Thanks for the post! Awareness raised indeed.. I knew about no fishing zones.. and the voluntary slow down.. but these restricted zones with out signage / etc is crazy.I recieved an email today from Transport Canada's "Whale Enforcement Unit". Quite a nasty letter... I was going to attach it, then realize it's protected goverment information, so probably best not to. It's all quite official looking. We spend lots of time boating around the Southern Gulf Islands with the family... we have a printed map on board showing the whale zones, and we put effort into respecting them. The day in question, I was exploring a beach nearby the zone with my son, but not within it. I went to my boat this evening to review the trail left on my chart to make sure, and at one point we got very close, but we stayed out of the zone the entire time... I see big yachts/sailboats all the time brutally violating these zones.... Anyways. Just wanted to post it here to let ya'll know... they're watching you... Good use of our tax dollers i'd say.View attachment 121036
I got an email from the "Whale Enforcement Unit" (Transport Canada)
- Thread starter Flounder_pounder
- Start date
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Be interesting to see what evidence they collected and how. I doubt someone phoning in would suffice. If you have electronic evidence then IMO they would have to have something of equal or better accuracy to refute it. It does appear though that the window grannies are active in that area, but I doubt their plotting skills are that good, unless you were well into a closed zone I don’t see this going anywhere.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Excellent post, Ziggy.
In addition - I would recommend doing an ATIP on 2 fronts:
1/ your specific case; and
2/ How they determine distance into the zones
If it is something that DFO doesn't want you to have - they will stall you out to a full year - hoping you either forgot - or won't complain about it to the right person.
But then you have the option of doing a complaint to the Access to Information and Privacy Secretariat about the ATIP request:
The gatekeepers in DFO HATE that. Complaints to the Access to Information and Privacy Secretariat is another metric and makes them look bad - so they "hup 2" after that.
You should get the other ATIP much sooner - maybe in time for a court case. That's why I recommend doing 2 at the same time - the sooner the better...
Last edited:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Sometimes we forget that a ticket is just one phase of the whole justice system. One persons opinion or claim as to what happens. The authorities write a ticket based on the fact they believe an offence took place, or at least that’s how it should work. The Prosecutor then needs to be convinced if there is sufficient evidence to get a conviction. Finally a Judge/Jury needs to be convinced by the Prosecutor that an offence was committed. Most people simply take a ticket rather than go through the system, usually because they know they are guilty or don’t trust the system, but if they aren’t guilty, they should fight it! Often a charge won’t make it past the Prosecutor especially if the evidence is suspect and the result of overzealous policing.
Another excellent post, Ziggy.
"Overzealous" being the key word, here.
As there's political pressure from the ENGOs for DFO/TC to be seen to be doing something in the big picture; and likely in the small picture - individuals within DFO/TC & this new "Whale Enforcement Unit" have their own standards/metrics to assess employee performance like numbers of "warning letters sent", "convictions", etc.
Maybe that's a 3rd ATIP - what metrics they use - and how do those metrics look?
The Crown Attorney & the RCMP also have similar metrics to assess policing.
But it also looks bad on them if they charge people; and they tie-up the courts time; and loose the court case; maybe get roasted by the judge; and get "not guiltys"/"releases"/"discharges" on their performance record - instead of convictions. Maybe even an ego bo-bo for some - esp. in the supervisory & Crown Attorney roles.
That's why the RCMP often prey on high traffic areas with tourists from "away". Same reasons.
When you look at the financial costs of travel, accommodation, etc. & costs of a lawyer to return to court months later after your vacation from many miles away to dispute a minor traffic infraction that might only cost you a couple hundred dollars - it makes more financial sense to pay the infraction even if you disagree with it. Individual RCMP members are well aware of these realities - they deal with them every day.
I'm thinking something similar is going on within this new "Whale Enforcement Unit" and their overzealous policing. Maybe they also have a soft quota (i.e. "performance metrics" &/or "productivity standards") on warning letters they should fulfil to prove to their bosses they aren't just another pretty face sitting behind a screen watching the blips move around. Your tax dollars at work.
Last edited:
Put the closure coordinates in as an overlay on your chart plotter. Send them a photo of you clearly outside of the zone based on the trail on your GPS. Ask them why you are being issued a formal warning when you never were in the zone.
Then ask them to officially remove that warning as its not appropriate that you get a first strike so to speak when you've done nothing wrong.
