DFO estimates are terrible. So sad.

[shuswap]

Generally agree w Shuswap's comments above.

I would however offer this caveat: the Fraser, and the associated stock assessment and fisheries management activities are somewhat unique – and not necessary indicative of stock assessment in other rivers across BC. It would be naive to suggest that the reality of stock assessment on the Fraser is standard across the province.

The reasons for this are:

1/ The Fraser is the largest watershed in BC,
2/ It is perhaps the most complicated wrt managing intercept fisheries along the way, including weak stock assessment and management,
3/ Not only does the Fraser support many different runs of the 5 salmon species, but due to the size/length of the watershed/river – weak stocks often intermingle with different species along the way,
4/ the Fraser empties into Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, where many people and impacts are,
5/ The population in the Lower Mainland has considerable political pressure, which is why we had the Cohen Commission,
6/ The Fraser and the associated management and stock assessment activities have considerable additional technical and financial capacity OUTSIDE of the “normal” core DFO Stock Assessment program. These organizations providing additional outside expertise, funding and capacity include the Pacific Salmon Commission Fraser River Panel (PSC), The Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat (FRARS), The Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance (UFFCA), The Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance (LFFA), The Fraser River Salmon Management Council, The Nicola Tribal Association, The Sto:lo Nation, The Sto:lo Tribal Council, The Burns Lake, Canim Lake, Canoe Creek, Esketemc, Lhtako Dene, Lheidli T'enneh, Nak'azdli Whut'en, Nazko, Soda Creek, Stellat’en, Tl’azt’en, Wet'suwet'en, Williams Lake, Yekooche, Adams Lake, Bonaparte, Coldwater, Cook's Ferry, High Bar, Little Shuswap, Neskonlith, Nicomen, Nooaitch, Okanagan IB, Osoyoos, Penticton, Seton Lake, Shackan, Shuswap IB, Simpcw, Siska, Skeetchestn, Splatsin, Tk'emlups, T'it'qet, Upper Nicola, Westbank, Whispering Pines/Clinton, Chawathil, Katzie, Kwantlen, Kwaw Kwaw Apilt, Seabird Island, Shxwa:y Village, Sumas, Skawahlook, Skowkale, Soowahlie, Tsawwassen, Tzeachten, Yale, Campbell River, Cape Mudge, Cowichan Tribes, Ditidaht, Ehattesaht Chinehkint, Lyackson, ‘Namgis, Halalt, Nuchatluht, Penelakut and Quatsino First Nations, various Aboriginal Aquatic Resource and Oceans Management (AAROM) technical groups such as The Island Marine Aquatic Working Group (IMAWG) and A-Tlegay Fisheries, and The First Nation Fisheries Council (FNFC); often through developed processes such as the Fraser Salmon Roadmap (Fraser Salmon Management Agreement) process, and the Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (PICFI).

It is a very different reality in other parts of the province.

You are right, the associated stock assessment and fisheries management activities of the Fraser, especially Fraser Sockeye, are unique and may I add very complex. This was discussed at length in the Cohen Final Report, Volume 1, Chapter 5 - I encourage folks to read it. However, my comments were not meant to suggest that what is done in the Fraser can be necessarily transferable to other areas or is the "standard" across the province. Each area and watershed in the province have their own management objectives. These are outline the Integrated Fisheries Management Plans (IFMPs) for a particular area. Objectives in a South Coast IFMP are not going to be the same as those for the North Coast and so on. Within those plans, assessment and management between species is different. You can have a suite of enumeration techniques that each region can select from, but some work better for certain species, under a given set of conditions for what you are trying to achieve. My comments were intended to give a perspective from a much larger assessment and management realm that was missing from this discussion in order to counter the claims that there was purposeful, unprofessional manipulation of the data being dictated by alleged suspect managers.

