools or techniques to actually gather the data.”

Methods

The tools we used for this research focused largely on a “conversational method,” which “honours orality as means of transmitting knowledge and upholds the relational which is necessary to maintain a collectivist tradition” (Kovach, 2010, p. 42). Overall, we adapted our methods to the community contexts by emphasizing the relational aspects of Indigenous knowledge, decolonizing principles, protocols, flexibility, and reflexivity (Kovach, 2010). We used a text-analysis software (QSR NVivo 10) to identify common themes across 137 documents as well as transcripts of interviews, meetings, and audio/video sources that we gathered over the 2-year period of 2014–2015. In particular, we were interested in themes related to resurgence, so we were especially alert to passages where actors mentioned resistance, assertion of Indigenous legal or inherent rights, collaboration with other players or Nations, legal strategies, protection of traditional or unceded lands, strategizing within the Nation or with other Indigenous nations, the importance of herring, attitudes of the various players in the herring industry, political leveraging, negotiations between Indigenous nations and industry or government, self-determination, and Indigenous nationhood.

The first author collected data in the form of interviews, document collection (online and print), audio and video recording collection, and attending herring planning meetings. These data were collected between May 2014 and December 2015, spanning two herring fishing “seasons” on the West coast. The focus of the research was on the actions of the Haida, Heiltsuk, and Nuu-chah-nulth Nations. Additional data from other sources (e.g. documents and media interviews) included informants from other Indigenous nations on the West coast (including the USA), non-Indigenous informants, DFO staff, and other key informants such as lawyers and researchers. Interviewees were selected for those with influence over decision making regarding herring and carried out after obtaining individual informed consent and Nation/band approval in the case of Indigenous interviewees. The meetings attended by the first author included internal First Nations herring planning meetings, DFO-initiated herring planning meetings (including industry, First Nations, lawyers, and researchers), and a herring conference including similar attendees.

Many of the interviewees recommended to the first author were men holding important decision-making roles. Furthermore, the speakers in previously recorded interviews, videos, and media interviews acquired during this research were (almost exclusively) men. With very few female interviewees, this research is ill-representative of the perspectives of both non-Indigenous and Indigenous women. This bias in the research stems in part from ongoing heteropatriarchy, including the fact that commercial herring harvest (e.g. herring kill fishery from seine vessels), an advent of the colonial exploitation herring, has tended to favor male participation. Nonetheless, this should not be taken to mean that women play no role in these three coastal nations and their relationship to governance of herring. On the contrary, despite heteropatriarchal relations of oppression, Indigenous coastal women historically and currently often play important, if not always, central roles in the traditional harvest of spawn and decision making surrounding herring (Harper et al., 2018). Moreover, women in these three nations may be central to other critical nation-building actions, but we do not explore these here, instead focused on (formal) male leadership based on our interview responses. Clearly, further work is needed to more fully examine gendered relationships around fishing and herring governance.

Findings

Finding 1: strategies of resurgence

A breadth of different strategies being used toward Indigenous resurgence emerged from the data. Each strategy was identified as being used by Indigenous coastal peoples and nations to further goals of self-determination and nationhood, and within the context of asserting authority over herring governance. Many of the strategies and tools which emerged in the data of this research (Table 1) were being applied simultaneously. Table 1 lists the findings, in order of most frequently occurring in the data to least, on the strategies and tools used by the Haida, Heiltsuk, and Nuu-chah-nulth to reassert Indigenous inherent rights to governance and protection of herring.

Table 1.

Strategies used by Indigenous coastal nations toward resurgence and reassertion of authority over the herring fishery.