Finally FOI the entire thing.
Happy to contribute to any costs around the foi.
Cheers.
Then ask them to officially remove that warning as its not appropriate that you get a first strike so to speak when you've done nothing wrong.
Finally FOI the entire thing.
Happy to contribute to any costs around the foi.
Cheers.
Excellent Op Ed from Lawrence Gunther @ Blue Fish Canada:
Many predict British Columbia’s marine recreational salmon fishing is on the verge of collapse, while others advocate salmon fishing in general should be suspended until fish stocks rebound. However, you seldom come across media reports that reflect the local knowledge gathered by generations of B.C. recreational anglers. Personally, I’ve recorded dozens of podcasts and written many articles over the past dozen years that focus on the many issues and different advocates associated with B.C. salmon fishing and fish health, but I can honestly say that I’ve never before come as close to witnessing the closure of the province’s marine recreational salmon fishery as I have until now. It goes without saying that recreational anglers are feeling frustrated over their knowledge, recommendations and concerns being ignored.
I’ve been speaking with Gayle Gordon and Mark Roberts from the BC Recreational Fishing Association who are raising red flags over consultations with stakeholders that are exploring the option of moving away from seasonal fishery closures, and instead adopting indefinite closures until evidence is presented that indicate otherwise. The justification is the protection of southern resident killer whales. You can listen to our latest conversation on the October 17 2025 episode of The Blue Fish Radio Show.
Despite ample scientific evidence that salmon abundance is not a primary issue causing the decline of southern resident killer whale health and numbers, recreational anglers catching and keeping too many chinook salmon is still being sited as one of three primary killer whale sustainability issues. The other two being excessive ship noise and a toxic food supply. Issues such as whale watching, competition over territory with northern resident killer whales, water quality, aquaculture, invasive species, microplastics, interception of salmon by Alaska’s commercial fishing fleet, habitat loss, and warming oceans are seldom mentioned if at all.
The decline of salmon numbers has little to do with the actions of recreational anglers, as it’s obvious to anyone who knows these anglers that they are more than willing to adopt conservation measures, many of which have been conceived by anglers and have already been implemented. The decline of the whales also has little to do with anglers engaging in aggressive competition with killer whales over salmon because they don’t. Any angler who fishes for salmon on the ocean will tell you that the quality of fishing quickly turns dismal when killer whales show-up and salmon shift from feeding to fleeing. And last, no one can accuse BC’s recreational anglers of refusing to work with stakeholders to seek a solution. The reality is that no one is offering anglers a seat at the table.
For the past three years marine salmon fishing opportunities for recreational anglers have been intentionally shrunk. Many anglers believe it has more to do with a decade’s long reduction in resources essential for managing marine recreational salmon fisheries. Turns out management of the fishery isn’t the only program on the chopping block.
Watershed Watch Salmon Society and a number of other B.C. conservation groups are pushing back on cuts to the essential fish monitoring services of creekwalkers. They managed to turn things around for 2025, but not before weeks’ worth of valuable data failed to be collected and reported.
More than providing crucial information about when and how many salmon are returning to B.C.’s rivers, the data collected and reported by creekwalkers is vital to managing fisheries, assessing climate change impacts, evaluating restoration initiatives, assessing watershed health, responding to fish health emergencies, and more. So why has the number of creekwalkers hired each year also dropped over the past decade? It’s one of several questions I posed Aaron Hill, Executive Director of Watershed Watch Salmon Society, in the October 24 2025 podcast of The Blue Fish Radio Show.
If recreational salmon fishing is going to be suspended indefinitely throughout much of southern B.C. where the southern resident killer whales call home each summer and where the vast majority of recreational anglers reside and fish, then maybe counting salmon entering B.C.’s rivers to spawn is no longer necessary. But, if these proposed indefinite closures to recreational fishing are to be lifted when justified by scientific evidence, and the evidence is no longer being collected, then what hope is there for the anglers, outfitters, lodges, tackle shops, boat dealers and all the rest of B.C.’s coastal community residence and businesses?
California implemented a similar plan concerning their near-shore recreational marine fishery. A five-year temporary halt to recreational fishing was to be reviewed once proper scientific evidence was collected. Five years passed without making any changes due to insufficient science having been conducted. Another five years went by, and California state officials reported that because they did not possess the resources needed to fund the necessary science, they chose instead to allow the ban on recreational fishing to continue indefinitely.
