so, it's a bad argument to suggest that the natives knew how to manage the resources - they didn't have to know how to manage the resources, because the population levels were too low to worry about it.
but, it's not 1620, it's 2020, and the ruling was naive to think you could erect 18th or 17th century fishing practices in the 20th or 21st century. today, the indigenous people of the region inhabit and exist within a capitalist society that needs external restrictions to prevent it from destroying itself. the fact that these people are indigenous doesn't make them less prone to greed or the short-sightedeness of capitalism, and i would argue that mr. sinclair is internalizing a level of cultural racism in arguing that they are. he's essentially upholding the myth of the noble savage, and he should knock it off.
the ideal end point is for the tribes to recognize the importance of cooperation in the matter rather than competition and to submit to an external regulatory body that enforces common standards and common practices. call it a free trade agreement, if you want to maintain the largely disingenuous baggage about indigenous sovereignty in nova scotia in the 21st century, as they access top of the line free colonial health care without paying taxes.
and, while i will ultimately blame the government for not seeming to want to regulate this fishery (and i wonder if it has it's own motives, in perhaps using it as a backdoor for foreign investment), the tribes simply made a bad decision in going ahead unilaterally - and are now paying the price for it.
i understand that the politicians have to walk a line, here. but, i'm not a politician, i'm an activist; i have no requirements to be subtle, i can be blunt and clear: properly managing the resource for everybody trumps indigenous rights, and it does so absolutely.
the other thing is this goofy position that they hold to that they signed agreements with the queen, not with the settlers, and that they will only negotiate with the queen, as though these people give a fuck about the queen. it's a bizarrely antiquated and undemocratic position and if the tribes won't back away from it then the government needs to realize the danger of holding to it and insist upon it, themselves. the tribes may refuse to move away from monarchist governing structures, but the settlers will (rightfully) burn down city hall if you don't give them a seat at the table, and the state should be able to figure that out, even if the tribes can't. this is a democracy - we negotiate directly, and we revolt when our rulers break the social contract in denying us our own self-determination. it's base hypocrisy for the tribes to demand their own sovereignty, and then refuse to negotiate with the settlers, under the argument that they signed agreements with the colonial government in britain, which has had nothing to do with this country for over a century. they'd might as well call up the ancien regime in france, while they're at it - it's delusional. they need to update their concept of social relations to understand the class-based reality in the settler culture, and the reality that the leaders of the colonial state do not speak for the settlers at all - they speak mostly for foreign capital.
so, i won't condemn the fishers. like everybody else, i find their tactics a little offsetting, to say the least. but, they're fundamentally correct in their position, and they're largely acting out of desperation, in the face of a government that won't act and a collection of indigenous groups that won't cooperate. of the three sides in the negotiation, they're the least at fault because they've had the least influence - they're just reacting to the failure of a process that they were largely excluded from.