Scandinavia : TRADITIONAL FISHING<\/p>\n
Salmon Sans Borders<\/strong><\/p>\n Fishing for salmon along the Deatnu or Tana river has long been fundamental to the culture of the indigenous S\u00e1mi people along the Finland-Norway border<\/strong><\/p>\n This article, by Steinar Pedersen<\/strong> (Steinar.Pedersen@samiskhs.no<\/a>), Principal at the S\u00e1mi University College, Norway, builds on the following of his earlier works: Laksen, allmuen og staten\u0096Fiskerett og forvaltning i Tanavassdraget f\u00f8r 1888. Die ut nr. 2, 1986. Kautokeino, and Lappekodisillen i Nord 1751-1859\u0096Fra grenseavtale og sikring av samenes rettigheter til grensesperring og samisk ulykke. Die ut nr. 3\u00962008. Kautokeino<\/em><\/p>\n Fishing for salmon (Salmo salar) along the over 200-km watercourse on the border of Finland and Norway, called Deatnu (in the S\u00e1mi language) or Tana (in Norwegian), has been going on for at least 7,000 to 8,000 years, or for as long as human existence after the last Ice Age. The Tana river valley is situated in an area in which the S\u00e1mi are the oldest known ethnic group. S\u00e1mi culture, as it exists in northern Scandinavia and the northwestern parts of Russia, is at least 2,000 to 3,000 years old. Salmon fishing remains a fundamental part of S\u00e1mi culture on both sides of the Finland-Norway border.<\/p>\n The first written sources from this river district date to the end of the 16th century. They show that none of the surrounding States had gained sole supremacy of the Tana river valley or the S\u00e1mi who lived there. Fishing and hunting, especially of wild reindeer, were important. By the start of the 17th century, the S\u00e1mi had established an ownership-like grip over the salmon fishery.<\/p>\n Soon after 1595, Russia stopped demanding taxes from the S\u00e1mi in this area. After the Denmark-Norway and Sweden-Finland wars in 1611-12, it was agreed, at peace talks in 1613, that the coastal and fjord areas of what is now the northernmost part of Norway should be exclusively placed under Danish-Norwegian jurisdiction. This had consequences for the territorial division of the Tana river valley too.<\/p>\n From then until the present border was drawn in 1751, Denmark-Norway had exclusive jurisdiction over the lowest 30-40 km of the river. Juridical and clerical jurisdiction over the rest of the valley belonged to the Swedish realm. But the S\u00e1mi still had to pay taxes to Denmark-Norway.<\/p>\n Until 1809, Finland belonged to Sweden. Then it became a Grand Duchy under the Russian Tsar. The border along the Tana watercourse became the border between Finland and Norway. Neither this change, nor the separation of Norway from Denmark in 1814 and its union with Sweden, had any obvious impacts on the salmon fishing carried out by the predominant S\u00e1mi population of the Tana river valley.<\/p>\n Through an additional paragraph to the border treaty of 1751 \u00911ste Codicil og till\u00e4gg’ (The first Codicil with Additional paragraphs), later called the Lapp Codicil, the S\u00e1mifrom mid-Scandinavia and northwardswere accorded the right to continue to use the land and waters on both sides of the new border.<\/p>\n The States that drew up this extensive document of rights, consisting of 30 paragraphs, acknowledged the S\u00e1mi as a people of their own with fundamental rights and a right to a future. They, therefore, agreed to create rules to secure the future of \u0091den Lappiske Nation’ (the S\u00e1mi nation), even though a border had been drawn straight through their areas of use.<\/p>\n Reindeer herding<\/strong><\/p>\n Most of the regulations in the Lapp Codicil are related to reindeer husbandry. This is probably because the reindeer-herding S\u00e1mi was the group of S\u00e1mi who most needed to get their access to grazing pastures secured on both sides of the border. S\u00e1mi salmon fishery was not explicitly mentioned in the Lapp Codicil. Yet the traditional salmon fishing in Deatnu continued, as if the border had never been drawn. Among other things, new co-operative forms and methods of fishing were developed, with the S\u00e1mi on both sides of the river fishing together, indifferent to the borderline or which country they belonged to.<\/p>\n This is in line with the structural principle of the Lapp Codicil, namely, that it should secure the material foundations of S\u00e1mi culture. There are many other examples of the Lapp Codicil playing an important role in securing both rights and administration within the salmon fishing sphere. The Danish-Norwegian authorities argued, at the end of the 18th century, that the 1751 regulations were central juridical fundaments for the salmon fishing rights of the settled S\u00e1mi on the Norwegian side of the border.