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

[Squire]

Was this guy even at the meeting? Not one mention of the proposed SAP changes which were discussed at least as much, if not more than the SRKW closures.

I hope I'm not the only one to reach out to CHEK News to voice their displeasure at this half effort of a reporting job. I tried to find a direct email contact for the reporter, but I could only send my comments to opinions@cheknews.ca with the subject line ‘Recreational Fishers rally in Duncan on Sunday’. It may be better that comments are seen by his editors as well in case expectations were for him to do a more professional job. If no-one receives a response at least then we’ll know that the Recreational fishing sector was deliberately marginalized and our concerns deliberately trivialized. The public deserves to know the real impact from the real measures proposed, not some watered down, lazy report.

 

[Squire]

I have my dad's very first license - he was on the SFAB Main Board when DFO launched the new licenses and every SFAB Board Member was given a new license - i have it framed...it is "NON-expiring" I think they made a little error when they printed the first batch. The date on that is 1981/06/02 license number R000006 - so the 6th license issued in 1981. My mom's is license # R076888 which showed expiry date of Dec 31, 1981. I gather it took a while to align the license issue/expiry dates to the government's fiscal year end of March 31 each year.

So there's a bit of history.

That’s really cool that you actually have those in your possession.

 

[IronNoggin]

I hope I'm not the only one to reach out to CHEK News to voice their displeasure at this half effort of a reporting job. I tried to find a direct email contact for the reporter, but I could only send my comments to opinions@cheknews.ca with the subject line ‘Recreational Fishers rally in Duncan on Sunday’. It may be better that comments are seen by his editors as well in case expectations were for him to do a more professional job. If no-one receives a response at least then we’ll know that the Recreational fishing sector was deliberately marginalized and our concerns deliberately trivialized. The public deserves to know the real impact from the real measures proposed, not some watered down, lazy report.

Here is the reporter's email address: Kendall Hanson <khanson@cheknews.ca>

Here is what I sent his boss and cc'd him:

I am writing to express my sincere disappointment regarding the coverage of this rally.
Your reporter made this a divide solely between recreational anglers and supposedly starving whales.
He entirely missed the FAR larger issue of FN's and the commercial sector (by and large one and the same these days) attempting to persuade the government to nullify the recreational sector's current priority status for coho and chinook, and instead hand that over to them while putting the affected sector on a quota system (with caps) as was done with halibut. This in order to increase their "portion of the pie", elevate their economic position on the backs of the salmon resource, and greatly reduce the recreational access to salmon coast-wide.

I consider this to be VERY biased reporting.
It appears that the Recreational fishing sector was deliberately marginalized and their concerns deliberately trivialized.
The public deserves to know the real impact from the real measures being proposed, not a sideline issue which paints the recreational sector in a negative light.

If this was not intentional, I would very much like to see a written apology, retraction and a follow-up article reporting the actual FULL facts involved here.

It it was intentional, I am rather surprised that CHEK would condone such bias in their reporting.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a written response at your convenience.

Sincerely,

 

[JWS]

I hope I'm not the only one to reach out to CHEK News to voice their displeasure at this half effort of a reporting job. I tried to find a direct email contact for the reporter, but I could only send my comments to opinions@cheknews.ca with the subject line ‘Recreational Fishers rally in Duncan on Sunday’. It may be better that comments are seen by his editors as well in case expectations were for him to do a more professional job. If no-one receives a response at least then we’ll know that the Recreational fishing sector was deliberately marginalized and our concerns deliberately trivialized. The public deserves to know the real impact from the real measures proposed, not some watered down, lazy report.

I sent them my opinion on it, too. Hopefully they’re flooded with annoyed people sending in comments

 

[Squire]

Here is the reporter's email address: Kendall Hanson <khanson@cheknews.ca>

Here is what I sent his boss and cc'd him:

I am writing to express my sincere disappointment regarding the coverage of this rally.
Your reporter made this a divide solely between recreational anglers and supposedly starving whales.
He entirely missed the FAR larger issue of FN's and the commercial sector (by and large one and the same these days) attempting to persuade the government to nullify the recreational sector's current priority status for coho and chinook, and instead hand that over to them while putting the affected sector on a quota system (with caps) as was done with halibut. This in order to increase their "portion of the pie", elevate their economic position on the backs of the salmon resource, and greatly reduce the recreational access to salmon coast-wide.

