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

Forgot to mention that. Johns did note that he was given insufficient lead time (had other scheduling constraints) to attend that particular meeting. He also noted given who was going to be present from an opposing party, it felt like an ambush of sorts.
Get me as much lead time as possible regarding a Port Alberni meeting & I will press him to attend.

Cheers

It seems Gord Johns wants it both ways. If he’s on the same side, why would he be ambushed? His whole “Ew…Conservatives” schtick isn’t indicative of a cooperative MP. Let’s hope he’s had a bit of a wake-up call and does a better job of representing all of his constituents going forward. Supporting the petition on SRKW management is a good start.
 
So I did have a lengthy conversation with Gord Johns yesterday.

I wanted to get the firearms issue out of the way up front, and did. He noted the program was "a disaster" and that his Party has a few things in the works that he would relay shortly.

Then onto the Salmon Allocation Policy.

Gord tried to defend what he had written, and did stick to his guns saying that some Conservatives were being "inflammatory".
I did cover a lot of the points presented here and on the SFI website and he actually agreed with some.
He stated that no-one wants to see a cessation of the recreational fleet's access, and that would be maintained regardless of how things shake out.
I then noted the comments from here regarding the Salmon Festival which did seem to give him pause.
The same for Bamfield and Ukee considerations.

Gord went on to note that he and his team assisted the Sport Fishing Institute with drafting the petition to aid in developing salmon stocks in December:

PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

Petition to improve conservation rules for southern resident killer whales and amend associated fishing regulations
We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons in Parliament Assembled to the following:

Whereas

Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKWs) move freely throughout the Salish Sea and Pacific coast, regularly crossing the Canada–United States border, an artificial boundary for marine wildlife;

Recreational fishers and coastal communities faced fishing restrictions that have not been evaluated for effectiveness or demonstrate contribution to SRKW recovery, resulting in significant socio-economic harm;

Current management measures rely on fixed spatial-temporal measures that do not adaptively respond to prey availability or highly variable SRKW forage behaviour;

SRKW presence data demonstrates that they rarely utilize areas designated for salmon fishing closures;

Alignment with Washington State’s SRKW measures would improve avoidance practices for boaters and coordinate protection across shared waters;

Therefore, We, the undersigned, Citizens and Residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to:

1. Direct Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada to align SRKW vessel operation measures with those of Washington State;

2. Adopt vessel operation rules that clearly address distance, speed and underwater noise reduction;

3. Implement 400m mobile avoidance zone without exemption for all small vessels year-round, and additionally requiring recreational fishers to cease fishing when Killer Whales’ appear, and where practicable, move slowly to 1,000 m distance;

4. Establish recovery objectives and performance metrics for all SRKW proposed measures;

5. Assess all salmon stock abundance, particularly Chinook and Chum, in high-use SRKW critical habitat, and transition to adaptive management measures based on stock abundance;

6. Repeal recreational fishing closures that lack measurable objective evidence of contributing to defined recovery benefits.

.................................................................................

He also noted he was the only MP to stand up and address the soon to be extinguished Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative:


I will be taking this matter up with both Clifford Small and Mel Arnold shortly.

He noted he will soon be meeting with Minister Thompson, and stated he would be bring my (our) concerns to the table.

Gord finished off by saying that "I can assure you that I will always stand up for the sport and recreation sector and for the continued ability of all Canadians to fish."

While the last seems out of line with what he wrote, I will reserve my judgment until after he gets back to me regarding the outcome of his meeting with the Minister.

Take this for what you will but I was somewhat encouraged that he was apparently not in ravenous support of the FN / Commercial proposals.

Cheers,
Nog

I don’t think my ‘like’ was enough of a thank you for your efforts in engaging with your contradictory MP, so thanks a lot, Nog.
 
So I did have a lengthy conversation with Gord Johns yesterday.

I wanted to get the firearms issue out of the way up front, and did. He noted the program was "a disaster" and that his Party has a few things in the works that he would relay shortly.

Then onto the Salmon Allocation Policy.

Gord tried to defend what he had written, and did stick to his guns saying that some Conservatives were being "inflammatory".
I did cover a lot of the points presented here and on the SFI website and he actually agreed with some.
He stated that no-one wants to see a cessation of the recreational fleet's access, and that would be maintained regardless of how things shake out.
I then noted the comments from here regarding the Salmon Festival which did seem to give him pause.
The same for Bamfield and Ukee considerations.

