One of the first aspects of the Tsimshian and Gitksan fishery to be noticed by officials from the Dominion of Canada was the care they took to respect the salmon. In 1877, the first Dominion Inspector of Fisheries in British Columbia, Caufield Anderson reported:

"So careful of the salmon are the Chiefs, they will not permit the Indians to use the pole to propel canoes in passing over the spawning shoals, after the spawn is deposited, but paddle only. Also, that in the spring, when the children sometimes seek to amuse themselves by making mimic weirs to entrap young fish, they are at once made to desist by their parents. In brief, he says that he believes firmly that the Indians act most prudently with regard to the salmon, and do all in their power to protect them."

The Department of Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada, however, did not wish to acknowledge the indigenous territorial and legal system that supported these successful rules of 'conservation'. They brought with them the ideas that had formed the laws of England, where all fisheries were common to everyone but managed by the Crown.

"Fisheries in all the public navigable waters of Canada belong prima facie to the public, and are administered by the Crown under Act of Parliament, which Statute imposes various restrictions on the public exercise of the right of fishing, and subjects the privilege to further regulation and control necessary to protect, to preserve, and to increase the fish which inhabit our waters.

Indians enjoy no special liberty as regards either the places, times or methods of fishing. They are entitled only to the same freedom as White men, and are subject to precisely the same laws and regulations. They are forbidden to fish at unlawful seasons and by illegal means or without leases or licenses. But regarding the obtainment of leases or licenses the Government acts towards them in the same generous and paternal spirit with which the Indian tribes have ever been treated under British rule."

When problems began to develop between the Tsimshian and the new canneries in their territories, Indian Superintendent I.W. Powell commented in his 1878 annual report that these laws and regulations were contrary to the hereditary rights of the Tsimshian.

"On the Northern coast there are certain salmon streams to which for ages their rights have never been questioned, and I have no doubt that extreme care will have to be taken in considering their claims and adjusting their differences if a friendly feeling is to be perpetuated. I do not think the difficulties of arranging these matters are by any means insuperable, but I felt quite certain that the hereditary rights to which they are so devotedly attached ought not to be longer left in abeyance."

As the canneries began to proliferate along the coast, the focus of the laws and regulations was increasingly to ensure that the maximum number of fish reached the spawning grounds, so that as many salmon as possible were available to the canneries. Fisheries Inspector John Williams summarized the role of the cannery industry at the time:

"This industry is very valuable; we consider it the principal industry of British Columbia. Now we claim that the most important part of the fishery protection services on the Skeena River is the protection of the spawning grounds. We claim that it is absolutely necessary that the salmon should get to their spawning grounds in order to enable them to propagate, otherwise they will undoubtedly be exterminated. The Department is now spending large sums of money blasting away obstructions in the rivers, and opening up spawning areas."

In this way, most of the key sites where the Gitksan and Tsimshian used their basket traps were eliminated. Fish weirs were also destroyed. Dominion Fisheries Commissioner, E.E. Prince summarized the Department of Fisheries' position on fish weirs.

"It is an outrage that so fine a river should be injured by the idle & well-to-do Indians. For a certain no. of days per week the gates could be lifted with each; but my own view is that no such barriers should be allowed. Ex-Inspector McNab on other rivers caused them to be removed & in some cases personally destroyed them. These weirs are:

(1) A violation of the Act c 95. s 14 ss 4&5
(2) Unjustifiable as the Indians on the whole are well off & have good land
(3) Unnecessary as other methods of fishing would suffice"

The Tsimshian and Gitksan rejected this new regime from its outset. The issue of licenses was met with determined resistance.

"In 1887, John McNab, guardian on the Skeena and Nass rivers, reported that the existing licensing scheme was not working in the northern region. Cannery salmon were caught 'almost exclusively' by Natives, he reported, and although some of their boats were licensed, a good portion of the catch was transferred to these boats by unlicensed boats, and then delivered to canneries as though caught under license. . . . When the guardians attempted to enforce the license requirement in 1888, they met strong resistance from the native fishers. Informed that the Tsimshian and Gitksan on the Skeena were refusing to purchase licenses, Mowat went to investigate at the end of the 1888 fishing season.

The Gitksan at Hazelton questioned him about the fisheries laws and about who would receive the license money. They stated emphatically that they would not purchase licenses and, further, that they

would continue to fish as they were accustomed. Gitksan laws divided land, including hunting and fishing grounds, between clans. Other people might be allowed to use those lands, but only with the permission of the clan chief and in the company of the members of the clan who owned the lands.. . .
Unable to compel Native fishers to buy licenses, Mowat . . . told the Minister, the only way to enforce the regulations and stop the illegal fishery was to send a 'sufficient force of guardians or a small armed cruiser to seize all nets, boats and canoes which do not comply with the regulations."

Thus began over a century of conflict between the Department of Fisheries and the Tsimshian and Gitksan. Recently, in the 1980s, the Gitksan successfully undertook a series of court cases contesting Fisheries' right to seize nets, boats and fish, in their efforts to force compliance with increasingly restrictive licensing regulations. The protests pictured here at Antki'is in the territories of the Gitwingax also led to a Gitksan victory in court.