I consider this to be VERY biased reporting.
It appears that the Recreational fishing sector was deliberately marginalized and their concerns deliberately trivialized.
The public deserves to know the real impact from the real measures being proposed, not a sideline issue which paints the recreational sector in a negative light.

If this was not intentional, I would very much like to see a written apology, retraction and a follow-up article reporting the actual FULL facts involved here.

It it was intentional, I am rather surprised that CHEK would condone such bias in their reporting.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a written response at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Great response! I guess I was looking in the wrong place for his contact because I didn't find it with his profile.

 

[Squire]

I sent them my opinion on it, too. Hopefully they’re flooded with annoyed people sending in comments

Perfect; the more the merrier

 

[chille51]

I sent some feedback in to Chek News as well. Here is some slightly better reporting on the SAP issue:

https://nanaimonewsnow.com/2026/01/...otential-changes-to-salmon-allocation-policy/

 

[Aces]

My submission to CHEK’s opinion section:

I am a retired lifetime BC resident for whom salmon fishing isn’t just a pastime but a way of life. Salmon fishing involves so much more than just a harvest. My family and I like to get outdoors just to breath fresh air and we enjoy wildlife viewing including Killer Whales, Humpback Whales, otters, seals, sea lions, and many species of sea birds. A day or part day on the ocean is cathartic in that it allows us to unplug from the daily grind and really connect to nature and the ocean. Bringing home a fish to eat is a reinforcement of that connection and represents healthy organic table fare.

I was extremely disappointed to read Kendall Hanson’s coverage of the Recreational Fishers rally in Duncan on Sunday. His interpretation of the event leaves the reader with the impression that DFO wants to protect whales while the recreational fishing sector wants to keep fishing anyway. Nowhere in his article does he articulate the scientific arguments that the Recreational fishing sector poses to dispute the benefits of even further reducing recreational fishing opportunities. The science actually disputes the claims of some groups that prey abundance or lack thereof is a significant factor in the challenges the Southern Resident Killer Whales in particular, face. Their Northern counterparts are thriving in an environment with less prey density than they encounter. There are other documented factors putting pressure on these whales that are much more difficult to mitigate than simply scapegoating recreational fishers. It shouldn’t need to be said that myself and all recreational fishers would support any measures backed by science to preserve and conserve all of BC’s aquatic wildlife and the balance of the ecosystem.

Also, this is not the only threat the Receational sector is facing. Commercial and First Nations are demanding a reallocation of BC’s Chinook and Coho salmon to the Commercial sector of which most or all licences are widely expected to become FN’s owned. Since 1999, the DFO’s Salmon Allocation Policy has been guided by the principle that BC’s salmon are common property of the public. This has resulted in the current allocation of 50% of the sustainable catch of Chinook and Coho salmon to be allocated to the Recreational sector while 50% of Chinook and Coho along with 95% of Sockeye, Pink and Chum salmon are allocated to the Commercial Sector. For clarity these allocations of sustainable catch are determined after conservation and FNs’ Food, Sustenance and Ceremonial (FSC) rights are considered.

The Recreational sector is the greater socioeconomic contributor by a large margin while the commercial sector struggles to survive. I could provide sources and links to back up these assertions but I respectfully suggest that Mr. Hanson reach out to the Recreational sector to more thoroughly investigate this issue and report on his findings. Guiding the reader to assume that Recreational fishers simply don’t want to give up any fishing opportunities to do their part to save the whales, is inaccurate and unbalanced reporting.

Bryan Shier
Chemainus, BC

What a great submission!

 

[the force]

I attended as well. It was a great turn out and show of support. Sadly CHEK missed the main reason most people were attending en masse. Maybe they run another story that captures the most significant issue the recreational community has faced in our life times!!!!

