Maintain Priority Access to Chinook and Coho for the Canadian Public in a New Salmon Allocation Policy. Send Your Letter to DFO!

[cohochinook]

Maintain Priority Access to Chinook and Coho for the Canadian Public in a New Salmon Allocation Policy​

The Salmon Allocation Policy (SAP) determines how salmon are shared between user groups in British Columbia and will shape public access to salmon fisheries for decades to come. Once finalized, this policy will influence when, where, and whether the public can fish — even in years when conservation objectives are met and sustainable surplus exists.
The current review process has made it clear that significant changes are being proposed, and without strong public input, the public fishery risks being deprioritized. Salmon are a common property resource, and access to sustainable public fisheries must remain a core principle of any renewed allocation policy.
This consultation is one of the few formal opportunities for the public to be heard. Submitting feedback now is critical to ensuring decision-makers understand that Canadians value fair access, science-based management, and the continued opportunity to fish where conservation allows.

Fill in your information and the letter below will be sent to the Salmon Allocation Policy Review Team, The Honorable Joanne Thompson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) and Clifford Small (Shadow Minister for Fisheries).

Your support in this campaign is crucial to maintain priority access to Chinook and Coho!

Here is the link to send your Letter to the DFO Salmon Allocation Policy Review Team, The Honorable Joanne Thompson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) and Clifford Small (Shadow Minister for Fisheries).

 

[searun]

Absolutely - everyone who enjoys recreational fishing really must take 10 minutes to write an e-mail response to DFO before the public consultation period ends on January 23. Write an email or letter directly to the DFO SAP Review “consultation process” prior to the January 9th deadline for input at:

DFO.SAPReviewBC-PASRevueBC.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca


Please Do Not use form letters, copy and paste letters - take the time to write your responses in your own words and from your perspective.

Please note - the link provided in the post above will take you a "form letter" template. Past form letter templates employed by the ENGO's have been recognized by DFO and government as a form of spam. Very unlikely form letters will gain much if any attention.

If you are looking for facts on comparisons of Commercial vs Recreational socio-economic benefits to support your e-mail to DFO there are plenty posted on the thread link below:

Thread 'Is the commercial salmon fishery still viable?'

Nov 20, 2025

Salmon (BC) fishery | Pacific Region | Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Salmon (BC) fishery

www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Doing some research to better understand the economic contributions of the recreational fishery, comparing performance and benefits to the commercial salmon fishery. There are some surprising facts that I'm learning. It is making me wonder more and more if the commercial salmon fishery - especially for key note species such as Chinook and Coho, are viable or a good use of Canada's limited salmon resource.

Some take aways from the above...

• searun
• Replies: 67
• Forum: Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.

• 

What is being proposed by Commercial and FN's within the SAP Review process is when it comes to allocations between Recreational and Commercial they propose:

1) Remove Recreational priority over Commercial sector for access to Chinook and Coho - Currently under the 1999 SAP Commercial has over 50% of Chinook & Coho and 95% of Sockeye, Chum and Pinks - and Commercial fishing is still not economically viable without substantial re-allocations of recreational salmon as a subsidy.

2) Move from Recreational Priority for Chinook & Coho (which provides stable access with no sudden closures similar to how Recreational Halibut are managed) and move to a FIXED CAP or Percentage Share that gives priority to Commercial - and severely restricts Recreational fishing to a small percentage similar to Halibut

3) Establish Commercial Priority for all 5 Salmon Species over Recreational (remember under 1999 SAP they already have over 50% Chinook/Coho and 95% Sockeye, Chum, Pink)

4) Commercial and FN's are opposed to using socio-economic data within the SAP to guide how allocation decisions are reached with allocation decisions between Commercial and Recreational - this ignores the significant economic benefits the recreational fishery provides to Canada and many small communities and businesses that are totally reliant upon the recreational fishery which provides 25x more GDP, over 9,000 good paying jobs and doesn't require industrial levels of salmon to be viable - unlike the commercial industrial fishery

5) Negotiations and decision-making regarding the commercial and FN's proposals for SHARES percentages would take place at local sub-regional Salmon Allocation Boards controlled by local First Nations - in other words, one of the Sectors whom benefits from Allocation decisions would control how those allocations are determined - and because it is proposed to take place in local Allocation Boards, is disconnected from the impacts and coordination of a coast-wide fishery with implications on international Salmon Treaty agreements

 

[cohochinook]

Absolutely - everyone who enjoys recreational fishing really must take 10 minutes to write an e-mail response to DFO before the public consultation period ends on January 23. If you are looking for facts on comparisons of Commercial vs Recreational socio-economic benefits to support your e-mail to DFO there are plenty posted on the thread link below:

Thread 'Is the commercial salmon fishery still viable?'

Nov 20, 2025

Salmon (BC) fishery | Pacific Region | Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Salmon (BC) fishery

www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Doing some research to better understand the economic contributions of the recreational fishery, comparing performance and benefits to the commercial salmon fishery. There are some surprising facts that I'm learning. It is making me wonder more and more if the commercial salmon fishery - especially for key note species such as Chinook and Coho, are viable or a good use of Canada's limited salmon resource.

