April 1 rules

[Brando]

With respect, that is about the most hurtful comment I have heard in some time. If you had any idea of the time, dedication, blood sweat and tears many people who have been engaged in helping support the MSF proposals have invested...and to hear these comments - makes me sick.

Why do we bother. I can only speak for myself and what I personally invested - a trip to Ottawa to support the MSF proposal in early March, many meetings with various DFO folks and MP's. All that said, despite those efforts, and that of all of those of who care about the recreational fishery - we are nothing more than passengers - waiting for a Fisheries Minister who isn't somehow seeing this as a decision that is all that time sensitive...how then is this somehow at the feet of those who are trying to support the interests of the ungrateful minority - maybe the "deathly silence" from "them that are "involved" is what you deserve.

Thank-you for your hard work, and thank-you to the others who are doing the same. Anything the government touches is a nightmare and difficult to navigate at the best of times. We are lucky to have you guys advocating for this sport and resource we all love so much please keep it up!

 

[wildmanyeah]

I find it interesting what seems to be very arbitrary of what needs to be approved by the minister. The five nations IFMP put out was just approved by the pacific director general.

The changes to msf proposal in jervis inlet going from one wild to hatchery only, seems it was changed with no fisheries minister involvement. Even tho the original pilot msf their was approved by the minister.

There does seem to be some inconsistencies with how it’s handled.

 

[OldBlackDog]

I find it interesting what seems to be very arbitrary of what needs to be approved by the minister. The five nations IFMP put out was just approved by the pacific director general.

The changes to msf proposal in jervis inlet going from one wild to hatchery only, seems it was changed with no fisheries minister involvement. Even tho the original pilot msf their was approved by the minister.

There does seem to be some inconsistencies with how it’s handled.

This is effecting everything.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/lametti-afn-undrip-plan-1.6797953

 

[Whole in the Water]

I find it interesting what seems to be very arbitrary of what needs to be approved by the minister. The five nations IFMP put out was just approved by the pacific director general.

The changes to msf proposal in jervis inlet going from one wild to hatchery only, seems it was changed with no fisheries minister involvement. Even tho the original pilot msf their was approved by the minister.

There does seem to be some inconsistencies with how it’s handled.

Knowing how the Fed govt and DFO works decisions like this are at the discretion of the minister to make the decision or to delegate it to someone lower down. If politically sensitive in nature like this, then the minster will get direction from the liberal cabinet, or more likely the prime minister's office. Making it a decision for the minister is a classic govt. delay tactic.

Remember DFO fisheries decisions are governed by political interests first and foremost and science is only used when it supports what the politicians want to do. That is why the recreational (public) fishery has to get political and raise $$$ for well thought out court challenges. It is the only thing that we have left to save public access to west coast fisheries!

Meeting and talking with the politicians and DFO about the science is limited in what it can do as every year the public fishery gets ratcheted back more and more. As every sector group has their own 'science' to back up their positions - it is really a political game now!

I truly hope that lobbying groups like SFI, PFA, BCFW and SVIAC, etc... focus more on the political and court challenge route. You only have to look at the ENGO's and FN's to see how well this has worked for them.

 

[Brando]

This is effecting everything.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/lametti-afn-undrip-plan-1.6797953

The constitution act 1982 already affirms their rights to harvest fish and game under section 35. This is not a new thing I posted a link to the fsc information on dfo’s site but the admin removed it. I think the lense needs to be pointed at fisheries not at the FN exercising their rights. It’s fisheries who are showing a lack of transparency and ignoring the science and allowing extremist groups to influence their decisions.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Knowing how the Fed govt and DFO works decisions like this are at the discretion of the minister to make the decision or to delegate it to someone lower down. If politically sensitive in nature like this, then the minster will get direction from the liberal cabinet, or more likely the prime minister's office. Making it a decision for the minister is a classic govt. delay tactic.

Remember DFO fisheries decisions are governed by political interests first and foremost and science is only used when it supports what the politicians want to do. That is why the recreational (public) fishery has to get political and raise $$$ for well thought out court challenges. It is the only thing that we have left to save public access to west coast fisheries!