Strategy or tool	Examples
Inter-Indigenous collaboration and solidarity	“The Haida, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xai’Xais and Nuu-chah-nulth of BC stand united to protect herring in our territories under our traditional laws” (Haida, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xai’Xais, & Nuu-chah-nulth, 2015).
Legal and court challenges	“B.C. First Nations won a major victory Friday when a Federal Court judge granted an injunction blocking the opening this year of a herring fishery on the west coast of Vancouver Island” (Ryan, 2014).
On-the-ground protection of traditional territories	“. . . commercial fishing boats were asked to leave the Kitasu Bay by Kitasoo/Xaixais hereditary leaders. DFO agreed to keep commercial vessels outside the designated area” (Wilson-Raybould, 2014).
Negotiating directly with industry	“that’s . . . why the Haida were successful. They were negotiating directly with [the fishing] industry [who] came to an agreement with the Haida [that] they are not going to fish. The DFO was just kind of left out. They claim to be the authority around commercial fishing, and the Haida and industry worked together” (Haida leader, Interview, May 30, 2014).
Issuing Indigenous declarations and bans	“at a meeting with [the] . . . DFO, Nuu-chah-nulth Ha’wiih made it clear that the territories of the Hereditary Chiefs will remain closed to commercial roe herring fisheries this spring due to on-going conservation concerns” (Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, 2015).
Support from and collaboration with non-Indigenous allies	“I want to build on is a stronger relationship we have more influence on the decision at the end of the day. . . Working with [university name] and different experts. They have really helped . . . meet the goals of the Heiltsuk and the objectives of the Heiltsuk” (Heiltsuk leader, Interview, May 30, 2015).
Social and regular media	“community assembles for protest . . . notice on Facebook—asking [Heiltsuk] people to be ready to go protest on short notice” (Heiltsuk Tribal Council [HTC], 2015).
Negotiating with provincial and federal governments	“One of the things that has happened just recently is, on the federal side, the Department of Fisheries [and Oceans] is now sitting at the table [of the Haida Gwaii Archipelago Management Board] which was a huge move, a huge move” (B. Wilson, 2011).
Directly asserting nationhood status	“‘If DFO doesn’t have the authority to shut down Area 7,’ declared Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett. ‘And we will exercise our authority’” (Gillis, 2015a).
Carrying out blockades and other forms of resistance	“Heiltsuk celebrate as fishing boats forced to leave traditional waters . . . a Heiltsuk chief councillor and several others locked themselves in the DFO office . . . to protest the controversial re-opening of a herring fishery, despite fierce First Nation opposition” (Uechi, 2015).
Writing and issuing Indigenous management plans	“Now there is an obligation on ourselves the Haida Nation to work on a herring management framework” (Lantin, 2015).
Political leveraging	“MP Nathan Cullen today hand-delivered a letter to fisheries minister Gail Shea from the Heiltsuk Tribal Council that demands the department shut down any further herring fisheries in Heiltsuk traditional waters this year” (Office of Nathan Cullen, 2015).
Voluntary suspension of Indigenous fishing	“I’ve seen times [with] so much herring around. Now there is nothing. As [it’s] starting to come back, people get excited [to fish]. I want to go to, but I didn’t go this year, [not] until I see the stocks are healthy, I would never participate in the fishery. Even though I have an aboriginal right, I believe in fishing a healthy stock” (Heiltsuk leader, Interview, September 8, 2014).
Continuing to practice traditions	“How can we take control of the Herring Fishery within our territories? . . . Use upcoming Canoe Journey to solidify our unity on herring issues” (HTC, 2014).
Issuing and hand-delivering notices	“The Kitasoo/Xaixais hand delivered notices to fishers anchored in Kitasu Bay . . . We are asking the commercial fishers to respect our laws and authority within our traditional area” (Interview with Archie Robinson Hereditary Chief, April 2014).
Asserting inherent Indigenous rights	“Every Haida Citizen has a right of access to all Haida Gwaii resources for cultural reasons, and for food, or commerce . . . as reflected in the Laws of the Haida Nation” (Entrance, 2010).
Asserting Indigenous title to lands, waters, and oceans	“The [Nuu-chah-nulth] plaintiffs . . . claim aboriginal title to the submerged lands extending 100 nautical miles into the Pacific Ocean from the foreshore of their dry land territories” (Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada [Attorney General] 2009 BCSC 1494).
Proceeding with Indigenous fishing practices	“I remember going out to get herring eggs . . . we started hooking them up and a fisheries officer came along and told us he would charge us if we didn’t stop what we were doing. [laugh]. [Did he charge you?]. No, he left and we went back and got [the] eggs” (Heiltsuk leader, Interview, September 8, 2014).
Petition writing	“The Heiltsuk file[d] a petition . . . alleging that DFO has mismanaged the herring fishery [and] have caused localized destruction of the herring fishery, to the detriment of the resource” (Institute on Governance, 2013).
Celebrating	“The Heiltsuk and Haida . . . are going to be honoring an unwritten treaty that was agreed upon by our great-grandfathers . . . that will give us an opportunity to unite . . . around management, fisheries and other resources in our area. It’s going to be a big celebration” (Heiltsuk leader, Interview, September 8, 2014).
Indigenous constitutions and legislation	“Haida Proclamation: The Haida Nation is the rightful heir to Haida Gwaii . . . The living generation accepts the responsibility to insure that our heritage is passed on to following generations” (Entrance, 2010).
Cultivating Indigenous leaders	“we are strategizing as individual communities where we want to go with it . . . We have six of our young members are ready to go. We’re just trying to find ways, from a political standpoint, how we get the financial resources to allow them to work for the next decade” (Dennis, 2011).
Assurance that Indigenous action will take place	“The Haida Nation sent a letter to [DFO Minister] Shea asking her to rescind her decision, stating that if the opening goes ahead, the Haida ‘will have no alternative but to immediately commence litigation’” (Tennant, 2014).

Some strategies and tools appeared more than others within the dataset. In particular, reference to inter-Indigenous collaboration and solidarity, which included any instance of uniting, collaborating, or allying between and among Indigenous nations, leaders, and organizations, appeared most frequently in the dataset. The data revealed 85 references to single Indigenous nations uniting or working with 144 other Indigenous allies.

Finding 2: role changes—shifts in power and authority

The scenarios where an increase in Indigenous power and authority was observable were chiefly in (a) the reaction by industry to Indigenous assertion of self-determining authority over herring, and (b) the DFO ceding aspects of herring governance to Indigenous nations in the wake of resistance.

The reaction by industry to Indigenous assertion of decision-making authority and relationship to herring

During the period of data collection, several coastal Indigenous nations issued letters or notices to the commercial herring industry notifying fishermen of bans to fishing in certain areas within traditional territories. These letters challenged DFO’s opening of the fishery in these same areas to commercial fishing. For example, the following was issued in an open letter from the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council to BC Commercial Herring Fishermen in 2015:

In mid-December the Minister of Fisheries made the decision to open the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI) to commercial roe and spawn-on-kelp herring fisheries in 2015. Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations oppose this decision and recommend that B.C. commercial herring fishermen do not select the WCVI as their seine or gillnet fishing area for 2015. (Foxcroft & Watts, 2015)

Similar open letters were issued by the Haida Nation and the Heiltsuk Tribal Council (HTC). Two weeks later, the United Fisherman and Allied Workers Union issued an open letter in response, where they explicitly supported Indigenous knowledges and positioned themselves as in a relationship of mutual survival given a “shared ecosystem”:

In support of letters from the Council of the Haida Nation dated January 13, 2015, and the Heiltsuk Tribal Council dated January 19, 2015, the United Fisherman and Allied Workers Union–Unifor recommends to all BC commercial herring fishermen that they do not select either Haida Gwaii or the Central Coast as their herring areas for upcoming 2015 herring season. The decision to support this request is based on several factors: . . . the lack of inclusive decision making; . . . respect for local First Nations insights; and willingness to build a collaborative understanding of the state of the herring in our shared ecosystem. (Olsen, 2015)

Industry’s decision to side with First Nations, on the grounds that Indigenous peoples best know and understand the viability of herring stocks, is further illustrated in the following:

President of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union-Unifor Kim Olsen said some fisherman wanted to go ahead and open the fisheries, but most sided with the First Nations. “Generally the fisherman agree that if there’s a stock of concern, we should stand down and not fish it,” he said. “We feel that the Nuu-chah-nulth and the Haida have been watching these stocks. They’re on the ground. I feel we have to support their call for no fishery.” (The Early Edition, 2015a)

