scott craven
Well-Known Member
No.
Important Chinook Information - Feedback Required
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
No.
carpeweekend
Crew Member
As we all vent our frustration and anger over this clearly political decision, I think that it is important to understand the real reason why this all happened and to somehow get a consistent message out to both the public and even our fellow sports fisherman. There are so many false narratives out there even amongst ourselves. The simple facts of the closure that we need to communicate and somehow get publicized are:
1) There is a real issue with early run Fraser stocks that needs to be addressed. I think that we all agree on this.
2)The decision to shut down most of Vancouver Island and Georgia Straight to recreational fishing will not do anything to help this issue. While an extremely small percentage of the fish caught in previous years come from these Fraser stocks, a simple change in regulations to allow hatchery only would have accomplished the same thing. In many areas impacted by the shutdown, the chances of you catching a Fraser run fish are similar to winning the lottery.
3) Thanks primarily to the sports fishing industry there are many non-Fraser stocks of fish that are thriving. Changes in regulations over the years and the sports fishing industries initiatives in salmon enhancement including stream rehabilitation and hatchery/net pen initiatives has resulted in a pretty consistent fishery across the West coast. While we all pine for the golden age of plentiful and larger Spring salmon of the 1960's and early 1970's, those days may be over but overall it is still a strong fishery.
4) The only reason to shut down the recreational fishery was that the FN would not accept early closures on the Fraser to protect these early run fish unless the entire recreational sector was shut down. The Federal government threw the rec sector out as a negotiating point with FN that will do nothing to improve the fishery for them or anyone else. This is the key fact that everyone needs to understand.
5) The decision to shut down the rec sector will effectively put out of business most if not all of the fishing guides and lodges in the impacted areas, cost many Island businesses and communities millions in tourism and other related sport fishing and commercial fishing revenues.
This is the general message we need to stick to. I doubt that less than 5% of the recreational fisherman and 0% of the general public understand this. Instead we get a constant barrage of government, environmental, and our own noise which includes:
1) This is being done to protect the Spring salmon stocks which have been devastated due to overfishing. This is what the general public believes. We need to counter it.
2) We need to save the Spring salmon for the SRKW. Very little evidence that the whale population is declining significantly (the group is within its historical population range) and less evidence that the decline is due to a lack of food. Most evidence has pointed towards high concentrations of PCB's etc. DFO's own scientists concur.
3) We need to kill/cull seals and sea lions. While I agree that they are a huge problem and this would in fact help the situation, we are all delusional if you think that any government or the general public will every get behind this initiative. The only chance to get social license on this would be a FN cull for "ceremonial" purposes but even that is a long shot.
4) It is do to overfishing by commercial boats. We need to quit picking a fight with the Commercial sector. Our interests are very closely aligned and they are also being arbitrarily impacted by this decision. We would both be stronger in presenting a united front.
While many will dispute some of the above and I may have missed some key salient points, I think generally that we need to get a simple, defensible, and easily digestible argument out to the general public and then stay on topic and just keep hammering away. The April - July fishery for 2019 may be toast but there is no reason to give up. My 2 cents.
1) There is a real issue with early run Fraser stocks that needs to be addressed. I think that we all agree on this.
2)The decision to shut down most of Vancouver Island and Georgia Straight to recreational fishing will not do anything to help this issue. While an extremely small percentage of the fish caught in previous years come from these Fraser stocks, a simple change in regulations to allow hatchery only would have accomplished the same thing. In many areas impacted by the shutdown, the chances of you catching a Fraser run fish are similar to winning the lottery.
3) Thanks primarily to the sports fishing industry there are many non-Fraser stocks of fish that are thriving. Changes in regulations over the years and the sports fishing industries initiatives in salmon enhancement including stream rehabilitation and hatchery/net pen initiatives has resulted in a pretty consistent fishery across the West coast. While we all pine for the golden age of plentiful and larger Spring salmon of the 1960's and early 1970's, those days may be over but overall it is still a strong fishery.