Gord went on to note that he and his team assisted the Sport Fishing Institute with drafting the petition to aid in developing salmon stocks in December:

PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

Petition to improve conservation rules for southern resident killer whales and amend associated fishing regulations
We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House of Commons in Parliament Assembled to the following:

Whereas

Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKWs) move freely throughout the Salish Sea and Pacific coast, regularly crossing the Canada–United States border, an artificial boundary for marine wildlife;

Recreational fishers and coastal communities faced fishing restrictions that have not been evaluated for effectiveness or demonstrate contribution to SRKW recovery, resulting in significant socio-economic harm;

Current management measures rely on fixed spatial-temporal measures that do not adaptively respond to prey availability or highly variable SRKW forage behaviour;

SRKW presence data demonstrates that they rarely utilize areas designated for salmon fishing closures;

Alignment with Washington State’s SRKW measures would improve avoidance practices for boaters and coordinate protection across shared waters;

Therefore, We, the undersigned, Citizens and Residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to:

1. Direct Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada to align SRKW vessel operation measures with those of Washington State;

2. Adopt vessel operation rules that clearly address distance, speed and underwater noise reduction;

3. Implement 400m mobile avoidance zone without exemption for all small vessels year-round, and additionally requiring recreational fishers to cease fishing when Killer Whales’ appear, and where practicable, move slowly to 1,000 m distance;

4. Establish recovery objectives and performance metrics for all SRKW proposed measures;

5. Assess all salmon stock abundance, particularly Chinook and Chum, in high-use SRKW critical habitat, and transition to adaptive management measures based on stock abundance;

6. Repeal recreational fishing closures that lack measurable objective evidence of contributing to defined recovery benefits.

.................................................................................

He also noted he was the only MP to stand up and address the soon to be extinguished Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative:


I will be taking this matter up with both Clifford Small and Mel Arnold shortly.

He noted he will soon be meeting with Minister Thompson, and stated he would be bring my (our) concerns to the table.

Gord finished off by saying that "I can assure you that I will always stand up for the sport and recreation sector and for the continued ability of all Canadians to fish."

While the last seems out of line with what he wrote, I will reserve my judgment until after he gets back to me regarding the outcome of his meeting with the Minister.

Take this for what you will but I was somewhat encouraged that he was apparently not in ravenous support of the FN / Commercial proposals.

Cheers,
Nog
As someone who has seen him in action before he got Into federal politics my opinion is that he is a liar and has no intentions of being on our side at all
 
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
Thanks for sharing this one, somehow I missed this entire page in the thread. While doings some reading this morning on what I can do to further support an informed decision I realized that Mel is my local MP, sits on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, is the Associate Shadow Minister and appears to have some alignment with our perspectives.

I will be sending him my previously submitted SAP feedback and am seeking some advice on pairing this with a meeting request (and what are the chances of getting a meeting).
I realize these guys are all super busy and if i can get some time I would like it to to be as valuable as possible 1) Am I more or less likely to get a meeting slot if requesting a 1 on 1 meeting, group (fishing buddies) meeting or association related meeting (Kamloops Game and Fish)? 2) Is there specific verbiage I should use in my request, aside from this is extremely important to me and the supporting letter? 3) If I am successful are there any local forum members that are interested in joining, or contributing to my speaking notes?

My very brief thoughts of the situation as a whole, and please weigh if I'm off track, are that the that the cited economic benefits of the rec sector are pennies on the pound when compared to the overall cost of reconciliation, and unfortunately for us, when considering the broader negotiation this card has a lower gov cost and is highly weighted by FN. Meaning, political pressure demonstrating public interest and societal concern/importance (% of population providing feedback) is a very important avenue for moving the needle.
 
Thanks for sharing this one, somehow I missed this entire page in the thread. While doings some reading this morning on what I can do to further support an informed decision I realized that Mel is my local MP, sits on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, is the Associate Shadow Minister and appears to have some alignment with our perspectives.

