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

[Peahead]

It tells me that SFI and BCWF along with PFA have been doing a great job of getting the word out and standing up for the public and an equal opportunity to the salmon resource once we get past FSC rights which comes first ( and after conservation). I am not surprised there would be push back and I am also not surprised they would pull the "race card" or references to reconciliation. It is interesting that the letter points out that the public rec sector misrepresents what FN wants out of a proposed change to SAP but then they don't provide any detail why it misrepresents it or what they want out of it. No explanation of why they feel a change in taking priority of access of chinook and coho away from the public recreational to provide that access priority to non-FN commercial and FN commercial. Please tell us why the residents of BC and Canada should be supportive of the salmon no longer being a priority resource for them and why it makes sense that priority go to the commercial sector. It just happens to be mostly FN commercial now but this refers to both non-FN and FN commerciall.

Canada is in a time of desperately needing to breath some life back into it's economy. If our government is serious about Sovereignty and making the economy stronger, they would not even consider this proposed change to SAP. Any massive loss to the public's access of chinook and coho will all but destroy BC's public recreational fishery. Certainly the public salmon fishery will be gone as we know it. To provide priority of a public resource (salmon) that bring in an especially massive dollar value to our economy over to another sector that brings a tiny fraction of the value, would do catastrophic damage to the fishing economy in BC and Canada. It looks pretty clear now to be another example of our government using salmon as a currency.

This is from a recent document "Potential financial and employment impact of transferring salmon allocation from the B.C. Sport Fishing Sector to the B.C. Commercial Sector.

Reference #1:
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region, 2023 Economic
Profile of all BC Recreational Fisheries,

https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/analyses-econom-analysis/fisheries-peches/multi-sector-

secteur/pac-wild-fisheries-peches-sauvage/bc-rec-fisheries-pecheries-rec-cb-
eng.html

Reference #2: Final Report, “The Supply Sector for the Commercial Fishing
Fleet, understanding Linkages between Commercial Fishing Operations,
Support Businesses, and Coastal Communities.” Counterpoint Consulting.
Funded by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2024/mpo-dfo/Fs23-727-2023-

eng.pdf


Statement:
For every 5,561 fish transferred from the Sport Fishing Sector to the
Commercial fishing sector the Canadian economy will lose $4,644,226
and lose 32.7 jobs.

The majority of the 5,561 fish will be exported from Canada and not
available as high value protein for Canadians.

Conclusion #1:

Salmon sport fishing in B.C. generates the highest cost benefit
value of $847 as compared to the Commercial Sector at $11.84 per salmon;
In British Columbia the sport caught salmon provides the greatest value added benefit
as high protein food and social and sustainable economic jobs to the people of
Canada.

Conclusion #2:
The loss of jobs in the recreational sector will be across all
support sectors. Canadians working in tourism (hotel, motel, cleaning, restaurants,
transportation), supply (boats, fishing equipment, maintenance, moorage), guides,
etc. will lose jobs in communities across British Columbia

Conclusion #3:
DFO should not transfer fish allocation from the Sport Fishery
to the Commercial Fishery. DFO priorities should focus on increasing salmon
abundance by improving habitat, promoting research in selective fishing technologies
and in select cases, increase hatchery production and marking of fish so that all
fishing sectors can prosper.

 

[scott craven]

Just a reminder to everyone to email DFO in protest of salmon allocation changes coming down the pipe.

 

[Peahead]

FYI
In response to claims of misinformation and racism for speaking up during the BC Salmon Policy allocation review, PFA has put up this attached poster on their site as of a few minutes ago.

-PFA has emphasized that the statements were NOT interpretations and that they are verbatim policy recommendations submitted to DFO.
-Pointing this out is NOT misinformation.
-Disagreeing with their proposals is not racism.
-Defending public access is not an attack on ANYONE'S rights. PFA has always supported conservation and fully respected FN constitutional FSC rights

.... all of it here attached below:

 

[SG2.0]

We need to start lawsuits too. Only way these idiot government officials listen.

 

[Peahead]

We need to start lawsuits too. Only way these idiot government officials listen.

I suspect that could eventually happen but I am of course hoping is not needed. Whenever the topic comes up in the various organizations I am involved in, its taken seriously for sure however we are always reminded that raising funds for an extensive court battle is much more of a challenge than fund raising for a trip to Ottawa. With no more stones left unturned and some collaboration of groups, it may be become the only option left...and possible IMO.

 

[Sharphooks]

FYI
In response to claims of misinformation and racism for speaking up during the BC Salmon Policy allocation review, PFA has put up this attached poster on their site as of a few minutes ago.