<\/p>\n In 1852, the most important provisions of the Lapp Codicil were disregarded, and the border between Norway and Finland was closed for reindeer crossings. There were several reasons for this: the growth in the population of reindeer owned by Norwegian S\u00e1mi who used Finnish territory during winter; restrictions imposed by Norwegian authorities on fishing by Finnish citizens in the fjords and coast of northern Norway; diplomatic pressure from Britain on Sweden and Norway not to give undue concessions in negotiations with Russia and Finland; and growing Norwegian nationalism, which led to greater disregard of the S\u00e1mi rights laid down in the Lapp Codicil. Salmon fishing, however, remained unaffected, and writings from the 188os indicate that the Lapp Codicil remained a juridical fundament for S\u00e1mi salmon fishing in the Tana river.<\/p>\n In 1775, the king in Copenhagen introduced the Land Acquisition Resolution, which soon gained legal force and allowed the people living along the Tana river to claim, for the first time, private land properties.<\/p>\n Paragraph 6 of the Land Acquisition Resolution is of special importance as it evolves around the juridical rights to salmon fishing in the Tana watercourse: \u0093The goods which have so far been common to whole districts or to the general population, be they fish in the sea or the great rivers, as well as docking places and such, will remain available for general use.<\/p>\n This meant that salmon fishing was secured and could be carried out as before, without being hindered by private land claims along the watercourse. It also meant that the general principle in Norway, by which a landowner along a lake or watercourse also owns the fishing rights adjacent to his or her property, would not be applied in this case. This was clearly in favour of the common S\u00e1mi fishing methods used then.<\/p>\n In 1888, however, the Norwegian parliament passed an act which tied the fishing rights to land ownership. The act accorded sole fishing rights in the Tana river to those living in the river area, either on their own or on leased land. These were the so-called \u0091entitled owners of fishing’. Additionally, it was laid down that the bailiff could allow others to fish with rods, for a fee.<\/p>\n Nonetheless, this did not mean that the old principle of collective fishing rights for the inhabitants of the Tana river valley was broken. The collective principle was emphasized in the preparatory work for the act. It was pronounced that salmon fishing until 1888 had been carried out in accordance with the regulations of 1775, and that the right to fish had been \u0093…considered Common for the general population along the river, in the Valley, from the Mouth of the River to its Outflow.<\/p>\n Why then did the authorities regard it necessary to approve a new law concerning fishing rights in the watercourse, and link it to land ownership? It was due to the felt responsibility to protect the fishing rights of the population in the valleymainly S\u00e1miagainst large and uncontrolled competition from newly established fishers. Much of this new competition was due to a major immigration to the lower parts of the watercourse from Finland and the southern parts of Norway, which took place in the decade before 1888.<\/p>\n Such protection could come about only through rules and regulations on settlement and land ownership that favoured the inhabitants of the valley. Extensive land reforms had taken place along the entire Norwegian side of the Tana watercourse in the years before 1888. The people living in the area had thus already fully formalized their land ownership. It was to avoid injustice against anyone that the new law was passed, also to ensure that any possible rights of which the Norwegian parliament was unaware in 1888 should remain.<\/p>\n The permission to allow \u0091others’ to fish with rods for a fee brings up the question of \u0091others’. Were these the remainder of the valley’s inhabitants who did not own land, or were they visitors? Written records indicate that the \u0091others’ were people who travelled in the region, namely, visitors, those who did not belong to the Tana river valley. Neither in the law of 23 July 1888 nor in the Royal Resolution of 4 May 1872when, for the first time, it was officially stated that the bailiff could grant permission for anglingis the right of the rest of the valley’s inhabitants to fish with rods mentioned. The regulations were only meant to secure the admittance of the few anglers (tourists) who visited the area.