Also I was hoping to see MP's from all the political parties represented at the event. It is really critical that we get every MP and their party engaged, aware of the impact this issue will have, and possibly supporting us in Ottawa. From what I heard in the meeting, every MP and MLA were invited. Insofar as I recall the only Federal party in attendance was the Conservatives. No Greens, No NDP.

The event would have been even better if we had speakers from every party telling us where they stand on this issue.

Which brings me to the best advice I heard all day - if you want to get the attention of Ottawa, please phone your MP as many times as it takes to get a meeting, and please phone the Fisheries Minister requesting to speak with her and/or set up a virtual meeting. You don't need to get on a plane and travel to Ottawa to meet a Federal Minister - the wonderful internet has made virtual meetings a thing. MP's even vote electronically remotely from the House.

The other thing that will MAKE a difference is if everyone here contacted every business that you use to get fishing supplies.

1) Help them become aware of this issue and the potential it will have to crush their business.
2) Ask them to send letters to the Minister and PM.
3) If they are not sure what to write, maybe even offer to help them with drafting one they can edit.

This is a political decision - and the recreational fisheries biggest strength and argument to maintain the 1999 recreational priority in the SAP for Chinook/coho is the economic and social benefits our fishery brings. Eastern Canada politicians do not have any frame of reference for how significant the recreational fishery is on the West Coast - there are NO recreational fisheries there, no recreational licenses - only commercial.

We need to help educate them. Letters from businesses that will be impacted will really help provide a clear frame of reference for just how dependent the BC economy is on a vibrant recreational fishery.

Honestly, my feeling is that most likely all of these decision makers have never been fishing and have even less understanding of salmon fishing.
I know it is not realistic but I would love to, and think it would be quite powerful, take them (and their family) out for a day on the water. Catch some unders, get them on a heart breaker >80cm and actively navigate all the rules. Then bbq a side, with only salt and pepper, while anchored in a quiet bay watching the seals and marine life etc.

 

[InterMechanico]

Honestly, my feeling is that most likely all of these decision makers have never been fishing and have even less understanding of salmon fishing.
I know it is not realistic but I would love to, and think it would be quite powerful, take them (and their family) out for a day on the water. Catch some unders, get them on a heart breaker >80cm and actively navigate all the rules. Then bbq a side, with only salt and pepper, while anchored in a quiet bay watching the seals and marine life etc.

You could offer to take the reporter out. I (and perhaps others) could help fund the expense?

 

[Squire]

I received a response from Conservative MP, Mel Arnold, Associate Shadow Minister of Fisheries whom I shared my submission to the SAP with:

RE: DFO Salmon Allocation Policy Review

Dear Mr. Shier,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding yet another round of proposed Liberal government measures that threaten the future of the recreational public salmon fishery in British Columbia.

Canadian fisheries are a public resource belonging to Canadians and governed through legislation of Canada’s Parliament. These principles are based on Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 which assigns Parliament primary legislative authority in this area.

In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada has clearly reaffirmed that fisheries are a public resource in saying “federal power over fisheries is not confined to conserving fish stocks but extends to the management of the fisheries as a public resource. This resource has many aspects, one of which is to yield economic benefits to its participants and more generally to all Canadians.”

The Supreme Court has also concluded that the federal fisheries power “is concerned with the protection and preservation of fisheries as a public resource.” Conservatives also support the principle of conservation being the preeminent priority of fisheries management. This is a central governing principle of fisheries management in Canada that has been consistently established in federal statutes and reaffirmed in landmark court decisions because conservation must be the government’s priority in managing the public resource of our fisheries. If conservation of fisheries is not achieved, Canadians lose the benefit of the public resources.

We also recognize the rights of Indigenous Canadians to harvest fish as established by treaties and the auspices of the Constitution and landmark court decisions which also recognize conservation as the priority of the government’s management fisheries. When conservation is absent, fisheries collapse, and this can limit the opportunities of all harvesters to access fisheries. Conservation must be upheld as the primary objective of fisheries management to ensure Canadians may enjoy the benefits of fisheries, especially public fisheries. It is incumbent that the government deliver management decisions that respect all fishers, including those who access Canada’s public recreational fisheries.

