scott craven
Well-Known Member
Does anyone have any insight on when a decision in the allocation matter is expected ?
Maintain Priority Access to Chinook and Coho for the Canadian Public in a New Salmon Allocation Policy. Send Your Letter to DFO!
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
Ryan A
Well-Known Member
I did yesterday, asked him to go around all the boat and fishing businesses around Port and explain to them why he thinks they’re “ fear mongering”
Squire
Well-Known Member
I sent him a note as well, CC’d to his boss:
Good morning Kendall,
Your effort at ‘making good’ after your first report was disappointing to say the least. You gave a platform to Gord Johns, MP for Courtenay-Alberni, to dismiss the concerns of Recreational anglers and Conservative MPs without identifying him as a long time advocate for FNs commercial fishing rights or asking for a rebuttal by any of his ‘fear-mongering’ Conservative MP counterparts.
Johns’ statement that “Recreation fishing is not being eliminated. Families will still be able to fish, and public access is not being abolished”, is of little comfort to the sector and went unchallenged by you or even questioned for clarity. Gord Johns knows the guiding/chartering part of the sector needs the certainty of open seasons and catch limits or they will be eliminated. Bookings for lodges and charters are taking their deposits now for the upcoming season; how do you think that will go when they can’t tell a client if they’ll be able to fish during their specific booking time?
My adult children need to book holidays well in advance to visit my wife and I so we can take them and our grandson out for a few days boating and fishing with us. It is not fear mongering to point out that this is problematic if the SAP process goes entirely the way of the FNs proposals.
For Johns to also state that the issue is about conservation when the commercial sector is not bound by slot size limits or non-retention of wild Coho or Chinook in some areas the way the Recreational sector is regulated is disingenuous at best. Again his assertions went unchallenged.
It should also be pointed out that very few FN will benefit from commercial fishing and potential additional jobs in fish processing plants won’t earn any of them a living. Increased FNs participation in the far more lucrative guiding-chartering sector would provide more benefits to more FN members than commercial fishing ever could.
I stated before that I understand the difficulty with capturing all nuances of a particular issue in a quick news piece but this follow-up did nothing to exonerate you from the perceived bias of the first report.
Sincerely,
Bryan Shier
Got this email from a buddy this morning. Not sure where he gets his info but he is usually pretty well connected. I hope he is wrong but it does fit the agenda.
"Overwhelming commercial fishers today are FN’s but not all. Mostly everyone involved in the process knows this. Government needs to buy out existing commercial licences then transfer to FN’s.
Here’s what’s going to happen - DFO will let us retain Coho & Chinook. DFO cuts our 10 Chinook to 5. Possibly come out with Coho needed to be marked on your license with a cap, 5-10 a year.
There will be commercial troll fisheries spring up all over the coast, even in Georgia Strait.
What sucks it has zero impact on lodges & charter boats. The infighting will get ugly.
Between UNDRIP, DRIPA & the courts, our old days are over."
"Overwhelming commercial fishers today are FN’s but not all. Mostly everyone involved in the process knows this. Government needs to buy out existing commercial licences then transfer to FN’s.
Here’s what’s going to happen - DFO will let us retain Coho & Chinook. DFO cuts our 10 Chinook to 5. Possibly come out with Coho needed to be marked on your license with a cap, 5-10 a year.
There will be commercial troll fisheries spring up all over the coast, even in Georgia Strait.
What sucks it has zero impact on lodges & charter boats. The infighting will get ugly.
Between UNDRIP, DRIPA & the courts, our old days are over."
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
"Overwhelming commercial fishers today are FN’s but not all. Mostly everyone involved in the process knows this. Government needs to buy out existing commercial licences then transfer to FN’s.
Not New
Here’s what’s going to happen - DFO will let us retain Coho & Chinook. DFO cuts our 10 Chinook to 5. Possibly come out with Coho needed to be marked on your license with a cap, 5-10 a year.