<\/p>\n Clearly, the \u0091others’ clause was introduced only because the authorities considered the fundamental rights of the valley’s inhabitants as already established. There was no contradiction between Paragraph 6 in the Land Acquisition Resolution of 1775, and the stipulation of land ownership to obtain fishing rights in the law of 1888.<\/p>\n Over a hundred years have passed since the law of 1888 and it is, therefore, likely that both customs and conceptions of justice have changed. The true growth of the local hook-and-line rod fishing occurred at the end of the 19th century, after the law of 1888 had gained legal force. At the beginning of the 20th century, large parts of the local population fished with rods. In 1909, the local police chief wrote: \u0093There is no fun fishing in Tana, where Lappish rod-fishers are everywhere, day and night.<\/p>\n Fishing rights<\/strong><\/p>\n Around then, the future Minister of Foreign Affairs, Arnold R\u00e4stad, wrote: \u0093This fishing is mainly carried out by the youngest members of the family, who do not have fishing rights of their own. This kind of fishing is considered free across the whole river for the inhabitants on both sides. Foreign (English) anglers, who rent the river, pay, on the contrary, a fee on both the Norwegian and the Finnish sides.<\/p>\n Statistics on fishing fees or fishing permits show that the locals paid none or minimal fees for rod-fishing, which was very common. In the 1920s, during a salmon session on the Finnish side, it was mentioned that the rod-fishing right should be limited to two persons in each family. We can find such statements from different parts of the Norwegian side of the Tana valley: \u0093Those with no weir fish with rod. \u0093…fished with rods everywhere in the river, without considering the border. \u0093Rod-fishing is, after weir-fishing, the most important.<\/p>\n In 1938, negotiations with Finland, which led to the Convention on Fishing in the Tana watercourse, considered a fee for people with no fishing rights. This was probably prompted by the introduction of modern fishing tourism, which increased the number of visitors to the area.<\/p>\n Entitled fishers did not have to pay a fee. Those with no fishing rights were divided into two categories depending on payment of fees: settlers in the Tana river valley without land, and \u0091everybody else’. The first group would pay two Norwegian crowns per season, while the visitors would pay the same amount for 24 hours, or 50 Norwegian crowns per season. This schedule remains to date, with the additional proviso that those with the right to fish with nets also have to pay a fee now.<\/p>\n All available historical written source materials indicate that the fishing rights of the watercourse have been common property for all the inhabitants of the Tana valley. At no time have there been any juridical or other moves to exclude anyone from the fishing. While one group has its right to fish with nets guaranteed by law, the other has a customary right to fish with rods.<\/p>\n In 1997 the S\u00e1mi Rights Committee suggested legislating rod-fishing. The Norwegian parliament did not, however, explicitly consider the suggestion when, in 2005, it passed the act of management of land and natural resources in the county of Finnmark the Finnmark Act. The 28th paragraph of the Act states that the localcommunity \u0093\u0085holds special rights to fishing on the basis of statutes, immemorial usage and local customs. This is a very relevant section of the Act which recognizes the historical development of the rights to fish salmon in the Tana watercourse.<\/p>\n A representative committee worked for two years to prepare additional regulations, based on the abovementioned intentions of the parliament. The committee put forward its proposals on 22 September 2009. They are very constructive and in accordance with old traditions in the Tana river valley. The right of angling for the local population should be made statutory, and a common, local co-management institution, consisting of landowners having the right to fish with nets, and those having the right to fish with rods, should be established.<\/p>\n In conclusion:<\/p>\n For More<\/strong><\/p>\n www.eng.samer.se\/servlet\/GetDoc?meta_id=1214<\/a> www.galdu.org<\/a>
\n
\n\n
\nS\u00e1mi Information Centre<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nResource Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples<\/strong><\/p>\n