Government of Canada to make important announcement Tomorrow

[Dave]

In my opinion that is one of Bob's best posts. Harvest management? Good luck with that, as his last sentence suggests.

 

[fish brain]

The FN’s presently fish for food and ceremonial. The boundaries for this are not the same as they are for the population.

This will not change in the future.

So we disagree on the second point.


As for the Greens, you are correct they are not concerned about the people affected.

However the big concern is fighting this in the public arena.

The sports anglers do not have a face or group that the public or press know.
The greens on the other hand have scientists,lawyers and public people/writers.

All the groups, BCWF, SFI etc. Need to get in a room and decide how to work together.
They need to appoint a public face.

They need to contact all the villages, towns involved and get them involved and up to date with what is coming,


They need to hire a PR firm to give them direction.


They need to do this now, because soon it may not matter

I agree. The sooner the better

 

[OldBlackDog]

Ken Kristian
October 12, 2018 at 9:31 pm


No matter how you slice it, the real problem behind British Columbia’s vanishing wild salmon and steelhead runs points precisely at decades of disgraceful mismanagement, a total lack of respect, blatant neglect and a longstanding record of shame by the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).

While it’s easy for many to say the biggest problem is commercial fisheries, lets not forget who states where, when and how any species of wild Pacific salmon may be harvested. DFO has full authority to wipe out weaker stocks travelling with the healthier, robust runs—and by God, they’ve done a good job of it. DFO has the authority to allow commercial fishermen/women to over-harvest BC’s herring stocks, a keystone species that is one of the most important fish for sustaining a goodly portion of life in the Pacific Ocean.
DFO says it’s okay to lace backeddies in the upper Fraser River and Skeena River with gill nets and harvest salmon selectively while somehow avoiding threatened steelhead stocks.
Believe me, I could go on and on and on, but it wouldn’t do our vanishing wild salmon and steelhead stocks any good at all.

What amazes me, is that British Columbians have sat on the sidelines and let this fiasco continue until the better portion of our wild salmon and steelhead runs are now hanging by a thin thread of existence.

I personally don’t believe anything will change (hell, it hasn’t changed in the 60 years I’ve been in the game) as long as DFO is calling the shots on the future of BC’s salmon and steelhead.

While Alaska has its own problems and isn’t perfect, they are harvesting nearly 100 million salmon a year.
What would be wrong with studying what Alaska has done for their salmon runs since statehood, sort through the good and the bad, then trying to implement the good points to benefit our wild salmon and steelhead stocks, as well as the citizens of British Columbia?

Here’s a quote for thought and its source:
Alaska did not always have healthy stocks of salmon. The salmon catch grew rapidly with the expansion of the cannery capacity through 1920. This led to over fishing, which resulted in such low salmon stocks that President Eisenhower declared Alaska a federal disaster area in 1953. In fact, in 1959, statewide harvests totaled only about 25 million salmon, which is less than 20% of current sustained production.[2] This was a major factor in the declines of the Alaska salmon fishery that occurred between 1920 and 1959. Alaska achieved statehood in the year of 1959.[2] After analysis, it was clear that the reason for the decline was the lack of implementation of the federal policies in place before statehood. Furthermore, the Federal government failed to provide the financial resources needed to manage and research salmon stocks and fisheries such that fishing could be regulated and depressed stocks could be rehabilitated. The decline was temporarily arrested after Alaska became a state and instituted new conservation measures. However, the inexorable entry of more technological fishing gear coincided with further decline to record low levels in 1972. This decline helped promote the enclosure of the salmon fishery in 1973 under a limited entry permit system. Since then the catch has rebounded to near-record levels due to Alaska’s salmon management.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_salmon_fishery

Ken Kristian
Former commercial fishermen, former professional guide and former director Save Our Fish Foundation
Taken from Bob Hooton site.

 

[fish4all]

It’s called ocean ranching and it’s a no brainer. Unless you are a DFO employee.
Alaska and Russia both had record breaking runs this year so the argument about not enough feed in the Pacific doesn’t hold water.

 

[california]

It’s called ocean ranching and it’s a no brainer. Unless you are a DFO employee.
Alaska and Russia both had record breaking runs this year so the argument about not enough feed in the Pacific doesn’t hold water.

Ocean ranching is mainly pinks and there is quite a bit of evidence the billions of pinks released by AK and Russia are competing directly with chinook. Sport organizations have been trying to have some restrictions on this practice.