Conservatives support the balanced management and conservation of fisheries and aquatic habitats for the benefit of biodiversity and Canadians who depend on fisheries. However, for over a decade, the Liberal government has failed to deliver the science and ecosystem-based management they promised to Canadians and have repeatedly announced fisheries reductions and closures without scientific reasons.



Ecosystem-based management requires DFO to consider factors affecting fish populations and this includes natural predation, but Liberal fisheries ministers have refused to manage pinnipeds, including invasive pinnipeds, that have been allowed to proliferate unchecked to the detriment of fish populations, including stocks of concern.



Conservatives continue to press the government for balanced fisheries decisions that are informed by science and respect Canadians and coastal communities that depend on fisheries.



After years of harvest reduction measures and a resurgence of Chinook stocks that was enabled by sacrifices of BC anglers and harvesters, the Liberal government is proposing to once again make British Columbians pay for the Government’s management failures.



Fisheries minister Joanne Thompson, the 7th Liberal DFO Minister in 10 years, has stated that: “obviously, science needs to be paramount in all decisions and it is a process, but I also believe and respect that we need to link with harvesters, the people on the water who are invested so much in ensuring we have stocks in good order to be able to continue fishing.” During the 2025 federal election, Prime Minister Carney also stated, that he understood the importance of “making decisions closer to the wharf.”



Despite these statements, proposed measures in the December 2025 discussion paper published for the Salmon Allocation Policy review show the Liberal government once again ignoring Canadians that they are supposed to be listening to. These measures are an insult to all those who were told that their input mattered.



Canada’s fisheries are a shared common resource belonging to Canadians. Conservatives will continue to fight for balanced fisheries management and conservation that respects Canadians and ensures fisheries resources are sustained for future generations.



Thanks again for taking time to raise your concerns.



Sincerely,



Mel Arnold, MP


Mel Arnold
Member of Parliament
Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies

Associate Shadow Minister for Fisheries, Oceans
and the Canadian Coast Guard (West Coast and Recreational)

Hill Office
218 Justice Building, House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Mail (*): mel.arnold@parl.gc.ca
Tel. ('): 613.995.9095 Fax. (7): 613.992.3195

 

[IronNoggin]

The reporter responds:

Hi Matt,

First off thanks for sending your email. You’re right. I missed half the story. While I did cover the SRKW issue I didn’t get into the salmon allocation issue at all because frankly I made a mistake.

I interviewed Jesse Zeman from the BC Wildlife Federation on it before the rally began but I accidentally didn’t record it and I didn’t record the whole rally cause that becomes an editing nightmare if you have to much tape in editing.

I didn’t realize I hadn’t recorded the BCWF interview until I was in editing and unfortunately at that point I didn’t have time to redo it. Yours wasn’t the only letter of complaint on my coverage.

We’re looking at what we can do to “make good” on this….

Honestly there was no intentional harm here or a sideline agenda. I expect better of myself. Again thanks for writing a rather wholesome letter of complaint. Stay tuned…

Best, Kendall

 

[Squire]

Joe Perkins, the News Director for Chek News forwarded me the same note from Kendall and said they received several similar complaints so good job to concerned fishers getting their voices heard.
I’ll be breaking from my normal routine to watch Chek News tonight lol

 

[SpringVelocity]

The reporter responds:

Hi Matt,

First off thanks for sending your email. You’re right. I missed half the story. While I did cover the SRKW issue I didn’t get into the salmon allocation issue at all because frankly I made a mistake.

I interviewed Jesse Zeman from the BC Wildlife Federation on it before the rally began but I accidentally didn’t record it and I didn’t record the whole rally cause that becomes an editing nightmare if you have to much tape in editing.

I didn’t realize I hadn’t recorded the BCWF interview until I was in editing and unfortunately at that point I didn’t have time to redo it. Yours wasn’t the only letter of complaint on my coverage.