There were also less conciliatory instances of Indigenous coastal nations preventing or limiting commercial herring fishing. For example, the following points to a case where industry was forced to leave the fishing grounds in Heiltsuk territory because of on-the-ground resistance:

The Heiltsuk First Nation is claiming victory after Fisheries and Oceans Canada closed the commercial herring fishery on the central coast after members of the First Nation occupied the federal agency’s office on Denny Island near Bella Bella. “It is clear that the gillnet fisherman would have liked an opportunity to fish, however in the face of on-grounds interference, protest and the threat of violence, the department had some difficult decisions to make,” Greg Thomas, the chair of the Herring Industry Advisory Board. (The Early Edition, 2015b)

Industries’ positioning vis-à-vis First Nations claims were not stable but circumstantial. In the first instances briefly explored here, industry explicitly sought sustainable resource sharing, while recognizing Indigenous knowledge of the herring. In the latter, the industry states their preference to fish but argues that action by Indigenous actors makes that impossible, imputing “violence” to the Heiltsuk First Nations preventing fisherman from exercising their profession.

In another case, the Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) circumvented the DFO’s opening of the herring fishery in their territory. The CHN instead negotiated directly with industry to halt that season’s commercial herring fishery in Haida waters. These quotations illustrate this negotiation with industry, as well as the resultant sidestepping of the DFO:

The CHN . . . tried first with the DFO to get them to close [the herring fishery], so they had meetings with Vancouver and the Minister [of the DFO]. Then [CHN] started having discussions with the industry. In the end it was [CHN] and industry that agreed there wouldn’t be a fishery . . . There was a deal arranged between the Haida nation and industry. They decided together that there would not be fishing. (Interview, Haida leader, May 30, 2014)

The Herring Industry Advisory Board supports the minister’s decision to allow the openings, but announced . . . that the fishing industry, federal government and Haida had reached an agreement to forego both a commercial fishery and an aboriginal spawn-on-kelp fishery. “It was deemed more appropriate to stand down for this year to limit conflict with the Haida and work toward ensuring the science is good for next year,” said board chair Greg Thomas. (Pynn, 2014)

Here, the Haida managed to outflank the DFO, by reaching an agreement directly with industry officials. In the response, however, DFO board chair Greg Thomas makes it clear that this is because of the risks of conflict with the Haida, and he appeals to “science” rather than Indigenous knowledge in seeking to (potentially) reassert DFO authority into the future.

These examples collectively illustrate how industry has either chosen or was forced to cooperate with Indigenous coastal nations on herring governance. Overall, the picture is mixed, suggesting the contingency of Indigenous efforts to assert their ancestral and ongoing relationship with the herring. In many cases, Indigenous actors were successful in siding with industry, against the colonial state DFO authority, to limit fishing of limited herring stocks. In other cases, direct action was required to prevent non-Indigenous fisherman from accessing herring stock in Indigenous waters.

The interplay between DFO and Indigenous nations over herring governance

The research revealed ways in which the DFO was forced to concede power or decision-making authority on herring to Indigenous coastal nations. The following quotation from an employee of the DFO acknowledges the power struggle between government and First Nations:

[The Haida don’t] want to be seen as just another stakeholder, by feeding into this process. They want to be . . . seen in a way that they have a higher authority than stakeholders just providing advice, they want to actually manage and make decisions. There’s a lot of pushing and pulling, it is kind of a power struggle. (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada staff member, Interview, June 24, 2014)

Furthermore, a 2014 internal memo written by senior DFO managers (made public by court order) illustrates the concern by DFO regarding potential First Nations reactions to reopening of the commercial herring fishery:

While a 10% harvest rate is more precautionary and would likely be supported by the commercial sector, this would not be supported by First Nations . . .Both the Heiltsuk and Haida have voiced strong opposition to any commercial fisheries in 2014 . . . In Haida Gwaii and the Central Coast, commercial fishery openings have a high probability of on-water protest . . . Maintaining closures . . . will . . .reduce risks associated with First Nation interests that could involve conflict on the fishing grounds and/or legal action. (King & Bevan, 2013)

These concerns about First Nation opposition to the herring fishery became a reality the following year: the Heiltsuk Nation was able to force the hand of the DFO through the well-publicized “occupation” of several DFO offices in BC. The Heiltsuk occupation was a reaction to the DFO’s opening of the commercial herring fisheries in Heiltsuk waters. This opening was contrary to the wishes of the Heiltsuk. The Heiltsuk Nation, led by their elected chief and hereditary chiefs, occupied regional and head DFO offices in Vancouver and Heiltsuk territory. These occupations were bolstered by protests, including one in the Province’s capital city Victoria, in support of the Heiltsuk First Nation (Martinez, 2015). The occupation was successful: the DFO called off the herring fishery in the central coast of BC and commercial herring gill-netters were “forced to leave Heiltsuk traditional waters” (Uechi, 2015).

Noteworthy changes have been observed in the DFO approach to herring management in response to First Nations political influence. An employee of an Indigenous coastal nation observed in this research noted,

[The] DFO is much more engaged. They realized last year that things did not go as well in terms of their relationship to First Nations and industry. . . . There was a meeting in April, and one of the first comments [by DFO science staff] was “well, that didn’t go very well.” . . . So they were like, “how do we change it or do it better?” Their response has been to engage with Nuu-chah-nulth Nations—and I know Heiltsuk and Haida as well—more frequently, to have a preliminary look at the [herring] assessment information . . . And [to hold] a follow up meeting with the science staff. DFO has been more engaged in terms of response to last year.