-PFA has emphasized that the statements were NOT interpretations and that they are verbatim policy recommendations submitted to DFO.
-Pointing this out is NOT misinformation.
-Disagreeing with their proposals is not racism.
-Defending public access is not an attack on ANYONE'S rights. PFA has always supported conservation and fully respected FN constitutional FSC rights

.... all of it here

It is really difficult for me to take the Island Marine Aquatic Working Group’s comments seriously. It seems clear they are trying to drive a wedge between the various stake holders involved in the salmon resource allocation process. Calling common property a “colonial” term and insisting that the term be removed from any type of allocation policy discussion is a red herring; it’s what stake holders do when planning a resource grab at another stake holder’s expense. And since the term “commercial fisherman” and FN are eventually going to be one and the same (they know it and you know it) there will be two groups absorbed into one, fully stacked against the rec fishermen. No wonder they want to get that term “common” out of the allocation process discussions.

And I will NEVER be able to stomach the term “Steward of the Resource” again when applied to any FN Group, not after what I saw happen to the Interior Fraser River Steelhead.

From an AI search, the definition of a “Steward”:

Quote

A steward of the resource is an individual, organization, or entity responsible for the ethical, sustainable management and care of assets—such as natural, financial, or human resources—entrusted to them. This role emphasizes accountability, efficiency, and long-term planning to ensure the resource's availability for future generations.

Unquote

With DFO’s and Ottawa’s full support, the various FN groups living along the Fraser deployed in-river gill nets and with full knowledge of how indiscriminate and damaging these nets were, not only wiped out multiple races of fish in just two decades but pulled off that sordid tale of salmonid genocide with ZERO accountability. For all intents and purposes, those gill netters to a man reported ZERO steelhead bycatch during those two decades. Wink wink. And now they’re gone.

Stewards of the resource my arse.

 

[scott craven]

It's pretty sad when a federal agency can deem one user group more Canadian than another because that's what they are pushing for.
The fish should belong to all the people of Canada.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Recreational Fishery Groups Upset about Plan to Change Salmon Allocations | The Tyee

As the federal government is revisiting its salmon allocation policy, fishing groups are divided on what, if anything, needs to change.

thetyee.ca

Greg Taylor, a fisheries adviser with Watershed Watch Salmon Society, told The Tyee that updates are desperately needed 27 years after the policy’s implementation.


“The world has changed since 1999,” said Taylor, who worked in the commercial fishing industry when the salmon allocation policy was adopted. He pointed to the collapse of B.C.’s salmon stocks and the ability of First Nations to have a voice in fisheries decisions.

“It needed to be revised and rethought in the context of all these changes,” he said.

Taylor said a new policy should also take into account the number of fish caught by recreational anglers but returned to the ocean because they are species at risk. Although returning the fish to the ocean is meant to give the salmon a second chance at life, many eventually die.

Given the scope of the changes, DFO should be doing a broader review, Taylor said. He hopes that a First Nations recommendation for more localized regional management of fisheries, which also has support from the commercial fishing industry, offers a jumping-off point for further discussion.

“That might lead to a place where we have better conversations about what the future of salmon in different watersheds and different areas are,” he said.

He doesn’t believe that the changes would lead to the end of the recreational fishery.

But he said the recreational fishing industry may need to experience the painful adjustment that commercial fishers have experienced as salmon stocks have declined.

“I think the recreational industry likes the status quo, would prefer the status quo, but the world’s changed,” he said. “It’s not a fair allocation. It’s not a correct allocation. It’s not one based on good science and good conservation. The status quo won’t hold anymore, and it has to be changed.”

 

[searun]

Maybe Greg Taylor should spend time investigating the downfall of the commercial fishery and compare the social and economic benefits commercial vs recreational allocations provide to Canada. On every economic metric, the recreational fishery produced significantly more benefit with allocations of less Chinook and Coho than the commercial sector whcih used 51% of Chinook; 58% of Coho and 95% of Sockeye, Chum, Pine as compared to Recreational. Yet commercial produced 25x less GDP and jobs than the Recreational fishery....Commercial salmon fishing produced 811 family household incomes of just $8,976 per household - its nothing more than a lifestyle choice now,

On every metric the wisest use of Canada's Chinook and Coho resource is recreational fishing, which also provides food security for every participant - compared to commercial which exports 60-70% of their landed catch....who really benefits?

 

[Squire]

Recreational Fishery Groups Upset about Plan to Change Salmon Allocations | The Tyee

As the federal government is revisiting its salmon allocation policy, fishing groups are divided on what, if anything, needs to change.

thetyee.ca

He doesn’t believe that the changes would lead to the end of the recreational fishery.

But he said the recreational fishing industry may need to experience the painful adjustment that commercial fishers have experienced as salmon stocks have declined.

“I think the recreational industry likes the status quo, would prefer the status quo, but the world’s changed,” he said. “It’s not a fair allocation. It’s not a correct allocation. It’s not one based on good science and good conservation. The status quo won’t hold anymore, and it has to be changed.”

Weird the Tyee would publish an environmentalist based viewpoint without confirmation of the current allocations. (Not so subtle sarcasm)

The unfair allocation he refers to is only 50% of Chinook and Coho and 95% of everything else. I wonder if the public would perceive his message in the same light were these inconvenient truths articulated in the article.