I will be sending him my previously submitted SAP feedback and am seeking some advice on pairing this with a meeting request (and what are the chances of getting a meeting).
I realize these guys are all super busy and if i can get some time I would like it to to be as valuable as possible 1) Am I more or less likely to get a meeting slot if requesting a 1 on 1 meeting, group (fishing buddies) meeting or association related meeting (Kamloops Game and Fish)? 2) Is there specific verbiage I should use in my request, aside from this is extremely important to me and the supporting letter? 3) If I am successful are there any local forum members that are interested in joining, or contributing to my speaking notes?

My very brief thoughts of the situation as a whole, and please weigh if I'm off track, are that the that the cited economic benefits of the rec sector are pennies on the pound when compared to the overall cost of reconciliation, and unfortunately for us, when considering the broader negotiation this card has a lower gov cost and is highly weighted by FN. Meaning, political pressure demonstrating public interest and societal concern/importance (% of population providing feedback) is a very important avenue for moving the needle.
I wouldn't over think it. If he is your MP you are entitled to a face to face meeting - and in your case you know he is already sympathetic to the cause. You may have to ask a couple times but I'm sure you'll get a meeting. Here in Nanaimo I got an initial response when I contacted my MP's office about the SRKW issue, but no follow up. I reached out again about the SAP, pointing out that the first request slipped through the cracks - and I was prioritized within a week. Just be persistent.
 
So there was a small idea that came up at the Town Hall that one of the MP's suggested (I believe it was Blaine Calkins). He mentioned a different letter writing campaign he had been a part of, where they pre-printed a bunch of post cards and strategically placed them in locations where sympathetic supporters may find them (health food stores, in his example). There is no postage required to send mail to Members of Parliament. The end result was Ministers in positions of decision making receiving piles of physical mail, all supporting the same viewpoint. Difficult to ignore.

It seems to me that a similar campaign supporting the positions of the SFAB in the SAP process wouldn't be that difficult to organize. A simple post card with the key points of opposition clearly marked, a space for the sender to include a few of their own personal comments in pen and ink, all addressed to the Minister of DFO. Island Fisherman Magazine is already on the counters of most tackle shops and marine stores in the Province. Perhaps it would be feasible to also use those same production and distribution relationships to assist with a campaign such as this?

I thought it was actually a really novel suggestion and didn't want it to be forgotten about.

I've already emailed Joel @Island Fisherman, as well as Jesse @BCWF and the general BCRFA email address to put the bug in their ear. Hopefully they'll think it is a good idea too, as probably much easier for them to organize than a handful of private citizens. I would contribute financial and time donations to such a campaign, I am sure others here would as well.
 
Thanks for sharing this one, somehow I missed this entire page in the thread. While doings some reading this morning on what I can do to further support an informed decision I realized that Mel is my local MP, sits on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, is the Associate Shadow Minister and appears to have some alignment with our perspectives.

I have met with Mel several times in his role on the Fisheries Standing Committee.
He went so far as to take my partner and I to dinner to delve even deeper into the topics we wanted to see addressed.
He is enlightened and very intelligent.
And he does support our cause.

VERY much worthwhile to engage him on this matter.

As another poster noted, don't overthink the matter.
Mel is more than reasonable, and easy to chat with.
Be yourself, present your concerns and listen when he responds.

If you want some to help review or comment on your speaking notes, feel free to reach out.
Wish I could be there...

Best of Luck!
 
We went down to this yesterday. It was a pretty impressive turnout, and some good speakers.

I’d ad David Eby to aces list of people to contact. It may fall on deaf ears, but he’s running the province that stands to lose out financially
Going back to this comment as I think it's an important one.

Since it’s already been suggested to start rattling the cages at the Provincial level, I figured I’d (with AI's help) put together a quick "how-to" to make it as easy as possible for everyone here to fire off an email.

The Feds might manage the fish, but the Province manages the economy and the communities that will be gutted if this goes south. Here is the "Who" and the "What" to help you customize your own message:

The Target List:

Why these folks?

  • Eby: Needs to know coastal ridings are watching the ballot box.
  • Neill: She’s our primary lead for provincial interests in resources, including fisheries.
  • Kahlon: Needs to see the "business" side of the fishery (boat shops, mechanics, etc.).
  • Kang: If we lose Chinook/Coho access, her tourism mandate is in trouble.
  • Popham: Usually hears from the commercial side; she needs to hear from us.