This quotation illustrates that Federal Government agents recognize the need for and occurrence of change to DFO’s approach to herring fisheries management with regard to Indigenous peoples. In addition, individuals in civil society have observed some decline in the authority of the DFO over herring. For example, the soundness of the DFO’s herring science has been questioned:

The basis for DFO’s assurances that a commercial herring fishery is sustainable this year has been undermined by a retired department herring scientist, Dr. Ron Tansichuk, who has noted, “The forecasting methodology that DFO uses now for central coast herring is actually quite flawed.” (Gillis, 2015a)

In addition, the flux in roles of the DFO and First Nations have been noticed by other non-Indigenous observers who noted that

The recent victory of the Heiltsuk band in Bella Bella over the herring fishery is not only heartwarming, it is significant. It has once again demonstrated that the history and experience of the First Nations can trump the conclusions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. (Mair, 2015)

Going forward, the president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council Debra Foxcroft indicates that Indigenous Nations will now “seek a new way of doing business with Canada that will properly manage herring as they try to rebuild” (Gillis, 2015b).

Finding 3: resurgence goals and actions

The research revealed clear goals and actions by Indigenous nations and leaders toward nationhood and resurgence. These goals and actions were apparent within the context of the reassertion of Indigenous authority over herring and articulated alongside a broader intention toward self-determination.

Indigenous nationhood and relationship to herring

Indigenous coastal nations treated the reassertion to herring governance as imperative and non-negotiable. As one Indigenous leader put it, “. . . we are talking about survival . . . not just about herring, we are talking about the survival of people” (Atleo, 2011b). Like this example, Indigenous reassertion of authority over herring was frequently discussed as synonymous with herring survival. For example, Frank Brown (2011), Heiltsuk leader, Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department (HIRMD), states that “. . . sustainable management [of herring] means that we take the decision-making authority.” The firm belief by Indigenous coastal peoples that herring is inherent to Indigenous existence on the coast is reflected in the following quotation by an Indigenous leader:

We herring is a resource that sustains us as a people. We are people on the coast . . . none of us are going to go away. (Dennis, 2011)

The reassertion of self-determining authority regarding relationships to herring was repeatedly characterized by Indigenous leaders as a responsibility held by Indigenous coastal nations. One Nuu-chah-nulth leader stated, “we firmly believe we are responsible for managing resources.” Another Indigenous leader (Heiltsuk) echoed a similar perspective:

We are going to be relentless, we feel we have a responsibility, and we will go to the wall on this. You know how they say you need to pick and choose your fights, this is one that we [won’t] ever back down from . . . it is just re-establishing the authority and the boundaries of responsibility that were bestowed upon us . . . What I always told [the herring] industry: We are not going to get up one day and leave. This is our home. And you’re going to have to deal with us. Whether it’s me or my son or [my grand]son.

The findings confirmed an unmistakable intent by Indigenous coastal nations to protect and recover herring populations. For example, one Indigenous planning report asked, “How can we take control of the Herring Fishery within our territories?” (HTC, 2014). Furthermore, another Indigenous leader, Jess Housty, Heiltsuk First Nation councillor, stated,

The bottom line for us is that the [herring] stocks recover and someday thrive again. Today is an important step toward that goal and I think we’ve shown industry and DFO very clearly that Heiltsuk will not back down from our vision for healthy herring into the future. (Uechi, 2015)

This quotation was one of many which illustrated the steadfast commitment to herring protection in traditional waters by Indigenous coastal peoples in BC.

Self-determination and resurgence

The actions by Indigenous nations toward reassertion of herring decision making were part of a broader movement toward Indigenous self-determination. Ideas related to self-determination, resurgence, nationhood, and sovereignty were common threads in the data from Indigenous sources in relation to herring. Correspondingly, in hundreds of examples throughout the data, the protection of herring by Indigenous coastal nations was tantamount with Indigenous resurgence.

In one instance at a herring protest, Heiltsuk leader Frank Brown (2015) said, “the arrogance and disrespect that we are shown in our own homeland has to end. It is only going to end when we take our rightful place as the original stewards of this land.” Similar intention toward resurgence was apparent in another comment by Nuu-chah-nulth leader Cliff Atleo (2011a) presenting at a herring workshop, “we have got to come alive again, in terms of who we are.”

The findings affirmed that Indigenous coastal nations intended to continue to fight for the right and responsibility to marine resource governance in traditional territories. In an open letter to government, the Nuu-chah-nulth leadership wrote that it

takes seriously its responsibilities to care for the earth, land and water for future generations . . . every Nuu-chah-nulth Nation has the independent sovereign authority to decide which projects in their territories they will support or reject . . . (Foxcroft & Watts, 2014)

This same assertion of authority was characterized by many Indigenous leaders and interview respondents as a fight. What Indigenous peoples are fighting against was discussed during a presentation by an Indigenous leader at a herring workshop:

I don’t take any words back about genocide, I take no words back about racism. It is alive and well. It is working against our peoples, we are still on that slippery slope. And as long as there is a handful of people around [who] understand what is happening, they are going to fight against that, and I am one of them. (Atleo, 2011b)

At the same herring workshop, another Indigenous leader discussed what Indigenous peoples are fighting for:

I understand where we are going and what we’re up against . . . we are leaders, we look at ourselves as leaders, we are told that we are leaders, and this is the fight we are going to fight. And we are geared up for it. We are here for the long term. We are not going away. (Moody-Humchitt, 2011)

Discussion

After considering the findings, it is clear that Indigenous leaders view their relationship with herring and other sea life as the basis for their existence as Indigenous nations. Actions to reassert these complex relationships go far beyond a rights discourse or a notion of conservation; these relationships exemplify the inherent responsibility of coastal Indigenous Nations. In the subsequent section, we discuss the various strategies that Indigenous nations employ to activate their self-determining authority.

