The Relationship between the Mi’kmaw People and the Fisheries: A Historical Perspective

 As an Archivist and Historian, I would like to raise awareness of the historical context of Mi’kmaw fisheries in Mi’kma’ki. I hope this will create a better understanding of Treaties,  and the relationship between Indigenous peoples and Settlers.
The following is a narrative that has been constructed from primary and secondary written historical sources. It should be noted that some of these sources are colonial in nature and offer only one (sometimes biased) perspective that is not told directly from the perspective of the Mi’kmaw people. That said, written documentation, despite their biases, can be sources of valuable information, particularly with regards to Mi’kmaw-Settler relations. It also offers insight on Mi’kmaw cultural landscapes and how these changed drastically following the settlement of European colonies.

Perhaps some of the most valuable written documentation with regards to our understanding of how the Mi’kmaw people lived pre-contact are accounts known as The Jesuit Relations which were written by the Jesuits who travelled with explorers during early contact (particularly during the seventeenth century). It provides a small, albeit biased, window into the lives of the Indigenous peoples of the region. It is amongst the first written documentation describing Mi’kmaq. One thing that can be distilled from the Jesuit Relations is the importance of waterways and bodies of water to the Mi’kmaw people. In one account, Jesuit Jean Millot uses the term Ichthyophagi, ie: fish-eaters to describe the Mi’kmaw people, stating that they lived off of fish during three seasons of the year.[1] Another Jesuit, Marc Lescarbot, likewise acknowledges the importance of fish to the Mi’kmaq, stating that “for all the spring and summer, and part of the autumn, having fish in abundance for themselves and their friends, without taking any trouble, they seek hardly any other food.”[2] The relationship between Mi’kmaq, fishing, and the water is undeniable. It existed prior to European contact and continues today.

The Mi’kmaw people were considered some of the most skilled Indigenous seafarers in North America. As evidenced in the Jesuit Relations, they relied heavily on the water and fishery for subsistence. Many historians have down-played the importance of water in the past. Other historians, however, have described the Mi’kmaq as spending “up to 10 months of the year, obtaining 90% of their food requirements from coastal zones and the sea”.[3] Two historians to acknowledge the central role of fishing to the Mi’kmaw people are Bernard Hoffman and William Wicken. Both argue that the description of Mi’kmaw people as “hunter-gatherers” prior to contact is inaccurate because Mi’kmaq did not move from one random location to another but, rather, travelled seasonally to very specific regions that were abundant and well-known fishing grounds. They would return to these locations year after year. Furthermore, hunting game was not the primary form of subsistence. Bernard Hoffman calls the concept that Mi’kmaq were hunter-gatherers a cliché; He states that “with respect to the subsistence economy the evidence seems to indicate that fish, seas mammals, and other marine products were basic to Micmac existence, and that hunting activities became important and essential only during three months of the winter.”[4] Hoffman highlights the fact that Mi’kmaw summer villages were almost always located along waterways or the shore. This, he says, was primarily due to the fact that water and canoes were the main means of transportation but also “the second only slightly less important factor was the nature of food resources.”[5] Locations of communities were divided and arranged according to bays and watersheds to ensure equal access to resources. Hoffman estimates, based on historical accounts, that there were approximately 46 Mi’kmaw summer villages in Nova Scotia, 35 being along waterways and the others along coastal shores.[6] He poignantly states that “we may have little doubt that the sea offered considerably more in the line of food resources than did the land.”[7]

It is crucial to understand this importance of water and the role it played in Mi’kmaw culture in order to grasp just how life-altering European settlement was for the Mi’kmaq. The French Acadians, who settled in Mi’kma’ki during the seventeenth century, developed a mutual relationship with the Mi’kmaw people. Without having knowledge of the land taught to them by the Mi’kmaq, the French would not have survived. But the Mi’kmaq showed the Settlers where and how to fish during particular seasons, and shared knowledge that enabled them to live off the land. In return, the Acadians engaged in trade with the Mi’kmaq and their relationship was mutually beneficial. Historical records demonstrate that Acadians did not establish new settlements unless they first had permission from the local Mi’kmaq.[8] Indeed, the Mi’kmaw people were the keepers of Mi’kma’ki and Acadians generally acknowledged and respected that.[9]

