Bryan Allen
Well-Known Member
Informative documentary on effect of MPAs on our commercial fishing industry.
MPA documentry ,,,
- Thread starter Bryan Allen
- Start date
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Stop voting for the Liberals and the NDP.
PEETZcanada
Well-Known Member
Again, the real issue is the governments of all types accepting the UN declarations and in many cases implementing the declarations into law. How many years ago did I warn you all about MPA and Land Protected Areas? Maybe around 20 years ago. I know, but I can't help that I see things way sooner than most.
Mpa may not be a bad thing in all cases but what ever restrictions they may or may not have need to apply to all harvesters. Last I had heard some FN were talking they they would be great for exclusive harvest areas for themselves. If something requires protection then it requires protection from all.
I agree Peetz just agreeing to UNDRIP with no thought or planning is not a good idea.... reconciliation without a plan is what I call it.
I agree Peetz just agreeing to UNDRIP with no thought or planning is not a good idea.... reconciliation without a plan is what I call it.
I've been pointing out the disruptive changes soon coming from the impending quiet implementation of this North & Central Coast of BC Northern Shelf Bioregion Proposed National Marine Conservation Area Reserve MPA for a couple years now.
Since Harper pulled the feds from PNCIMA in 2011 - the feds (& particularly DFO) have been absent from the numerous MPA planning processes that have led us here, including the 1st the collapse of PNCIMA (https://www.thenorthernview.com/new...cima-funding-agreement-ndp-cries-foul-5940463) - which then led to MaPP (https://mappocean.org/about-mapp/faqs/) headed by the CFNs - and then now this newest NSB iteration (https://coastalfirstnations.ca/our-...ed-area/northern-shelf-bioregion-mpa-network/).
This is especially problematic when management of fisheries is considered - as the DFO Commercial fishing regulations & areas that are used to manage fisheries (https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/areas-secteurs/index-eng.html) do not match these 357 separate NSB MPA proposed closure/regulation areas (https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/nsb-mpan-ramp-bpn/images/figure-4-eng.jpg), as but one 1st big problem that should have been obvious.
And as PEETZ pointed-out - the MPA planners lead by ENGOs instead went with the UN International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines MPA methodology (https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-021.pdf) w/o even looking at important metrics like bycatch and how commercial fisheries are regulated because DFO & fishery managers were not included in MaPP after Harper pulled everyone out of PNCIMA.
Commercial fisheries are managed by DFO through various Acts such as the Fisheries Act; but NOT Parks Canada and NOT through the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act. I do not see legally how Parks Canada can "regulate" commercial fisheries except through exclusion to an area - which is what is happening as the video that Bryan posted points out.
Different fisheries use different fishing gear, and have differences in what bycatch is intercepted when, where and how. It is not homogeneous as erroneously presented in the rationale for fishery closures in the preliminary assessment for potential negative consequences for the NSB MPA. Bycatch is not responsible for salmon declines in BC. Neither are shrimp trawls responsible for Eulachon depletion. I very much challenge those unsupported allegations. Seals & MMs are the most likely culprits. I & many others have data to support these assertions - reality that ma many ENGO reps uncomfortable as it challenges their unsupported assertions. Some gear types even have ZERO impact on any habitat (e.g. trolling & mid-water trawl). Habitat use is also 4D - not 2D unlike this MPA mapping project - depth and season/timing is also important for critical stages of life history processes for fisheries.
And there is NO DEFENSIBLE SCIENTIFIC RATIONALE for Trudeau's governments assertion that they want "Canada’s path to 25 per cent ocean protection by 2025" https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...-to-25-per-cent-ocean-protection-by-2025.html
It is only for a political reason - for a 30 second soundbite promoted by ENGOs.
And the ENGOs are pushing for 100% closure - because they will have their jobs afterwards. They don't have to live with the negative consequences of these decisions they are advocating for. Typical.
Instead, the government could have claimed that they would close 100% of the known lingcod egg deposit shoals in the spring from fishing gear - and close 100% of the areas holding staging Eulachons from shrimp trawl door boat gear during March/April and had their 30 second soundbite. But they would have to understand how the numerous, very different & diverse fisheries operate and their bycatch and take this into consideration if they did that. And that's not what Parks Canada does - DFO does that. The wrong agency is being used to regulate fisheries here.
Another issue is that CPUE (Catch Per Unit Effort) of operating fisheries used to identify important MPA areas do not necessarily indicate relative abundances nor critical habitat for different life history stages of various fish species & "hotspots". CPUE was one major metric underlying how these "representation of broad habitat types" Protection Management Zones in the NSB MPA area were chosen. Fishing is an economic commitment that has to make money to survive. Fuel costs money and vessels fishing are well aware of these costs and take proactive measures to reduce fuel costs by fishing near ports of offload (e.g. Prince Rupert & Port Hardy), and near safe anchorages for obvious weather needs. If they are forced out of these areas - they cannot survive.