We’re looking at what we can do to “make good” on this….

Honestly there was no intentional harm here or a sideline agenda. I expect better of myself. Again thanks for writing a rather wholesome letter of complaint. Stay tuned…

Best, Kendall

That's awesome they got back to you.

 

[SpringVelocity]

One thing I wanted to say here is I think both governments need to really be careful. The province is way too silent on this one.

BC economy is real trouble with the forest sector. We basically have lost employers in short period of time on island. Never seen it this bad.

Can you imagine all logging operations just crash in Alberni. You think Coulson alone can save the town without fishing? How about no labour day derby?

I always said that the island is a highly dependent tourist driven economy. We do not have a large manufacturing or high tech industry like the mainland. We have small ones and lot are dependent on this industry. Look at the aluminum boat building guys?

People have no idea how much this fishery and rec boating sector drive the economy here. I think it's more than we realize.

Look at Bamfield? Imagine if there was no fishing?

Other thing makes no sense is the place where 5 nations wants to yard out rec fishing is Gold River. I mean who is going to there in summer without lodges? How does that help the community?

Sorry I just dont get the salmon allocation thing.

 

[Tips Up]

I attended. The turn out was impressive. Some speakers were great, others not so much. I was concerned that anyone reporting or there to report negatives may only report on the first hour where I don't think the message was clear or professional. I appreciate the support of the MP's that were there but they are still politicians. The best message from them was that signing petitions is good, sending form letters is good, sending personal letters is good... But calling or visiting your local MP and asking for a meeting is best. Expressing your feelings and concerns as well as letting them know this is a matter that affects your vote.
The BCWF Representative did a great presentation. Was well prepared and clear on the issues. He summarized 3 things to focus on. Does anyone know where to find a copy of this presentation? It would be good to post here.

 

[Ryan A]

I got the same one too, good job everyone ! And thanks for CTV acknowledging they made a mistake and are righting it.

 

[Squire]

I got the same one too, good job everyone ! And thanks for CTV acknowledging they made a mistake and are righting it.

It's easy to confuse the two but it was actually Chek TV

 

[Squire]

One thing I wanted to say here is I think both governments need to really be careful. The province is way too silent on this one.

BC economy is real trouble with the forest sector. We basically have lost employers in short period of time on island. Never seen it this bad.

Can you imagine all logging operations just crash in Alberni. You think Coulson alone can save the town without fishing? How about no labour day derby?

I always said that the island is a highly dependent tourist driven economy. We do not have a large manufacturing or high tech industry like the mainland. We have small ones and lot are dependent on this industry. Look at the aluminum boat building guys?

People have no idea how much this fishery and rec boating sector drive the economy here. I think it's more than we realize.

Look at Bamfield? Imagine if there was no fishing?

Other thing makes no sense is the place where 5 nations wants to yard out rec fishing is Gold River. I mean who is going to there in summer without lodges? How does that help the community?

Sorry I just dont get the salmon allocation thing.

I wholeheartedly agree but I think it is important to get the message across that prey abundance measures particularly aren't backed by science or logic and aren't worth the devastating impacts. It shouldn't be perceived that this is a choice between SRKW and recreational fishers. There is no win for either if these measures are implemented.

 

[SpringVelocity]

I wholeheartedly agree but I think it is important to get the message across that prey abundance measures particularly aren't backed by science or logic and aren't worth the devastating impacts. It shouldn't be perceived that this is a choice between SRKW and recreational fishers. There is no win for either if these measures are implemented.

I think the SRKW issue sucks, but right now the salmon allocation is the one that will completely shut the industry down coast wide in BC, and very quickly if it were changed and implemented as commercial/FN want. Plus we are stuck with it once it's done. Not many anglers are understanding it.

I find we are crossing two distinct issues all over the place which is hiding how serious the allocation change is. Anyone going to Ottawa should be focusing on allocation right now.

Don't get my wrong the SRKW is extremely but the allocation thing is absolutely scary. It also has implications for halibut, and any other species we fish for.