4) The only reason to shut down the recreational fishery was that the FN would not accept early closures on the Fraser to protect these early run fish unless the entire recreational sector was shut down. The Federal government threw the rec sector out as a negotiating point with FN that will do nothing to improve the fishery for them or anyone else. This is the key fact that everyone needs to understand.
5) The decision to shut down the rec sector will effectively put out of business most if not all of the fishing guides and lodges in the impacted areas, cost many Island businesses and communities millions in tourism and other related sport fishing and commercial fishing revenues.
This is the general message we need to stick to. I doubt that less than 5% of the recreational fisherman and 0% of the general public understand this. Instead we get a constant barrage of government, environmental, and our own noise which includes:
1) This is being done to protect the Spring salmon stocks which have been devastated due to overfishing. This is what the general public believes. We need to counter it.
2) We need to save the Spring salmon for the SRKW. Very little evidence that the whale population is declining significantly (the group is within its historical population range) and less evidence that the decline is due to a lack of food. Most evidence has pointed towards high concentrations of PCB's etc. DFO's own scientists concur.
3) We need to kill/cull seals and sea lions. While I agree that they are a huge problem and this would in fact help the situation, we are all delusional if you think that any government or the general public will every get behind this initiative. The only chance to get social license on this would be a FN cull for "ceremonial" purposes but even that is a long shot.
4) It is do to overfishing by commercial boats. We need to quit picking a fight with the Commercial sector. Our interests are very closely aligned and they are also being arbitrarily impacted by this decision. We would both be stronger in presenting a united front.
While many will dispute some of the above and I may have missed some key salient points, I think generally that we need to get a simple, defensible, and easily digestible argument out to the general public and then stay on topic and just keep hammering away. The April - July fishery for 2019 may be toast but there is no reason to give up. My 2 cents.
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
According to Misty MacDuffee the head of Raincoast Conservation Foundation this was a big concession that they made at the negotiation tables with DFO over this closure. We should feel happy that we're getting to catch and release fish only, so we shouldn't complain!
I was told by the head of Watershed Watch, "Why are you complaining. It's the same as catch and release steelhead fishing?"
I was told by the head of Watershed Watch, "Why are you complaining. It's the same as catch and release steelhead fishing?"
Last edited:
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I am glad you posted that last line. Oh look I think we were all saying that months on here. But everyone thought Watershed Watch was our friends. Lol. I am glad people are finally seeing it. This reminds me of the my fishery is closed so I am going to throw you under bus to make myself feel better. Because that make so much sense.. You see why the NGO groups won in the end. Fractured angling communities are easy targets.
Last edited:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Did you ask why they didn’t differentiate between wild and clipped when it came to retention?
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
I didn't speak directly with Misty, only watched the video that was posted. The head of Watershed Watch
I was a supporter of Watershed Watch. They did do a lot of good work, but they chose to throw sport fisherman under the bus. I spoke to the head of Watershed Watch last year and he assured me at that time they would be calling for extreme measures like this and would take conservation approach, but still recognize the importance of sportfishing. I am no longer supporting Watershed Watch. I have learned hard lesson!
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
This was the response I was given by the head of Watershed Watch:
"I understand the sense of loss you are feeling, but it is disappointing to see you lashing out at us for supporting precautionary fishery management in the face of a conservation crisis. You know better than to accuse us of being out of touch with the importance of the recreational fishery. You know that many of us here at Watershed Watch are avid anglers. You know that my dad was a fishing guide and the recreational fishing industry put food on my family's table. You know that as a Victoria resident, this is constraining my fishing opportunities just as much as it is constraining yours. You also know that you still have fishing opportunities available to you. If your support for Watershed Watch is contingent on us supporting your sense of entitlement to killing endangered Fraser chinook then we don't want it."
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Yes I saw it those comments on FB.... very disappointing. Anglers against anglers.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
At one point on there website they had a picture of a sports fisherman's kid holding up a chinook. They also have huge support from streamkeepers and community hatcheries witch is now ironic considering they are going after them on their website https://www.watershed-watch.org/issues/hatcheries/ .
