OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Temperature Rising
UncategorizedComments: 0
The giveaway of our salmon and steelhead resources to 5% or less of our population to reconcile the perceived sins of our forefathers and apply whatever it is our federal and provincial governments think the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People means is headed for chaos. In the world of the present, any criticism of our First Nations and how they conduct fisheries with the full blessing of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is automatically interpreted as unwarranted and biased at best but, more commonly, racist. Consider the following and decide for yourself who deserves to be in the crosshairs.
From well before the appearance of the 2018 chinook returns along the BC coast DFO has held there is a serious conservation concern. That precipitated a variety of restrictions in different times and places. For Skeena River origin stocks the conservation measures were most severe for the recreational anglers who are still forbidden from angling for salmon. Commercial fisheries in the Skeena approaches were also shut down completely for most of the chinook immigration period. Meanwhile, little known to most people, there was a special arrangement negotiated between DFO and the Skeena FNs such that the average (reported) chinook catches over the five year period of 2012-2016 inclusive was allocated to them for 2018 as Food, Social and Ceremonial fish. The figures I have indicate that five year average was 3,680 with no mention of any distinction between adult and jack chinook. (The reported FSC catch of chinook in 2017 was 4,713, again with no mention of an adult:jack split.) Is it unreasonable to ask why there was any allocation at all if conservation was the issue driving closure of all those other fisheries? Why would none of this allocation arrangement surface during all the pre-season machinations about conservation and DFO’s insensitivity toward any softer measures to accommodate, for example, a minimal impact chinook catch and release fishery for anglers. Such a fishery wouldn’t have produced 2% of that number of dead chinook? What happened to DFO’s justification for a complete angling closure on the premise they couldn’t take the necessary conservation measures re the FN fishery if there was a catch and release recreational fishery?
Fast forward to a July 31 update from the “Gitksan Watershed Authorities” (GWA). That is the FN group that speaks for the mainstem Skeena and its tributaries from a few kms upstream from Terrace to the headwaters. The Bulkley beyond Hagwilget and the Babine beyond the Nilkitkwa Lake outlet belong elsewhere. The GWA report states that 4,325 adult chinook and 1,268 jack chinook were caught by their set net fishery alone. Contrast that with that quietly negotiated chinook quota of 3,680 (for the combined Skeena FNs, not just the GWA?). Then throw in the GWA report of continuing good fishing for sockeye with the best yet to come, a proposal for an in-river “economic opportunity” fishery, demand that DFO consult them before considering any recreational fishery for sockeye and condemnation of any recreational fishery for pinks and coho.
The GWA bulletin. Note the lack of mention of any harvest of species other than chinook. Apparently all those steelhead passing DFO’s test fishery went somewhere else. Sockeye fishing is “healthy” though, with the best yet to come.
The commercial fishery down at the mouth of the Skeena is in full bloom now that the sockeye escapement threshold has been achieved. Add to that special FN fisheries involving the same gill net vessels that operate as regular participants in any commercial fishing opening. Then think about the following rules we’re told apply to gill netters participating as commercial fishermen in the rivermouth openings and contrast them with what occurs up the river beyond the commercial fishery.
Prior to August 1 the rules (i.e. conditions of license) applicable to commercial gill netters who concentrate in that well known corridor where steelhead catches are consistently highest (i.e. sub-areas 4-12 and 4-15) were covered in two sentences in DFO’s fishery announcement bulletins: “All gill net fisheries in Areas 4 and 5 are being conducted with non-retention and non-possession of Coho, Chum, Chinook and Steelhead. None of these species may be aboard a vessel that is engaged in fishing unless they are being revived in the revival tank immediately prior to release.” On August 1 the same gear types in the same areas begin the season labelled the selective gill net fishery. Remember, typically, half of the Skeena steelhead return has already been subjected to these never enforced rules by July 31.
The rules that kick in all of a sudden on August 1 are supposed to address conservation. At that point its all about half length nets, short sets, mandatory re-circulating pump recovery tanks with detailed flow through requirements for water volume, etc. The rules description in the DFO bulletin takes up almost a page! Further: “There will be observers present in the fishery. All vessel masters must take an observer on board if requested to do so by a representative of the Department. The commercial gill net fleet is reminded that the compliance of this selective fishery is critical to their future access to Skeena Sockeye.” Sounds great on paper but there is reality afoot. A participant in a conference call with DFO’s management staff on the same day the above announcement was made reports that DFO admitted it could not afford to deploy observers. Besides, they said, there was no conservation concern for steelhead nor coho so it wasn’t that important anyway. Smoke and mirrors all over again and again.
Dear DFO: Show us one shred of evidence your officers have ever charged and convicted a north coast gill netter for non-compliance with any of your conditions of license respecting steelhead. How about those mandatory steelhead catch reports that are readily exposed as gross underestimates but are never challenged? Needless to say there has never been a gill net fishery curtailed or constrained for anything to do with steelhead. Then we go up the river and enter that GWA territory where set nets and drift nets are the order of the day. Anyone who thinks there is anything selective about those nets, or gill nets in general, is terribly misinformed. Try looking at the catches of DFO’s Albion test fishery for Fraser River chinook for evidence. There we have a large mesh gill net operated by an experienced contractor who is constantly under a microscope in terms of methodology and results. The records show that net catches as many or more sockeye as chinook even though it is designed and operated to target large chinook.