 

[wildmanyeah]

What Ken is clearly lacking to see and only appears to be drulling over the 80 million sockeye harvest. All about the money.

How many other Alaska runs are in trouble because they are being over exploited in these sockeye bonanzas?

And what happens when these record sockeye run go back to their historical averages?. This year the Alaskan government issued a record number of commercial licenses. Records don’t last forever, it will return to average and their will be a lot more commercial licenses fighting for the scraps.

We enhanced the hell out of Fraser chum gillnetted the crap out of in and over harvested steelhead.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Public asked to weigh in on salmon hatcheries

http://www.thebristolbaytimes.com/article/1840public_asked_to_weigh_in_on_salmon_hatcheries

 

[agentaqua]

The FN’s presently fish for food and ceremonial. The boundaries for this are not the same as they are for the population. This will not change in the future.

No - unlikely it will - or even should. It's what I call a "red herring" - something Houton likes to throw-out there.

As far as I am concerned - it really doesn't matter whether or not there are 10 boats catching 1 fish each - or 1 boat catching 10 - using whatever gear or whatever licensing. The important part is 10 fish are removed from the water. If we have test fisheries and stock assessment - and appropriate in-season management of all fisheries - including catch monitoring and enforcement - fisheries can be managed. I realize it is a big "IF".

It is more difficult to manage weak stocks in the larger rivers like particularly the Fraser - and to some extent - the Skeena, as well. That is because in those rivers; 1/ there are often weak stocks of certain species. 2/ weak stocks can and do co-mingle with more robust stocks at certain timeframes, and 3/ sometimes for certain timeframes - even different species can co-mingle. Trying to figure-out - in a timely fashion - what might end-up back on the spawning grounds after the fisheries are prosecuted is always the challenge of salmon management.

Having said that - although large - the Skeena and Fraser are only 2 watersheds on the coast - and their realities are not necessarily indicative of other realities on the coast. This is a reality that I don't often see captured and expressed by those with say only Fraser experiences when they are complaining about FSC harvesting using gill nets. And the key to mitigating by-catch effects of using gill nets on weak stocks (where/when they exist) is managing overlap in geographical space and timing when weak stocks are present.

The point I would like to make is that there are many times and places on the coast and in certain rivers - that there are no weak stock management issues - like what the Fraser experiences - as one example. Timing and location are always important.

In other words - in theory - there is nothing wrong with using any type of capture method - including gill nets or even sportsfishing - to remove fish for whatever purpose from the water.

Instead I see the focus should be on ensuring that there is in-season management - including the components of stock assessment, catch monitoring and enforcement.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Having said that - although large - the Skeena and Fraser are only 2 watersheds on the coast - and their realities are not necessarily indicative of other realities on the coast. This is a reality that I don't often see captured and expressed by those with say only Fraser experiences when they are complaining about FSC harvesting using gill nets. And the key to mitigating by-catch effects of using gill nets on weak stocks (where/when they exist) is managing overlap in geographical space and timing when weak stocks are present.

This is very true but it seems management of smaller systems where only a 1 or two First Nations bands are involved are managed much better.

However they don’t have returns in the millions eather and don’t represent millions of dollars to harvesters.

We were told by DFO that even a Sara listing cannot stop fsc harvest. Systems like the cowichen the nets are out because cowichan tribes agreed them selves to keep the nets out. Your right areas like that are not talked about much on here but a very good example of what could be done.

 

[agentaqua]

We were told by DFO that even a Sara listing cannot stop fsc harvest.

It's been pretty clear in case law that conservation can and sometimes does supercede FSC harvesting when that occurs and can be proven. SARA - by itself - does not regulate FSC fishing. Rather the authority held by the DFO Minister can regulate FSC fishing.

SO, technically - those DFO employees are correct - but only in that SARA is not a fisheries management regime - and w/o that caveat - it was a misleading response.

SARA is also only but 1 tool the DFO minister has in the toolbox, as well. The authority for fisheries closures comes through the Fisheries Act.

The DFO minister does have the authority to shut down FSC harvesting or any other fishing at any time with/without SARA - if there is a legit conservation concern. Been quite a few court rulings upholding that right in that context.

 

[wildmanyeah]

It's been pretty clear in case law that conservation can and sometimes does supercede FSC harvesting when that occurs and can be proven. SARA - by itself - does not regulate FSC fishing. Rather the authority held by the DFO Minister can regulate FSC fishing.

SO, technically - those DFO employees are correct - but only in that SARA is not a fisheries management regime - and w/o that caveat - it was a misleading response.