When the Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713, Indigenous-Settler relations began to change. With the Treaty ceding that Acadia was now “British territory”, the British began to establish permanent fishing settlements without consent of the Mi’kmaq. These new settlements led to growing tension between all three parties. Conflict developed, particularly at sites of valuable fisheries such as Canso, for example. While the British attempted to claim ownership of Canso, the Mi’kmaq continued to occupy the space and fish as they had always done. “Ownership” of the land is a European concept. It is arbitrary and not something that the Mi’kmaw people adhered to. In Indigenous worldviews, land is a living being and, therefore, cannot be owned by individuals.[10]

One historian, Jeffers Lennox, argues that, throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, while the French and the British fought to claim Mi’kma’ki as either Acadia or Nova Scotia, the reality was that both were “geographic fictions”—They were simply names used by Europeans.[11] But the reality was that the Mi’kmaq “remained a dominant force” and they maintained sovereignty of the land[12]. Lennox states that “Europeans were tolerated, but their presence during this era was continually negotiated with the region’s Indigenous peoples, who proved to be worthy geographic adversaries.”[13]

Tensions continued in the decade following the signing of the Treaty of Utrecht. Mi’kmaq began to defend their land more assertively. One way they did this was by capturing many Settler fishing vessels. In 1720, at an annual meeting between the Mi’kmaq Grand Council and the Governor of Ile Royale, Elders informed Saint-Ovide that they were “displeased with the English, who were ‘destroying all the fish along the coastlines,’ and warned the Governor that they would do what was necessary in order to conserve their people and their lands.”[14] Evidently, the Mi’kmaq had growing concerns about settlement and the impact it was having not only on their people, but also on the environment. With little change amongst the British, Mi’kmaq continued to position themselves as the offence. For example, in just one year alone, Mi’kmaq commandeered 20-25 vessels in the Bay of Fundy.[15] The British would often retaliate. Sometimes attacks would be initiated by the Mi’kmaq but both parties were known to be instigators. Technically, one could argue that the British were the initial instigators simply in that they began to settle and impose on the Mi’kmaw way of life. These hostilities and attacks led to the treaty signing of 1726, when the British promised the Indigenous peoples that their rights to hunting and fishing would be protected. Once this treaty was signed, it brought peace and calm for a brief period. In the following years, treaty agreements were broken, more wars and attacks occurred, and treaties were subsequently signed to restore peace. The Peace and Friendship Treaty that was created in 1752 states that, on behalf of the British, “we will not suffer that you [the Mi’kmaw people] be hindered from hunting or fishing in this country as you have been used to do, and if you shall think fit to settle your Wives and Children upon the River Shubenacadie, no person shall hinder it, nor shall meddle with the lands where you are, and the Governor will put up a Truck House of Merchandize there…”[16] Yet again, another treaty was signed agreeing to protect Mi’kmaq rights to both a livelihood whether it be in the form of subsistence or profit. It should be noted that this treaty established an agreement for peace and did not, at any point, involve the Mi’kmaq forfeiting or negotiating land rights.

Despite both parties agreeing to a mutually beneficial relationship with the signing of the Peace and Friendship Treaty of 1752, the Mi’kmaw people were continually subjected to governmental policy that resulted in systemic racism, which has had a ripple effect right up to present day. This is particularly exemplary during the nineteenth century, which included the creation of Reservations and the implementation of several Acts of the Parliament of Canada. On April 12, 1800, a “Plan for the Relief of Indians” was proposed.[17] This was the beginning of the creation of the Reservation scheme. The proposal included the creation of permanent settlements for the Mi’kmaq. In 1807, Nova Scotia was divided into twelve Mi’kmaw districts. In 1819, “An Act for the Instruction and Permanent Settlement of Indians” was passed and, the following year, Reservations were created. This was inherently problematic for a number of reasons. First, the acreage of reserves decreased within the following years as it was surrendered to the government in exchange for necessities such as blankets, food, and firewood. In just Cape Breton alone, reserve land decreased by 20% during a 40 year time frame[18]. Second, the land allotted to the Mi’kmaq was situated inland, isolating them and preventing access to the waterways. In addition, the land was not suitable to hunt nor did it provide the necessary resources, such as enough firewood, for survival. So, naturally, the Mi’kmaq continued to practice their traditional transient lifestyle and move from one location to another. As the Mi’kmaq moved from their seasonal camp sites, Settlers encroached on the land and “by the time they returned from a trip, many found their land had been confiscated by Settlers”[19]. There is a misconception that Reservations were established to “give” Mi’kmaw people and other Indigenous peoples land when, in reality, they lost access to all other land. The creation of Reservations disrupted the entire foundation of Mi’kmaw society.