Meeting and talking with the politicians and DFO about the science is limited in what it can do as every year the public fishery gets ratcheted back more and more. As every sector group has their own 'science' to back up their positions - it is really a political game now!

I truly hope that lobbying groups like SFI, PFA, BCFW and SVIAC, etc... focus more on the political and court challenge route. You only have to look at the ENGO's and FN's to see how well this has worked for them.

I remember at the time when Wilkinson closed it that people warned that any decision to open it would have to go to the minister.

It seems tho they changed jervis inlet msf without any minister input.

It is all political and that’s a shame

 

[searun]

The constitution act 1982 already affirms their rights to harvest fish and game under section 35. This is not a new thing I posted a link to the fsc information on dfo’s site but the admin removed it. I think the lense needs to be pointed at fisheries not at the FN exercising their rights. It’s fisheries who are showing a lack of transparency and ignoring the science and allowing extremist groups to influence their decisions.

Fair points. FN Section 35 rights are primary and Canada must respect those. I have observed that as much as DFO attempts to follow the science, they have political masters who set the direction. If we have concerns regarding how management policy is set and implemented, then one of the more productive avenues for our community to pursue would be engaging in building constructive relationships with FNs, politicians and DFO. Railing against et al just destroys relationships. Don’t confuse relationship focus for weakness, and avoiding putting forward strong fair-minded positions.

 

[Brando]

Fair points. FN Section 35 rights are primary and Canada must respect those. I have observed that as much as DFO attempts to follow the science, they have political masters who set the direction. If we have concerns regarding how management policy is set and implemented, then one of the more productive avenues for our community to pursue would be engaging in building constructive relationships with FNs, politicians and DFO. Railing against et al just destroys relationships. Don’t confuse relationship focus for weakness, and avoiding putting forward strong fair-minded positions.

I would agree. Is there a link to data regarding the current volume of hatchery fish that are clipped prior to release and any insight into the intention to increase this number going forward?

 

[Whole in the Water]

Agree relationships do matter, but they only go so far and then nasty political realities take over. History in general and the ongoing decline of the public fishery over the years clearly shows that we need to get political and use political and legal power to get the support we need. That's what the ENGO's and FN's do to public fisheries detriment. IMO we continue doing the same old, same old at our peril. Time to broaden the tactics and approach for more success for the public fishery - my 2 bits.

 

[ship happens]

Agree relationships do matter, but they only go so far and then nasty political realities take over. History in general and the ongoing decline of the public fishery over the years clearly shows that we need to get political and use political and legal power to get the support we need. That's what the ENGO's and FN's do to public fisheries detriment. IMO we continue doing the same old, same old at our peril. Time to broaden the tactics and approach for more success for the public fishery - my 2 bits.

I 100 percent agree. By saying that its not to insult or bash anyone who is involved in our organizations.

Lets round this up a bit. How much money would it take? Estimation.. Anyone?

 

[Whole in the Water]

Depends on the case - my initial, limited guess would be $100K minimum. Would not be too hard if you got some public fishery related businesses involved or wealthy fisher folks involved.

 

[ship happens]

Ill donate a thousand. Ill help out as much as I can. I cant exactly organize it as I run 2 businesses already. However my businesses are directly involved with the cause, and ill put that in there as well. Im no polititian either, I would just tell that green chair mutherfucker to go **** up a rope.


I was thinking it would cost maybe 20 million

However mark my words, because my prediction is that if they take the area out front of the fraser river. No way were getting it back. not a chance

 

[myles]

With respect, that is about the most hurtful comment I have heard in some time. If you had any idea of the time, dedication, blood sweat and tears many people who have been engaged in helping support the MSF proposals have invested...and to hear these comments - makes me sick.

Why do we bother. I can only speak for myself and what I personally invested - a trip to Ottawa to support the MSF proposal in early March, many meetings with various DFO folks and MP's. All that said, despite those efforts, and that of all of those of who care about the recreational fishery - we are nothing more than passengers - waiting for a Fisheries Minister who isn't somehow seeing this as a decision that is all that time sensitive...how then is this somehow at the feet of those who are trying to support the interests of the ungrateful minority - maybe the "deathly silence" from "them that are "involved" is what you deserve.