SARA is also only but 1 tool the DFO minister has in the toolbox, as well. The authority for fisheries closures comes through the Fisheries Act.

The DFO minister does have the authority to shut down FSC harvesting or any other fishing at any time with/without SARA - if there is a legit conservation concern. Been quite a few court rulings upholding that right in that context.

Yes I think everyone understands this. Also that the wild salmon policy 13 years ago was suppose to try to address how and when to act on thoes conversation concerns.

Also when the pacific salmon Treaty is envoveled that fsc fisheries do get shut down or extremely cut back.

Most of the issues as you pointed out come from weak or endangered stocks go migrating with strong socks that can be harvested.

 

[searun]

The FN’s presently fish for food and ceremonial. The boundaries for this are not the same as they are for the population.

This will not change in the future.

So we disagree on the second point.


As for the Greens, you are correct they are not concerned about the people affected.

However the big concern is fighting this in the public arena.

The sports anglers do not have a face or group that the public or press know.
The greens on the other hand have scientists,lawyers and public people/writers.

All the groups, BCWF, SFI etc. Need to get in a room and decide how to work together.
They need to appoint a public face.

They need to contact all the villages, towns involved and get them involved and up to date with what is coming,



They need to hire a PR firm to give them direction.


They need to do this now, because soon it may not matter

My challenge to you is to sit in a room with FN's who derive their incomes, feed their families, connect culturally with the recreational and commercial fisheries, and still hold your views after hearing from them directly how this will impact their lives. To suggest that the only impact is to FSC fisheries is disingenuous.

I also agree with you (how shocking) that we need to get out to small coastal communities and build strong Third Party Endorsers (TPE's), who clearly understand the issues, science and how these matters will impact their local economies and families. That is why we have started down that road, making connections well out beyond the rec community. Doing something positive to build those relationships is better than sitting behind a computer screen tossing flaming arrows, but not offering solutions as some folks have taken up doing these days. Some of us are at least out there contributing to make those important relationships and build TPE's happen...and you?

 

[agentaqua]

My challenge to you is to sit in a room with FN's who derive their incomes, feed their families, connect culturally with the recreational and commercial fisheries, and still hold your views after hearing from them directly how this will impact their lives. To suggest that the only impact is to FSC fisheries is disingenuous.

I also agree with you (how shocking) that we need to get out to small coastal communities and build strong Third Party Endorsers (TPE's), who clearly understand the issues, science and how these matters will impact their local economies and families. That is why we have started down that road, making connections well out beyond the rec community. Doing something positive to build those relationships is better than sitting behind a computer screen tossing flaming arrows, but not offering solutions as some folks have taken up doing these days. Some of us are at least out there contributing to make those important relationships and build TPE's happen...and you?

Yet another EXCELLENT post, searun.

And.. Hooton isn't helping, neither. Some of his posts are not only highly biased - but highly inaccurate. Seems to me he enjoys inflaming people - by giving inaccurate info. I am not defending any lack of catch monitoring or enforcement neither - just getting tired of posters using what they perceive as an injustice to flame emotions - when they don't even understand the issue (i.e. aboriginal harvesting rights and techniques) - or want to. Really no good excuse in this day of easily accessible info to not read the case law on aboriginal rights & FSC harvesting: https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...ature-rising-by-bob-hooton.71444/#post-889217

 

[OldBlackDog]

No - unlikely it will - or even should. It's what I call a "red herring" - something Houton likes to throw-out there.

As far as I am concerned - it really doesn't matter whether or not there are 10 boats catching 1 fish each - or 1 boat catching 10 - using whatever gear or whatever licensing. The important part is 10 fish are removed from the water. If we have test fisheries and stock assessment - and appropriate in-season management of all fisheries - including catch monitoring and enforcement - fisheries can be managed. I realize it is a big "IF".

It is more difficult to manage weak stocks in the larger rivers like particularly the Fraser - and to some extent - the Skeena, as well. That is because in those rivers; 1/ there are often weak stocks of certain species. 2/ weak stocks can and do co-mingle with more robust stocks at certain timeframes, and 3/ sometimes for certain timeframes - even different species can co-mingle. Trying to figure-out - in a timely fashion - what might end-up back on the spawning grounds after the fisheries are prosecuted is always the challenge of salmon management.