I don't necessarily disagree with all your points, but a few are kind of red herrings in my opinion. However, the last one (#6) I wanted to address because it is a little misleading. Funding from Pacific Salmon Commission Southern and Northern Endowment Funds and AAROM are not exclusive to the Fraser and only the Fraser. If you go to the PSC website you will see that government agencies and non-government agencies and groups from different areas in BC, Yukon, Washington State, Alaska, Oregon and Idaho can apply for funding. You can read about the process in more detail on their website at psc.org. AAROM is a national program and is not exclusive to the Fraser River. PICFI is not exclusive to the Fraser River. As for outside expertise and capacity that the following provide, DFO in the Fraser enters into cooperative and collaborative relationships with many of the FN groups you mention, such as through AFS agreements. Some of these groups have hired their own biologists and technical staff to add to their technical expertise. Some bands have hired biologists with Master's Degrees and have put more effort than others in retaining staff on an annual basis. However, technical capacity amongst FN groups is not the same across the province and in many cases the projects they carry out would not proceed without some amount of technical and in-kind support from the department and their staff.

 

[shuswap]

Interesting that you would phrase it as "DFO money", Dave.

DFO gets it's main operating money from the Federal Government - through Treasury Board allotments - the levels dictated by the government in power - and ultimately through taxes collected from the taxpayers. So - it's actually taxpayer money. In addition, DFO - like other agencies - has the opportunity to get partial funding - sometimes whole funding - for certain specific projects through funding sources like the Pacific Salmon Commission, and other Federal Funding Sources.

Other non-governmental groups can apply for funding through the PSC Southern and Northern Endowment funds.

Sometimes, First Nations get their funding from Treasury Board too (AFS program) - or through monies that DFO gets to administer - often after taking a 20% admin fee off the top. Often, FN have other funding sources that DFO can't touch - like Tides Canada, etc - and other NGOs and private funding sources. They do it because realistically DFO doesn't have the money to perform many core activities as they did years ago - like stock assessment.

What are these monies (or funds) that DFO gets to administer and take 20% administration fee off the top?

 

[shuswap]

I would not doubt that if you were to trace the basis of DFO estimates that data from the international Pacific Salmon organization & their abundance index is the root of the problem.

It is true that the IPSFC (International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission) and their work have had some influence, but there has been calibration work since the IPSFC into appropriate expansion indices. It is work in progress with some good headway on some fronts while mediocre on other fronts. It may be true that some indices used for a long time are quite appropriate for a particular stream type while others are not and need more information. Trying to determine the key drivers for these indices are not straightforward; however, fish behaviour and spawner replenishment are emerging as very significant factors. In order to have confidence in what you are using is the appropriate index you will need to collect a long time series of calibration points, under different abundances, stream size, water clarity, etc. Collecting a few points of a short period of time likely won't be very reliable as some points can change quite a bit within a year and from one year to the next. You also need to have the situation in order to do calibration work - where you can ideally pair a high precision method (e.g. sonar, mark-capture and fence) with low precision methods (e.g. foot surveys, aerial surveys, etc.).

 

[agentaqua]

.. Funding from Pacific Salmon Commission Southern and Northern Endowment Funds and AAROM are not exclusive to the Fraser and only the Fraser. ...

Thanks for your responses Shuswap.

Guess I could have been more explicit wrt funding sources - and their applicability and relevance to different agencies and areas. I did not mean appear to suggest (or have you infer) that the PSC and PICFI funding sources are exclusive to the Fraser drainage - nor that I claimed that you suggested the Fraser stock assessment activities were standard across the province - but my intent was rather instead to point out that the mix of the number of authorities, administrative staff, JTWGs, stock assessment staff, and methodologies and level of effort and funding of stock assessment activities - are unique to the Fraser - and most often funded and technically run from OUTSIDE of the “normal” core DFO Stock Assessment program funding and staff.

As you mentioned, there is normally co-operation between DFO Stock Assessment staff and these other agencies and authorities - but AGAIN to restate - DFO stock assessment capacity in nearly all areas of the province has been continually whittled down over the past number of years due to funding cuts. Often, DFO now plays a minor role in stock assessment in many watersheds in the province - if at all.

I would add that in contrast to the Fraser situation - many other watersheds in the province have absolutely NO stock assessment at all - let alone a viable, complete DNA baseline to determine risk and TAC in capture fisheries along the way.

