Petition e-6933 Stop additional closures

chris73 said:
I did not see any meaningful consultation with the rec sector about the proposed measures. If DFO did the same with FN and called this joke "consultation" they'd be sued immediately.
Click to expand...
DFO held public meetings - you may recall meetings in Victoria and Sooke? They have also held numerous meetings with local SFAC groups and the SFAB Conference Board. Additionally, the SFAB has been fully engaged in all the Technical Working Groups and Multi-party consultations.

The SFAB is the official advisory body to the Minister of Fisheries, and is a grass roots organization with 25 local Sport Fish Advisory Committees (SFAC) that any recreational angler can join and participate within. Each local SFAC can provide feedback in the form of motions up to Species Committees or in the case of SRKW, to the SRKW Working Group (WG). That WG in turn provides input to the SFAB Conference Board (SB), and any motions or advice that is supported at the CB becomes the official advice to the Minster of Fisheries. In the case of SRKW, the WG provided a full report with recommendations for alternative incremental measures. Those were adopted and forwarded to DFO as advice to the Minister in the last round of public consultations.

So, I would suggest meaningful and fulsome consultation has taken place.

Attached below is a summary section from the SFAB Advice to Minister document. The SFAB submission was 12 pages, which is too large to post here - Appendix A captures a brief summary of recommendations.


Appendix A​



SFAB Recommendations

  • DFO investigate transitioning SRKW management measures to an adaptive management approach as a response to government direction to the Emergency Order response requesting new incremental measures
  • Given high spatial temporal variability of SRKW foraging behaviour, the SFAB recommends DFO transition to an adaptive management approach
  • DFO incorporates a principle of applying analysis of how management measures achieve effective balance between those measures and ensuring social and economic benefits to Canada are optimized
  • Proposed extensions to closure periods are held in abeyance pending a DFO review to develop clear objective science-based assessment of the benefit to SRKW prey availability directly related to implementation of these measures.
  • Additionally, the Department undertakes an economic analysis of the impact of this proposal to inform decision makers seeking to assess the balance between what is to be gained and lost.
  • To support implementation, the SFAB recommends DFO investigates the following issues:
  • Total Chinook Abundance:
  • Current status of chinook abundance in SRKW habitat during the time SRKW are present – aligned to areas currently part of fixed spatial-temporal fishery closures – establish a baseline to measure changes over time
  • Analysis of prey availability within existing areas designated to assess effectiveness of management measures performance delivery (all prey made available for SRKW)
  • Analysis of Fraser stream-type chinook made available through implementing existing measures – comparative analysis of Fraser to all other sources of chinook, chum, coho
  • Analysis of the effect of prey competition from recreational fishing activity specifically within existing


Recovery Objectives, Measures and Targets:



  • DFO undertake investigation and research to inform development of incremental measures, but those must be framed from a management focus that also achieves a balance with social and economic considerations as a key principle.
  • Evaluation to identify objective metrics to measure fishery management measure performance
  • DFO establish clear recovery objectives for all SRKW proposed measures to address Chinook abundance (prey availability & accessibility)
  • DFO evaluate exemptions for commercial Whale Watching operations to determine if synchronization to a 400m avoidance zone standard is in the best interest of SRKW prey acquisition requirements to limit physical and acoustic disturbances from these vessels as an effective incremental measure to enhance SRKW prey acquisition success
  • Department’s undertake comparative investigative analysis of the performance of existing fishery closures and static non-adaptive measures in delivering objective protection benefit outcomes for SRKW against adaptive management measures proposed by the SFAB
  • The proposed chinook closure brings little if any meaningful benefit, and while it provides the appearance of implementing an incremental measure, it creates confusion, uncertainty and impedes the stable environment necessary to attract tourists to fishing dependent communities. For these reasons, we recommend this proposal does not advance.
  • Before bringing this proposal forward in future, the Department complete a thorough analysis to determine the differential benefit of the Chinook Closure vs other measure such as non-retention or adaptive management options proposed by the SFAB.
  • DFO Economics and Policy Branch complete an analysis to measure the benefit to SRKW management measures against the opportunity cost of Social and Economic benefits the recreational fishery provides to GDP and job creation






​
 
Last edited:
searun said:
When I first saw this petition, like others I was happy to see someone taking action. In retrospect, I wish I had reviewed it more extensively before supporting it.