Talking Points (Pick a couple and put them in your own words):

  • The "Value per Fish" Gap: Hit them with the numbers. Recreational fishing generates about $693 in GDP per salmon, while commercial generates about $7.50. One supports a massive BC service economy; the other is a commodity export.
  • The "Duncan 1,400": Mention the BCRFA Town Hall in Duncan. Point out that 1,400+ people showed up and the absence of Provincial reps was glaring. They need to know we noticed.
  • No "Regional Boards": Tell them we don't want a "patchwork" of rules. We need a consistent, coast-wide policy that protects our right to fish.
  • More than a Hobby: Remind them this is a multi-generational cultural way of life and a primary food source for BC families.
  • Election Impact: Simply put—voters in coastal ridings will remember who had our backs when DFO tried to trade away our access.
Don't forget to CC your own local MLA so they know their specific constituents are fired up.
 
Going back to this comment as I think it's an important one.

Since it’s already been suggested to start rattling the cages at the Provincial level, I figured I’d (with AI's help) put together a quick "how-to" to make it as easy as possible for everyone here to fire off an email.

The Feds might manage the fish, but the Province manages the economy and the communities that will be gutted if this goes south. Here is the "Who" and the "What" to help you customize your own message:

Excellent!
I REALLY like this idea!
 
Sport Fishing Institute

February 2, 2026​

SALMON ALLOCATION POLICY REVIEW AND FEEDBACK

It has been a great experience to be a part of the public fishing community’s awareness raising efforts regarding the Salmon Allocation Policy (SAP) review and DFO's feedback period. Many thanks to everyone who took the time to submit comments directly to DFO during the consultation phase - the volume and quality of those inputs are an important part of the review process.

The effort to raise awareness must continue, and a new phase of feedback is now underway. It’s important that anglers, communities, and businesses that rely on and value the recreational fishery share their views with elected officials and keep doing so until a final decision on a revised SAP is made. The goal for the updated SAP is a balanced approach that includes necessary adjustments to priorities while reaffirming the Common Property status of salmon in Canada and maintaining priority access to Chinook and Coho for the public fishery over the commercial sector.

Although the SAP review has been underway for more than five years, the opportunity to comment on the proposed recommendations has been relatively brief. This is the moment when your voice carries the greatest influence, now is the time to share your views with elected officials.

YOUR VOICE MATTERS - SUBMIT FEEDBACK TO ELECTED OFFICIALS

The key issue - to ensure a healthy and sustainable recreational salmon fishery, DFO must maintain the recreational sector’s priority access to Chinook and Coho, as set out in the 1999 SAP. This priority places the recreational fishery after conservation needs, Indigenous Food, Social, and Ceremonial (FSC) fisheries, and the newly defined Indigenous rights‑based commercial fisheries - but before the general commercial fishery. The rationale and importance for maintaining this priority, along with other SFAB allocation principles, is outlined in detail at Fishingrights.ca.

We strongly encourage anyone who cares about the future of recreational salmon fisheries — and about preserving fair, sustainable access to common property resources in BC to visit Fishingrights.ca, review the information, and share your feedback with elected officials and the Minister as soon as possible.
 
Structural Change Within Recreational Allocations

One issue appropriately under consideration is the significant growth and increasing capacity of
the charter sector operating within recreational allocations.
In some regions, the cumulative
harvest and release impacts of this activity now exceed levels originally anticipated when
recreational allocations were established.
 
Last edited:
we should shoot back and ask for more sockeye, chum and pink limits. ask for dip netting and small gillnetting previsions for public harvest.

**** em

i mean they say its shared right

one good sockeye year for them generates 10+ years of revenue of what ever they would get from an increase in chinook and Coho.

your talking millions of pounds vs thousands
 
Last edited:
Structural Change Within Recreational Allocations

One issue appropriately under consideration is the significant growth and increasing capacity of
the charter sector operating within recreational allocations.
In some regions, the cumulative
harvest and release impacts of this activity now exceed levels originally anticipated when
recreational allocations were established.
And what is incorrect about this statement? When I started trolling on the west coast there were zero rec fisherman offshore. Now there is a full fleet complete with electronics, radar, riggers etc, heck they are even out in numbers on the tuna grounds. This has all happened in the last 30 years. Exceeds levels originally anticipated, (hard to argue this point).

Not buying what the Nuu-chah-nulth are selling though. Lots of bs in there position paper imo.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top