Yeah the minister is too busy in Norway learning about all the great new technology for fish farming. She is just too busy LOL.

Thank you to all who have done a massive amount of work to represent the rec sector-you know who you are and we are lucky for your dedication. I will forever be sad that we have been reduced to being hopeful to get an MSF. But I will take what I can get.

Still waiting for my local MP to give me a call, I offered him a FREE day fishing on my boat this spring

 

[High Time]

With respect, that is about the most hurtful comment I have heard in some time. If you had any idea of the time, dedication, blood sweat and tears many people who have been engaged in helping support the MSF proposals have invested...and to hear these comments - makes me sick.

Why do we bother. I can only speak for myself and what I personally invested - a trip to Ottawa to support the MSF proposal in early March, many meetings with various DFO folks and MP's. All that said, despite those efforts, and that of all of those of who care about the recreational fishery - we are nothing more than passengers - waiting for a Fisheries Minister who isn't somehow seeing this as a decision that is all that time sensitive...how then is this somehow at the feet of those who are trying to support the interests of the ungrateful minority - maybe the "deathly silence" from "them that are "involved" is what you deserve.

I apologize and did not mean to insult all those that put in so much effort,time and resources into fighting for our resource. It seemed like the conversation had ground to a halt and my frustration boiled over. Communication is the only way some of us have any way of knowing what is going on. I see the conversation has been reignited, perhaps the wrong way...

 

[ship happens]

There needs to be more communication 100 percent. It really is the only way. Half the time people argue on the internet just because they can't understand eachother, or because someone is showing strong dominance. Usually because that person is pissed right off. There's some good reasons here to be pissed right off as well.

 

[cohochinook]

They made it hatchery only up Jervis. So we kill more wild fish.

Such BS regs that do little for science based conservation - just a bunch of BS window dressing to appease ENGO's and the Liberal party voting base!!!

Same old, same old that does very little to deal with habitat destruction, pollution, seal and bird predation, illegal in river net fishing, useless SRKW protection areas, etc...

They just keep piling restrictions on the recreational (public fishery) as we are the easiest sector to limit with the least political costs and makes them look like they are doing something - when in fact they are "managing" the west coast salmon fishery into oblivion like they did with the east coast public fishery! This needs to change - we need to start getting political to save the public fishery before it is too late!!!

Pretty much summed it up perfectly. Sad state of affairs.

More people need to get engaged and involved from the public who like to fish.

 

[cohochinook]

Toba here we come. oops...and Bute. Blows about Jervis, come on.

Great! If you have the ability to run that far or get up that way. Those who don't are basically becoming political optical pawns to appease certain sectors!

We around Vancouver and southern Vancouver Island are basically closed now until August 31st. It's not acceptable and we better see something happen in the next 2 weeks or there's no chance MSF is ever going to work in Vancouver with our current fisheries minister and the liberal government.

 

[cohochinook]

I have said this more than a few times on here and it's not to insult or degrade our fisheries organizations such as SFI, SFAB, public fishery alliance and so on... however our organizations are not equipped to handle the solution or a chance at the solution imo. Which would be a heavily funded court case in Ottawa. I really don't see another way. When I said before that our organizations need to grow shoulders, it meant that they need to expand and gain more control over the situation. Grow is the key word. Better grow fast, because once it's gone it even harder to get back.

It's called money. If you want to see change, either volunteer your time or donate to those organizations that are fighting for your access! SFI and Public Fishery Alliance need your support more than ever now!

 

[cohochinook]

Who’s our shadow fisheries minister in Ottawa now ? What’s their take on this and is the SFI and SFAB conversing with them

Rick Perkins https://rickperkinsmp.ca/ he has been engaged on this issue and so has Bob Zimmer. Definitely worth reaching out to them though to voice your concerns.

 

[ship happens]

It's called money. If you want to see change, either volunteer your time or donate to those organizations that are fighting for your access! SFI and Public Fishery Alliance need your support more than ever now!

Send me a list and I'll donate some time.