Tools and strategies

Indigenous resurgence was prevalent in all three of the Indigenous coastal nations observed in this research. Resurgence and assertions of nationhood were manifested in the actions being taken by the nations to protect herring and re-establish themselves as central to herring governance. Motivated largely by relationships to herring and the need to protect ways of life, the Nuu-chah-nulth, Haida, and Heiltsuk employed a wide array of strategies and tools to reinvigorate their rights and responsibilities to herring (Table 1). Practically speaking, this assemblage of tools and strategies holds potential for the transference of ideas to other Indigenous nations. Despite the extensive differences between the contexts, resources, circumstances, and perspectives of Indigenous peoples, we suggest that these findings could inspire new ideas in Indigenous nations beyond the BC context—specifically those who also face colonial-driven land and resource usurpation. Our findings illustrate how Indigenous nations embody internationalism through their diplomacies and exercise of their self-determining authority beyond the borders of their nations as well as colonial states.

Strategies of resurgence and decolonization, such as the ones that emerged from this research, have the potential to reach Indigenous nations beyond those with which these coastal nations already exchange ideas. Although decolonization takes different shapes in different contexts (Tuck & Yang, 2012), we argue that strengthening the exchange of interests, ideas, values, and goals between Indigenous nations has the potential to reinforce Indigenous movements at broader scales. For example, during the Idle No More movement in Canada, social media was used to share ideas, articulate messages, and enroll allies (Callison & Hermida, 2015). For Indigenous coastal nations in this study, social media was one of many tools employed toward the protection of herring and marine resources. Other strategies, such as on-the-ground resistance, issuing notices to fisherman, and continuing traditional practices, were among the collection of strategies being used to reinvigorate Indigenous governance of herring (Table 1). Given this, there is a great potential for cultivating even further sharing of ideas between Indigenous nations on decolonization and their regaining authority over lands, water, and resources.

Inter-Indigenous collaboration and solidarity

This research revealed a great deal about collaboration, cooperation, unity, and solidarity between Indigenous nations, leaders, and organizations to re-establish inherent Indigenous rights to herring. While this research set out to explore what tools and strategies were being employed by individual Indigenous nations, the regularity with which Indigenous nations were working directly and collaboratively to apply them was not anticipated.

The presence of inter-Indigenous cooperation is as old as time immemorial. Prior to and following colonization in North America, Indigenous nations in the USA and Canada made inter-nation political agreements such as confederacies, treaties, and alliances (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), Canada, Erasmus & Dussault, 1996). These agreements were based on shared Indigenous ethics for maintaining diplomatic relationships between nations (L. B. Simpson, 2008), resolving boundary disputes, making arrangements for shared fishing and hunting areas (Deloria & DeMallie, 1999), and Indigenous nations obligating “themselves to act as relatives toward each other in times of crisis or need”(Williams, 1997, p. 126). Ever since European invasions of the Americas, the “affirmations of [I]ndigenous traditions and identities has served as a powerful weapon of defense” (Hardt & Negri, 2009). Looking forward, Deloria and DeMallie (1999) state that since Indigenous nations have not surrendered the right or power to make treaties with other Indigenous nations, that “tribal councils should seriously consider the feasibility of conducting their own form of diplomacy with other [Indigenous] nations.” Furthermore, Tsalagi scholar Jeff Corntassel (2008) posits that the renewal of these inter-Indigenous treaties, as well as the making of new treaties, is a way to promote Indigenous unity, regeneration, and alliance. This article discusses the renewed forms of Indigenous unity that are occurring in at least the context of Pacific herring governance.

Based in part on these findings, we posit that contemporary cases of inter-Indigenous collaboration and solidarity, as compared to many North American inter-Indigenous treaties of the 1600s–1900s, now have a somewhat different bearing. Rather than agreements driven by needs to establish peace or hunting rules between Indigenous nations, some contemporary inter-Indigenous collaboration may now be oriented more toward unity for the purpose of decolonizing Indigenous lands. For example, the United League of Indigenous Nations, made up of 11 Indigenous nations from the USA, Canada, Aotearoa, and Australia, signed a treaty in August 2007 to “establish a foundation for the exercise of contemporary Indigenous Nation sovereignty”(United League of Indigenous Nations, 2007). Another inter-Indigenous treaty in the North American context is the Buffalo Treaty (2014), signed by 10 Indigenous nations in the USA and Canada to promote their ongoing relationships with bison conservation as well as to unite the political power of First Nations across Turtle Island (CBC, 2015). In Canada, the network Defenders of the Land (2014) lists 39 Indigenous communities working together to build “a fundamental movement for Indigenous rights” (p. 1). On the BC coast specifically, the Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative is an alliance of Indigenous nations on the North and Central Coast and Haida Gwaii formed in 2000 out the recognition of a need for Indigenous nations work together to address challenges including regional strategic planning of resource governance (Coastal First Nations, 2016). In each of these cases, Indigenous nations from different, and sometimes very distant, traditional homelands have come together to address a shared problem. This shared problem may be the need to combat the ongoing colonial marginalization of Indigenous peoples from their traditional homelands, waters, and more than human relationships.

Evidence to support this present-day positioning of inter-Indigenous collaboration and solidarity was supported in this research (Lightfoot, Columbia, & MacDonald, 2017; L. B. Simpson, 2008). The results indicated examples of formal, signed agreements of solidarity and collaboration related to Indigenous herring governance (e.g. Treaty of Peace Respect and Responsibility between the Heiltsuk Nation and the Haida Nation, Council of the Haida Nation and HTC, 2015; Herring Declaration of Solidarity of B.C. First Nations, Haida et al., 2015). Like the international and sub-national contemporary agreements and collaborations discussed above, these BC coast agreements appear to be reinvigorating Indigenous governance of herring, as well as offsetting/upsetting/unsettling the discretional power of the DFO. In the Herring Declaration of Solidarity of B.C. First Nations document (Haida et al., 2015), the Haida, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xai’Xais, and Nuu-chah-nulth stated that the declaration is a “statement of solidarity is based upon our inherent rights to manage our sea resources” and that it reaffirms rights, title, and the “sovereignty to protect our land, seas and resources.” Similarly, the Treaty of Peace Respect and Responsibility between the Heiltsuk Nation and the Haida Nation (Council of the Haida Nation and HTC, 2015) states that these two Indigenous nations “seek great degrees of self-determination and independence” and “strengthen our political authority to protect our lands and seas.” The content of these agreements illustrates how these Indigenous nations are positioning themselves both in mutual solidarity and the authorities of their lands and resources. As a result, these nations are answering the broader need for more dialogue and exchange of ideas between Indigenous peoples worldwide (Daitch & Field, 2016).

