Discussing DFO with Pierre Poilievre
- Thread starter Blue Hewes
- Start date
searun
Well-Known Member
Don't know what to say other than, look back on the recent track record of this Fed Libtard/NDP gov't. There's a long line of chaos insofar as the Rec interests are concerned. Everything is a park, closed or restricted so that we choke the life out of the recreational community. ENOUGH already.
Anything else is a step up. However having said that, the new Fisheries Minister seems genuine in her comments she hopes to build a different relationship with us...time will tell...always a fisherman optimist.
Anything else is a step up. However having said that, the new Fisheries Minister seems genuine in her comments she hopes to build a different relationship with us...time will tell...always a fisherman optimist.
Options in terms of PP vs Trudeau ( I plan to vote for neither) or some fisheries policy change?
Pollyboy will say anything to get the ticket. He's a hack and cut guy. Harper was the same and he made it so we wouldnt get OAP until age 67. I will NEVER support any clown that screws me out of my pension while padding their own. When it comes to salmon managment they are all clueless and frankly dont care.
Weird I know lots of people who get OAS at 65 years old... how come you won't. Sometimes spending needs to be put under control. The interest we will be spending on the dept will be huge.....so big in fact that all Federal departments are now cutting budgets. If you don't care about hunting or fishing and want lots of parks and closed protected areas then go ahead and vote liberal.. it is your right after all.
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a "wasted vote" and in fact vote apathy is far more dangerous for Canadian democracy. Study the issues, get to know your local candidates and vote for the one that will do the best job for you and your community. Ask each candidate their views on fisheries and conservation, find out who is on the committees and reach out to them, what the public sees in news clips is often quite different from how things actually work on the hill.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
If find the people that say this are the ones that don’t want to vote for conservatives. So they justify their stance on oh it doesn’t matter they are the same.
Liberals were well on there way
To shut down rec fishing in the ocean for chinook in 2008, First Nations put a lot of pressure to try to get areas 19 and 20 **** down along with others, there were plans to put in restrictions similar to what we have today. That was put on hold by the cons to keep us at 2 a day. Recreation harvest opportunities are better under the cons.
The wild salmon policy was put on hold by the cons, like it or hate it, kept us at 2 a day coast wide pretty much all season.
There is no doubt the liberals will continue to prioritize First Nation opportunity, along with following there advise.
Yes they do have constitutional priory base on Supreme Court rulings but that does not me sole use on a shared resource.
Our fishery decisions are bing made by a few political people.
You can say the cons may be worse for salmon and habitat. But don’t gasslight me and say they will be the same for harvesting opportunity.
This may sound harsh but what’s the point of having salmon if we can’t fish or harvest them. Who cares if 10k return or 100k.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
There is science that supports openings in many rec fishing areas, science that is supported by DFO staff but the RDG has denied it based on input from First Nations and pmos office. Orders were given, to stand off and under no circumstances should any more exploitation be aloud by the rec sector.
Improved returns does not = greater rec access
Improved returns does not = greater rec access
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Sadly its true!
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
That was the conclusion in our Sfac meeting the other night. Why bother nothings gonna change, they will do what ever they want fishing doesn’t matter to them. These motions mean nothing and the process is pointless and does not work.
Wrote a few motions to have them on record but fully well know the decision were already made. DFO staff that were there actually encouraged us to do the motions so Atlest they could have internal discussions about it.
The meetings seem to be set up to show they gave opportunity for public input and for us to fill out surveys with loaded questions. Choose death by fire, drowing or... but no option for no death.
The Province needs to be in control of Fisheries, not Federal. Until then choose your form of death.
After saying that I will follow up with I very much respect and appreciate those of you on boards and involved in fighting the process along the way . We would be in worse situation without you. My comments are referring to the public meetings that they have after they have made decisions and are lip service and documenting that we were there.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Funny you mention that, our meeting was attended by the capilano hatchery manager. He said he’s been trying to double egg take for steelhead in the system. He said it’s a grey area of whether or not he can do it without the province permission. He said for the last few years he’s been trying to get in contact, every time he makes a contact and asks them they say they will try to find out who the person is that can make the decision and then he’s ghosted.
He said the excess steelhead are put back into the system but there is not a lot of evidence that any natural production occurs. Said might as well increase production with them and increase the fishing opportunities.
So needless to say I don’t have a lot of faith in the province ability to manage steelhead let alone other salmon species.
He said the excess steelhead are put back into the system but there is not a lot of evidence that any natural production occurs. Said might as well increase production with them and increase the fishing opportunities.
So needless to say I don’t have a lot of faith in the province ability to manage steelhead let alone other salmon species.
Last edited:
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Wow glad our SFAC group isn't like that.
There actually are a lot of changes made from motions. Seen many go through. Wasn't Area 14 coho hatchery retention a motion? Halibut changes few years back with the 2 or 1? That came from our meeting in 17 actually.
At our meeting there is a bit delay on motions from last year as the SFAB has just restructured. Not sure if that was explained.
The only way things get done through the process are with motions. Not everyone one of them get approved but many do.
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Let's get real honest here... One of the main problems limiting the effectiveness of the SFAB meetings and process is the lack of public fishers that attend these meetings. Case in point, our Area 19-20 meetings have had chronic low attendance for years - yet we are one of the most overregulated areas on the whole coast! We do discuss issues and pass good motions but we lack the collective brainpower and support of more involvement from members of the rec fishery. DFO takes attendance at these meetings and do NOT think that these low attendance numbers speak volumes to DFO about how serious they should take our concerns and motions - if the public fishers don't care enough to be show up and involved, why should DFO care???
It is pretty damn sad and annoying to hear people complain about the state of the public fishery when so many do so little to help or change it. Thank God for the few hard working ones that do show up!
The bottom line is that too few public fishers put any time (meeting attendance and volunteering) and money (to support lobbying groups like SFI, Public Fishery Alliance and SVIAC, etc.) to change things for the better.
Many say that what's the use it is too hard, or hopeless. For those that feel that way then you have already created your own destiny and you better start learning to play golf!
Like many things in life, if we want positive change for the public fishery we have to fight for it, spend our time and money like those groups against us do! Yes, it will take a long time, yes it is a ongoing battle, yes it will take effort and money, but it is worth it for us and future generations!
The only thing that will absolutely guarantee the decline of the public fishery is for public fishers to do little and give up on trying to improve. My 2 bits!!
It is pretty damn sad and annoying to hear people complain about the state of the public fishery when so many do so little to help or change it. Thank God for the few hard working ones that do show up!
The bottom line is that too few public fishers put any time (meeting attendance and volunteering) and money (to support lobbying groups like SFI, Public Fishery Alliance and SVIAC, etc.) to change things for the better.
Many say that what's the use it is too hard, or hopeless. For those that feel that way then you have already created your own destiny and you better start learning to play golf!
Like many things in life, if we want positive change for the public fishery we have to fight for it, spend our time and money like those groups against us do! Yes, it will take a long time, yes it is a ongoing battle, yes it will take effort and money, but it is worth it for us and future generations!
The only thing that will absolutely guarantee the decline of the public fishery is for public fishers to do little and give up on trying to improve. My 2 bits!!
Last edited:
Similar threads
