DFO vs Interior Fraser Steelhead by Bob Hooton.
- Thread starter OldBlackDog
- Start date
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Small section taken from above.
DFO versus IFS
UncategorizedComments: 2
(Abject apologies for the plethora of acronyms below. Its apparent governments can no longer communicate in a language us outsiders can readily understand without referring to numerous web sites where definitions and applications can be searched out.)
The annual flurry of meetings hosted by Canada’s federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to formulate plans for the 2019 fishing seasons is now well underway. Predictably, chinook fishing regulations dominate the agenda. Those fish are top of mind for two reasons. First, they are the primary food source for endangered southern resident orcas. Second, 11 of 13 (85%) of the Fraser chinook stocks whose conservation status has been assessed by our Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) have been designated as either threatened or endangered. Having responsibility for conservation of both orcas and chinook, DFO is betwixt and between. Its traditional role of sustaining fisheries is in direct conflict with conserving chinook whether that be for the future of the fish themselves or as the food supply for the endangered orcas. Those who favour orca conservation outnumber those who advocate for fisheries by a wide margin, to say the least. Where, when and how chinook conservation will unfold is certain to eclipse all else on the DFO meeting circuit in weeks and months ahead.
But, what about that other conservation issue, much more severe than Fraser chinook and even the orcas? What about Interior Fraser Steelhead (IFS) that are rarely even mentioned in any of the meetings orchestrated by DFO? Dare I remind people that the total escapement of those 11 Fraser chinook stocks exceeded that of IFS by a ratio of at least 300:1 for the last return year? The 90% decline in IFS abundance, just in the past couple of decades, let alone relative to their abundance a century ago, is far more severe than anything facing chinook and orcas. Steelhead just don’t have the constituency of supporters either of those other animals enjoy. (Perhaps if orcas dined on steelhead with any regularity their public profile would be higher.)
The one and only conduit through which DFO accepts advice on steelhead from recreational fishing interests is its Sport Fish Advisory Board (SFAB). DFO has reminded us numerous times over the past couple of years that the SFAB is the only game in town. That might be palatable if the people who occupy the seats at the SFAB table reasonably represented the steelhead advocacy community. Unfortunately that is nowhere near the case. Never has that been more obvious than during the most recent plenary session of the SFAB (three days worth!) where recreational fishing interests heavily skewed toward salt water commercial recreational fisheries were more dominant than ever. Of course, that was all about constraints on their income generating opportunities if chinook conservation options now before them are implemented. I’m told IFS didn’t warrant honourable mention over the three day session. No one wants to remember there was once a flourishing economy associated with IFS too. (Anyone been to Spences Bridge lately?) Where were the SFAB’s steelhead advocates when that was disappearing?
DFO versus IFS
UncategorizedComments: 2
(Abject apologies for the plethora of acronyms below. Its apparent governments can no longer communicate in a language us outsiders can readily understand without referring to numerous web sites where definitions and applications can be searched out.)
The annual flurry of meetings hosted by Canada’s federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to formulate plans for the 2019 fishing seasons is now well underway. Predictably, chinook fishing regulations dominate the agenda. Those fish are top of mind for two reasons. First, they are the primary food source for endangered southern resident orcas. Second, 11 of 13 (85%) of the Fraser chinook stocks whose conservation status has been assessed by our Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) have been designated as either threatened or endangered. Having responsibility for conservation of both orcas and chinook, DFO is betwixt and between. Its traditional role of sustaining fisheries is in direct conflict with conserving chinook whether that be for the future of the fish themselves or as the food supply for the endangered orcas. Those who favour orca conservation outnumber those who advocate for fisheries by a wide margin, to say the least. Where, when and how chinook conservation will unfold is certain to eclipse all else on the DFO meeting circuit in weeks and months ahead.
But, what about that other conservation issue, much more severe than Fraser chinook and even the orcas? What about Interior Fraser Steelhead (IFS) that are rarely even mentioned in any of the meetings orchestrated by DFO? Dare I remind people that the total escapement of those 11 Fraser chinook stocks exceeded that of IFS by a ratio of at least 300:1 for the last return year? The 90% decline in IFS abundance, just in the past couple of decades, let alone relative to their abundance a century ago, is far more severe than anything facing chinook and orcas. Steelhead just don’t have the constituency of supporters either of those other animals enjoy. (Perhaps if orcas dined on steelhead with any regularity their public profile would be higher.)