However, the results indicated that inter-Indigenous collaboration and solidarity went far beyond signed agreements. Collaboration among a wide range of Indigenous nations, individuals, and organizations was occurring toward the goal of gathering greater Indigenous influence over herring habitat and harvest decision making. In some instances, actions of collaboration and solidarity were as straightforward as a phone call or meeting between Indigenous leaders. In other cases, meetings between hereditary and elected heads of Indigenous coastal nations were held to generate a united approach to matters such as advancing “mutual priorities for herring spawn on kelp” (HTC, 2014). Many of the noted inter-Indigenous meetings, partnerships, treaties, and celebrations were between Indigenous coastal nations in BC. However, there were also examples of collaboration and solidarity with other Indigenous nations, organizations, and leaders in BC and Canada, as well as internationally, who did not necessarily have a direct relationship to herring (Figure 2). This network of Indigenous collaborators reinforces, first, the idea that contemporary inter-Indigenous solidarity functions to generate and inspire ways to decolonize Indigenous lands, waters, and resources. Second, it illustrates forms of Indigenous altermodernity: emergent revolutionary processes that are transformative, dynamic, and creative (Hardt & Negri, 2009), and that reconstruct and redeploy Indigenous culture and tradition (Coulthard, 2007). To this end, L. B. Simpson (2011) discussed the need by Indigenous peoples to reclaim the very best practices of traditional culture, ways of living, and knowledge systems, and use Indigenous “tools, strategies, values, processes and intellect to build our new house.”

Figure 2.

Inter-Indigenous collaboration and solidarity.

Despite the well-known history of inter-Indigenous cooperation and inter-nation agreements, we contemplate here whether the emergence of inter-Indigenous solidarity and collaboration within this research amounts to more than purely a continuation of those inter-Indigenous nation traditions. Given that these coastal Indigenous nations in BC contend with the same colonial governments (Provincial and Federal) when it comes to governance and resource management, we advance the idea that the actions, wisdom, and strategies that these Indigenous nations are collectively applying may be part of both a growth in coast-wide inter-Indigenous solidarity and collaboration, and the larger resurgent Indigenous movements around the world built on shared Indigenous philosophies and identity (Alfred & Corntassel, 2005). Given this, it is important to reiterate the fact that the findings illustrated that many of these actions of collaboration and solidarity have been successful in terms of the Nuu-chah-nulth, Heiltsuk, and Haida pressuring and making real change to colonial-dominated herring management. Therefore, we argue that this case has the potential to inform other similar Indigenous struggles: in the context of marine resources, or environmental governance more broadly, Indigenous nations could potentially advance goals such as nationhood, self-determination, and inherent rights to governance of traditional territories by organizing or collaborating with other Indigenous nations.

Irrespective of significance and scale, inter-Indigenous solidarity and collaboration in the BC context was at least strengthened, even catalyzed, by information and communication technologies and relative ease of travel. Technology, such as high-speed Internet and mobile phones, is increasingly being used by Indigenous peoples worldwide to support self-determination, tribal governance, and social-political organizing (Duarte, 2014). Callison and Hermida (2015) illustrate how, in the Idle No More movement, Indigenous peoples used technology and social media to shape the dissemination of information and to articulate a narrative counter to that of mainstream media. In this study, findings indicated that Indigenous coastal nations used both new and old technologies to organize with each other over herring protection and sui generis rights to fisheries governance. New technologies included social media, blogs, email, and online videos, and traditional forms of organizing included in-person meetings, travel by water between Indigenous territories, potlatches, and celebrations. While in one instance Indigenous leaders traveled by chartered boat between Indigenous traditional territories to celebrate and renew a peace treaty, many of the Indigenous leaders involved in the herring struggle also used car and air travel to meet with other leaders in various locations.

Conclusion

The central findings of this research are important to both the local and global Indigenous resurgence paradigms. By examining the examples of ocean-based resurgence being carried out by Indigenous coastal nations in BC, and the strategies and tools used to do so, our intent is to explore the deeper nuances of Indigenous resurgence via herring relationships and responsibilities. Indigenous resurgences are grounded in the stories, relationships, and living histories of Indigenous homelands and waterways. We present these results as a way to better understand the different strategies of resurgence around Indigenous seascapes. In our findings, one sees the multiple ways that Indigenous peoples “weave their authority together” for land-based education (Wildcat et al., 2014, p. XII). Overall, this research reveals the importance of opportunities for Indigenous peoples and nations to exchange ideas for Indigenous resurgence in homeland and water protection specifically. Strategies for Inter-Indigenous solidarity demonstrate the longer term potential for Indigenous nations “coming together” to strengthen their solidarity and commitment to fulfilling their self-determining authority. These findings also demonstrate the resilience of Indigenous nations despite ongoing colonization and geopolitical forces.

By describing and analyzing the range of strategies being mobilized by the Nuu-chah-nulth, Haida, and Heiltsuk to sustain their governance of and relationships with the herring, we explore ocean-based resurgence by these three Indigenous nations over a 2-year period. Our goal is not to generalize Indigenous resurgence, but rather share community-specific strategies that may support Indigenous resurgence and decolonization of Indigenous marine relationships. In the case of the West coastal Indigenous peoples and the herring industry, contemporary struggles suggest an impressive diversity of strategies and tactics used, from direct action to circumventing colonial authorities to negotiate directly with industry to legal challenges within colonial court systems. Although Indigenous nations do not always “win” legal battles—and even then formal legal “wins” in colonial are not always respected by colonial actors (R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723)—that the sheer multiplicity of approaches explains the partial, always reversible but still critical successes that these nations have secured so far. The strategies employed by Nuu-chah-nulth, Haida, and Heiltsuk represent ongoing struggles to honor and uphold relationships to land, community, and culture amid ongoing colonization. Delving more deeply into these forms of renewal and inherent responsibilities to herring and more-than-human relationships offers us insights into forms of governance and accountability that have guided Indigenous nations for generations past and yet to come.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for the support of this research.