Some take aways from the above...

• searun
• Replies: 67
• Forum: Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.

• 

What is being proposed by Commercial and FN's within the SAP Review process is when it comes to allocations between Recreational and Commercial they propose:

1) Remove Recreational priority over Commercial sector for access to Chinook and Coho - Currently under the 1999 SAP Commercial has over 50% of Chinook & Coho and 95% of Sockeye, Chum and Pinks - and Commercial fishing is still not economically viable without substantial re-allocations of recreational salmon as a subsidy.

2) Move from Recreational Priority for Chinook & Coho (which provides stable access with no sudden closures similar to how Recreational Halibut are managed) and move to a FIXED CAP or Percentage Share that gives priority to Commercial - and severely restricts Recreational fishing to a small percentage similar to Halibut

3) Establish Commercial Priority for all 5 Salmon Species over Recreational (remember under 1999 SAP they already have over 50% Chinook/Coho and 95% Sockeye, Chum, Pink)

4) Commercial and FN's are opposed to using socio-economic data within the SAP to guide how allocation decisions are reached with allocation decisions between Commercial and Recreational - this ignores the significant economic benefits the recreational fishery provides to Canada and many small communities and businesses that are totally reliant upon the recreational fishery which provides 25x more GDP, over 9,000 good paying jobs and doesn't require industrial levels of salmon to be viable - unlike the commercial industrial fishery

5) Negotiations and decision-making regarding the commercial and FN's proposals for SHARES percentages would take place at local sub-regional Salmon Allocation Boards controlled by local First Nations - in other words, one of the Sectors whom benefits from Allocation decisions would control how those allocations are determined - and because it is proposed to take place in local Allocation Boards, is disconnected from the impacts and coordination of a coast-wide fishery with implications on international Salmon Treaty agreements

Thanks, @searun! For further insight. The letter-writing campaign is a template that allows you to edit your letter to add your own personal input. I do encourage all Forum members to do this.

 

[cohochinook]

"Please Do Not use form letters, copy and paste letters - take the time to write your responses in your own words and from your perspective.

Please note - the link provided in the post above will take you a "form letter" template. Past form letter templates employed by the ENGO's have been recognized by DFO and government as a form of spam. Very unlikely form letters will gain much if any attention."

Fair point, @searun — and I agree that writing in your own words, from your own perspective, is always the most effective approach. The template isn’t meant to discourage that, and people are absolutely encouraged to edit it or use it only as a starting point.


The intent here is simply to lower the barrier for people to engage, which has historically been a real challenge in the sportfishing community. One added benefit of this approach is that letters are sent not only to the DFO Salmon Allocation Policy team, but also to the Fisheries Minister and the Shadow Minister of Fisheries at the same time.


Where I disagree is the suggestion that these efforts are ignored as “spam.” I’ve spoken directly with a number of MPs, and they’ve been very clear that governments do pay attention when there is a large volume of response on an issue. NGOs have been extremely effective at mobilizing letter-writing campaigns, and if we don’t adapt, we will continue to lose ground and see our fishing access eroded piece by piece. Low participation from the recreational community effectively reinforces the status quo and, from a DFO management standpoint, makes it easier to proceed without meaningful pushback.


Ideally, we want a large number of letters that are also personalized. But the reality is this: would we rather see 50 individually written letters quietly land on a desk, or 2,000 letters—many of them customized—clearly demonstrating that anglers are engaged, organized, and paying attention? Volume matters, and scale sends a signal that decision-makers cannot ignore.


This is about changing the dynamic. It’s about increasing participation, building momentum, and using our collective voice to have real influence. Doing the same things we’ve always done hasn’t worked, and our access has continued to erode. This is an opportunity to engage more people, amplify our impact, and make it clear that the recreational fishing community is serious about pushing back against these changes.

 

[IronNoggin]

· Salmon Allocation Policy Team – Fisheries and Oceans Canada

· The Honorable Joanne Thompson – Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

· Clifford Small – Shadow Minister of Fisheries

Dear recipient's full name will go here,

I am writing as a long term recreational (subsistence) angler and retired commercial fisherman (troller) on the West Coast of Vancouver Island.

I have reviewed all of the relevant information and suggest this should actually be titled:

"Remove Personal Subsistence priority over the For Profit Commercial sector".....
"Reallocate the majority of Personal subsistence Chinook and Coho to subsidize For Profit commercial fishery."

It is essential that the existing Salmon Allocation Policy (SAP), which prioritizes Chinook and Coho for the Public Recreational Salmon Fishery (PRSF), remain in place. The existing allocation policy has worked well since it was established in 1999, and there must be continued support for First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial fisheries, as well as Treaty and court-defined rights-based commercial fisheries.