... continued below...
This Week’s Feature -
By L. GuntherMany predict British Columbia’s marine recreational salmon fishing is on the verge of collapse, while others advocate salmon fishing in general should be suspended until fish stocks rebound. However, you seldom come across media reports that reflect the local knowledge gathered by generations of B.C. recreational anglers. Personally, I’ve recorded dozens of podcasts and written many articles over the past dozen years that focus on the many issues and different advocates associated with B.C. salmon fishing and fish health, but I can honestly say that I’ve never before come as close to witnessing the closure of the province’s marine recreational salmon fishery as I have until now. It goes without saying that recreational anglers are feeling frustrated over their knowledge, recommendations and concerns being ignored.
I’ve been speaking with Gayle Gordon and Mark Roberts from the BC Recreational Fishing Association who are raising red flags over consultations with stakeholders that are exploring the option of moving away from seasonal fishery closures, and instead adopting indefinite closures until evidence is presented that indicate otherwise. The justification is the protection of southern resident killer whales. You can listen to our latest conversation on the October 17 2025 episode of The Blue Fish Radio Show.
Despite ample scientific evidence that salmon abundance is not a primary issue causing the decline of southern resident killer whale health and numbers, recreational anglers catching and keeping too many chinook salmon is still being sited as one of three primary killer whale sustainability issues. The other two being excessive ship noise and a toxic food supply. Issues such as whale watching, competition over territory with northern resident killer whales, water quality, aquaculture, invasive species, microplastics, interception of salmon by Alaska’s commercial fishing fleet, habitat loss, and warming oceans are seldom mentioned if at all.
The decline of salmon numbers has little to do with the actions of recreational anglers, as it’s obvious to anyone who knows these anglers that they are more than willing to adopt conservation measures, many of which have been conceived by anglers and have already been implemented. The decline of the whales also has little to do with anglers engaging in aggressive competition with killer whales over salmon because they don’t. Any angler who fishes for salmon on the ocean will tell you that the quality of fishing quickly turns dismal when killer whales show-up and salmon shift from feeding to fleeing. And last, no one can accuse BC’s recreational anglers of refusing to work with stakeholders to seek a solution. The reality is that no one is offering anglers a seat at the table.
For the past three years marine salmon fishing opportunities for recreational anglers have been intentionally shrunk. Many anglers believe it has more to do with a decade’s long reduction in resources essential for managing marine recreational salmon fisheries. Turns out management of the fishery isn’t the only program on the chopping block.
Watershed Watch Salmon Society and a number of other B.C. conservation groups are pushing back on cuts to the essential fish monitoring services of creekwalkers. They managed to turn things around for 2025, but not before weeks’ worth of valuable data failed to be collected and reported.
More than providing crucial information about when and how many salmon are returning to B.C.’s rivers, the data collected and reported by creekwalkers is vital to managing fisheries, assessing climate change impacts, evaluating restoration initiatives, assessing watershed health, responding to fish health emergencies, and more. So why has the number of creekwalkers hired each year also dropped over the past decade? It’s one of several questions I posed Aaron Hill, Executive Director of Watershed Watch Salmon Society, in the October 24 2025 podcast of The Blue Fish Radio Show.
If recreational salmon fishing is going to be suspended indefinitely throughout much of southern B.C. where the southern resident killer whales call home each summer and where the vast majority of recreational anglers reside and fish, then maybe counting salmon entering B.C.’s rivers to spawn is no longer necessary. But, if these proposed indefinite closures to recreational fishing are to be lifted when justified by scientific evidence, and the evidence is no longer being collected, then what hope is there for the anglers, outfitters, lodges, tackle shops, boat dealers and all the rest of B.C.’s coastal community residence and businesses?
California implemented a similar plan concerning their near-shore recreational marine fishery. A five-year temporary halt to recreational fishing was to be reviewed once proper scientific evidence was collected. Five years passed without making any changes due to insufficient science having been conducted. Another five years went by, and California state officials reported that because they did not possess the resources needed to fund the necessary science, they chose instead to allow the ban on recreational fishing to continue indefinitely.
... continued below...
