SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Sorry but voicing concerns at a SFAC meeting is not the same as voicing them to the DFO minister.
There will be a lot of sad faces come April otherwise.
agree 100%
Sorry but voicing concerns at a SFAC meeting is not the same as voicing them to the DFO minister.
There will be a lot of sad faces come April otherwise.
Sorry but voicing concerns at a SFAC meeting is not the same as voicing them to the DFO minister.
There will be a lot of sad faces come April otherwise.
Both needs to be done
WHO told you that?
Mistake IMO, the more comments the better!
Wondering...
Nog
I was told not to comment on the IFMP and that the SFAB would be doing a submittle on our behalf.
It appears to me that you may not have familiarity with the SFAB process. Participants working in their local SFAC's pass motions or provide feedback to the various Working Group Chairs and SFAB through their local Chair. Much more efficient way to gather input, as opposed to flooding one person's email inbox. It also ensures local SFAC Chairs are in touch with the views of their local area constituents to better reflect the local area issues. I'm fairly certain you know how to connect with your local SFAC Chair.Thank you for the enlightening PM.
I find it extremely frustrating to say the least when a senior SFAB member states: I prefer to invite input that is gathered through local SFAC Committee Chairs and Member Organizations rather than coming directly from individuals.
For one who publicly states he is tired of all the infighting, and that individual letters / input to these process' is beneficial, that statement certainly appears to be somewhat hypocritical to me...
Nog
It appears to me that you may not have familiarity with the SFAB process. .
Fair enough, but again, the SFAB isn't a lobby group. Once we consult and offer advice and the Department makes their decision, that is essentially it. On this issue in particular the message loud and clear from the Department is we are done....move on. If some people wish to carry on, please do. I have no interest in continuing a fight on the issue of daily limits. We can comment that we disagree with the decision, but far more productive to now focus on how Prawn are managed. We could and should be commenting on the management approach and it's capacity to achieve the stated goal of "sustainability" as opposed to passing prawn from one sector to another. Hoping that people pass along their ideas and advice to their SFAC Chairs, whom we need to have engaged in this issue....many are not. We need the Chairs tapped into their constituent base to gather local expertise.Sorry Pat-- I do NOT agree with your idea to let it go.... "You will note in the IFMP, the Department took a decision to reduce the daily prawn limit to 125 from 200. While this is not the decision the SFAB desired, it has been made. As Chair of GFSFWG, I want to state that the SFAB worked hard over 4 years on this issue. DFO has now made that decision after considering SFAB advice. As such, it is my opinion that it is now time for the SFAB to move on from the issue of daily limits. The SFAB is an advisory process, we are not a lobby group. Going forward, our approach will be to continue to review the fishery and offer advice on how it is managed."
What is the point of continuing to provide "advice" if DFO continually ignores at us. Remember this ??? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
Fair enough, but again, the SFAB isn't a lobby group. Once we consult and offer advice and the Department makes their decision, that is essentially it. On this issue in particular the message loud and clear from the Department is we are done....move on. If some people wish to carry on, please do. I have no interest in continuing a fight on the issue of daily limits. We can comment that we disagree with the decision, but far more productive to now focus on how Prawn are managed. We could and should be commenting on the management approach and it's capacity to achieve the stated goal of "sustainability" as opposed to passing prawn from one sector to another. Hoping that people pass along their ideas and advice to their SFAC Chairs, whom we need to have engaged in this issue....many are not. We need the Chairs tapped into their constituent base to gather local expertise.
If according to the SFAB family I'm doing a ****** job, please replace me....I welcome that.
Then It really does not matter how many people participate in it does it.
That’s why I disagree and I think you do too because the more people in it the. Then strength of the “advice” is greater and the stick is bigger. Aka lobbying power
You guys also realize how demoralizing this conversation is for someone considering participating in the process?
I fail to see where you were going with that comment, and that it is demoralizing.
You can't make a lobby group after something it isn't. This keeps being asked on here. SFAB is an advisory processes that gives out information on recreational changes to our fishery and also brings your concerns to the table through a process. Those are done through public meetings that free for all to attend. I don't want to hear I can't show up anymore. It becomes absolutely frustrating, and quite simply I don't get it anymore.
As for you OBD you of all people as an ex SFAB member of the family knows how the process works. Other groups as you know our paid. Such as the NGO groups etc. To lobby people need to stop complaining and join a lobby groups such as SFI etc. How can we go into a court with no money? If no one joins these groups how can we expect to fight anything?
As for SFAB they are working on a new platform for 2021, but until that changes it remains an advisement process only.
I for one say you are doing an exemplary, time consuming, life altering dam good job BUT it seams not to matter. DFO has the plans, future and end result already decided and in my opinion only engages SFAB as a customary PR event. They have not heeded advice, recommendations or even science on most changes that affect the REC sector. How long are you going to keep offering ignored advice? I also say we should never mention sustainability as I for one do not believe that has anything to do with current management practices for any tidal water specie. I could not do what you are doing, pushing a bus uphill with a rope if to dam hard. BZ for your continued attempts.Fair enough, but again, the SFAB isn't a lobby group. Once we consult and offer advice and the Department makes their decision, that is essentially it. On this issue in particular the message loud and clear from the Department is we are done....move on. If some people wish to carry on, please do. I have no interest in continuing a fight on the issue of daily limits. We can comment that we disagree with the decision, but far more productive to now focus on how Prawn are managed. We could and should be commenting on the management approach and it's capacity to achieve the stated goal of "sustainability" as opposed to passing prawn from one sector to another. Hoping that people pass along their ideas and advice to their SFAC Chairs, whom we need to have engaged in this issue....many are not. We need the Chairs tapped into their constituent base to gather local expertise.
If according to the SFAB family I'm doing a ****** job, please replace me....I welcome that.