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
wow that sounds like a post that someone on here posted at me almost to a tee
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
What do you guys expect Greg Taylor is their fisheries advisor! Steelhead anglers that like to catch and release with people that argue about fishing mortality of catch and release? Does this sound confusing?
Last edited:
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
James Costello
Member
I'm pretty sure there have been a number of posts on here cautioning blind support of conservation groups like Watershed Watch.
In my experience they are fueled by anti-human rather than pro-nature sentiments.
Sure, they don't like industry (energy, mining, aquaculture etc) BUT, they also don't like hatcheries, don't support pinniped culls, and generally don't want to take any action to increase harvest opportunity other than stopping take and blocking access.
"Who will they go after next?"
You can see they are generally willing to give up opportunity and make sacrifices to appease their sense of fulfillment via virtue signalling - How willing are you to follow them down the path of closures, reductions and their inevitable return to a human-free wilderness?
Right now governments both Provincially and Federally have been compromised and infiltrated by groups like the WWF and others - their intent is clear, and it is not going to benefit Canadian sportfishers or other resource users.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
yes they would rather take fishermen off the water then to put more fish into the sea.
ILHG
Crew Member
Gerald Butts who was Trudeau most senior adviser and most sr staff came over from WWF. That's who we are dealing with
jriptide
Member
[QUOTE="
4) The only reason to shut down the recreational fishery was that the FN would not accept early closures on the Fraser to protect these early run fish unless the entire recreational sector was shut down. The Federal government threw the rec sector out as a negotiating point with FN that will do nothing to improve the fishery for them or anyone else. This is the key fact that everyone needs to understand.[/QUOTE]
Great post Carpeweekend, could not agree more that a strong and unified message from all affected fisherman is required and you hit on the majority of the key talking points.
Related to your point number 4, I have a few questions regarding first nation river fishing and welcome any insights.
1- I have been really struggling to understand from even a legal perspective, why first nations fishing in the rivers should be tied to non-native fishing in the oceans. Given first nations can still fish in the oceans if the rivers are closed, that should address the "priority consideration" for first nation access to salmon fishing.
2 - Can somebody can tell me how first nation fisheries in the rivers are managed to ensure they comply to the regulations. When I have observed first nation fishing in the rivers, there seems to be little chance of any fish getting through the countless nets that span the entire width of the rivers. Further to that, I also dont understand why "non-traditional" gillnets are allowed to be used rather than "traditional" weir methods. Using weirs would allow for selective harvesting and also be easier to track regulation and quota compliance.
3-Finally my last question, the Sparrow decision does not provide the right to sell fish, so why is there no crack down on first nations selling the salmon they catch in the rivers to non-natives?
I have real concerns about the lack of accountability of river fishing. My own view is that I rather see "zero fishing in the rivers". Instead provide first nations with fish caught using commercial methods with an observer on board. The fish caught could be come from runs that are not endangered. Then distribute the fish based on a quota per person for food and ceremonial purposes.
4) The only reason to shut down the recreational fishery was that the FN would not accept early closures on the Fraser to protect these early run fish unless the entire recreational sector was shut down. The Federal government threw the rec sector out as a negotiating point with FN that will do nothing to improve the fishery for them or anyone else. This is the key fact that everyone needs to understand.[/QUOTE]
Great post Carpeweekend, could not agree more that a strong and unified message from all affected fisherman is required and you hit on the majority of the key talking points.
Related to your point number 4, I have a few questions regarding first nation river fishing and welcome any insights.
1- I have been really struggling to understand from even a legal perspective, why first nations fishing in the rivers should be tied to non-native fishing in the oceans. Given first nations can still fish in the oceans if the rivers are closed, that should address the "priority consideration" for first nation access to salmon fishing.
2 - Can somebody can tell me how first nation fisheries in the rivers are managed to ensure they comply to the regulations. When I have observed first nation fishing in the rivers, there seems to be little chance of any fish getting through the countless nets that span the entire width of the rivers. Further to that, I also dont understand why "non-traditional" gillnets are allowed to be used rather than "traditional" weir methods. Using weirs would allow for selective harvesting and also be easier to track regulation and quota compliance.
