Next round of closures SRKW related

It may have been talked about before on this thread, but I haven't seen it myself. Has anybody brought up a boycott of anti-fishing corporations? Is there a list out there of companies that support a ban on Salmon fishing to ostensibly support SRKW recovery? One prominent company comes to mind, Patagonia. Read some of their SRKW propaganda supporting a fishing ban in Washington state. They manufacture a line of waders jackets and other fishing related clothing. Don't buy it!
I met this week with the Canadian sales manager of a major fishing equipment manufacturer. He was wearing a Patagonia Jacket. I called him on it, and he said he should burn it. I told him he should burn it and record it, saying why he was burning it, and put it up on Youtube. The only way to get large companies to back off on this no fishing B.S. is to affect their bottom line.
 
Listen to what big mouth Greg Taylor from MCC had to say today in last day for feedback. This is posted publicly on Raincoast Facebook page:

Feedback to to the Minister from Greg Taylor regarding upcoming decision:

As a member of the SRKW Technical Working Group on Prey Availability and Accessibility, we find the actions taken on prey availability and accessibility insufficient. Our specific concerns are:

1. A key objective was to reduce disturbance associated with recreational fishing. DFO has proposed going to non-retention fisheries in Areas 20-1, 19, 18, and 29. Experience with non-retention fisheries in North America indicates that moving to non-retention may not reduce effort and therefore disturbance.

2. Non-retention fisheries only means mortality of key Fraser River Chinook populations is reduced, not eliminated. And research indicates short-term mortality is high, especially in respect to what is reported by DFO, see: https://www.mccpacific.org/.../Fraser-Chinook-FRIM...

3. In 2019 DFO is proposing to introduce a guidance that would ask recreational fishers to quit fishing if SRKW come within one kilometer of them. This is a voluntary requirement with little associated monitoring and no ability to enforce the guidance. It is disturbing that when fishery management agencies around the world are moving to independent, third party monitoring and tighter enforcement of fishing regulations; DFO is moving in the opposite direction. There is a reason why the rest of the world is moving to independent monitoring and better enforcement, good fishery management - as outlined by the FAO - demands it.

4. DFO, after persistent questioning, has indicated it has no plan to maintain fishery monitoring of effort and encounters in recreational fisheries at a level of what was in place in 2019. Nor does it plan to collect DNA samples from released fish to estimate the stock composition of the catch. Finally, DFO refuses to address the question of how many released chinook survive to eventually spawn, even in the face of its own science that says it is required.

5. DFO has not challenged the statements issued by the recreational industry saying that Fraser 4-2 and 5-2 chinook (which are of critical importance to SRKWs) represent only 1% of their total catch. DFO knows from their DNA samples that the proportion of 4-2 and 5-2 chinook in the recreational catch, in the months these populations are migrating through SRKW critical habitat, is significant. In 2018, the total escapement of these populations was around 16,000. The estimated totality mortality of these populations in the recreational fishery was between 12,103 and 15,428.

The MCC continues to recommend that, for the above reasons, all salmon fishing be closed in SRKW critical habitat between May 1st and July 31st. Anything else is indefensible.

Marine Conservation Caucus
 
Last edited:
And foreign companies like patagonia are paying the bills for these ENGO's. Don't buy Patagonia!
Any mention of FSC fishing being the largest exploiters of the upper Fraser Chinooks? Of course not. The blame seems to be squarely placed at the foot of the recreational fishery. And the sport catch is between 12-15 thousand fish? What happened to 1%?
 
Last edited:
he has been bought and paid for, he has been retained as a fisheries advisor, using his knowledge and experience to do what ever watershed watch tells him to do.

The only way to combat this is to hire our own fisheries experts to go out in the media and do the same. Problem is we have no money.
 
SpringVelocity said:
But they are our friends ....
Click to expand...
I think the Whale watching Industry are their friends. They want us right off the water. Why not propose independant third party monitoring for the FSC fishery and get some data there? Not even a mention of the Fish Farms travesty. Just go after the easy pickings in the Sporty. If the DFO listens to this crap they may need to be reminded that the Sporty actually gets a vote in October. There is a swamp that needs to be drained in the DFO and if the current polititians won't do it maybe a new crop will.
 
terrin said:
Not even a mention of the Fish Farms travesty.
Click to expand...

Watchershed watch got their win on fish farms....they are removing them out of the brighton remember...if you want to build a fish farm you need First Nation permission.
 
wildmanyeah said:
Watchershed watch got their win on fish farms....they are removing them out of the brighton remember...if you want to build a fish farm you need First Nation permission.
Click to expand...
I still have not seen one Fish Farm removed. But the Wild Fish are steadily shrinking in numbers.
 
saltcod said:
And foreign companies like patagonia are paying the bills for these ENGO's. Don't buy Patagonia!
Any mention of FSC fishing being the largest exploiters of the upper Fraser Chinooks? Of course not. The blame seems to be squarely placed at the foot of the recreational fishery. And the sport catch is between 12-15 thousand fish? What happened to 1%?
Click to expand...
FSC fishing is part of the FN treaty rights it just needs to be properly monitored to stop Black Market Fishing where the real slaughter takes place. If you don't monitor how do you stop the Black Market? Time to have some accountability.
 