Priority access to the Canadian public for Chinook and Coho, and commercial priority access to Sockeye, Pink, and Chum, should remain after conservation and First Nation constitutional salmon fisheries are met.

The importance of maintaining PRSF priority is clear and measurable:

• The PRSF brings in $643 million in GDP annually compared to $23 million in GDP from the commercial sector and supports 9,110 jobs compared to 881 commercial jobs. A PRSF-caught salmon is valued at $1,110.53 based on a catch of 579,000 salmon in 2023.

• The PRSF generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually through the collection of GST, PST, fuel taxes, accommodation taxes, income taxes, and license fees, while driving spending throughout the economy for lodging, charter and guide services, boats, fuel and moorage, tackle stores and manufacturers, fishing gear, food, restaurants and groceries, pubs, transportation, charter air services, ferry services, car rentals, marine trades, boat sales and repairs, and retail sales and services. In short, most coastal communities rely heavily upon this sector for economic survival.

• The PRSF provides access to protein-rich salmon for the Canadian public, whereas 60–70% of commercially caught salmon is exported.

• The PRSF also benefits from anglers volunteering hundreds of thousands of hours annually—worth millions of dollars—to restore, enhance, and rebuild salmon stocks and habitat, while providing vital salmon catch data and stock assessment information at no cost.

Maintain public recreational salmon fishery priority for Chinook and Coho over the standard commercial allocation. Keep the status quo. Do NOT implement fixed shares. Do NOT reallocate fish away from the Canadian public to subsidize the standard commercial salmon fishery.

I was a victim of this government's push to get all of the Area G Trollers off the water. What you did then was draconian, especially as you did so under the umbrella of "conservation". That was a complete gaslight, as all of our collected licenses and quota were promptly handed over to Fist Nations in the name of "reconciliation". There was NO reduction in the harvest rate. In fact, the case can be clearly made that the opposite is true.

What you now propose for the recreational sector is even more draconian. This is intolerable behavior where a common property resource that has been well managed for a significant period of time is concerned. The recreational sector contributes by FAR the most "bang for the buck" regarding resource access. To deny us our access for subsistence, for the benefit of a failing industry, is beyond LUDICROUS!

your full name will go here

New/Mode | Make your voice impossible to ignore

win.newmode.net

 

[SpringFever2359]

Thanks Matt for your actual lived facts to be known!
Sad and pathetic way you were treated and all for political pandering which is still going on with these new "genesis" measures

 

[searun]

Thanks Matt, great letter. Perhaps would add that government needs to fully fund fair and reasonable commercial salmon retirement program if it intends on using salmon allocation as currency in their reconciliation agenda. One time offer, but must be imminently fair to the 881 commercial households that fish salmon.

The courts have clearly stated that it is the government's responsibility to fully fund/implement fair and reasonable reconciliation efforts recognizing needs/interests of both communities (indigenous and non-indigenous) if they wish to pursue real meaningful reconciliation. This SAP review was initiated in response to the Ahousaht case - DFO and the Minister cannot ignore their duties to act reasonably, considering how they account for FN's rights and also accounting for provisions to non-indigenous peoples contained within common law.

The SAP approach "must not strain" our constitutional and legal foundations are the words used by the New Brunswick Appeal court. This to me supports holding the public fishery harmless in the SAP allocation amendment, and it only makes sense to fully fund a fair compensation program to allow the commercial salmon fishers to retire their salmon allocations through a fair compensation process.

IMO the New Brunswick Court of Appeal got it right when addressing an appeal of a lower court ruling on land title on Crown Land claimed & won in New Brunswick...here's one of the passages from the judgment:

"Part of reconciliation may include placing limits on Aboriginal rights. EMS quotes Delgamuukw, which emphasizes the words from R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723, [1996] S.C.J. No. 79 (QL): “Aboriginal rights are a necessary part of the reconciliation of aboriginal societies with the broader political community of which they are part; limits placed on those rights are, where the objectives furthered by those limits are of sufficient importance to the broader community as a whole, equally a necessary part of that reconciliation” (para. 73). Aboriginal rights are not absolute, and exist within Canadian society and Canada’s constitutional framework. EMS quotes Chippewas of Sarnia to underscore this point: “a court must take into account the perspective of the Aboriginal people claiming the right … while at the same time taking into account the perspective of the common law” such that “[t]rue reconciliation will, equally, place weight on each”. The accommodation is to be done in a manner that does not strain “the Canadian legal and constitutional structure”. The co-existence of Aboriginal title and fee simple title is not supported by Canada’s constitutional framework".

Here's another perspective - albeit a land title case, but applicable principles at play for consideration to how SAP modernization should be approached:

In J.D. Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation (Wolastoqey Nation), the New Brunswick Court of Appeal refused to declare Aboriginal title over land held by private landowners, finding that a declaration of Aboriginal title would confer rights that cannot coexist with private land ownership. In the Court’s view, recognizing Aboriginal title over privately owned lands would “sound the death knell of reconciliation with the interests of non-Aboriginal Canadians.”