Since the land allotted to Reservations was considered inadequate by the Mi’kmaq, the government struggled to encourage them to “settle” on the Reserves. Incentives, such as blankets, crops, agricultural tools, and other forms of assistance were offered. In addition to the reserves, the government established day schools and residential schools.[20] In order to secure attendance of schools, a condition (bribe) was enforced so that if Mi’kmaq did not send their children to school, they would lose any amount of assistance they had been receiving from the government.[21] Acts passed during the nineteenth century reveal the agenda of the government simply in the titles alone: “An Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes of this Province, and to Amend the Laws Respecting Indians” (1857), “An Act for the Gradual Enfranchisement of Indians, the Better Management of Indian Affairs, and to Extend the Provisions of the Act 13st Victoria, Chapter 42” (1869).[22] Evidently, the government’s interests lie in the assimilation of Mi’kmaq by forcing them to become “sedentary” rather than transient. In their eyes, European ways of life that involve settlements and the cultivation of land were “civilized.” Therefore, because Mi’kmaw cultural practices were different, Settlers saw them as “uncivilized.”

In addition to governmental strategies for re-moving Mi’kmaq to Reservations, the Mi’kmaw people faced even more barriers during the nineteenth century. As waterways became essential to the Settler economy, the impact of economic development on the Mi’kmaq fisheries was detrimental. A report on Indian Affairs by Abraham Gesner in 1847 demonstrates the negative impact: “The erection of dams across the rivers have destroyed some of the best salmon and alewive fisheries in the province. The best shore fisheries are occupied by white inhabitants, from which the Indian is sometimes driven by force.”[23] By the mid 1800s, the development and exponential growth of industries such as mining and lumbering had a dramatic impact on the ability of the Mi’kmaq to fish. Dams, log drives, and sawdust hindered fish populations, destroyed Mi’kmaw weirs, and prevented fish from swimming upstream beyond dams and blockages. This was critical for fish spawning and reproduction. Development of industry had taken its toll on the waterways. One year after Gesner’s report, and “Act for the Regulation of the Salmon Fisheries in the Rivers of this Province” was passed. And while on the surface, it sounds like it would have been beneficial to the Mi’kmaq, the act made it illegal to “fish by spearing or sweeping,” creating additional barriers to traditional fishing practices with spears and nets.

The importance of access to fishing is obvious in many of the petitions that continued to be sent to the government by the Mi’kmaq in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Petitions by the Mi’kmaq explicitly state that the fishing industry had been harmed by Settlers from blockages and pollution in the waterways. For example, on March 3, 1853 Peter Paul petitioned the government asking for assistance. He states that he was given just one blanket for him, his wife, and six children to share for warmth during the winter. In addition, he mourns the loss of hunting and fishing grounds and notes the dramatic changes his people have endured, asking for compassion. He states “God gave us the woods, the rivers, and the seas, the Lord gave our fathers all these lands, our hunting and fishing grounds, God blessed us and we were an happy, great nation.” He continues, “white man have them now, he take them away, first not so much then [our] hunting and fishing ground.”[24] The petitions demonstrate that the Mi’kmaq were very much aware of the negative impact it had on their people.

Without access to land along waterways to fish, and the hindrance of fish populations due to economic development, Mi’kmaq had no choice but to adapt by changing their seasonal patterns and finding alternative resources. However, alternative options did not come easy. Racial discrimination prevented the Mi’kmaq from obtaining wage labour and participating in the Settler economy. With their livelihoods altered by settlement and industry, the Mi’kmaq were faced with a Catch 22: “they could neither return to their traditional mode of production nor take advantage of alternative avenues in their efforts at regaining self-sufficiency.”[25] This is one of the primary reasons that dependence on the government for assistance grew.