SpringVelocity said:
5. DFO has not challenged the statements issued by the recreational industry saying that Fraser 4-2 and 5-2 chinook (which are of critical importance to SRKWs) represent only 1% of their total catch. DFO knows from their DNA samples that the proportion of 4-2 and 5-2 chinook in the recreational catch, in the months these populations are migrating through SRKW critical habitat, is significant. In 2018, the total escapement of these populations was around 16,000. The estimated totality mortality of these populations in the recreational fishery was between 12,103 and 15,428.
Click to expand...

Wow, Looks like we didn't leave any for the seals....They must be starving and wasting away also.... :rolleyes:
I'd like to see his (Greg Taylor from MCC) source of peer reviewed scientific research that he pulled these numbers from. What a crock....
 
bigdogeh said:
Wow, Looks like we didn't leave any for the seals....They must be starving and wasting away also.... :rolleyes:
I'd like to see his (Greg Taylor from MCC) source of peer reviewed scientific research that he pulled these numbers from. What a crock....
Click to expand...
"significant" ... classic weasel word
 
bigdogeh said:
Wow, Looks like we didn't leave any for the seals....They must be starving and wasting away also.... :rolleyes:
I'd like to see his (Greg Taylor from MCC) source of peer reviewed scientific research that he pulled these numbers from. What a crock....
Click to expand...

Those numbers are from this discussion paper, page 7 table 2 for 2018, it's not peered reviewed.

2. Non-retention fisheries only means mortality of key Fraser River Chinook populations is reduced, not eliminated. And research indicates short-term mortality is high, especially in respect to what is reported by DFO, see: https://www.mccpacific.org/.../Fraser-Chinook-FRIM...

I'm still looking for some numbers from other sources but as you might imagine it's not easy. I would be interested in where the numbers came from that were advertised here as credible. The one that says we only are responsible for .63% from these same stocks. Clearly there is a huge difference even though we have 2 different types of numbers.

Can anyone explain how these numbers were calculated?


chinook-protest-graph.jpg
 
GLG said:
Those numbers are from this discussion paper, page 7 table 2 for 2018, it's not peered reviewed.

2. Non-retention fisheries only means mortality of key Fraser River Chinook populations is reduced, not eliminated. And research indicates short-term mortality is high, especially in respect to what is reported by DFO, see: https://www.mccpacific.org/.../Fraser-Chinook-FRIM...

I'm still looking for some numbers from other sources but as you might imagine it's not easy. I would be interested in where the numbers came from that were advertised here as credible. The one that says we only are responsible for .63% from these same stocks. Clearly there is a huge difference even though we have 2 different types of numbers.

Can anyone explain how these numbers were calculated?


chinook-protest-graph.jpg
Click to expand...

Don't quote me on this but I think That is based on avid angler DNA data. The vancouver guides have a pretty robust database so I'm not sure why that paper above says that dna is not available??.

That being said this http://www.frafs.ca/sites/default/files2/Day 1 2019 Fraser River Chinook Conservation Measures.pdf puts the intercept from JS SPORT and SOG sport for the 4-2 indicator at less than 1%. based on just the intercept of indicator stock
 
wildmanyeah said:
Don't quote me on this but I think That is based on avid angler DNA data. The vancouver guides have a pretty robust database so I'm not sure why that paper above says that dna is not available??.

That being said this http://www.frafs.ca/sites/default/files2/Day 1 2019 Fraser River Chinook Conservation Measures.pdf puts the intercept from JS SPORT and SOG sport for the 4-2 indicator at less than 1%. based on just the intercept of indicator stock
Click to expand...
Thanks, I posted that pdf on another thread but I think you misread the % on that table as I see it as just over 4% for those 2 zones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Adler
2024-25 DFO proposal and survey on salmon measures
Replies
55
Views
8K
Salmonslayer1992
Salmonslayer1992
Salted
SRKW Managment 2023 Survey (Open until Feb 19 2023)
Replies
1
Views
703
Salted
Salted
SpringVelocity
Prawn Closure
Replies
3
Views
3K
seachicken
seachicken
SVIAC
URGENT NOTICE: Feb 16 Areas 18-20,29 SRKW Options Consultation Mtgs.
Replies
22
Views
3K
wildmanyeah
W
W
Government of Canada working to rebuild Pacific salmon populations
Replies
9
Views
2K
mbowers
mbowers
Back
Top