Special Permit granted to Duncaby and Good Hope

[SpringFever552]

If you think working with FNs isn't "courageous" Thunder - then all I would have to say that that comment lacks experience.

There are many "courageous" company's out there working with natives, putting their people to work...
Fish farmers, oil and gas, logging, mining...ect ect..all courageous in your words..good to know aa

 

[tincan]

Got some clarification on a few of the issues addressed in this thread today. In no particular order:

-The fishing done within the 'closed' area at the head of rivers inlet was a research study to address the 3 topics mentioned in the CC SFAC post (namely, stock assessment and catch & release survival)
-The 2 lodges in the nearby vicinity (Good Hope & Duncanby) were permitted to send experienced guides and fishermen to do sampling
-The permit was to be applied only in the case that sufficient samples outside of the closed area could be produced. The research team was hoping for something like 400 samples and they only got around 200 (yes, maybe they need more participants next year if study continues and it should not be exclusive for one lodge or another but should be open to public provided they have the expertise to handle and sample these fish and don't mind not getting paid to do so.)
-All fish (both inside and outside closed area) were caught, scale sampled, and released.
-DFO approved this study, along with sign off from the local FN
-All research vessels were approved to do the work and all volunteered to do it (ie no pay).

I'm not sure why some people are so pissed off about this. Perhaps they didn't know this was a research study? Perhaps they felt left out? Research programs happen all over the coast, including in RCA's, SRKW Santuary zones, etc so it's not like this is the first research study to conduct work in a 'closed area'.

Overall, the work done up in Rivers Inlet with the PW Hatchery supporting the Wannock, Kilbella and Chuckwalla systems is a great story that should celebrate a diverse group of stakeholders getting together to do good things for salmon. The FN, lodges, NGO's and others involved in this program have been an example for other areas on the coast, IMO. I plan to be up in Rivers Inlet in 2021 and would be happy to volunteer to sample these fish then if there's an opportunity to do so. Happy to fish outside of the closed area too

 

[Riptide69]

The permit was issued to the Pacific Salmon Foundation and not to Duncanby or Good Hope Cannery. PSF indicated it was to be only these two lodges able to fish within the closed area to help with a scientific study. Seems a little shady nobody was informed about the whole thing.
There were no restrictions on anyone fishing Rivers Inlet this year so its unfortunate the guys weren’t allowed to fish up at the head. All sorts of lodge boats, charters, sporties etc were all up there - even the tugboat and crew from Queen Charlotte Lodge.
Some nice fish caught up there this year

 

[SpringFever552]

The permit was issued to the Pacific Salmon Foundation and not to Duncanby or Good Hope Cannery. PSF indicated it was to be only these two lodges able to fish within the closed area to help with a scientific study. Seems a little shady nobody was informed about the whole thing.
There were no restrictions on anyone fishing Rivers Inlet this year so its unfortunate the guys weren’t allowed to fish up at the head. All sorts of lodge boats, charters, sporties etc were all up there - even the tugboat and crew from Queen Charlotte Lodge.
Some nice fish caught up there this year

regarding QCL, a few employees stopped in on way by after their season was cut short

 

[wildmanyeah]

ITs pretty dirty not to evolve the local SFAC and get two lodges to do it. The PSF should be ashamed of themselves going this route. This stinks as much as the whole Ecstall scandal.



"

Specific areas of concern I would like to address with the CC SFAC:

* The exclusivity of the fishing opportunity given to the funders of the hatchery program only and excluding other anglers who may have had a desire to participate. The opportunity for a broader group of independent and/or lodge anglers to participate in such a study would have reduced the need for a permit to fish within the CLOSED waters. More samples could have been taken within the legal fishing areas by a broader spectrum of and potentially more experienced anglers.

* The lack of consultation and/or information being shared or provided to the public about this permit.

* The lack of communication with what I understand is the entire SFAB process about this permit. This includes members of the SFI, the Salmon Commission., local residents of Rivers Inlet and local lodge operators (Some who have been involved in Rivers Inlet Chinook enhancement for decades)

* The lack of communication within DFO about this permit. As an example, the North Coast Enforcement Supervisor and the Central Coast Resource Manager were not aware of the permit being issued, nor the reasons until after I inquired.

I believe every effort should have been made by all concerned, including the public, DFO, the SFAB, the Funders, PSF and the local First Nation to collect DNA/Scale sampling in an effective way with identified and respectful fish handling standards utilizing existing and potentially more experienced anglers in legal waters first, before any attempt to disturb Chinook within their area of refuge.

In the big picture, the actions of DFO in the issuance of such a permit without public or multi (sector) consultation sets a bad precedent for this and other areas / fisheries on the Coast.

In addition to an explanation being provided by DFO to the CC SFAC and SFAB as to the lack of public consultation prior to issuing this permit, I would like to suggest a motion to go forward to the North Coast Board.