Not all Mi’kmaw people became dependant on the government, however. Some managed to maintain their autonomy and continued to return to their camp sites until the twentieth century when the Centralization Policy was implemented. Frustrated by its failure to encourage Mi’kmaq to move to Reservations, the government created another plan to remove the Mi’kmaq to two central Reservations during the 1940s and “prompt an economic turnaround that would eventually lead the Mi’kmaq to self-sufficiency”[26]. These Reservations were Eskasoni and Sipekne’katik (Indian Brook). This strategy by the government is known as Centralization. The government, however, was underhanded—If Mi’kmaq did not move to the Reserves, they would become enfranchised. In other words, they would lose their status as Indigenous people. But, as Tobin iterates, “promoting enfranchisement as an alternative to centralization was putting the Mi’kmaq in the position of being forced to make life-altering decisions that would likely extinguish their special legal status, so important to their security and to their identity as First Nations people.”[27] Sacrificing their status would also mean sacrificing their treaty rights. The threat of losing status and treaty rights because of refusing a system that was imposed on the Mi’kmaw people is the epitome of systemic racism.

Centralization was yet one more instance of a total disruption of Mi’kmaw society. Accustomed to living in dozens of relatively small communities, one can only imagine how crowded two central communities would become. Sipekne’katik, for example, grew from a population of 155 people in 1941 to 816 people in 1946. Without the infrastructure to accommodate a fast growing population, social and financial issues developed—many of which contribute to discriminative stereotypes today. Houses did not even have windows and doors when newcomers arrived and supplies and materials for constructing houses had run out. This was by no means the fault of the Mi’kmaq, but rather, the government officials that implemented policy and failed to ensure the wellbeing of the Mi’kmaq was protected.

One way in which the Mi’kmaq maintained autonomy and exercised their treaty rights was their participation in the commercial fishery post-contact. We tend to overlook historic Mi’kmaq engagement with commercial fisheries. Historian Janet Chute notes “Mi’kmaq involvement in commercial enterprises other than the fur trade has been virtually ignored by ethno historians.”[28] One example Chute gives is a Salmon trade that was set up at La Have in the seventeenth century by Isaac de Razilly, and other trade operations that had been established throughout by Nicholas Denys. Chute asserts that “fishing provided the Mi’kmaq with a range of opportunities. Whether for subsistence or exchange, riverine fishing remained a pursuit that employed wholly Indigenous materials and did not depend for its continuation on articles obtained through European-controlled trade. Unlike hunting and trapping, it provided returns with little loss of autonomy.”[29]

To quote the words of Joan Dawson: “Nova Scotia has not been kind to its rivers, and environmental damage is not a recent phenomenon. The first inhabitants of Nova Scotia lived in equilibrium with the waters that provided them with food, dwelling sites, and transportation, enjoying their benefits for thousands of years. They took from the rivers no more than their relatively small numbers needed for survival, and assumed that they would remain unchanged forever.”[30] But colonization and settlement has changed the traditional Mi’kmaw way of life. As William Wicken notes: “Europeans did not change the form in which the Mi’kmaq viewed the world though they did upset the balance within it.”[31] Treaty Rights ensure that the Mi’kmaw people can maintain aspects of their traditional culture and sell commercially to maintain self-sufficiency.

The right to fish for both subsistence and commercial purposes is a treaty right that has been reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of Canada. Furthermore, these rights have never been surrendered. To understand how and why it is a treaty right, it is crucial to understand the historical background of the relationship between the Mi’kmaw people, the land and fishery, Settlers, and the Government. We must understand that the Mi’kmaq have always accessed the waterways and the resources they offer. It is their inherent right that they continue to hold today. Racism—both systemic and otherwise– has indeed created barriers for Mi’kmaq in pursuit of wage labour or monetary gain. But the reality is that their right to fish and sell commercially is not new. And it is our duty as Settlers to acknowledge and uphold the Peace and Friendship Treaties. After all, it would not have been possible without those treaties and the generosity of the Mi’kmaq for anyone’s ancestors to settle in Nova Scotia (Mi’kma’ki). Descendants of Settlers would not be here today without those treaties.

Bibliography and Recommended Readings

Benjamin, Chris. Indian School Road: Legacies of the Shubenacadie Residential School. (Halifax: Nimbus Publishing, 2014).