Last edited:
Fueling confusion, despair and frustration among anglers is the fact that recreational salmon fishing in B.C. has been excellent of late. Record-size schools of sockeye and pink salmon, strong coho runs, and chinook salmon in numbers and sizes that haven’t been seen in over forty years. Of course, it’s not all good news, but the signs of recovery are popping up more and more. However, properly tracking and reporting salmon numbers, as with most all fishes of interest to recreational fisheries, needs to be better tracked.
There aren’t that many ways to count fish. Creel and net surveys, sonar, commercial catch reports, angler reports on apps and social media, but nothing sufficiently precise to provide reliable and timely data on fish abundance and health. According to a 2025 WWF report card on the health of Canada’s watersheds prepared by the Canadian NGO Water Rangers, in 80% of Canada’s watersheds there’s insufficient data pertaining to fish abundance – one of four key watershed health indicators. Maybe if more effort was made to document and report the number of salmon returning to B.C. rivers Canada would be in a stronger position to address the interception of Canadian-bound salmon by foreign commercial fishing fleets.
It’s suggested by some that B.C.’s recent salmon abundance is due in part to a judicial ban on commercial salmon fishing in southern Alaska issued in May 2023 by a U.S. judge concerned that southern resident killer whales were having their food source intercepted by Alaskan commercial fishers. Salmon advocates have been against the Alaskan fishery for several years now, arguing that upwards of 90% of Canada’s chinook salmon are being intercepted in Alaska. Unfortunately, the ban was over-turned through an appeal by Alaskan commercial fishers in August 2024. So if we now know that Alaskan commercial salmon fishing is a significant issue, why are B.C. recreational anglers being singled out as the problem?
There are scientists who have conducted research on southern resident killer whales who believe the future of the whales is bleak given the many negative environmental attributes working against their recovery, and that their slow but eventual demise is inevitable. Even if their numbers were to improve, neither scenario bodes well for the future of recreational fishing and the socio-economic viability of many coastal communities should a moratorium on marine recreational fishing be implemented. For example, advocates for the restoration of southern resident killer whales might argue that reopening recreational fishing could reverse any gains made to their numbers and insist that the moratorium stay in place. Conversely, should killer whale numbers fail to increase or continue to decline, it could be that their ultimate demise would be blamed on recreational anglers. Such anti-angling public sentiment could make it near impossible for the moratorium on fishing to be lifted, or even if it was, interest and support for salmon fishing might be difficult to restore. It may also be the case that cancelling fishing might also eventually pose another hardship for First Nation communities.
A recent high-profile scientific panel concluded that three primary issues need to be addressed if southern resident killer whales are to recover. In addition to addressing their need for greater availability of chinook salmon, their preferred prey, the report states measures also need to be adopted to address both physical and acoustic disturbance from vessels, and the high contaminant loads in the food and habitat documented throughout southern BC’s marine environment.
Obviously, it’s far easier and less costly to put a stop to recreational fishing than it is to re-route commercial shipping, recreational boating and ferry traffic. Ensuring prey consumed by salmon is toxic-free prior to being ingested by whales and passed on to their calves is also a near-impossible short or even medium term solution. However, anglers argue that addressing noise and pollution should be the focus, and have already come up with a number of alternatives to imposing a fishing moratorium that would improve access to chinook salmon by killer whales.
Oregon has adopted a successful “bubble zone” real-time geospatial solution that prevents anglers from straying into the hunting territories occupied by whales. Another solution involves selective harvesting. A third involves hatcheries, many of which are already in operation thanks to B.C. recreational fishing groups. Limiting the harvest of recreational fishers is another, as is adoption of equipment and tackle that has been proven scientifically to reduce the mortality rate of released fish to near-insignificant levels. All of which take training, resources, technology and enforcement, which brings us back to where we started.
So maybe banning marine recreational fishing in B.C. really is more of a fishery management budget reduction choice; one that many might welcome as a positive step towards saving the remaining 73 southern resident killer whales. Save money and gain political points – a no-brainer especially if decision makers have already written off anglers as highly unlikely political partisans. Of course, the over six-million Canadians who purchase fishing licenses every year represent the political spectrum, but is that the message we are sending, or are we simply stepping back and allowing a small vocal highly politically motivated group of people to turn fishing into a wedge issue? Nothing good can come from that. Just look what happened when certain groups turned the environment into a wedge issue – nature lost valuable ground.