So for many other watersheds - not only do we NOT have the information as to whether of not there are weak stocks that need protection under the Wild Salmon Policy and other risk-adverse strategies (e.g. precautionary approach) - but even if we did know - there is nothing we can do to decrease that catch effort since we do not know where the fish are caught or where they are getting caught in disproportion amounts - with a few, rare exceptions to this rule (e.g. WCVI Chinook).

 

[agentaqua]

What are these monies (or funds) that DFO gets to administer and take 20% administration fee off the top?

Pretty much every project they apply for funds to, or administer - although those expenditures are often hidden in the fine print of the budgets/audits - but publicly reported as being under another heading. It ranges from 10-20%, depending upon what administrative costs are covered elsewhere. For example, if MERCs (Mandatory Employment Related Costs and include Employment Insurance Premiums, Canada Pension Plan contributions, vacation pay, etc.) are covered off in the estimate for wages - the administrative fees are 10% - 20% if MERCs are not covered-off.

 

[ericl]

Big news down in Seattle is the bad health go the Puget Sound Orca's; alleged malnutrition due to lack of Chinook. The proposed solution is to take-out the Snake River dams. There is gonna be another study completed by 2018.
Perhaps I am on need of correction, but if it were me I'd reduce the commies take of half a million or so Chinook in the northern troll fisheries RIGHT NOW while we debate dams. Also seems that there are other Chinook runs that are more relevant to Puget Sound Orca's than the Snake River, but I have heard that the western Strait of Juan De Fuca feeder Chinook are predominated by Columbia River fish??????

 

[Whitebuck]

Great point ericL. !!!!!!!

 

[Dave]

Perhaps I am on need of correction, but if it were me I'd reduce the commies take of half a million or so Chinook in the northern troll fisheries RIGHT NOW while we debate dams.

Makes sense to me but I would also reduce the sports catch as well .... and while we're at it, eliminate the herring fishery also.

 

[bigbruce]

And maybe do something serious about the poaching at places like Goldstream and Colquitz.

 

[Whitebuck]

Dave, by chance do you know the sports guys take for the season?

 

[Dave]

Dave, by chance do you know the sports guys take for the season?

No, but I sure would like to. Honestly, I would be surprised if there is any recent data on this, from Oregon to Alaska. Considering the annual limit for tidal waters in BC is 30, the number of BC and American saltwater anglers, the tourist industries where most lodges/resorts guarantee daily limits ... I would think it is in the many thousands. I'm sure many here can correct me if I'm wrong, or give us something better than speculation.

 

[shuswap]

Thanks for your responses Shuswap.

Guess I could have been more explicit wrt funding sources - and their applicability and relevance to different agencies and areas. I did not mean appear to suggest (or have you infer) that the PSC and PICFI funding sources are exclusive to the Fraser drainage - nor that I claimed that you suggested the Fraser stock assessment activities were standard across the province - but my intent was rather instead to point out that the mix of the number of authorities, administrative staff, JTWGs, stock assessment staff, and methodologies and level of effort and funding of stock assessment activities - are unique to the Fraser - and most often funded and technically run from OUTSIDE of the “normal” core DFO Stock Assessment program funding and staff.

As you mentioned, there is normally co-operation between DFO Stock Assessment staff and these other agencies and authorities - but AGAIN to restate - DFO stock assessment capacity in nearly all areas of the province has been continually whittled down over the past number of years due to funding cuts. Often, DFO now plays a minor role in stock assessment in many watersheds in the province - if at all.

I would add that in contrast to the Fraser situation - many other watersheds in the province have absolutely NO stock assessment at all - let alone a viable, complete DNA baseline to determine risk and TAC in capture fisheries along the way.

So for many other watersheds - not only do we NOT have the information as to whether of not there are weak stocks that need protection under the Wild Salmon Policy and other risk-adverse strategies (e.g. precautionary approach) - but even if we did know - there is nothing we can do to decrease that catch effort since we do not know where the fish are caught or where they are getting caught in disproportion amounts - with a few, rare exceptions to this rule (e.g. WCVI Chinook).