Chute, Janet E. “Mi’kmaq Fishing in the Maritimes: A historical overview” in Earth, Water, Air, Fire: Studies in Canadian Ethnohistory. (Waterloo,               1998).

Dawson, Joan “The Mapping of the Planter Settlements in Nova Scotia,” In Making Adjustments: Change and Continuity in Planter Nova Scotia,
1759-1800 ed., Margaret Conrad. ( Fredericton: Acadiensis Press, 1991). Pp202-217.

Dickason, Olive P. “Sea Raiders of Acadia,” in Tawow vol.5 no.2. (1979) pp.7-11.

Hoffman, Bernard G. The historical ethnography of the Micmac of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Vol. 1. (Berkeley: University of
California, 1955).

Hutton, Elizabeth Ann “Indian Affairs in Nova Scotia, 1760-1834, in The Native Peoples of Atlantic Canada, ed., Harold McGee, (Toronto: The                         Canadian Publishers, 1974). pp33-54.

Knockwood, Isabelle. Out of the Depths: The Experiences of Mi’kmaw Children at the Indian Residential School at Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia.
            (Halifax: Roseway Publishing, 2001).

Lennox, Jeffers. Homelands and Empires: Indigenous Spaces, Imperial Fictions, and Competition for Territory in Northeastern North America,
. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017).

Lescarbot, Marc. The History of New France. Edited by Henry Percival Biggar. (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1907).

Little Bear, Leroy, “Jagged Worldviews Colliding,” in Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision ed., Marie Battiste (Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press, 2000). pp77-85.

Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. Edited by Richard
Cox (Buffalo: State University of New York, 1982).

Martijn, Charles. “An Eastern Micmac Domain of Islands” in Actes du Vingtieme Congres Des Algonquinistes. Vol.20 ed. Willam Cowan (Carleton
University: 1989) 208-231

McGee, Harold, ed. The Native Peoples of Atlantic Canada: A Reader in Regional Ethnic Relations. (Toronto: The Canadian Publishers, 1974).

Parnaby, Andrew. “The Cultural Economy of Survival: The Mi’kmaq of Cape Breton in the Mid-19th Century.” Labour/Le Travail (2008): 69-98.

Perley, M.H. “Report on the Indians of New Brunswick, Journal of the Legislative Assembly for Nova Scotia, 1843. Appendix 49.” McGee, Harold, ed.
The Native Peoples of Atlantic
Canada: A Reader in Regional Ethnic Relations. (Toronto: The Canadian Publishers, 1974).

Sable, Trudy, Bernard Francis, Roger J. Lewis, and William Peter Jones. The Language of this Land, Mi’kma’ki. (Sydney: Cape Breton University
Press, 2012).

Saint-Ovide au ministre, general correspondence, Île Royale (C11B), folio 28-29v, November 24, 1724) Library and Archives Canada. Online mikan

Tobin, Anita Maria. “The effect of centralization on the social and political systems of themainland Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq: (case studies: Millbrook-
1916 & Indian Brook-1941).” (1999).

Twaites, Reuben Gold, ed. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents vol.1 1610-1613.

Twaites, Reuben Gold, ed. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents vol.II Acadia: 1612-1614.

Whitehead, Ruth Holmes. The old man told us: excerpts from Micmac history, 1500-1950. (Halifax: Nimbus Publishing Limited, 1991).

Wicken, William. Encounters with Tall Sails and Tall Tales: Mi’kmaq Society, 1500-1760. (McGill University, 1994), 115.

Library and Archives Canada

-Department of Indian Affairs Annual Reports. Library and Archives Canada. Online.

-Letters of Correspondence between the Department of Indian Affairs, Indian Superintendent and Mi’kmaq Residents of Tufts Cove, Enfield and
Elmsdale petitioning the removal of Mi’kmaq. RG 10 volume 3119, file 327,352. Library and Archives Canada.

-Letters of Correspondance, 1902, Department of Indian Affairs file 274/30-1, vol.1. Library and Archives Canada.

-Letters of Correspondence, 1919, Department of Indian Affairs file, RG 10 volume 3160, file 363-417. Library and Archives Canada.

