Special Permit granted to Duncaby and Good Hope
- Thread starter saanauk
- Start date
Derby
Crew Member
if you have fished that fishery at all ..it sounds like you have you should be able to answer all thsoe questions? i just trying to understand what your beef really is...what is your driver here?
mbowers
Well-Known Member
I haven't spent a cent at Bass Pro or Cabela's since.
Ya I'm not understanding it neither, Derby.
So in the original issue - anglers were mad because they issued their own permit - thats why they were mad. Fast forward years later and hundreds of km away - another FN goes thru both the PSF and DFO and gets a DFO permit (which should have appeased those mad due to the original permit issue) - and a few posters are again made due to the 1st event - which has nothing to do with the 2nd event.
So using that logic - if one angler goes out and does something we don't like - we are supposed to be mad at every angler we see - forever? Hmmmm.... seems a few posters are confusing their issues and their reasons to be mad. Or maybe it would be more honest just to state that a few posters simply don't like FNs doing anything with fish in their territories?
So in the original issue - anglers were mad because they issued their own permit - thats why they were mad. Fast forward years later and hundreds of km away - another FN goes thru both the PSF and DFO and gets a DFO permit (which should have appeased those mad due to the original permit issue) - and a few posters are again made due to the 1st event - which has nothing to do with the 2nd event.
So using that logic - if one angler goes out and does something we don't like - we are supposed to be mad at every angler we see - forever? Hmmmm.... seems a few posters are confusing their issues and their reasons to be mad. Or maybe it would be more honest just to state that a few posters simply don't like FNs doing anything with fish in their territories?
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
It’s only similar if paying clients of the lodge were envovled and I should not have to explain why that would be disgusting.
I have no issue with the work being done or if FN,Engos or sports fishermen are. Conducting the work. I actually would or preferred if the the PSF paid professionals to conduct the test fishing.
what I take issue with and what the letter above seems to insinuate is
“From what I understand, the permit allows select recreational angling guides and their guests (the funders of the Wannock River hatchery) the opportunity to fish within the CLOSED area of Rivers Inlet.”
Project duration - July 20, 2020 to Sept 30, 2020
Gear - recreational angling only, in terminal areas of Area 9 Rivers Inlet, and will only include experienced anglers within the lodge community (Duncanby, Good Hope Cannery. ‘
I have no issue with the work being done or if FN,Engos or sports fishermen are. Conducting the work. I actually would or preferred if the the PSF paid professionals to conduct the test fishing.
what I take issue with and what the letter above seems to insinuate is
“From what I understand, the permit allows select recreational angling guides and their guests (the funders of the Wannock River hatchery) the opportunity to fish within the CLOSED area of Rivers Inlet.”
Project duration - July 20, 2020 to Sept 30, 2020
Gear - recreational angling only, in terminal areas of Area 9 Rivers Inlet, and will only include experienced anglers within the lodge community (Duncanby, Good Hope Cannery. ‘
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
Some valuable assessment going on here. Science and data approach to fisheries management is what we want. Now let's hope DFO and Fisheries Minister Jordan start using it!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
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
My take on it is DFO does not have funds meaning the budget to do adequate assessment. In fact, it gets worse every year! How can you manage salmon stocks without any assessment?? It now falls on volunteers, and yes, some of these people may be involved in the guiding industry, but their time and money spent doing this is on their own dime. It would be nice to think the government would value this and put their own assessment in place, but it's simply not happening!
Thank you for expressing and clarifying your issue, WMY. Your issue(s) might not be exactly the same issue(s) expressed by all of the other posters and individuals opposed to this this research and those quoted in their opposition to the Exstall issue in the news, as well. They clearly stated that they were against the Kitsumkalum issuing their own permit to a lodge - if you read the article.
Having said that - addressing your last post - I do not know what people were conducting the Rivers study and if that matters, frankly. To play devils advocate - we all pay for a salmon stamp on our rec licence - do we not? Does that invalidate us from participating in fisheries research or stock assistance/enhancement - and why would it? Maybe you can provide more context as to your concerns?
Having said that - addressing your last post - I do not know what people were conducting the Rivers study and if that matters, frankly. To play devils advocate - we all pay for a salmon stamp on our rec licence - do we not? Does that invalidate us from participating in fisheries research or stock assistance/enhancement - and why would it? Maybe you can provide more context as to your concerns?
Last edited:
Riptide, not understanding the hostility of your reply. However given the fact you joined yesterday and within minutes were posting on this thread obviously is in an indication of a personal agenda. I’m guessing you are either involved with the study and are employed at one of the two resorts.
If this study is in fact part of the PSF then all the findings will be made public, as AA has eluded too. All these questions that you have passive aggressively asked will be made public and is the right of every angler to know.
As per the studies it’s great that there may be information that comes out from it, there should be more studies to learn about our stocks, C and R etc. Us as anglers should also be prepared for some of the findings to be used against us if there is high mortallity or other reasons that DFO can shut us down. With the lack of funds and enforcement it is always easier to shut us down, even if science proves otherwise As we know from our inside spring closures.