So I took some time to carefully review the petition wording to critically examine my original thinking and support; 1) what action and solutions are being requested or offered to this government; and 2) anticipate how the Fisheries Minister would respond once the petition is delivered. The more I looked and pondered the petition wording reading it as if I was the Fisheries Minister, the more the petition doesn't make any sense. Looking at each of the petition requests investigating what DFO or the Minister has completed or not....Here's what I found:

Petition Requests are:

"We, the undersigned, residents of Coastal Communities of Vancouver Island, call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to urgently bring together all relevant stakeholders, including recreational fishers, to complete consultations and establish effective, science-driven actions that support recovery and sustainability for Southern Resident Killer Whales in British Columbia's waters while also sustaining the multimillion-dollar recreational fishing industry that coastal communities depend on."

Here's what the Petition asks of the Fisheries Minister - and what action has already been completed:

1) Bring together all relevant stakeholders - DONE
2) Establish consultations - DONE
3) Establish science-driven actions to support recovery of SRKW - DONE
4) Sustain recreational fishing industry and communities that depend on it - FAILED

So moving onto putting myself in the shoes so to speak of the Minister and considering how I would respond to this Petition as Fisheries Minister, I looked back to see what DFO has historically done to address SRKW issues. The formal reply to this petition are simple - DFO has already DONE most of what the petition requests.

This petition unfortunately asks the Minister to do things that DFO has already completed - and worse, does not offer a viable solution to the 4th request - how does the petition suggest as a solution the Minister moves to implement an action(s) that sustain the recreational fishing industry - and even better - why and what solution would create a balance between supporting recreational fishing opportunity while also enhancing protections for SRKW?? This petition unfortunately doesn't address those objectives. I wish the petition could have been better researched and formulated...as written, the Fisheries Minister will have no problem responding to this petition.

The authors of the petition should have done some homework prior to drafting it...clearly some specifics requested - DFO has already completed 90% of what has been requested.

1) Established a mulit-stake holder consultation - DFO has done so since 2018 - Transport Canada (TC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Parks Canada (PC) worked with Indigenous communities and organizations (including through the Southern Resident Killer Whale Multi-Nation Group), the Southern Resident Killer Whale Indigenous and Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group (IMAG), the Technical Working Groups (TWGs), stakeholders, and the general public to inform the development of the 2025 and 2026 management measures to address the threats of physical and acoustic disturbance by vessels to Southern Resident Killer Whales.

2) Establish Consultations - See above - extensive consultation venues have been undertaken

3) Science-driven actions - Each of the Technical Working Groups have within their memberships leading experts from the scientific community in BC and WA State, including other knowledge holders (FN's, Recreational community, ENGO's).
Click to expand...
That all makes sense to me and is valuable input. I signed the petition anyway before this, but I also met with the sponsor (Tamara Kronis - Nanaimo/Ladysmith MP) last week, after following the advice that in person meetings make more of an impression than just writing an email (which I also did). I spoke to her about the the SRKW issue as well as the SAP one. I am no expert on either issue, so not the best positioned to convince her or anyone else in Ottawa about anything - I can just tell them what I do know and what I think about it, which I did. It was evident to me through this meeting though that she is not very versed in fishing issues. She's from Toronto originally, not BC. My take is she got some emails from angry fisherman in her constituency, and so she sponsored this position in response. Which is better than nothing. But there is plenty of room for her to be further educated on the details, and to hear suggestions about more effective steps that could be taken.
 
chille51 said:
That all makes sense to me and is valuable input. I signed the petition anyway before this, but I also met with the sponsor (Tamara Kronis - Nanaimo/Ladysmith MP) last week, after following the advice that in person meetings make more of an impression than just writing an email (which I also did). I spoke to her about the the SRKW issue as well as the SAP one. I am no expert on either issue, so not the best positioned to convince her or anyone else in Ottawa about anything - I can just tell them what I do know and what I think about it, which I did. It was evident to me through this meeting though that she is not very versed in fishing issues. She's from Toronto originally, not BC. My take is she got some emails from angry fisherman in her constituency, and so she sponsored this position in response. Which is better than nothing. But there is plenty of room for her to be further educated on the details, and to hear suggestions about more effective steps that could be taken.
Click to expand...
My hat is off to you for taking the initiative to meet with your MP to express concerns. No one needs be an expert to ask your elected MP for help addressing these issues - which are political not so much about science. I've also met with my MP and gained some very valuable insights as to how to go about the petition process (one reason why I went back to review the current petition). I've also met Tamara when I was in Ottawa a couple of months back - and yes, she is a new MP with not a lot of Fish politics experience, but seemed very keen to make a difference which I also found to be very refreshing.