3-Finally my last question, the Sparrow decision does not provide the right to sell fish, so why is there no crack down on first nations selling the salmon they catch in the rivers to non-natives?
I have real concerns about the lack of accountability of river fishing. My own view is that I rather see "zero fishing in the rivers". Instead provide first nations with fish caught using commercial methods with an observer on board. The fish caught could be come from runs that are not endangered. Then distribute the fish based on a quota per person for food and ceremonial purposes.
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
That was an excellent summary and very well-thought-out. This is a great messaging to carry forward!
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
The Federal government caved into demands from FN's that all others be swept from the water and so used both the recreational and commercial sectors as negotiating points to service that particular form of blackmail. In Area G's May fishery, interception of Canadian Origin fish has been proven over decades to consist of less than one percent - and exponentially lower than that in the case of Fraser stocks of concern. The same can be said for many of the recreational fisheries. The largest and most continuous removals of these threatened / endangered stocks are via the in-river FN fisheries.
Paying the blackmail by forcing thousands off the water will do nothing to improve the fishery for the FN's nor anyone else.
The government understood that when it proceeded.
The FN's did as well, and now some are publicly stating they will not comply.
This was / is not a case of adhering to nor addressing conservation, it is rather a case of paying blackmail to one sector at the cost of all others. Period.
Here's a close analogy:
YOU are sitting at your desk one day, when in walks a fed or two. Clear out your desk, you are leaving and you may not come back. When you demand to know why, the answer is "a select group of folks who happen to be more entitled than you (in our opinion) has decided they don't like you nor your employment. No, you really don't effect what they do at all, but we decided to cater to their demands. You are simply collateral damage. Now hurry up and please move along now".
No compensation even considered.
Many of those they are forcing off the water are in their 60's or more, and as such do not represent "good candidates" for retraining or re-entry into the work force.
Again, the government is completely aware of that.
Again they could give a rat's butt regarding whose lives, families and communities they put in jeopardy.
And for that, I fully intend to ensure they are held accountable.
For you see, I am one of those affected.
We may well lose our house.
Already relations with my Lady are beyond strained.
Life, as I built it and knew it is basically over.
With one stroke of the government pen.
That will realize no benefit to the resource whatsoever.
But they have given me something they did not count on.
Time.
Time to do whatever I can to ensure the public understands just what the reality of this situation is.
And time to do my damnest to ensure they pay in full at the polls this coming fall.
Extremely Upset,
Matt
Paying the blackmail by forcing thousands off the water will do nothing to improve the fishery for the FN's nor anyone else.
The government understood that when it proceeded.
The FN's did as well, and now some are publicly stating they will not comply.
This was / is not a case of adhering to nor addressing conservation, it is rather a case of paying blackmail to one sector at the cost of all others. Period.
Here's a close analogy:
YOU are sitting at your desk one day, when in walks a fed or two. Clear out your desk, you are leaving and you may not come back. When you demand to know why, the answer is "a select group of folks who happen to be more entitled than you (in our opinion) has decided they don't like you nor your employment. No, you really don't effect what they do at all, but we decided to cater to their demands. You are simply collateral damage. Now hurry up and please move along now".
No compensation even considered.
Many of those they are forcing off the water are in their 60's or more, and as such do not represent "good candidates" for retraining or re-entry into the work force.
Again, the government is completely aware of that.
Again they could give a rat's butt regarding whose lives, families and communities they put in jeopardy.
And for that, I fully intend to ensure they are held accountable.
For you see, I am one of those affected.
We may well lose our house.
Already relations with my Lady are beyond strained.
Life, as I built it and knew it is basically over.
With one stroke of the government pen.
That will realize no benefit to the resource whatsoever.
But they have given me something they did not count on.
Time.
Time to do whatever I can to ensure the public understands just what the reality of this situation is.
And time to do my damnest to ensure they pay in full at the polls this coming fall.
Extremely Upset,
Matt
Similar threads