To clarify, the bulk of stock assessment for the Fraser is done departmental staff and funded through "core" funding. There are cooperative agreements (like through AFS) with many First Nation groups (most often under a larger group such as Tsilhqot'in National Government) where DFO either collaborates directly with FN technical staff on projects or FN are responsible for delivering a particular project. For those projects that FN are responsible for, there are stock assessment deliverables (i.e. data) that those groups agree to provide DFO. It's in a schedule that's part of these agreements - not much different from a contract. Every part of the province where the department carries out stock assessment activities there can be these agreements or non-governmental groups which participate that are unique to that area. They can apply for those funds that have been mentioned for projects unique to their area.

I would agree that budget cuts over the years have made the job of stock assessment very challenging. This has prompted a great deal of creativity and research into different ways to do things (e.g. Sonar, calibration studies, new data tools, etc.) to make funds go farther. Some of these have been very successful, but in other circumstances they don't work so well. Some cases you can't cut any further without giving something up. What has happened is that some species (e.g. Coho) have not faired as well with these cuts as others (e.g. Sockeye). Some species have a long time series of data where they have faired much better than other species without, so you need to look more specifically at gaps with each species rather than just the whole.

But I don't agree that the department plays a minor role in stock assessment in many areas of the province. Define what you mean as "role". You need to remember that stock assessment has 3 main components: preseason, in-season, and post-season. The stuff we have been primarily focusing on here has been the inseason field work where outside participation/involvement can be in different forms, but there are the two other major components to the season where the department plays a major role. This includes but not exclusive to: preseason forecasts, inseason catch monitoring, and postseason data analysis (including escapement reporting). In those areas where there is FN involvement the department is not just an idle bystander. Go through a AFS agreement and you will see for yourself. Like I said earlier, many of these projects operated by FN would not get off the ground without department technical assistance.

 

[shuswap]

Pretty much every project they apply for funds to, or administer - although those expenditures are often hidden in the fine print of the budgets/audits - but publicly reported as being under another heading. It ranges from 10-20%, depending upon what administrative costs are covered elsewhere. For example, if MERCs (Mandatory Employment Related Costs and include Employment Insurance Premiums, Canada Pension Plan contributions, vacation pay, etc.) are covered off in the estimate for wages - the administrative fees are 10% - 20% if MERCs are not covered-off.

You didn't answer my question. Again, what are these funds that DFO are charging these administration fees? In regards to AFS agreements, administration costs are agreed upon by FN and DFO and budgeted for in the agreement. If you look at an AFS agreement there is a specific line in the budget for administrative costs. FN then administer those monies - not the department. FN would then pay their technical staff from monies in this agreement. They are not department employees so I have no idea why you brought up MERCs. If FN don't want to deal with MERCs for their employees under these agreements then that is their responsibility and they are accountable for those decisions with those federal agencies responsible and their FN employees that are impacted - not the department. Department administrative staff do not deal with the pay issues of FN employees.

"Mandatory Employment Related Costs" means payments that the Employer is required by law to make in respect of participants including, but not restricted to, those required for employment insurance, Quebec Parental Insurance Plan, Canada Pension Plan, Quebec Pension Plan, vacation pay, workers' compensation, health insurance in Quebec and Ontario (if applicable), Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Manitoba Health and Education Levy in Manitoba;

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/epb/yi/yep/newprog/appendix_b.shtml

 

[agentaqua]

Maybe on the Fraser - DFO stock assessment is adequately funded. If so - again - this would indeed be a unique situation in the province.

Elsewhere in the Province - many watersheds receive absolutely NO stock assessment - as I mentioned. No DFO presence there at all (e.g. p.15; http://bvcentre.ca/pdf/Events/Conferences/Monitoring/Proceedings/PowerPoint/2-7-Gottesfeld-PP.pdf)

The single biggest funders of stock assessment funding outside of DFO Stock Assessment - is the Northern and Southern Funds of the Pacific Salmon Commission; and Contribution Agreements such as the AFS Agreements where DFO oversees monies directed from the Treasury Board to First Nations. DFO does contribute technical advice where needed, and sometimes equipment - and sits on the approval and technical boards of the PSC. Any comments I make wrt technical and financial capacity of DFO Stock Assessment should not be construed as a judgement on intent, or lack of a science-based skillset - but rather an honest appraisal of financial capacity and support:

English, 2016
"The number of NCC streams with escapement estimates peaked in the mid-1980s at over 1500 streams, declined to less than 1000 streams in 1994, and reached an all-time low of 476 streams in 2014."
"The total estimated cost for annual monitoring of the NCC salmon indicator streams is approximately $2.5 million. Available funding in recent years from DFO, First Nation Agreements, and NGOs has covered $1.7 million (66%) of the required annual funding. "
http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/libraryfiles/lib_440.pdf

Escapement Indicator Stream Summary - North and Central Coast (Areas 1-10)
http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/libraryfiles/lib_29.pdf

CARRIE A. HOLT ∗AND JAMES R. IRVINE. 2013. Environmental Conservation 40(4): 345–355C
Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2013
doi:10.1017/S0376892913000209
Politics, Science and Policy of Reference Points for Resource Management
Distinguishing benchmarks of biological status from management reference points: A case study on Pacific salmon in Canada
https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...-a-case-study-on-pacific-salmon-in-canada.pdf

Chaput, G., Cass, A., Grant, S., Huang, A.-M., and Veinott, G. 2013. Considerations for defining reference points for semelparous species, with emphasis on anadromous salmonid species including iteroparous salmonids. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/146. v + 48 p.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2012/2012_146-eng.pdf

Examples of a few FN organizations doing stock assessment work:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.6508&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://bvcentre.ca/pdf/Events/Conferences/Monitoring/Proceedings/PowerPoint/2-7-Gottesfeld-PP.pdf
http://www.syilx.org/operations/fisheries-and-aquatics/stock-assessment/
http://shuswapnation.org/departments/secwepemc-fisheries-commission/
http://www.gitanyowfisheries.com/

 

[agentaqua]

You didn't answer my question. Again, what are these funds that DFO are charging these administration fees?

Have you ever done a budget up to submit to the Southern Fund before, Shuswap? If so - what were your overhead/admin costs? It's done all the time, Shuswap.

In the case of PICFI - Initially, $175 million of funding was provided for a five year program (2007/08 to 2011/12), and DFO took off $60M for admin fees.

 

[agentaqua]

Science Response 2016/047
Supplement to the pre-season run size forecasts for Fraser River Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 2016
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2016/2016_047-eng.html

 

[shuswap]

Maybe on the Fraser - DFO stock assessment is adequately funded. If so - again - this would indeed be a unique situation in the province.

Elsewhere in the Province - many watersheds receive absolutely NO stock assessment - as I mentioned. No DFO presence there at all (e.g. p.15; http://bvcentre.ca/pdf/Events/Conferences/Monitoring/Proceedings/PowerPoint/2-7-Gottesfeld-PP.pdf)

No, I wasn't trying to say that DFO stock assessment on the Fraser is adequately funded. That’s not what I was trying to convey to you. Obviously, more money would be better – especially on the Coho side of the world. As I said before, I agree that budget cuts over the years have made the job of stock assessment very challenging. For the Sockeye side of the world this was touched upon during the Cohen Inquiry where juvenile assessments in freshwater are not what they used to, but the case was made during the inquiry that we need to be looking in that direction again. In the meantime, as I said before, staff have put a great deal of creativity and research into doing things different to make funds go further. It’s not unlike other parts of the province. For instance, mark-recapture (MR) studies can produce a high precision estimate and have been a mainstay for years; however, they are very labour intensive and costly. In addition, MR is very dependent on being able to recover carcasses. Extreme environmental conditions (e.g. high and/or turbid water) and predation (e.g. bears) can reduce the number of available carcasses and in turn impact recovery rates and the estimate. MR is also dependent on satisfying a number of assumptions which takes diligent planning preseason and inseason. On the other hand, hydroacoustics are less expensive, not as labour intensive and can produce a high precision estimate. There are assumptions to satisfy, but not to the extent of MR. There are some downsides to hydroacoustics, but far more advantages. The other thing that I didn’t mention before is that sectors responsible for different species collaborate more on the scheduling of aerial surveys to avoid duplication. Often, data is shared amongst sectors in case one can’t cover a certain area but the other can. Helicopter surveys can be a very significant part of a stock assessment budget.