Was there paying clients who were guided in the closed areas?
If this study is in fact part of the PSF then all the findings will be made public, as AA has eluded too. All these questions that you have passive aggressively asked will be made public and is the right of every angler to know.
As per the studies it’s great that there may be information that comes out from it, there should be more studies to learn about our stocks, C and R etc. Us as anglers should also be prepared for some of the findings to be used against us if there is high mortallity or other reasons that DFO can shut us down. With the lack of funds and enforcement it is always easier to shut us down, even if science proves otherwise As we know from our inside spring closures.
Was there paying clients who were guided in the closed areas?
tincan
Well-Known Member
I don't know the answer to whether or not paying guests were involved in the research but I don't know why that would be 'disgusting'. Seems like another good opportunity to educate anglers on the importance salmon conservation issues and the research needed to answer outstanding questions relate to salmon in the area. Guests participate in sampling sturgeon on most paid charters on the Fraser. Guests do sampling on salmon charters in many other parts of the coast as well.
Of the 200 or so samples that were collected this year I would guess the majority of those were outside of the 'closed' area and I would also guess that the vast majority were done by guides (not guests). I know a handful of the guides who did sampling so I can reach out to them for clarity but when I was up at Rivers this year I saw 2 sampling boats fishing alongside all other rec boats and they were no guests on either boat for the 4 days I saw them fishing and sampling. There are a couple guides from good hope who were out solo most days doing sampling and I'd say they did a disproportionately large % of the total samples this year.
Would be nice to take the bigger picture here and applaud the work being done up there by all involved. Flaming people online for doing volunteer research isn't a great idea if we want them to continue with this important work. Constructive criticism is fine but that's not what's going on here by some.
Last edited:
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
tincan
Well-Known Member
If you know anything about DFO permits, you'd know that these (and likely 100's of other similar questions) were deliberated over before the permit was issued.
X3 cohochinook.
No it was not laid out clearly in that post, WMY. They had 1 rep on that SFAB meeting bring forth his concerns mostly about communication and then complaining about not getting other lodges involved. Nothing about rich guests participating. Makes me wonder if the complainant was an operator of one of those excluded lodges in Rivers. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Who was it that brought forth that concern?
And there is a rather obvious issue opening it up to all lodges and guests - as it could have turned out to be a free-for-all for all lodges in River's by opening it up to all lodges and guests. In DFOs permit - I believe they understood that risk and therefore stated the restriction that: "...will only include experienced anglers within the lodge community (Duncanby, Good Hope Cannery)."
Rec angler's have participated in research and stock assistance/rebuilding for years - both rich & poor. Both volunteers and those with deep pockets. The ones with deeper pockets help fund things like the hatchery in Rivers. Still not understanding your concerns.
No it was not laid out clearly in that post, WMY. They had 1 rep on that SFAB meeting bring forth his concerns mostly about communication and then complaining about not getting other lodges involved. Nothing about rich guests participating. Makes me wonder if the complainant was an operator of one of those excluded lodges in Rivers. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Who was it that brought forth that concern?
And there is a rather obvious issue opening it up to all lodges and guests - as it could have turned out to be a free-for-all for all lodges in River's by opening it up to all lodges and guests. In DFOs permit - I believe they understood that risk and therefore stated the restriction that: "...will only include experienced anglers within the lodge community (Duncanby, Good Hope Cannery)."
Rec angler's have participated in research and stock assistance/rebuilding for years - both rich & poor. Both volunteers and those with deep pockets. The ones with deeper pockets help fund things like the hatchery in Rivers. Still not understanding your concerns.
Nothing hostile Whitebuck just facetious. I am unaware of any of this will be made public. The questions presented will never be answered because DFO doesn’t want your input prior to. i think there are reasonable questions though. Would it be appropriate if people with past fisheries convictions were allowed to participate? If there is a paying customer on board, are they being sold and marketed the opportunity to fish a closed area? Does the paying customer have fishing experience? Moreover who gets to decide the “rules” of fishing a closed area? Would it be reasonable for a third party observer to be aboard each vessel to make sure fish are handled correctly?
I am not involved in the permit or study. If my employer asked me to take paying customers into a closed area to fish I would not do it.
I agree with you 100%. There are questions like this and basic expectations to be met.
walleyes
Crew Member
If this fishing was being done as research and I have no doubt it was then why wasn’t this made clear to the other lodges and other fishers in the area why the secrecy. Why weren't the other lodges made aware of this. If they were informed they didn’t pass this information on to their clients as I said my nephews were up there and they were not given a reason why they couldn’t fish there other than Duncanby had made arrangements. If this was arranged through DFO why didn't they post something about it in their web site to let people know what was taking place so their wouldn’t be this resentment taking place.
Poor situational management by all parties involved to say the least.
Poor situational management by all parties involved to say the least.
Hello Walleye
I am not aware of any reason your nephews couldn’t fish wherever they wanted to within the inlet. This may have been an individual lodge or charter co making their own policy in light of Covid. There were quite a few boats up at the head in August. Some were wearing masks and taking precaution. Dawson’s was very strict.
Similar threads
