Special Permit granted to Duncaby and Good Hope

[saanauk]

Heard rumors there was a “confidential” permit granted to the two lodges to allow them to fish the closed fishing area at Rivers Inlet. Surprised this doesn’t have to be public information. Anyone know more details?

 

[walleyes]

I’m not sure that is 100% correct.

I do know my nephews were up at Rivers this past Aug, I’m not sure what lodge they stayed at but they were not allowed farther up the inlet where all the hogs were being caught at that time. They were told that only Duncanby had made arrangements with the local band to be up that far. Not that the band has any legal stance but the lodge they were at did not want to get on the bands bad side. As you can bet the boys were pretty upset as when they booked they were not made aware of this. As my nephew said if he would have known he wouldn’t have spent the money to go to Rivers. The whole point was to have a crack at the big ones. As it turned out they caught nothing special and could have had the same fishing on west side of the island some place. My older Nephew wanted a flight out and his money back but they refused so they made the best of it.

I believe the band used COVID as the excuse, next year it will be something different and no one will stand up to them as we all know how these things play out.

 

[wildmanyeah]

I’m not sure that is 100% correct.

I do know my nephews were up at Rivers this past Aug, I’m not sure what lodge they stayed at but they were not allowed farther up the inlet where all the hogs were being caught at that time. They were told that only Duncanby had made arrangements with the local band to be up that far. Not that the band has any legal stance but the lodge they were at did not want to get on the bands bad side. As you can bet the boys were pretty upset as when they booked they were not made aware of this. As my nephew said if he would have known he wouldn’t have spent the money to go to Rivers. The whole point was to have a crack at the big ones. As it turned out they caught nothing special and could have had the same fishing on west side of the island some place. My older Nephew wanted a flight out and his money back but they refused so they made the best of it.

I believe the band used COVID as the excuse, next year it will be something different and no one will stand up to them as we all know how these things play out.

man i would of been livid

 

[walleyes]

man i would of been livid

Yes as I said my older Nephew was pretty upset. He’s an experienced fisherman and knows all the areas very well they ran their own boat on the island for quite a few years. Rivers has been on his bucket list for years so this was a real burner for him. As we all know it was the year to be there on top of it. Apparently they didn’t bother the private boats, we all saw the pics coming out of there this year so it was just injury to insult for him. He was some pissed when he got home.

 

[Bryan Allen]

Hasn't Duncanby been a major donor to the FN hatchery at Rivers ?? Might explain things ??????

 

[saanauk]

Hasn't Duncanby been a major donor to the FN hatchery at Rivers ?? Might explain things ??????

And Good Hope. Good Hope would like to turn Rivers Inlet into their own personal fishery for their rich buddies.

 

[saanauk]

Is there a way to get the meeting notes from the CC SFAC meeting? Saw an e mail asking this be added to the agenda.

“

Agenda Item 1 - Scientific Permit

The first  is regarding a scientific permit (issued to the Pacific Salmon Foundation) for exclusive fishing opportunities within the CLOSED area at the head of Rivers Inlet. The closed area between Marker 16 and the Wannock River is in place to provide a place of refuge to vulnerable, aggressive, and milling Chinook susceptible to multiple interceptions and encounters.

There has been limited information available and I am told by DFO (Jeffrey Radford) and the PSF (Brian Riddell) that the permit, including the scientific study, the study documents, and the application information, are all confidential. There is no requirement for DFO to consult the public or the SFAB regarding the issuance of such permits. I question the need for this confidentiality considering the public resource involved.

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.

I did receive the following from Kristen Wong after she inquired with Kate McGivney:

"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).

The license describes the project as follows:

At the request of our funders in Rivers Inlet, the Pacific Salmon Foundation has examined several options for conducting a mark/recapture study in Rivers Inlet, to address 3 topics:

1. Stock of origin of Chinook salmon caught and released by guides from Duncanby Lodge and Good Hope Cannery (K. McGivney sampled in 2019)

2. Survival of released Chinook by size category; and

3. A mark/recapture study within the Wannock River stock to validate the accuracy of the hydro-acoustic counts conducted in the Wannock River (Northern Endowment funded project). Counts of large Chinook(>90cm) are assumed to be Wannock River Chinook salmon."

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.

 

[Thunder21]

When we were running out of Rivers this year we got stopped and checked by DFO. The first questioned they asked was if we had any issues with FN. I didn’t see any issues while I was there but there is likely a reason they asked. So if this special permit deal is true, does that mean anyone without one won’t be permitted to fish near the boundary? Could get interesting up there this summer.