MOTION:

Whereas Fish are a common owned resource belonging to all Canadians, CLOSED fishing areas on the Coast of British Columbia are in place for the purpose of conservation and to provide refuge for many marine species. The SFAB is an effective communication mechanism between DFO, the Federal Government, First Nations, NGO's, Recreational Anglers, and the Public. The CC SFAC requests DFO consult the SFAB, local SFAC's and the public for the purpose of evaluating, informing, and engaging all concerned prior to issuing any permits or licenses to fish within CLOSED areas of Tidal Waters or areas of Refuge, by means of sport fishing gear, on the Coast of British Columbia."

 

[tincan]

The permit was issued to the Pacific Salmon Foundation and not to Duncanby or Good Hope Cannery. PSF indicated it was to be only these two lodges able to fish within the closed area to help with a scientific study. Seems a little shady nobody was informed about the whole thing.
There were no restrictions on anyone fishing Rivers Inlet this year so its unfortunate the guys weren’t allowed to fish up at the head. All sorts of lodge boats, charters, sporties etc were all up there - even the tugboat and crew from Queen Charlotte Lodge.
Some nice fish caught up there this year

Not sure I'm following your post accurately Riptide so correct me if I'm not reading it as you intended. All sporties were able (legally) to fish up to the usual boundary markers at the head. If you're referring to those couple guests at Duncanby who were told they can't go up there I don't know about that particular lodge 'policy' but legally they were able to fish there and while I was up there in August I saw several Duncanby boats fishing at the head (Marker 16).

This scientific research study, like most DFO approved research studies, does not need to inform any and all. The collaborators in the study (Owikeeno, DFO, PSF, a couple lodges, etc) went through the appropriate channels to get persmission to conduct a study to gather what they thought was important (and currently lacking) data. Could they have informed more groups of stakeholders? Sure, but generally the scientists and researchers doing this sort of data are more concerned about the study itself than the PR. I hope that if this study goes forward that other stakeholders interest in getting involved get that opportunity. However, some of the comments here sound like whiny fishermen who are jealous they didn't get to catch fish in a closed area. Those fishermen who did do some sampling this year were the ones who were part of the two lodges who have been working on this hatchery for many many years and spent a ton of volunteer hours and millions of dollars to get things to where they are now.... and I personally feel it makes sense that they would be the ones to conduct this initial research.

 

[wildmanyeah]

It’s fine as long as they did not have paying clients with them. If they did it’s dirty as hell

 

[Riptide69]

Not sure I'm following your post accurately Riptide so correct me if I'm not reading it as you intended. All sporties were able (legally) to fish up to the usual boundary markers at the head. If you're referring to those couple guests at Duncanby who were told they can't go up there I don't know about that particular lodge 'policy' but legally they were able to fish there and while I was up there in August I saw several Duncanby boats fishing at the head (Marker 16).

This scientific research study, like most DFO approved research studies, does not need to inform any and all. The collaborators in the study (Owikeeno, DFO, PSF, a couple lodges, etc) went through the appropriate channels to get persmission to conduct a study to gather what they thought was important (and currently lacking) data. Could they have informed more groups of stakeholders? Sure, but generally the scientists and researchers doing this sort of data are more concerned about the study itself than the PR. I hope that if this study goes forward that other stakeholders interest in getting involved get that opportunity. However, some of the comments here sound like whiny fishermen who are jealous they didn't get to catch fish in a closed area. Those fishermen who did do some sampling this year were the ones who were part of the two lodges who have been working on this hatchery for many many years and spent a ton of volunteer hours and millions of dollars to get things to where they are now.... and I personally feel it makes sense that they would be the ones to conduct this initial research.

Yes, lots of boats fishing the area in August and no restrictions in place at all. Nights at Dawson’s with everyone very respectful.
Granted, Duncanby didn’t get the DFO award for being the “Most respected fishing lodge in Canada” for nothing. Nice guys on the water and huge kudos for their conservation work. Whiny perhaps... not everyone has huge $ to spread around to get these sort of considerations. Just the way the world works.
it wouldn’t have hurt anyone to advise other fishers what was going on.
I’m not sure what the situation was up in the Ecstall mentioned earlier?

 

[Derby]

ITs pretty dirty not to evolve the local SFAC and get two lodges to do it. The PSF should be ashamed of themselves going this route. This stinks as much as the whole Ecstall scandal.



"

Why would the SFAB be involved in this?

 

[Derby]

Yes, lots of boats fishing the area in August and no restrictions in place at all. Nights at Dawson’s with everyone very respectful.
Granted, Duncanby didn’t get the DFO award for being the “Most respected fishing lodge in Canada” for nothing. Nice guys on the water and huge kudos for their conservation work. Whiny perhaps... not everyone has huge $ to spread around to get these sort of considerations. Just the way the world works.
it wouldn’t have hurt anyone to advise other fishers what was going on.
I’m not sure what the situation was up in the Ecstall mentioned earlier?

