Native Fishing Rights and Environmental Protection in North America and New Zealand: A Comparative Analysis of Profits a Prendre and Habitat Servitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the legal rights of native peoples in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand to protect and maintain traditional fishing cultures and economies. The article maintains that native fishing rights are real property interests - profits a prendre - which have received significant judicial recognition and protection in the three countries. Although the native right to fish has evolved separately in the three jurisdictions, each country not only recognizes that the native fishing right includes an allocated harvest share but also there is increasing recognition of habitat protection necessary to maintain the fisheries. In the U.S., judicial enforcement of 19th century treaty promises, particularly in the Pacific Northwest, has been central. In Canada, courts have been interpreting a relatively recent constitutional guarantee recognizing and protecting aboriginal and treaty rights. In New Zealand, legislation establishing an advisory tribunal, to which the courts have deferred, has been crucial. The article contends that underlying all three nations' belated recognition of the nature and scope of native fishing rights is the common law nature of the right, springing from time immemorial use, not from government recognition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".