ALL of the central and North Coast communities especially including the First Nations communities on the North and Central Coast are dependent upon fishing to survive - unlike more urban areas & cities where the ENGO reps that promote MPAs & earn money off MPA campaigns reside.
What a mess!
Since Harper pulled the feds from PNCIMA in 2011 - the feds (& particularly DFO) have been absent from the numerous MPA planning processes that have led us here, including the 1st the collapse of PNCIMA (https://www.thenorthernview.com/new...cima-funding-agreement-ndp-cries-foul-5940463) - which then led to MaPP (https://mappocean.org/about-mapp/faqs/) headed by the CFNs - and then now this newest NSB iteration (https://coastalfirstnations.ca/our-...ed-area/northern-shelf-bioregion-mpa-network/).
This is especially problematic when management of fisheries is considered - as the DFO Commercial fishing regulations & areas that are used to manage fisheries (https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/areas-secteurs/index-eng.html) do not match these 357 separate NSB MPA proposed closure/regulation areas (https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/nsb-mpan-ramp-bpn/images/figure-4-eng.jpg), as but one 1st big problem that should have been obvious.
And as PEETZ pointed-out - the MPA planners lead by ENGOs instead went with the UN International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines MPA methodology (https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/PAG-021.pdf) w/o even looking at important metrics like bycatch and how commercial fisheries are regulated because DFO & fishery managers were not included in MaPP after Harper pulled everyone out of PNCIMA.
Commercial fisheries are managed by DFO through various Acts such as the Fisheries Act; but NOT Parks Canada and NOT through the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act. I do not see legally how Parks Canada can "regulate" commercial fisheries except through exclusion to an area - which is what is happening as the video that Bryan posted points out.
Different fisheries use different fishing gear, and have differences in what bycatch is intercepted when, where and how. It is not homogeneous as erroneously presented in the rationale for fishery closures in the preliminary assessment for potential negative consequences for the NSB MPA. Bycatch is not responsible for salmon declines in BC. Neither are shrimp trawls responsible for Eulachon depletion. I very much challenge those unsupported allegations. Seals & MMs are the most likely culprits. I & many others have data to support these assertions - reality that ma many ENGO reps uncomfortable as it challenges their unsupported assertions. Some gear types even have ZERO impact on any habitat (e.g. trolling & mid-water trawl). Habitat use is also 4D - not 2D unlike this MPA mapping project - depth and season/timing is also important for critical stages of life history processes for fisheries.
And there is NO DEFENSIBLE SCIENTIFIC RATIONALE for Trudeau's governments assertion that they want "Canada’s path to 25 per cent ocean protection by 2025" https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...-to-25-per-cent-ocean-protection-by-2025.html
It is only for a political reason - for a 30 second soundbite promoted by ENGOs.
And the ENGOs are pushing for 100% closure - because they will have their jobs afterwards. They don't have to live with the negative consequences of these decisions they are advocating for. Typical.
Instead, the government could have claimed that they would close 100% of the known lingcod egg deposit shoals in the spring from fishing gear - and close 100% of the areas holding staging Eulachons from shrimp trawl door boat gear during March/April and had their 30 second soundbite. But they would have to understand how the numerous, very different & diverse fisheries operate and their bycatch and take this into consideration if they did that. And that's not what Parks Canada does - DFO does that. The wrong agency is being used to regulate fisheries here.
Another issue is that CPUE (Catch Per Unit Effort) of operating fisheries used to identify important MPA areas do not necessarily indicate relative abundances nor critical habitat for different life history stages of various fish species & "hotspots". CPUE was one major metric underlying how these "representation of broad habitat types" Protection Management Zones in the NSB MPA area were chosen. Fishing is an economic commitment that has to make money to survive. Fuel costs money and vessels fishing are well aware of these costs and take proactive measures to reduce fuel costs by fishing near ports of offload (e.g. Prince Rupert & Port Hardy), and near safe anchorages for obvious weather needs. If they are forced out of these areas - they cannot survive.
ALL of the central and North Coast communities especially including the First Nations communities on the North and Central Coast are dependent upon fishing to survive - unlike more urban areas & cities where the ENGO reps that promote MPAs & earn money off MPA campaigns reside.
What a mess!
Last edited:
Exactly AA. Why would we need to close any fisheries if they are being managed properly using the precautionary principle and their is good population data and little to no by catch. There are many such fisheries ( sea cucumber, geoduck, clam etc) yet there is still the call for protection for nothing more than political reasons.
Similar threads