Changing it from 10 to 5 wont change a thing because our average catch is below 6. This has been looked at there is no gain changing the annual limits other then for PR.
There will be commercial troll fisheries spring up all over the coast, even in Georgia Strait.
There is still at risk/endangered concerns like spring Fraser chinook and many others. Those closures will still stay in place closing most of the south coast till July.
We already know how this will end up looking as its already in place for chum, sockeye and pink fisheries. No chinook fishing period until a commercial fishery is triggered. There is also already an IFMP for the five nations, Extend that out to every First Nation and the only infighting will be if the gill nets or the seines get to catch the fish.
What sucks it has zero impact on lodges & charter boats. The infighting will get ugly.
How would it have zero impact? They get stuck with the same rules as everyone else.
Between UNDRIP, DRIPA & the courts, our old days are over."
Yep, Just like how it was different 10 years ago and 10 years before that.
Not New
Here’s what’s going to happen - DFO will let us retain Coho & Chinook. DFO cuts our 10 Chinook to 5. Possibly come out with Coho needed to be marked on your license with a cap, 5-10 a year.
Changing it from 10 to 5 wont change a thing because our average catch is below 6. This has been looked at there is no gain changing the annual limits other then for PR.
There will be commercial troll fisheries spring up all over the coast, even in Georgia Strait.
There is still at risk/endangered concerns like spring Fraser chinook and many others. Those closures will still stay in place closing most of the south coast till July.
We already know how this will end up looking as its already in place for chum, sockeye and pink fisheries. No chinook fishing period until a commercial fishery is triggered. There is also already an IFMP for the five nations, Extend that out to every First Nation and the only infighting will be if the gill nets or the seines get to catch the fish.
What sucks it has zero impact on lodges & charter boats. The infighting will get ugly.
How would it have zero impact? They get stuck with the same rules as everyone else.
Between UNDRIP, DRIPA & the courts, our old days are over."
Yep, Just like how it was different 10 years ago and 10 years before that.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Did just that.
His team is scrambling to set up a call between us.
PLEASE give me some starting points here Folks!
I will need to be clear & concise when talking with him.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
I have worked with him in the past to some success on a variety of subjects.
Never say never...
Squire
Well-Known Member
This link from earlier in this thread has some of the main talking points
fishing rights.ca
www.fishingrights.ca
You have a difficult task ahead of you as Gord Johns already opposes all these points in principle. You might want to make him aware that Port Alberni can’t afford the economic hit wiping out the guide-charter industry represents.
Commercial fishing isn’t the economic panacea some FNs might believe it will be. Why would they be any different than other commercial operators who currently struggle to make ends meet?
FNs may be better off negotiating a bigger part of the sport fishing industry as it is far more lucrative than commercial. Any benefits for FNs will only apply to a limited number of individuals who own the commercial licences while many members could make a lot more as guides than processing plant employees.
This type of race-based allocation can only incite division and create animosity where it isn’t even a consideration currently. FNs having a fair piece of the pie isn’t opposed by anyone; it isn’t racism to point out that 3% of the population controlling access for the other 97% is going to cause some resentment.
I’m spent; others?
Gordon Johns riding also includes Bamfield. You might ask him what happens to the businesses there if recreational access is severely curtailed.
Ryan A
Well-Known Member
Ask him if he’s comfortable being the politician who was at the helm when the Port Alberni Salmon Derby was cancelled because of regulations he endorses.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
@IronNoggin I would really highlight this one. That event is a huge money maker alberni from dollars perspective.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Or better have him explain that position to the Port Alberni Chamber of Commerce with event organizers present.