Got some clarification on a few of the issues addressed in this thread today. In no particular order:

-The fishing done within the 'closed' area at the head of rivers inlet was a research study to address the 3 topics mentioned in the CC SFAC post (namely, stock assessment and catch & release survival)
-The 2 lodges in the nearby vicinity (Good Hope & Duncanby) were permitted to send experienced guides and fishermen to do sampling
-The permit was to be applied only in the case that sufficient samples outside of the closed area could be produced. The research team was hoping for something like 400 samples and they only got around 200 (yes, maybe they need more participants next year if study continues and it should not be exclusive for one lodge or another but should be open to public provided they have the expertise to handle and sample these fish and don't mind not getting paid to do so.)
-All fish (both inside and outside closed area) were caught, scale sampled, and released.
-DFO approved this study, along with sign off from the local FN
-All research vessels were approved to do the work and all volunteered to do it (ie no pay).

I'm not sure why some people are so pissed off about this. Perhaps they didn't know this was a research study? Perhaps they felt left out? Research programs happen all over the coast, including in RCA's, SRKW Santuary zones, etc so it's not like this is the first research study to conduct work in a 'closed area'.

Overall, the work done up in Rivers Inlet with the PW Hatchery supporting the Wannock, Kilbella and Chuckwalla systems is a great story that should celebrate a diverse group of stakeholders getting together to do good things for salmon. The FN, lodges, NGO's and others involved in this program have been an example for other areas on the coast, IMO. I plan to be up in Rivers Inlet in 2021 and would be happy to volunteer to sample these fish then if there's an opportunity to do so. Happy to fish outside of the closed area too

Very well said..

 

[agentaqua]

Very well said..

X2 derby

 

[Riptide69]

yeah I guess your right were really just wasting our time at SFAC
Meetings proposing and passing motions that we should be approved to do this type of sampling like in areas like the coal ports. We should be instead going to the PSF and asking for them to get permits from DFO.

Why would the SFAB be involved in this?

The SFAB

 

[agentaqua]

There's hundreds of permits issued every year that go through DFO either for their own, or partnered projects, or proponents research. Contrary to mistaken assumptions - the PSF is neither a federal agency nor a holder of Rights & Titles. As derby stated: Why would the SFAB be involved in this?

Would it have been nice to inform other lodges? Probably, but not necessary - as Tincan and derby also already pointed out.

 

[Riptide69]

The Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB) has been an advisory body to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) on recreational issues since 1964.

-Recreational boats and fishing gear are being used to conduct the Scientific study.
-The Fishery is public.
-The public has been excluded in every aspect of this situation.

The question may really be why wasn’t the SFAB involved in this? Why wasn’t the local committee chair advised?

 

[wildmanyeah]

There's hundreds of permits issued every year that go through DFO either for their own, or partnered projects, or proponents research. Contrary to mistaken assumptions - the PSF is neither a federal agency nor a holder of Rights & Titles. As derby stated: Why would the SFAB be involved in this?

Would it have been nice to inform other lodges? Probably, but not necessary - as Tincan and derby also already pointed out.

it’s fine as long as paying clients of the lodge were not Involved

 

[SpringVelocity]

X2 derby

X3

 

[Whitebuck]

Was there paying clients involved?

 

[agentaqua]

Riptide - other federal (public) agencies outside DFO don't even get a referral unless it is something that needs a decision within their purview. SFAB is not a decision-making body on public resources, but instead a Tier III consultation process representing 1 sector. A guy putting in a dock doesn't need to clear it with the SFAB 1st. I think some posters here are struggling to find something to be outraged about.

 

[Derby]

There's hundreds of permits issued every year that go through DFO either for their own, or partnered projects, or proponents research. Contrary to mistaken assumptions - the PSF is neither a federal agency nor a holder of Rights & Titles. As derby stated: Why would the SFAB be involved in this?

Would it have been nice to inform other lodges? Probably, but not necessary - as Tin

The Sport Fishing Advisory Board (SFAB) has been an advisory body to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) on recreational issues since 1964.

-Recreational boats and fishing gear are being used to conduct the Scientific study.
-The Fishery is public.
-The public has been excluded in every aspect of this situation.

The question may really be why wasn’t the SFAB involved in this? Why wasn’t the local committee chair advis

Well as sitting chair of a SFAC I can only suggest put a motion and see what becomes it if you find this concerning...

 

[Riptide69]

Was there paying clients involved?

Good question Whitebuck. Are these folks paying, family, staff, people of influence? It’s not sounding like there is any reasonable way you would be advised. Other questions may be what gear is being used? Any circle hooks to prevent baits from being swallowed? Would it be prudent to use only artificial lures to reduce mortality?
What is the acceptable mortality while fishing the closed area and has this been considered?
Have any of the parties involved recently been convicted of fisheries related offences?
What weight of fishing line and leader? How long are fish being played?
All none of your business? Yup.