 

[saanauk]

When we were running out of Rivers this year we got stopped and checked by DFO. The first questioned they asked was if we had any issues with FN. I didn’t see any issues while I was there but there is likely a reason they asked. So if this special permit deal is true, does that mean anyone without one won’t be permitted to fish near the boundary? Could get interesting up there this summer.

I believe the permit was to fish past the boundary marker in the normally closed area. Heard the FN guides were harassing people for not releasing fish. I didn’t make it up this year due to the damn border closure so I didn’t see anything first hand.

 

[Thunder21]

I believe the permit was to fish past the boundary marker in the normally closed area. Heard the FN guides were harassing people for not releasing fish. I didn’t make it up this year due to the damn border closure so I didn’t see anything first hand.

So who’s fishing boundary is it that they apparently can allow people to cross? FN or DFO?

 

[Rockfish]

So who’s fishing boundary is it that they apparently can allow people to cross? FN or DFO?

Under Federal Liberal policies of the last few years, is there a difference?

 

[wildmanyeah]

Under Federal Liberal policies of the last few years, is there a difference?

haha that depends if were on the east coast or the west coast. Apparently on the east coast conservation comes first lol

 

[agentaqua]

Well Kudos to Duncanby to have the courage to work with the local FN in their own territory and to shoulder the cost of the hatchery and work in Chinook rebuilding there.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Well Kudos to Duncanby to have the courage to work with the local FN in their own territory and to shoulder the cost of the hatchery and work in Chinook rebuilding there.

Well then let’s thank the groups that were there first like the Oak Bay Group!!
Bob was ahead of the curve and deserves credit.

 

[Thunder21]

Well Kudos to Duncanby to have the courage to work with the local FN in their own territory and to shoulder the cost of the hatchery and work in Chinook rebuilding there.

It doesn’t sound that courageous to me. Basically doing back door deals with the FN to be able to let their customers fish an area that is closed to everyone else? Can you please explain what is courageous about this. Does this mean if I make a sizeable donation to the Quinsam hatchery in CR I should be able to get a “special” FN permit to troll the tyee pool?

 

[agentaqua]

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

 

[Thunder21]

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

Well based on all the **** that’s been going up there the last couple of years it sounds to me like they may have had no choice.

 

[agentaqua]

The hatchery was operating some years before last year - as I understand it - and long before whatever insinuations were posted on this blog about their intentions. They were therefore working many years before last year with the local FNs. I think we should give credit where credit is due rather than slander someone's good intent - esp. when the facts don't line up.

 

[walleyes]

And here we go again down the same old rabbit hole.

And once again the virtue signallers miss the point all together or avoid it to make themselves feel better I guess.

Shut it down boys cause we all know where it’s goin,, gives me a headache.

 

[agentaqua]

For me - it is not about anything so esoteric as "virtue". Instead, it is about being pragmatic. What works, and what doesn't?

I think we can all agree that our current state of fisheries management needs vast improvement. Many species and stocks of fish on both coasts are in the tank. A few have crashed spectacurily (e.g. cod stocks on the East Coast) due to numerous reasons, but largely due to political interference from the top-down. One of the recent, adjacent threads on this form opens with the claim: The biggest threat to wild Pacific salmon is Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Top-down management doesn't work, IMHO - esp. when politics trumps conservation - which it inevitably does.

So, what are the options?

How about working together using a bottom-up process? That obviously means working with FN in their territory.

Since s.35 and the repatriation of the Constitution and the Sparrow decision - that's also what the courts have dictated. Recently, even the SFAB/SFI (speaking on behalf of the sportsfishing sector) has come onboard in their "VISION 2021 FOR PUBLIC FISHERIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA" recommending the sportsfishing sector to "Develop partnerships with First Nations" as one of the key 10 elements in the strategic 10-point framework to grow Canada’s recreational fishing sector on the Pacific coast:

Vision 2021 for Public Fisheries in British Columbia — Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia

A sustainable and vibrant recreational fishery in British Columbia, providing broad social and economic benefits through diverse opportunities that recognize and respect other users of the resource

sportfishing.bc.ca

Lots of fears from some whom are inexperienced with that process. It is also admittedly a challenging process - but also a necessary one. That's why I consider it courageous to do so. I do believe courage is a virtue, though - speaking of virtues. I have no problem acknowledging that quality in others.