Next round of closures SRKW related

[Tips Up]

When I read all these comments all it does is want me to stay home and not go to the meeting in richmond this week

Its important to go.
And be prepared to ask a pointed question when the question and answer opportunity comes up. Ask a direct question and wait for a direct answer.
It can be intimidating to stand up and ask (as I felt last night) but important to do so.
So many things I would like to have asked but you really need to pick one thing and be clear.

I asked what new means of monitoring and enforcement will be implemented this year to put an end to illegal over fishing on the Fraser.
They responded that there is an enforcement team that is designated to this (nothing new) and that with the new closures it should be easier to enforce. Or something to that effect.

I would like to have asked "After attending meetings like this in the past, hearing and giving good input. I have seen none of it taken into consideration. Why should I have any faith that this meeting is nothing but lip service and a process to check off the box that a meeting was held for public input?"

 

[halimark]

Attended last nights meeting. Again lots of chairs open. Rec fishers seam to ***** but not show up, could not even get my buddies to show up. They don't care anymore. WTH should have been fishermen stuffed into the halls. But no. Those that did show were well versed, had good points, spoke well and asked tough questions, even have hats off to the anti who spoke=took balls. DFO ducked, weaved and played politician, I saw a panel pers "roll their eyes" more than once, got the feeling she was upset to be there. I was not impressed, lip service is what I took from meeting. They want to close JDF, Swiftshore but never been there and hardly know where it is. Closing towns, communities for rec noise reduction all this based on data from a listening buoy? While allowing increased commercial traffic. DFO ignorance, manage from a desk, dumbness shined loud and clear. Decision has been made and its only publicity for votes. I did speak to camera for few seconds so will see how they misuse, distort, twist what I said, OR publish correct.

A huge shout out to all our members who are taking time to fight the fight, SVIAC, SFAB/SFAC, also thanks to Chief Chips, an excellent speech setting the mood early and representing all users.

HM

 

[el.Pereh]

When I read all these comments all it does is want me to stay home and not go to the meeting in richmond this week

Go. I will be there.

 

[agentaqua]

I think the biggest issue I see wrt the SRKW/Chinook issue is that there are numerous self-proclaimed marine mammal "experts" behind the scene that largely know little to nothing about Chinook and have been instrumental thus far in driving the SARA recommendations behind the scenes w/o really being effective in zeroing-in on the migration and timing of the Chinook stocks that the SRKW depend upon for their food while in their SoG and JDF northern feeding areas.

In addition, I am unconvinced that they only eat Chinook and not other larger salmon. I believe they likely take chum and see size rather than species as the thing they echosound onto. Look at where they hang-out near the shore near the Nitnat hatchery (which produces chum). The proposed SARA areas do not reflect these data.

In addition - these same self-proclaimed marine mammal "experts" don't wish to acknowledge their personal biases against taking the seal/Chinook issues as serious or even more serious than their blanket Chinook assertions and recommendations.

We desperately need Dr. Brian Riddell and other Chinook and/or salmon experts in equal abundances as the marine mammal experts driving these SARA responses.

 

[Irishwolf]

@agentaqua Great post. Where did you get that map? This is what I was asking about last night, they need to push their analysis further, hone in on actual focused area hot spots or corridors of travel and frequencies for the whales instead of a blanket area closures because a whale "might" show up. Otherwise it's akin to shutting down the airspace over a major airport because a mosquito might fly by.

As for the guys not wanting to go. GO! If nothing else to show support for the rec fishermen and to maybe learn something. For example, one woman said she was here to defend the whales but didn't realize the hit the rec fishermen were taking.

For those that want to speak, they give you 1 min, but never enforced it last night. So as someone else said here, be focused and direct. Push them for actual references and don't accept the "we have had lot of studies done" answer.

 

[SpringVelocity]

I am going tonight to support our local Vic/Sooke/Renfrew/Westcoast fisherman, and we are from Nanaimo. To be honest most that have commented on here don't ever go to meetings anyway ( same people posting). I get everybody is angry but this is not the time to stick your head in sand. Remember the NGO groups are watching these threads, and we already know anglers on here are also part of this push of misinformation.

How sad 150 anglers attending in one of the most populated fisheries on island. That is sad.

 

[Aces]

They only do these meetings so people can attend and vent a little.
Otherwise the process is already decided.

That’s how they have done it for over 20 years

 

[wildmanyeah]

That’s how they have done it for over 20 years

20 years only gets ya back to 1998 lol

 

[fishin solo]

Who can do Richmond. All you have to do is show up early and tell everyone the plan as they arrive.
@fishin solo are you or your friends going to be there?

Unfortunately I’m at work offshore and won’t be in town

 

[High Time]

Will be at the Richmond SRKW meeting tomorrow.

 

[fish brain]

Unfortunately I’m at work offshore and won’t be in town

It's not a placard waving type of event anyway. The best format for this event is direct and pointed questions and comments.

 

[Irishwolf]

Seawest is a site created and supported financially by Salmon Farms. Anything that comes from that site is opinion based and biased towards the Salmon Farms main oblective, which is maintaining status quo in regards to the open pen feedlots. I don't read anything from there as its usually garbage.

I didn’t see anything in that article about being biased one way or another. It’s mostly a big quote from the head Marine mammal guy at UBC, on how fake information spreads using the ship noise issue as an example.

 

[Redfisher]

" So as fishers of the Salish Sea, we are required to cut back our harvest." I for one am done with this "Salish Sea" notion. This is the "Gulf of Georgia" not the Salish Sea.