Hoping others will see from your excellent example, that anyone of us can reach out to our MP to seek their help - that's why the vast majority of MP's ran for office....the more people from our recreational community take the time to reach out to our MP's the better!
 
scott craven said:
Do you mean take what little one sector has left and give it to another whole heartedly ?
Isn't that fair? 😔
Click to expand...
No , quite the opposite , just call a spade a spade and be done with it, most everyone thats on here knows exactly why we're at this point, using whales and Sara are whats being used against the common Canadian going out and catching some fresh fish for the dinner table, the slot size restrictions are perfect examples of this slap in the face of non indigenous Canadians ,release that over so it can be caught in a net somewhere in a river, if it were truly about rebuilding/saving stocks for whales and Sara listed runs then everyone, and I mean EVERYONE who fishes in BC would be taking a hit whether its on the chuck or in rivers.
Call a spade a spade and be done with all this smoke and mirrors bs
 
Last edited:
searun said:
SARA was the tool the ENGO's weaponized, these new incremental measures are the result...those are the facts. Don't take my word on it, research how we got to here from there.
Click to expand...
I understand the tools being used, to hell with " feelings"!!
the actual truth should be yelled from the mountain tops and at the table!
 
The way I look at it any attempt to draw attention to the problem is important. The petition may not be worded perfectly and the Minister may ignore it but it’s nonetheless a display of dissatisfaction with the status quo. We have to remember there is a big difference between the politicians and their employees. DFO reps make recommendations, politicians approve them. DFO employees represents the Minister and are tasked to gather info on the Ministers behalf, something I personally feel they don’t do well. DFO also act as gatekeepers and it’s in their best interest to suggest all info be approved by them prior to going to the “Boss”. Things like directly contacting the Minister and indeed petitions are a means to display a breakdown in meaningful consultation and poor communication through the DFO system. The Minster may well look at the petition in question and say “we’re already doing that”. On the other hand the Minister may well say “ why is it no one knows what we are doing? Are we connecting with those concerned, or do we need to take a hard look at the system we’re using”.
Anyway IMO any means used to get the point across, regardless of the imperfections, is better than nothing.
 
SpringFever2359 said:
No , quite the opposite , just call a spade a spade and be done with it, most everyone thats on here knows exactly why we're at this point, using whales and Sara are whats being used against the common Canadian going out and catching some fresh fish for the dinner table, the slot size restrictions are perfect examples of this slap in the face of non indigenous Canadians ,release that over so it can be caught in a net somewhere in a river, if it were truly about rebuilding/saving stocks for whales and Sara listed runs then everyone, and I mean EVERYONE who fishes in BC would be taking a hit whether its on the chuck or in rivers.
Call a spade a spade and be done with all this smoke and mirrors bs
Click to expand...
I think we are on the same page, I agree with you !
 
Well here's what is happening next - strap into your 5 point seat belt before you read this one...Section 2 that is. I'm OK with 1000m approach zone.

Government of Canada’s approach to addressing the imminent threats to Killer Whale, Northeast Pacific southern resident population - Canada.ca

The Government of Canada has declined to make an Emergency Order under section 80 of the Species at Risk Act for the protection of the Killer Whale Northeast Pacific southern resident population. Instead, incremental measures to address imminent threats will be pursued under other legislation.
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca

The Government of Canada uses a combination of legislative authorities available under the Fisheries Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as well as non-regulatory measures, to address the key threats to the Southern Resident Killer Whale. To address the imminent threats to Southern Resident Killer Whale survival and recovery, the following new regulatory and non-regulatory measures are proposed*:

  1. with respect to acoustic and physical disturbance
    1. Increasing approach distance to 1000 metres for Southern Resident Killer Whales through amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations under the Fisheries Act
    2. The Government of Canada also plans to identify interim underwater noise objectives within Southern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat. The establishment of interim underwater noise objectives would serve as a benchmark and an important step in being able to take further action and to measure progress towards managing noise in the Salish Sea
  2. with respect to prey availability
    1. Adjustments to the Southern Resident Killer Whale commercial and recreational salmon fishing closures for 2025 and/or 2026 will be considered and consulted on under the Fisheries Act to increase protections temporally and/or spatially in Southern Resident Killer Whale key foraging areas
    2. Chinook salmon rolling fishing closures for 2025 and/or 2026 will be considered and consulted on under the Fisheries Act
  3. with respect to environmental contaminants
    1. Phased-in prohibitions on the discharge of washwater from exhaust gas cleaning systems, or scrubber systems, in Southern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001
 
Last edited:
searun said:
Well here's what is happening next - strap into your 5 point seat belt before you read this one...Section 2 that is. I'm OK with 1000m approach zone.