Notes

References

Alfred

(2005). Wasáse: Indigenous pathways of action and freedom. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.

Alfred

Corntassel

(2005). Being indigenous: Resurgences against contemporary colonialism. Government and Opposition, 40, 597–614. doi:10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00166.x

Atleo

(2011a, August 31). Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. Paper presented at Herring School Workshop, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Little Bear

(2009). Naturalizing Indigenous Knowledge: Synthesis Paper. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Canadian Council on Learning. Aboriginal Learning Knowledge Centre.

Brown

(2011). How to achieve more sustainable management [Video Recording]. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Green Coast Media. Retrieved from pacificherring.org/stories-list/all.

Brown

(2015). Heiltsuk nation rallies against recent herring seine fishery [Video Recording]. Pacific Wild. Retrieved from vimeo.com/123069376

Callison

Hermida

(2015). Dissent and resonance: #IdleNoMore as an emergent middle ground. Canadian Journal of Communication, 40, 695–716.

Canada., Erasmus

Dussault

(1996). Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: The Commission.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). (2015, August). Historic treaty signed among 10 First Nations and tribes in Banff. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/historic-treaty-signed-among-10-first-nations-and-tribes-in-banff-1.3190715

10.

Coastal First Nations. (2016). Coastal first nations great bear initiative: About. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Author.

11.

Corntassel

(2003). Who is indigenous? “Peoplehood” and ethnonationalist approaches to rearticulating indigenous identity. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 9, 75–100. doi:10.1080/13537110412331301365

12.

Corntassel

(2008). Toward sustainable self-determination: Rethinking the contemporary indigenous-rights discourse. Alternatives, 33, 105–132.

13.

Corntassel

(2012). Re-envisioning resurgence: Indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable self-determination. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1, 86–101.

14.

Coulthard

G. S.

(2007). Subjects of empire: Indigenous peoples and the “politics of recognition” in Canada. Contemporary Political Theory, 6, 3–4. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300307

15.

Council of the Haida Nation, & Heiltsuk Tribal Council. (2015). Treaty of peace, respect and responsibility between the Heiltsuk Nation and the Haida Nation.

16.

Daitch

Field

(2016). Preliminary inquiry into indigenous peoples’ participation in EITI multi-stakeholder groups: What are the present experiences, potential benefits, and challenges? Retrieved from https://www.cbi.org/assets/files/EITI_Indigenous_Peoples_Report.pdf

17.

Defenders of the Land. (2014). Who we are defendersoftheland.org/.

18.

Deloria

V. J.

DeMallie

R. J.

(1999). Documents of American Indian diplomacy, treaties, agreements, and conventions, 1775–1979 (Vols 1 and 2). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

19.

Deloria

V. J.

Wildcat

(2001). Power and place: Indian education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

20.

Dennis

(2011, August 31). Lax Kw’alaams/Tsimshian Coastal First Nation. Paper presented at Herring School Workshop, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

21.

Duarte

M. E.

(2014). Knowledge, technology, and the pragmatic dimensions of self-determination. In Woons

(Ed.), Restoring indigenous self-determination: Theoretical and practical approaches (pp. 45–56). Bristol, UK: E-International Relations Publishing.

22.

The Early Edition. (2015a, January). First Nations, union agree herring fishery should stay shut. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/first-nations-union-agree-herring-fishery-should-stay-shut-1.2927793

23.

The Early Edition. (2015b, April). Heiltsuk protest shuts out commercial herring fishermen. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/heiltsuk-protest-shuts-out-commercial-herring-fishermen-1.3019583

24.

Entrance

(2010). Constitution of the Haida Nation. Retrieved from http://www.haidanation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Constitution-2017-05.pdf

25.

Foxcroft

Watts

(2014). An open letter to all levels of Government to provide clear instruction on consultation with Nuu-chah-nulth Nations. Port Alberni, British Columbia, Canada: Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council.

26.

Foxcroft

Watts

(2015). An open letter to B.C. commercial herring fishermen regarding 2015 season. Retrieved from https://hashilthsa.com/news/2015-01-06/open-letter-bc-commercial-herring-fishermen-regarding-2015-season

27.

Gillis

(2015a, March). DFO clings to bad science, refuses to close herring fishery in Area 7. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Common Sense Canadian.

28.

Gillis

(2015b, July). Heiltsuk, Haida, Nuu-chah-nulth join forces to protect herring. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Common Sense Canadian.

29.

Haida, Heiltsuk, Kitasoo/Xai’Xais, and Nuu-chah-nulth. (2015). Herring Declaration of Solidarity of B.C. First Nations.

30.

Hardt

Negri

(2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

31.

Harper

Salomon

A. K.

Newell

Waterfall

P. H.

Brown

Harris

L. M.

Justice

(2018). Indigenous women respond to fisheries conflict and catalyze change in governance on Canada’s Pacific Coast Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability (IRES) and the Institute for Gender. Maritime Studies, 17, 189–198. doi:10.1007/s40152-018-0101-0

32.

Harris

D. C.

(2008). Landing native fisheries: Indian reserves and fishing rights in British Columbia, 1849–1925. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

33.

Heiltsuk Tribal Council. (2014). Gathering of minds: A Herring symposium. Bella Bella, British Columbia, Canada: Author.

34.

Heiltsuk Tribal Council. (2015). Commercial herring update. Bella Bella, British Columbia, Canada: Author.

35.

Institute on Governance. (2013). Preliminary review: Gladstone reconciliation process. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author.

36.

Jones

Rigg

Pinkerton

(2017). Strategies for assertion of conservation and local management rights: A Haida Gwaii herring story. Marine Policy, 80, 154–167. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.031

37.

King

Bevan

(2013). Memorandum for the Minister: Re-opening strategy for three major stock areas. Ottawa: Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

38.