Your example is not showing what you intended. The Skeena Fisheries Commission was not started because the department was getting out of stock assessment in the North Coast. It says quite plainly in the links you provide. There was already a history of fisheries management by FN in that area. The commission was formed after an agreement with the department in 1991. This agreement recognizes their aspirations to fisheries in that area and gives them a larger voice with respect to committees with federal and provincial agencies. SFC and DFO meet annually and monthly with regards to sharing information and technical planning which includes IFMPs. In the one of the reports you posted, it explains that DFO is involved in the analysis of commercial catch rates for gill net and seine net boats; the Skeena River mouth test fishery and season-end escapement estimates. This is why I was trying to convey to you that there is more to stock assessment than stream walk surveys (although very important nonetheless).

English, 2016
"The number of NCC streams with escapement estimates peaked in the mid-1980s at over 1500 streams, declined to less than 1000 streams in 1994, and reached an all-time low of 476 streams in 2014."
"The total estimated cost for annual monitoring of the NCC salmon indicator streams is approximately $2.5 million. Available funding in recent years from DFO, First Nation Agreements, and NGOs has covered $1.7 million (66%) of the required annual funding. "
http://skeenasalmonprogram.ca/libraryfiles/lib_440.pdf

If you read the rest whole executive summary you will see that there is some context missing from the above quote. The reduction in stock assessment prompted interested parties (including DFO) to meet to review how things are being done currently indicator streams, discuss priorities and methods and what streams to include or remove from the priority list. Basically they want to get more bang for the remaining dollars left which is not unlike what going on right now in other areas of the province. It also talks about building capacity within First Nations to do escapement surveys, but it doesn’t mean that the department has left the North Coast. Nevertheless, it highlights the obvious shortfall, the importance of indicator streams and value added from this fishery to local economy. If the capacity to do the work is there then that is a bonus because it also fosters better relationships with FN. However, there are many other cases where that capacity is not at the same level and data quality could be suspect.

Examples of a few FN organizations doing stock assessment work:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.6508&rep=rep1&type=pdf
http://bvcentre.ca/pdf/Events/Conferences/Monitoring/Proceedings/PowerPoint/2-7-Gottesfeld-PP.pdf
http://www.syilx.org/operations/fisheries-and-aquatics/stock-assessment/
http://shuswapnation.org/departments/secwepemc-fisheries-commission/
http://www.gitanyowfisheries.com/

Not sure why you posted examples of FN organizations doing stock assessment work because I had already pointed that out and said that is one of the ways DFO collects stock assessment data. In one of those instances above, the Secwepemc Fisheries Commission (SFC) conducts Chinook and Coho stream walks on some selected streams in the North and South Thompson as well as operates a Sockeye enumeration fence on Scotch Creek. They signed an AFS agreement with DFO which contains many parts, including stock assessment activities. SFC manages the money provided in the agreement, but the department routinely meets with SFC and monitors progress of the agreement to ensure deliverables and obligations are met on both sides. You can almost equate it to a contract. In regards these stock assessment projects, SFC is obligated in the agreement (in a Schedule attachment) to fulfill certain stock assessment deliverables on a certain timeline. DFO receives the data from SFC and uses it in season-end escapement estimates.

 

[shuswap]

Have you ever done a budget up to submit to the Southern Fund before, Shuswap? If so - what were your overhead/admin costs? It's done all the time, Shuswap.

In the case of PICFI - Initially, $175 million of funding was provided for a five year program (2007/08 to 2011/12), and DFO took off $60M for admin fees.

Actually I do have some experience with that now that you mention it. If you or others had checked out the PSC website it would have helped explain things. If the proponent is fortunate enough to move pass the concept stage and gets approval they submit a more detailed proposal including a budget following the templates provided by the PSC. Budgets are scrutinized by the PSC funding committee – not just the project details. The budget template has a line for “indirect/overhead costs”. However, you cannot just submit whatever you want for these costs. As it says in the template, “if the PSC contribution to Indirect costs exceeds 20% of the total PSC grant you will be required to submit back-up documentation justifying the expense.”

