Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42004210›Full record

ArticleEnvironment and planning. C, Politics and space2025

'A bureaucracy within a bureaucracy': The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and relationships under the Maa-nulth Treaty.

Onyx Sloan Morgan, Huu-ay-aht First Nations, Heather Castleden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environment and planning. C, Politics and space, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Onyx Sloan MorganUBC Okanagan, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1947-1991
Huu-ay-aht First Nations
Heather CastledenUniversity of Victoria, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the acknowledgement of the importance of relations with the ocean for nuučaan̓uł ways of being, relationships between Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and nuučaan̓uł Nations remain rife with power inequities. The existence, form, and right for nuučaan̓uł to practice fishing, including commercial fishing, is one such flashpoint where relationships with DFO and thus Canada's policy and general orientation to First Nations are strained. Even for huuʕiiʔatḥ, one of the five First Nations signatories to the Maa-nulth Treaty, coming to the table as equal treaty partners has been difficult due to DFO's orientation to nuučaan̓uł fishing rights, the hierarchy of scientific knowledges, and lack of recognitions of legal authorities through hawiłpatak hawiih. Based on our 10 years of research into the implementation of the Maa-nulth Treaty, in this paper we explore the relationship between Huu-ay-aht First Nations and DFO. To do so, we begin by overviewing the process of reserve creation across nuučaan̓uł ḥaḥuułi and how colonial understandings and creations of 'fisheries' played a key role in dispossession. We then turn to our interviews with Maa-nulth First Nations negotiation and implementation teams to explore how reconciliation and fishing rights have emerged through the Maa-nulth Treaty, and how nuučaan̓uł knowledges have been disregarded by the DFO. We conclude by profiling the tensions, strengths, and challenges huuʕiiʔatḥ have experienced in exercising their treaty rights, inclusive of hawiłpatak hawiih, through the Maa-nulth Treaty and specifically with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Indexed as

British ColumbiaCanadaDepartment of Fisheries and OceansfisheriesHuu-ay-aht First NationsMaa-nulth Treatymodern treatiesnuučaan̓uł

Identifiers

PMID42004210
PMCPMC13086292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.