Government of Canada’s approach to addressing the imminent threats to Killer Whale, Northeast Pacific southern resident population - Canada.ca

The Government of Canada has declined to make an Emergency Order under section 80 of the Species at Risk Act for the protection of the Killer Whale Northeast Pacific southern resident population. Instead, incremental measures to address imminent threats will be pursued under other legislation.
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca

The Government of Canada uses a combination of legislative authorities available under the Fisheries Act, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as well as non-regulatory measures, to address the key threats to the Southern Resident Killer Whale. To address the imminent threats to Southern Resident Killer Whale survival and recovery, the following new regulatory and non-regulatory measures are proposed*:

  1. with respect to acoustic and physical disturbance
    1. Increasing approach distance to 1000 metres for Southern Resident Killer Whales through amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations under the Fisheries Act
    2. The Government of Canada also plans to identify interim underwater noise objectives within Southern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat. The establishment of interim underwater noise objectives would serve as a benchmark and an important step in being able to take further action and to measure progress towards managing noise in the Salish Sea
  2. with respect to prey availability
    1. Adjustments to the Southern Resident Killer Whale commercial and recreational salmon fishing closures for 2025 and/or 2026 will be considered and consulted on under the Fisheries Act to increase protections temporally and/or spatially in Southern Resident Killer Whale key foraging areas
    2. Chinook salmon rolling fishing closures for 2025 and/or 2026 will be considered and consulted on under the Fisheries Act
  3. with respect to environmental contaminants
    1. Phased-in prohibitions on the discharge of washwater from exhaust gas cleaning systems, or scrubber systems, in Southern Resident Killer Whale critical habitat under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001
Click to expand...
There's some hope there. The only firm change is the 1000 m separation space, which is good. They've reserved a wide range of possibilities for chinook closures, but the wording frames a space big enough to fit the rolling, stock- and SRKW feeding area-specific measures that SFAB has been proposing.
 
The only firm change is the 1000 m separation space, which is good..... OK but just how are weekend anglers in thier 14 boats going to make that measurement ? $1000 range finder ? Even more if you have a radar ???? Thats 3280 feet .... impossible. ( Oh-- and what about the whalewatching industry ? The excuse they give us is that they have superior knowledge as they can identify SRKWs . And NEVER run in front of approaching pods......
 
sly_karma said:
There's some hope there. The only firm change is the 1000 m separation space, which is good. They've reserved a wide range of possibilities for chinook closures, but the wording frames a space big enough to fit the rolling, stock- and SRKW feeding area-specific measures that SFAB has been proposing.
Click to expand...
Suggest a closer look at the 2nd section- it’s code for we plan to move to implement many of the proposed incremental fisheries management measures. They hint at some form of consultation- likely more of same exact approach with the current multi party system. None of these fisheries measures have objective measures and defined recovery goals to achieve - no metrics to assess actual performance in achieving any real outcomes.
 
searun said:
Suggest a closer look at the 2nd section- it’s code for we plan to move to implement many of the proposed incremental fisheries management measures. They hint at some form of consultation- likely more of same exact approach with the current multi party system. None of these fisheries measures have objective measures and defined recovery goals to achieve - no metrics to assess actual performance in achieving any real outcomes.
Click to expand...
True, there's no specifics, and true, there's no goals or performance metrics noted, but they're referencing some of the proposed alternatives to blanket closures. Some hope.
 
And, I still fail to understand how DFO can justify these fixed spatial closures in light of the strong observational data demonstrating that the SRKW have shifted their forage patterns and use of the current critical habitat. These measures are no longer remotely relevant - check it out....

1767850268164.png
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7367.jpeg
    IMG_7367.jpeg
    174.3 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Whole in the Water
IMPORTANT Please Sign - Fed Govt. Petition to Stop Excessive Salmon Regs & Closures
Replies
47
Views
8K
wildmanyeah
W
baddogg
Petition for financial aid for retired Police Service Dogs
Replies
6
Views
452
Sttr
Sttr
IronNoggin
Petition to the House of Commons
Replies
22
Views
3K
G Gordon
G Gordon
B
If you fish, think seriously about signing this petition
Replies
2
Views
785
ship happens
ship happens
Adler
Petition for Marked Selective Fishery and Mass Marking
Replies
17
Views
3K
Ryan A
Ryan A
Back
Top