In some cases, the proponent feels that they can cover these indirect/overhead cost themselves and will just budget for other administrative items. If you require a satellite phone for communication including health and safety then you would be foolish (not to mention in a lot of trouble with provincial authorities) not to budget for the costs of it. The PSC funding committee will expect a report of the activities done so the proponent needs to take in consideration that photocopying and stationary are not just nice to have. Budgeting for those indirect/overhead costs depends on what resources the proponent has to offer up front. Some smaller consulting firms may need to budget for that; however, those indirect/overhead cost were not included in the budgets I was involved in. What I can tell you is that the PSC does not take a 20% slice of the funding for administration. Those costs are in the budget template and the proponent has to budget accordingly. The more you can bring to the plate like other funding sources, collaboration with other groups (especially FN), big money equipment, and trained staff to bring costs down it make the proposal stronger.

As for PICFI example, what is your source for that quote? Do you understand what PICFI is including its guiding principles? Do you understand what is involved in FN capacity building for the development and management of commercial fisheries enterprises? It’s not just giving FN a bunch of money and say, “Go start a commercial fishing operation, make some money and see you later….and oh by the way we are taking a big chunk of cash to line our pockets with because we are greedy.” There are costs associated with business development as well as accessing legal and business expertise. It costs time and money to build capacity. There are staff to hire like business managers, accountants, lease office space and office equipment. There is also training and mentoring involved for fishing crews. We haven’t gotten to the big ticket items yet like boats. Also, DFO needs staff in PICFI to oversee this and provide the necessary support. I don’t imagine they would do this for free. Through this process, PICFI coordinators work with FN applicants to help them along the way.

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for taking the time to provide more context and details to everyone on this forum, Shuswap. I actually do know that there is "more to stock assessment than stream walk surveys (although very important nonetheless)" - but thank you for expanding the discussion over stock assessment - including the other potential tools in the toolbox. Speaking of which - there used to be a number of "historic" marine-based test fisheries that have been discontinued, as well as a few fish fences.

No, the department has not: "left the North Coast" (thank 'ya), but realistically - has been very reduced in it's capacity to provide meaningful stock assessment to help regulate fisheries properly. That is really the point I would like to make - and have been trying to make. Let me give you another example:

This summer DFO allowed a "limited" (nice vague, blurry motherhood statement here - just like "sustainable" aquaculture) troll fishery in Areas 6 through 8. ok - DFO also said it was "abundance-based" - which is to me another meaningless way to say - "If we are not catching much here - we will move on - as usual".

Not really a risk-adverse way to manage a fishery considering that fish often stage before entering watersheds and inlets - and even in lowered abundances (i.e. marine abundance-based end points set on what abundance estimates - generated how??) - could be as good as it gets for the returns this year.

There is likely a number of weak stocks that could be inadvertently targeted this way - but guess what ? - not only do we not have sufficient stock assessment to know what stocks are "at risk", but even if we did - we couldn't tell them apart because the coho DNA baseline is abysmal.

The reason why we don't know what stocks are at risk is twofold:
1/ as English stated: "The number of NCC streams with escapement estimates peaked in the mid-1980s at over 1500 streams, declined to less than 1000 streams in 1994, and reached an all-time low of 476 streams in 2014." (i.e. no stock trajectories available to look at abundances and TACs - and gauge "risk"), and
2/ many of the streamwalks were terminated, and even from the few existing streamwalks - nobody collects coho DNA in these areas, since the streamwalks now normally terminate too early to get coho DNA. W/o an adequate DNA baseline - you cannot risk manage an intercept fishery that potentially intercepts weak stocks, because you cannot identify either watershed of origin, or CU.

BUT lets just ignore all the above and call it "abundance-based", and carry-on, and whistle a happy tune, shall we??

I know DFO stock assessment is doing the best it can given the funding restraints it has. Again - that is my point.

...As for PICFI example, what is your source for that quote?...

http://cms.nortia.org/Org/Org161/Images/Minutes/DFO PICFI presentation.pdf

Thanks for the quotes from the PSC - but if you already knew about the 20% admin fees - not sure why you questioned me on it, earlier:

What are these monies (or funds) that DFO gets to administer and take 20% administration fee off the top?

Maybe you can provide a direction for that conversation?

 

[TheBigGuy]

AA &Shuswap. Would you 2 stop getting along so well on this thread. It's kind of making me feel creepy. Ewwww

Just kidding.