The one and only conduit through which DFO accepts advice on steelhead from recreational fishing interests is its Sport Fish Advisory Board (SFAB). DFO has reminded us numerous times over the past couple of years that the SFAB is the only game in town. That might be palatable if the people who occupy the seats at the SFAB table reasonably represented the steelhead advocacy community. Unfortunately that is nowhere near the case. Never has that been more obvious than during the most recent plenary session of the SFAB (three days worth!) where recreational fishing interests heavily skewed toward salt water commercial recreational fisheries were more dominant than ever. Of course, that was all about constraints on their income generating opportunities if chinook conservation options now before them are implemented. I’m told IFS didn’t warrant honourable mention over the three day session. No one wants to remember there was once a flourishing economy associated with IFS too. (Anyone been to Spences Bridge lately?) Where were the SFAB’s steelhead advocates when that was disappearing?
Derby
Crew Member
Hey Bob...... It would be really nice if SSBC actually put warm bodies in there available seat within the process at both levels of the SFAC & SFAB as usual that particular seat sit empty.. how about some steelhead folks actually showing up at the local levels meeting & start putting forward the necessary support that is desperately needed for steelhead.. Currently the only group that is the voice of the steelhead is BCFDF ... I'm sure they would love to have some help.... so please before you start as usually casting of stones do your home work..... SFAC/SFAB is grass roots process...those that are participating will have a say.
Last edited:
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Pretty sad to hear the steelhead society does not show up to the SFAB process.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
If this is true then this is really sad.
The people who were in this meeting and a lot were steelheaders it appears ignored them. If true and the minutes will show it then that is sad.
Quote (. I’m told IFS didn’t warrant honourable mention over the three day session.)
Further, the Province never would agree to using the SFAB as a voice for Steelhead.
They never would use the SFAB as a conduit for input.
They were asked for years to do this.
DFO did not want to discuss Steelhead as they were not their concern.
The people who were in this meeting and a lot were steelheaders it appears ignored them. If true and the minutes will show it then that is sad.
Quote (. I’m told IFS didn’t warrant honourable mention over the three day session.)
Further, the Province never would agree to using the SFAB as a voice for Steelhead.
They never would use the SFAB as a conduit for input.
They were asked for years to do this.
DFO did not want to discuss Steelhead as they were not their concern.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Taken from site,
matthew k
February 24, 2019 at 9:08 pm
DFO and SARA put the SFAB in an impossible situation. Close everything for everyone in the summer or do nothing about thoes nets.
That’s such a great option, give up my hobby for which I have never encountered a steelhead or not list.
I knew from the second I heard the webinar that IFS were doomed. Your right they should just cut the crap and consultations and just tell the truth.
We have decided that Steelhead all across this province are not worth saving because salmon harvesting is too important to the economy.
The reason they don’t say that is because there probably would be an actually public backlash so instead they use language that is so convoluted and impossible for avg joe to understand. They give the appearance they are doing something.
February 24, 2019 at 9:08 pm
DFO and SARA put the SFAB in an impossible situation. Close everything for everyone in the summer or do nothing about thoes nets.
That’s such a great option, give up my hobby for which I have never encountered a steelhead or not list.
I knew from the second I heard the webinar that IFS were doomed. Your right they should just cut the crap and consultations and just tell the truth.
We have decided that Steelhead all across this province are not worth saving because salmon harvesting is too important to the economy.
The reason they don’t say that is because there probably would be an actually public backlash so instead they use language that is so convoluted and impossible for avg joe to understand. They give the appearance they are doing something.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
We heard from DFO that they recovered 200 ghost gillnets in the upper Fraser. I’m sure they had no impact.Taken from site,
matthew k
February 24, 2019 at 9:08 pm
DFO and SARA put the SFAB in an impossible situation. Close everything for everyone in the summer or do nothing about thoes nets.
That’s such a great option, give up my hobby for which I have never encountered a steelhead or not list.
I knew from the second I heard the webinar that IFS were doomed. Your right they should just cut the crap and consultations and just tell the truth.
We have decided that Steelhead all across this province are not worth saving because salmon harvesting is too important to the economy.
The reason they don’t say that is because there probably would be an actually public backlash so instead they use language that is so convoluted and impossible for avg joe to understand. They give the appearance they are doing something.
The last few years it was open more than 3/4 of our fish had net marks on them, many of them already getting mould on the Gillnet grids.
As soon as the FN netting escalated these fish were doomed. Not too mention any commercial sockeye or chum fishery wipes out everything.I feel that the numbers are already so low that they are in fact functionally and genetically extinct already.
The hardest fighting steelhead in BC RIP
As soon as the FN netting escalated these fish were doomed. Not too mention any commercial sockeye or chum fishery wipes out everything.I feel that the numbers are already so low that they are in fact functionally and genetically extinct already.
The hardest fighting steelhead in BC RIP
fish4all
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately government is still refusing to monitor any of the up river fisheries. Hard not to become cynical that government will be happy when the last wild salmon is gone and our coast is full of pens.
Similar threads