Public Archives of Nova Scotia

C.B. Fergusson Papers, MG 1 Box 1888
C.B. Fergusson Papers, MG 1 Box 1889

PANS, Fergusson misc I Jan 28, 1920. Mfm 14011
PANS RG 1 vol.1 no.114

PANS RG1 vol.165 no.224-225

PANS RG 1 vol.430 no.23.5
PANS RG 1 vol. 430 no.55
PANS RG 1 vol.430 no.72.5
PANS RG1 vol 430 no.145
PANS RG 1 vol.430 no.150
PANS RG 1 vol.432 no.1-7
PANS RG 1 vol.431 no.62.5
PANS RG 1 vol.432 no.64-69
PANS RG 1 vol 432 no 153-156

PANS RG 5 vol. 80
PANS RG 5 misc b series P vol.45 no.135
PANS RG 5 misc b series P vol.47 no.35
PANS RG 5 misc b series P no.155
PANS RG 5 series P vol.55 no.50
PANS RG 5 series P vol.41 no.94

PANS RG 20 series A

PANS MG 15 vol.3 no.24
PANS MG 15 vol.3 no.49 a
PANS MG 15 vol.3 no.93
PANS MG 15 vol.5 no.30
PANS MG 15 vol.18 no.19

PANS MG 24 vol.72 no.69

Also Recommended: Contemporary Online Resources

Nova Scotia Museum YouTube channel: Curator Roger Lewis talks about the history of the Mi’kmaq

Facebook: Ohneganos: Let’s Talk Water- Season 2 Episode 4

Ways to Support Mi’kmaq Treaty Rights & Livelihood Fisheries:


[1] Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents vol I 1610-1613, p.83.

[2] Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents vol.II, p.219-220.

[3] Charles Martijn, “An Eastern Micmac Domain of Islands.” p.208.

[4] Barnard Hoffman, The Historical Ethnology of the Micmac of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. p.704

[5] Hoffman, 129.

[6] Hoffman, 130.

[7] Hoffman, 128.

[8] William Wicken, Encounters with Tall Sails and Tall Tales. P.229.

[9] For more information regarding Mi’kmaw-Acadian relations, I recommend A Great and Noble Scheme by John Mack Faragher.

[10] For more information on this concept see John Locke’s “Labour Theory of Property” and Leroy Little Bear’s “Jagged Worldviews Colliding.”

[11] Jeffers Lennox, Homelands and Empires: Indigenous Spaces, Imperial Fictions, and Competition for Territory in Northeastern North America, 1690-1763. P.16.

[12] Lennox, 49.

[13] Lennox, 85.

[14] Wicken, p.266. See also Library and Archives Canada, MG 18:F29 1720-22

[15] This occurred in 1722. Olive Dickason, “Sea Raiders of Acadia,” p.11.

[16] Ruth Homes Whitehead, The Old Man Told Us p. 124-25. See also Nova Scotia Archives, Peace and Friendship Treaties RG 1, Vol.430, No.2.

[17] A Plan for the Relief of Indians, April 12, 1800. Nova Scotia Archives: misc. documents vol.430 doc 72 ½.

[18] Andrew Parnaby, The Cultural Economy of Survival: The mi’kmaq of Cape Breton in the Mid 19th Century. P.72

[19] Anita Maria Tobin, The Effect of Centralization on the Social and Political Systems of the Mainland Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq. P.23.

[20] For more information on the residential school system and the impact it had on the Mi’kmaw people, see Indian School Road by Chris Benjamin and Out of the Depths by Isabelle Knockwood.

[21] Harold McGee, Native Peoples of Atlantic Canada: A Reader in Regional Ethnic Relations, P.86.

[22] Nova Scotia Archives RG 10 vol. 8494 file 50

[23] Abraham Gesner, 1847 report on Indian Affairs. Nova Scotia Archives MG 15 vol 4  no 32.

[24] Peter Paul, petition 3 March 1853. Nova Scotia Archives RG5 Series P vol.55 no.202

[25] Tobin, 24.

[26] Tobin, 39.

[27] Tobin, 39.

[28] Janet E. Chute, “Mi’kmaq Fishing in the Maritimes: A Historical Overview.” P.96.

[29] Chute, 96.

[30] Joan Dawson, Nova Scotia’s Historic Rivers. Nimbus Publishing: 2012. P.171.

[31] Wicken, 159.