Kovach

(2010). Conversational method in indigenous research. First Peoples Child and Family Review, 5, 40–48.

39.

LaDuke

(2014). Why First Nations movement is our best chance for clean land and water. In The Kino-nda-niimi Collective (Ed.), The winter we danced: Voices from the past, the future, and the idle no more movement. pp. 142–147 Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

40.

Lantin

(2015, March 7). Kil tlaats ‘gaa, President of the Haida Nation. [CBC Radio, The Early Edition].

41.

Lightfoot

S. R.

Columbia

MacDonald

(2017). Treaty relations between indigenous peoples: Advancing global understandings of self-determination. New Diversities, 19, 25–39.

42.

Mair

(2015, April). First Nations wisdom bests feds’ ignoble herring policy. The Vancouver Observer. Retrieved from https://www.vancouverobserver.com/opinion/first-nations-wisdom-bests-feds-ignoble-herring-policy

43.

Martineau

(2014). Syllabus: Indigenous Governance 382. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: University of Victoria.

44.

Martinez

(2015, March). Protest in Victoria against DFO opening herring roe fishery in Bella Bella. CHEK News.

45.

McGregor

(2004). Coming full circle: Indigenous knowledge, environment, and our future. American Indian Quarterly, 28, 385–410.

46.

Moody-Humchitt

(2011, September 2). Councillor. Heiltsuk Nation. Paper presented at Herring School Workshop, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

47.

Mucina

D. D.

(2013). Ubuntu orality as a living philosophy. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 6, 18–36.

48.

Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. (2015, February). Nuu-chah-nulth Nations’ injunction hearing on roe herring fishery set for Feb. 26. Ha-Shilth-Sa. Retrieved from https://hashilthsa.com/news/2015-02-17/nuu-chah-nulth-nations-injunction-hearing-roe-herring-fishery-set-feb-26

49.

Office of Nathan Cullen. (2015). Cullen [Member of Parliament Canada] delivers Heiltsuk demand for emergency meeting directly to DFO minister. Retrieved from https://www.heiltsuknation.ca/mp-cullen-delivers-heiltsuk-demand-for-emergency-meeting-directly-to-dfo-minister/

50.

Olsen

(2015). An open letter to the Council of the Haida Nation, the Heiltsuk Tribal Council and BC commercial herring fishermen. Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Canada: United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union.

51.

Palmater

P. D.

(2011). Beyond blood: Rethinking indigenous identity. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Purich Publishing Limited.

52.

Pynn

(2014, March). RCMP descend on native community on central coast to keep the peace in herring fishery row. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://www.vancouversun.com/RCMP+descend+native+community+central+coast+keep+peace+herring+fishery/9675350/story.html

53.

R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723.

54.

Ryan

(2014, February). Judge overrules minister’s decision to open herring fishery. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Judge+overrules+minister+decision+open+herring+fishery/9541803/story.html

55.

Simpson

L. B.

(2008). Looking after Gdoo-naaganinaa: Precolonial Nishnaabeg diplomatic and treaty relationships. Wíčazo Ša Review, 23, 29–42. doi:10.1353/wic.0.0001

56.

Simpson

L. B.

(2011). Dancing on our turtle’s back: Stories of Nishnaabeg re-creation, resurgence, and a new emergence. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

57.

Simpson

L. B.

Coulthard

(2014). Interview with Leanne Simpson and Glen Coulthard on Dechinta Bush University. Indigenous Land-based Education and Embodied Resurgence. Retrieved from https://decolonization.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/leanne-simpson-and-glen-coulthard-on-dechinta-bush-university-indigenous-land-based-education-and-embodied-resurgence/

58.

Simpson

L. R.

(2004). Anticolonial strategies for the recovery and maintenance of Indigenous knowledge. American Indian Quarterly, 28, 373–384. doi:10.1353/aiq.2004.0107

59.

Smith

L. T.

(2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London, England: Zed Books.

60.

Taylor

(2001). Locating and conducting discourse analytic research. In Wetherell

Taylor

Yates

S. J.

(Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis pp. 5–48. New York, NY: SAGE.

61.

Tennant

(2014). DFO “fudging the numbers,” court finds; bars commercial fishery off Vancouver Island. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/dfo-fudging-the-numbers-court-finds-bars-commercial-fishery-off-vancouver-island/article17391117/

62.

Tuck

McKenzie

McCoy

(2014). Land education: Indigenous, post-colonial, and decolonizing perspectives on place and environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 20, 1–23.

63.

Tuck

Yang

K. W.

(2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1, 1–40.

64.

Turner

(2006). This is not a peace pipe: Towards a critical indigenous philosophy. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

65.

Uechi

(2015, April 2). Heiltsuk celebrate as fishing boats forced to leave traditional waters. The Vancouver Observer. Retrieved from http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/breaking-heiltsuk-celebrate-fishing-boats-forced-leave-traditional-waters

66.

United League of Indigenous Nations. (2007). The Treaty. Retrieved from indigenousnationstreaty.org/about-ulin/the-treaty/ (accessed January 12, 2016).

67.

von der Porten

de Loë

R. C

. (2013). Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada. Geoforum, 50, 149–160. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.09.001

68.

von der Porten

de Loë

R. C

. (2014). Water policy reform and indigenous governance. Water Policy, 16, 222–243. doi:10.2166/wp.2013.046

69.

Wildcat

Irlbacher-Fox

Coulthard

(2014). Learning from the land: Indigenous land based pedagogy and decolonization. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3, 1–15.

70.

Williams

R. A. J.

(1997). Linking arms together: American Indian Treaty Visions of Law and Peace, 1600–1800. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

71.

Wilson

(2011, September 1). Kii’iljuus. Paper presented at Herring School Workshop, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

72.

Wilson

(2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax, UK: Fernwood.

73.

Wilson-Raybould

(2014). Regional Chief’s Quarterly Report to the Chiefs of BC. Prince George, Canada: British Columbia Assembly of First Nations.