Having said that - although large - the Skeena and Fraser are only 2 watersheds on the coast - and their realities are not necessarily indicative of other realities on the coast. This is a reality that I don't often see captured and expressed by those with say only Fraser experiences when they are complaining about FSC harvesting using gill nets. And the key to mitigating by-catch effects of using gill nets on weak stocks (where/when they exist) is managing overlap in geographical space and timing when weak stocks are present.

The point I would like to make is that there are many times and places on the coast and in certain rivers - that there are no weak stock management issues - like what the Fraser experiences - as one example. Timing and location are always important.

In other words - in theory - there is nothing wrong with using any type of capture method - including gill nets or even sportsfishing - to remove fish for whatever purpose from the water.

Instead I see the focus should be on ensuring that there is in-season management - including the components of stock assessment, catch monitoring and enforcement.[/QUOTE

The point I made I note you agree with. I do not disagree they have this right or wish to change it. It is just a fact of life.


https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...oncern-about-b-c-salmon-stock-tracking.72113/

 

[OldBlackDog]

My challenge to you is to sit in a room with FN's who derive their incomes, feed their families, connect culturally with the recreational and commercial fisheries, and still hold your views after hearing from them directly how this will impact their lives. To suggest that the only impact is to FSC fisheries is disingenuous.

I also agree with you (how shocking) that we need to get out to small coastal communities and build strong Third Party Endorsers (TPE's), who clearly understand the issues, science and how these matters will impact their local economies and families. That is why we have started down that road, making connections well out beyond the rec community. Doing something positive to build those relationships is better than sitting behind a computer screen tossing flaming arrows, but not offering solutions as some folks have taken up doing these days. Some of us are at least out there contributing to make those important relationships and build TPE's happen...and you?

Been in rooms, talked to FN ‘S. Heard from them. This does not change what I said.

Yes they will be effected just like we might, however they have an extremely strong lobby .
Further it seems that DFO is meeting with them face to face on all things related to fish.




Offered solutions and glad to see you liked one.
Just passed on other problems coming that will effect people who fish.
These are not either new or secret.

 

[searun]

OBD, glad you liked something. Safe to say you and I will likely never agree on FN fisheries, culture and likely need to be fully integrated into Canada's economy as full partners - including their right to meet nation to nation with our government. Its not going to be easy to let go of the past, but the sooner we move forward the better in my mind. That is not to say we look the other way when individuals abuse a right or privilege.

 

[OldBlackDog]

From this : The FN’s presently fish for food and ceremonial. The boundaries for this are not the same as they are for the population.

This will not change in the future.

You replied with this.

OBD, glad you liked something. Safe to say you and I will likely never agree on FN fisheries, culture and likely need to be fully integrated into Canada's economy as full partners - including their right to meet nation to nation with our government. Its not going to be easy to let go of the past, but the sooner we move forward the better in my mind. That is not to say we look the other way when individuals abuse a right or privilege.

 

[OldBlackDog]

It is interesting how no one wants to argue with this.


The strategies that are listed are exhaustive (28 pages worth) but its the repetitiveness of the language that grabs one’s attention. I find it hard to accept the people involved in endorsing this material think their output is remotely close to a blueprint for even the most minor of work being undertaken out there on the water or land. Some examples cut and pasted (no, I didn’t make these up) from those 28 pages:

1. Establish a long term strategic plan with clear objectives and a sustainable approach to investment that clearly identifies the limiting factors for salmon populations………
2. Explore the development of new mechanisms designed to increase coordination……….
3. Examine investment in projects………….
4. Consider greater support…….
5. Work closely with license holders……..
6. Conduct a review……….
7. Evaluate options for salmon enhancement, including considering the potential ecological, economic and social/cultural risks and benefits associated with the broad range of production options available.
8. Examine the feasibility……..
9. Explore the potential………..
10. Consider programs to control the growth of pinniped populations………
11. Consider programs to remove and control exotic and invasive species………
12. Consider working closely with BC’s Indigenous communities and organizations………..
13. Consider contributing financial and technical resources to support monitoring and enforcement efforts…………
14. Consider the opportunity to expand existing facilities and to create new facilities with the objective of enhancing wild salmon production……
15. Explore ways to support Indigenous communities…………
16. Initiate the development of a symbolic representation of the importance of wild salmon to British Columbians………..
17. Invest in the active engagement of the public…………..
18. Explore models of governance………
19. Consider revitalizing and investing in educational curriculums and citizen engagement programming…………
20. Examine how best to move to resource decision-making………….
21. Determine the best way to reinvest a greater portion of revenues……….
22. Increase access for community organizations and local stewardship groups to science, technical resources and local knowledge keepers……
23. Explore the development of protocols…….
24. Examine the opportunity to re-establish a dedicated group……..
25. To the greatest extent possible and by whatever means, work towards enforcing the need for a single vision………..
26. Identify and review regulations…………
27. Consider ways to provide support and funding for………..
28. Review models of collaborative governance……….
29. Understand and engage with modern treaty discussions and reconciliation discussions………..
30. Work with First Nations and fisheries stakeholders to influence decisions……….
31. Work with Indigenous communities and organizations, fishing communities, active commercial and recreational harvesters and experts and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive vision for BC’s fisheries resources……….
32. Engage deliberately and urgently with the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
    to advocate for a shared vision for the future of BC’s commercial fishery…….
33. Evaluate policies, programs, plans and mechanisms……..
34. Develop strategic options for……….
35. Work to reduce or eliminate……….
36. Explore the potential to develop……….
37. Consider the strategic development of………
38. Consider providing incentives to……….
39. Encourage innovative ways to………..
40. Explore means to better integrate………