Years ago, people with disabilities came up with the saying “nothing about us without us”, but that’s identity politics. Anyone can be born with or acquire a disability, just like people who fish represent all ages of Canada’s cultural, economic and religious mosaic.
A recent University of Victoria study looked into attitudes concerning the protection of chinook salmon for southern resident killer whales. The online survey of 727 British Columbians reported that most participants self-identified as either a conservation-supporter (53 per cent) or an angler (34 per cent). What surprised researchers was that a substantial number identified with both identities. One-third of conservation-supporters also identified as anglers, and nearly half of anglers also identified as conservation supporters. Even more surprisingly, the survey reported that both groups distrust current federal management practices, and both share a high regard for the environment and the importance of chinook salmon.
In B.C. there are over 300,000 tidal water recreational fishing licenses and over 350,000 freshwater recreational fishing licenses purchased each year. Both groups fish for salmon, either in the ocean or after they entre B.C.’s rivers. So why aren’t recreational anglers represented in important discussions concerning the future of fishing with respect to saving southern resident killer whales? The same could be asked about inclusion of related businesses that serve both local anglers and visitors to the province who come specifically to experience salmon fishing.
With emotions concerning the future of southern resident killer whales running hot, an objective review of the facts is essential before any further decisions are taken about the future of recreational salmon fishing in B.C. there needs to be clear evidence that salmon fishing is directly contributing to the decline of southern resident killer whales, exactly what anglers are doing to contribute to their decline, and to what extent. We also need to understand the direct and indirect costs associated with addressing the three distinct threats impacting southern resident killer whales. And finally, there needs to be an unbiased cost analysis and viability of solutions being proposed to address these threats.
The issue of who or what has access to salmon in B.C. is complex and there’s no simple solution that’s going to save these whales. It’s going to take a comprehensive plan that everyone can support without making certain groups the scape goat. I’m not the only one who feels this way, it’s what recreational anglers and coastal communities throughout B.C. have been asking for years.
The marine recreational fishery along B.C.’s coastline generates well over $1 billion in direct expenditures annually, and accounts for over 9,000 jobs. Not only does the fishery contribute to the socio-economic viability of many coastal communities, It also keeps people connected to nature. By working together, this amazing renewable resource can be managed sustainably. Putting an end to the fishery is more than throwing in the towel, it’s caving to the political, environmental and cultural agendas of a handful of special interest groups.
There aren’t that many ways to count fish. Creel and net surveys, sonar, commercial catch reports, angler reports on apps and social media, but nothing sufficiently precise to provide reliable and timely data on fish abundance and health. According to a 2025 WWF report card on the health of Canada’s watersheds prepared by the Canadian NGO Water Rangers, in 80% of Canada’s watersheds there’s insufficient data pertaining to fish abundance – one of four key watershed health indicators. Maybe if more effort was made to document and report the number of salmon returning to B.C. rivers Canada would be in a stronger position to address the interception of Canadian-bound salmon by foreign commercial fishing fleets.
It’s suggested by some that B.C.’s recent salmon abundance is due in part to a judicial ban on commercial salmon fishing in southern Alaska issued in May 2023 by a U.S. judge concerned that southern resident killer whales were having their food source intercepted by Alaskan commercial fishers. Salmon advocates have been against the Alaskan fishery for several years now, arguing that upwards of 90% of Canada’s chinook salmon are being intercepted in Alaska. Unfortunately, the ban was over-turned through an appeal by Alaskan commercial fishers in August 2024. So if we now know that Alaskan commercial salmon fishing is a significant issue, why are B.C. recreational anglers being singled out as the problem?
There are scientists who have conducted research on southern resident killer whales who believe the future of the whales is bleak given the many negative environmental attributes working against their recovery, and that their slow but eventual demise is inevitable. Even if their numbers were to improve, neither scenario bodes well for the future of recreational fishing and the socio-economic viability of many coastal communities should a moratorium on marine recreational fishing be implemented. For example, advocates for the restoration of southern resident killer whales might argue that reopening recreational fishing could reverse any gains made to their numbers and insist that the moratorium stay in place. Conversely, should killer whale numbers fail to increase or continue to decline, it could be that their ultimate demise would be blamed on recreational anglers. Such anti-angling public sentiment could make it near impossible for the moratorium on fishing to be lifted, or even if it was, interest and support for salmon fishing might be difficult to restore. It may also be the case that cancelling fishing might also eventually pose another hardship for First Nation communities.