Aces
Well-Known Member
And just like that we are told to F off. Just like last November
www.facebook.com
162K views · 1.3K reactions | Breaking News—government turns its back on BC coastal communities and our recreational salmon fishery. Proposed Department of Fisheries and Oceans salmon fishery closures will be catastrophic. Port Renfrew alone would l
Breaking News—government turns its back on BC coastal communities and our recreational salmon fishery. Proposed Department of Fisheries and Oceans salmon fishery closures will be catastrophic. Port...
www.facebook.com
Aces
Well-Known Member
No he doesn’t card cuz his allegiance is to the Ahousats
Last edited:
Aces
Well-Known Member
Well they voted for him
Aces
Well-Known Member
Probably early April but their minds are already made up imo
Squire
Well-Known Member
And just like that we are told to F off. Just like last November
162K views · 1.3K reactions | Breaking News—government turns its back on BC coastal communities and our recreational salmon fishery. Proposed Department of Fisheries and Oceans salmon fishery closures will be catastrophic. Port Renfrew alone would l
Breaking News—government turns its back on BC coastal communities and our recreational salmon fishery. Proposed Department of Fisheries and Oceans salmon fishery closures will be catastrophic. Port...
I guess the speaker wasn’t entirely wrong as per procedural rules below:
Apparently the crisis would have to affect the entire nation to meet the criteria for emergency debate. I have to give credit to Jeff Kibble because he was likely familiar with these procedural rules but his motion got heard and awareness raised from his attempt.
15. SPECIAL DEBATES
EMERGENCY DEBATES
The Standing Orders provide Members with an opportunity to give their immediate attention to a pressing matter by moving a debatable adjournment motion. A Member may request leave from the Speaker “to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration”. [51] Furthermore, the matter “must relate to a genuine emergency” [52] and, if the request is granted by the Speaker, the House is permitted to debate the topic at an early opportunity, forgoing the usual 48 hours’ notice period.
Until the turn of the century, any Member, at virtually any time in the proceedings, could introduce a new matter for discussion by moving the adjournment of the House. Since the adjournment motion could be moved at any time and was always subject to debate, the result would be an interruption of the business then before the House, often leading to the disruption of the entire day’s program. In 1906, the government of the day decided to remedy this situation and implemented a new rule, the ancestor to the present Standing Order, whereby debate would be permitted only on adjournment motions which dealt with definite matters of urgent public importance. [53]
From 1906 to 1968, motions under the emergency debate rule were considered immediately after they had been accepted for debate. This meant that other business was put aside. In December 1968, the House amended the rule to have the debate begin at 8:00 p.m., except on Fridays when it would begin at 3:00 p.m., if proceeded with the same day. [54] This still resulted in a conflict and a displacement of the regular business of the House. When the regular evening sittings of the House were abolished in 1982, [55] the conflict between emergency debates and the regular business of the House was eliminated except for Fridays.
As one Speaker noted, an emergency debate should be on a topic “that is immediately relevant and of attention and concern throughout the nation”. [56] Thus, matters of chronic or continuing concern, such as economic conditions, unemployment rates and constitutional matters, have tended to be set aside whereas topics deemed to require urgent consideration have included work stoppages and strikes, natural disasters, and international crises and events. At various times other topics such as fisheries, forestry, agriculture and the fur trade industry have been judged acceptable; for example, there have been several emergency debates on grain-related topics since 1968, and since 1984 four emergency debates have been held in regard to the fishing industry in Canada. Topics considered highly partisan in nature are not as readily approved. [57]
Squire
Well-Known Member
The guy talks out of both sides of his yap. These are some of his statements that are difficult to reconcile with each other:
“Unfortunately, some Conservative MPs have chosen to manufacture fear and hysteria instead of engaging honestly with the science, the law, and the realities facing wild salmon.
“Some recreational fishers are rightly worried about access and economic impacts. Those concerns are real and need to be heard. But they cannot override court decisions, constitutional obligations, or the survival of the salmon itself.”
Then:
“No one is losing the public’s ability to fish, and no one is being shut out of the water”
Last edited:
brands51
Well-Known Member
The statement did not offer me much reassurance
Similar threads