 

[fish brain]

It is interesting how no one wants to argue with this.


The strategies that are listed are exhaustive (28 pages worth) but its the repetitiveness of the language that grabs one’s attention. I find it hard to accept the people involved in endorsing this material think their output is remotely close to a blueprint for even the most minor of work being undertaken out there on the water or land. Some examples cut and pasted (no, I didn’t make these up) from those 28 pages:

1. Establish a long term strategic plan with clear objectives and a sustainable approach to investment that clearly identifies the limiting factors for salmon populations………
2. Explore the development of new mechanisms designed to increase coordination……….
3. Examine investment in projects………….
4. Consider greater support…….
5. Work closely with license holders……..
6. Conduct a review……….
7. Evaluate options for salmon enhancement, including considering the potential ecological, economic and social/cultural risks and benefits associated with the broad range of production options available.
8. Examine the feasibility……..
9. Explore the potential………..
10. Consider programs to control the growth of pinniped populations………
11. Consider programs to remove and control exotic and invasive species………
12. Consider working closely with BC’s Indigenous communities and organizations………..
13. Consider contributing financial and technical resources to support monitoring and enforcement efforts…………
14. Consider the opportunity to expand existing facilities and to create new facilities with the objective of enhancing wild salmon production……
15. Explore ways to support Indigenous communities…………
16. Initiate the development of a symbolic representation of the importance of wild salmon to British Columbians………..
17. Invest in the active engagement of the public…………..
18. Explore models of governance………
19. Consider revitalizing and investing in educational curriculums and citizen engagement programming…………
20. Examine how best to move to resource decision-making………….
21. Determine the best way to reinvest a greater portion of revenues……….
22. Increase access for community organizations and local stewardship groups to science, technical resources and local knowledge keepers……
23. Explore the development of protocols…….
24. Examine the opportunity to re-establish a dedicated group……..
25. To the greatest extent possible and by whatever means, work towards enforcing the need for a single vision………..
26. Identify and review regulations…………
27. Consider ways to provide support and funding for………..
28. Review models of collaborative governance……….
29. Understand and engage with modern treaty discussions and reconciliation discussions………..
30. Work with First Nations and fisheries stakeholders to influence decisions……….
31. Work with Indigenous communities and organizations, fishing communities, active commercial and recreational harvesters and experts and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive vision for BC’s fisheries resources……….
32. Engage deliberately and urgently with the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
    to advocate for a shared vision for the future of BC’s commercial fishery…….
33. Evaluate policies, programs, plans and mechanisms……..
34. Develop strategic options for……….
35. Work to reduce or eliminate……….
36. Explore the potential to develop……….
37. Consider the strategic development of………
38. Consider providing incentives to……….
39. Encourage innovative ways to………..
40. Explore means to better integrate………

What's to argue with. There is a lot of Exploring, Considering, Looking, Examining, and Some make work working. Lots of feel good stuff if you ask me, who doesn't like to feel good? The overall document seemed to be balanced. But their desire to actually get on with things seems to be lacking. None of the information presented is new or doesn't already have credible suggestions about how to proceed. So like Hooton I am frustrated by the lack of any real proposed action. Another case of let's study this to death.

 

[searun]

Sorry, but I'm growing less and less interested in much of anything in that blog. Its long on criticism and poison and short on ideas. Any idiot can predict rain when your standing in a rain storm...few people can find a way to stay dry.