Much of this "new language" we are being fed is being driven by the same types of politicians (advised by bureaucrats) who have largely ignored the issues in the Pacific Ocean surrounding salmon on many levels (and here in the Gulf). As one simple visual example consider sea lions. I grew up at French Creek in the 60's. There are now always at least 100 sea lions laying on the breakwater. They didn't exist there in the 60's and the Gulf was full of salmon. The local rivers with their hatchery produced salmon are now feeding sources for the seals and lions both on the outflow of smolts and the inflow of spawners. They will clean up more salmon than any recreational salmon fleet by far.

In the bigger picture DFO as a government organization has failed to do their basic job. However if you look at how their mandate has changed to being more Coast Guard related and a political tool of the federal government, it is no surprise. In their transition they have killed the commercial salmon industry (I was one of them) and are now killing the recreational salmon industry. They ignored the science on the East Coast with the cod and don't appear to have utilized it much on this coast with the salmon.

I for one do not trust DFO and their lead bureaucrats. The political agenda behind the scenes simply sucks. If you are not Fortune 500 or FN there doesn't appear to be room for you in the future.

 

[IronNoggin]

... Something I took note of and decided to challenge them by email last night once again was the whole seal-hake-smolt relationship. They essentially blew off the cull argument right away bringing that up, the same argument that NGO's use all the time....

The next time anyone hears a DFO staffer saying this, please make a point of recording that individual's name and position. Then get it to me asap please & thanks.

Dr. Carl Walters was directly involved in the initial studies relating to hake predation.
He has since publicly noted (as have his colleagues) that they made an error in estimation of exponential proportions. Thus it is now their firm belief that the potential impacts were greatly misrepresented as a consequence in this case.

This fact was discussed with DFO in the last PBPS meeting with them. Carl explained in detail this exact matter. All within DFO Science agreed he was correct. Therefore no DFO personnel should be continuing to parrot discredited information whatsoever.

In the thread PBPS The Science ( https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...-balance-pinniped-scociety-the-science.74345/ ), Dr. Walter's presentation regarding seal harvesting includes a component on this very matter. Quite worth while to take that in - there is considerable amount of extremely good and up-to-date information within that.

Cheers,
Nog

 

[Deewar25]

The next time anyone hears a DFO staffer saying this, please make a point of recording that individual's name and position. Then get it to me asap please & thanks.

Dr. Carl Walters was directly involved in the initial studies relating to hake predation.
He has since publicly noted (as have his colleagues) that they made an error in estimation of exponential proportions. Thus it is now their firm belief that the potential impacts were greatly misrepresented as a consequence in this case.

This fact was discussed with DFO in the last PBPS meeting with them. Carl explained in detail this exact matter. All within DFO Science agreed he was correct. Therefore no DFO personnel should be continuing to parrot discredited information whatsoever.

In the thread PBPS The Science ( https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...-balance-pinniped-scociety-the-science.74345/ ), Dr. Walter's presentation regarding seal harvesting includes a component on this very matter. Quite worth while to take that in - there is considerable amount of extremely good and up-to-date information within that.

Cheers,
Nog

well hello there - very interesting! Yes, definite puppet talk on Tuesday about this matter (don't recall which one on panel thou - 3rd or 4th guy over I think but didn't record names..lol) I will certainly review this further as I have probably challenged NGO's online 7-8 times about this and they never back down or provide any proof. This is the ONE argument that I really feel could have justified a hands off on the cull idea......if it were true of course!

 

[Deewar25]

Will be at the Richmond SRKW meeting tomorrow.

hey, any chance you would be able to present the question about hake tonight? Interesting listening to that presentation from Carl Walters - (can jump to 54 minute mark in that presentation) - for feeding rates, they used a number in their modeling for hake that was 5x what it should have been and it proves zero effect as seal population falls (which is obvious in fact that it was a non issue for the whole of the last century even when seal counts were low). My question would be 'if the relationship between hake/seal/smolt has been now shown to be incorrectly leveraged as a reason not to cull, why would your staff still bring it up when asked during the Victoria meeting?'

I would love to see their response to that! ha

 

[IronNoggin]

hey, any chance you would be able to present the question about hake tonight?

If you do manage to accommodate Dewar's request, PLEASE collect the names & positions of those within DFO that answer (as well as the gist of the reply).
We would really appreciate that, and can use it going forward... (misinformation being touted directly by DFO suggests collusion with ENGO positions).

Thanks in advance!
Matt

 

[Deewar25]

If you do manage to accommodate Dewar's request, PLEASE collect the names & positions of those within DFO that answer (as well as the gist of the reply).
We would really appreciate that, and can use it going forward... (misinformation being touted directly by DFO suggests collusion with ENGO positions).

Thanks in advance!
Matt

I will send a note to Chek and see if they were there long enough to catch that response - I know they weren't there until the end, but maybe they caught it.

 

[halimark]

It was the DFO rep at the Vic bear Mnt meeting that stated the seal/hake/smolt issue. Stating that "studies" have proven that seals eat large amounts of hake, removing some seals could lead to larger hake populations that could prey on more salmon smolts. He ended with lots more science and data must be done before any pinniped cull happens. I cant see how removing pinnipeds that are at river mouths can hurt salmon? As they learn this habit=bang flop. Lots of the DFO data seamed BS to me, I was amazed at how little the panel really understood about anything pertinent. Proven beyond a doubt that they manage from a desk. No boots on the ground to see what's really happening. He did also state that all river fishing will be closed including FN. At that point I fully comprehended his BS, hot air and say whatever to appease the crowd.

HM

 

[SpringVelocity]

Wow NGO fest at the mainland meeting. They sure came prepared. Interesting
questions and very different from island meetings...

They are going after whale watching as well.