A recent high-profile scientific panel concluded that three primary issues need to be addressed if southern resident killer whales are to recover. In addition to addressing their need for greater availability of chinook salmon, their preferred prey, the report states measures also need to be adopted to address both physical and acoustic disturbance from vessels, and the high contaminant loads in the food and habitat documented throughout southern BC’s marine environment.
Obviously, it’s far easier and less costly to put a stop to recreational fishing than it is to re-route commercial shipping, recreational boating and ferry traffic. Ensuring prey consumed by salmon is toxic-free prior to being ingested by whales and passed on to their calves is also a near-impossible short or even medium term solution. However, anglers argue that addressing noise and pollution should be the focus, and have already come up with a number of alternatives to imposing a fishing moratorium that would improve access to chinook salmon by killer whales.
Oregon has adopted a successful “bubble zone” real-time geospatial solution that prevents anglers from straying into the hunting territories occupied by whales. Another solution involves selective harvesting. A third involves hatcheries, many of which are already in operation thanks to B.C. recreational fishing groups. Limiting the harvest of recreational fishers is another, as is adoption of equipment and tackle that has been proven scientifically to reduce the mortality rate of released fish to near-insignificant levels. All of which take training, resources, technology and enforcement, which brings us back to where we started.
So maybe banning marine recreational fishing in B.C. really is more of a fishery management budget reduction choice; one that many might welcome as a positive step towards saving the remaining 73 southern resident killer whales. Save money and gain political points – a no-brainer especially if decision makers have already written off anglers as highly unlikely political partisans. Of course, the over six-million Canadians who purchase fishing licenses every year represent the political spectrum, but is that the message we are sending, or are we simply stepping back and allowing a small vocal highly politically motivated group of people to turn fishing into a wedge issue? Nothing good can come from that. Just look what happened when certain groups turned the environment into a wedge issue – nature lost valuable ground.
Years ago, people with disabilities came up with the saying “nothing about us without us”, but that’s identity politics. Anyone can be born with or acquire a disability, just like people who fish represent all ages of Canada’s cultural, economic and religious mosaic.
A recent University of Victoria study looked into attitudes concerning the protection of chinook salmon for southern resident killer whales. The online survey of 727 British Columbians reported that most participants self-identified as either a conservation-supporter (53 per cent) or an angler (34 per cent). What surprised researchers was that a substantial number identified with both identities. One-third of conservation-supporters also identified as anglers, and nearly half of anglers also identified as conservation supporters. Even more surprisingly, the survey reported that both groups distrust current federal management practices, and both share a high regard for the environment and the importance of chinook salmon.
In B.C. there are over 300,000 tidal water recreational fishing licenses and over 350,000 freshwater recreational fishing licenses purchased each year. Both groups fish for salmon, either in the ocean or after they entre B.C.’s rivers. So why aren’t recreational anglers represented in important discussions concerning the future of fishing with respect to saving southern resident killer whales? The same could be asked about inclusion of related businesses that serve both local anglers and visitors to the province who come specifically to experience salmon fishing.
With emotions concerning the future of southern resident killer whales running hot, an objective review of the facts is essential before any further decisions are taken about the future of recreational salmon fishing in B.C. there needs to be clear evidence that salmon fishing is directly contributing to the decline of southern resident killer whales, exactly what anglers are doing to contribute to their decline, and to what extent. We also need to understand the direct and indirect costs associated with addressing the three distinct threats impacting southern resident killer whales. And finally, there needs to be an unbiased cost analysis and viability of solutions being proposed to address these threats.
The issue of who or what has access to salmon in B.C. is complex and there’s no simple solution that’s going to save these whales. It’s going to take a comprehensive plan that everyone can support without making certain groups the scape goat. I’m not the only one who feels this way, it’s what recreational anglers and coastal communities throughout B.C. have been asking for years.
The marine recreational fishery along B.C.’s coastline generates well over $1 billion in direct expenditures annually, and accounts for over 9,000 jobs. Not only does the fishery contribute to the socio-economic viability of many coastal communities, It also keeps people connected to nature. By working together, this amazing renewable resource can be managed sustainably. Putting an end to the fishery is more than throwing in the towel, it’s caving to the political, environmental and cultural agendas of a handful of special interest groups.