The take home message in all of this is a GWA member can fish (if licensed) as a commercial fisherman down around Prince Rupert one day and the rules appear tight but are never enforced. The next day that same person can be one of the exclusive participants in a demonstration or economic opportunity fishery with rules that are even less likely to ever be enforced. After all that, the same person can head upstream to his/her territory and fish a gill net with no rules whatsoever. And DFO is telling us those selective fishing rules at the rivermouth are saving fish. For who?
A few questions I can’t help but ask. Who is paying for the activities of the GWA? Where is it written that salmon and steelhead resources are the exclusive property of First Nations? Why is there no non-FN voice in the room when allocation decisions are being made? Why should the non-FN community continue to pay taxes and license fees to have what it believes to be public resources managed for all when those resources and access to them is being ripped away at an unprecedented rate? When is conservation conservation?
UncategorizedComments: 0
The giveaway of our salmon and steelhead resources to 5% or less of our population to reconcile the perceived sins of our forefathers and apply whatever it is our federal and provincial governments think the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People means is headed for chaos. In the world of the present, any criticism of our First Nations and how they conduct fisheries with the full blessing of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is automatically interpreted as unwarranted and biased at best but, more commonly, racist. Consider the following and decide for yourself who deserves to be in the crosshairs.
From well before the appearance of the 2018 chinook returns along the BC coast DFO has held there is a serious conservation concern. That precipitated a variety of restrictions in different times and places. For Skeena River origin stocks the conservation measures were most severe for the recreational anglers who are still forbidden from angling for salmon. Commercial fisheries in the Skeena approaches were also shut down completely for most of the chinook immigration period. Meanwhile, little known to most people, there was a special arrangement negotiated between DFO and the Skeena FNs such that the average (reported) chinook catches over the five year period of 2012-2016 inclusive was allocated to them for 2018 as Food, Social and Ceremonial fish. The figures I have indicate that five year average was 3,680 with no mention of any distinction between adult and jack chinook. (The reported FSC catch of chinook in 2017 was 4,713, again with no mention of an adult:jack split.) Is it unreasonable to ask why there was any allocation at all if conservation was the issue driving closure of all those other fisheries? Why would none of this allocation arrangement surface during all the pre-season machinations about conservation and DFO’s insensitivity toward any softer measures to accommodate, for example, a minimal impact chinook catch and release fishery for anglers. Such a fishery wouldn’t have produced 2% of that number of dead chinook? What happened to DFO’s justification for a complete angling closure on the premise they couldn’t take the necessary conservation measures re the FN fishery if there was a catch and release recreational fishery?
Fast forward to a July 31 update from the “Gitksan Watershed Authorities” (GWA). That is the FN group that speaks for the mainstem Skeena and its tributaries from a few kms upstream from Terrace to the headwaters. The Bulkley beyond Hagwilget and the Babine beyond the Nilkitkwa Lake outlet belong elsewhere. The GWA report states that 4,325 adult chinook and 1,268 jack chinook were caught by their set net fishery alone. Contrast that with that quietly negotiated chinook quota of 3,680 (for the combined Skeena FNs, not just the GWA?). Then throw in the GWA report of continuing good fishing for sockeye with the best yet to come, a proposal for an in-river “economic opportunity” fishery, demand that DFO consult them before considering any recreational fishery for sockeye and condemnation of any recreational fishery for pinks and coho.
The GWA bulletin. Note the lack of mention of any harvest of species other than chinook. Apparently all those steelhead passing DFO’s test fishery went somewhere else. Sockeye fishing is “healthy” though, with the best yet to come.
The commercial fishery down at the mouth of the Skeena is in full bloom now that the sockeye escapement threshold has been achieved. Add to that special FN fisheries involving the same gill net vessels that operate as regular participants in any commercial fishing opening. Then think about the following rules we’re told apply to gill netters participating as commercial fishermen in the rivermouth openings and contrast them with what occurs up the river beyond the commercial fishery.
Prior to August 1 the rules (i.e. conditions of license) applicable to commercial gill netters who concentrate in that well known corridor where steelhead catches are consistently highest (i.e. sub-areas 4-12 and 4-15) were covered in two sentences in DFO’s fishery announcement bulletins: “All gill net fisheries in Areas 4 and 5 are being conducted with non-retention and non-possession of Coho, Chum, Chinook and Steelhead. None of these species may be aboard a vessel that is engaged in fishing unless they are being revived in the revival tank immediately prior to release.” On August 1 the same gear types in the same areas begin the season labelled the selective gill net fishery. Remember, typically, half of the Skeena steelhead return has already been subjected to these never enforced rules by July 31.
The rules that kick in all of a sudden on August 1 are supposed to address conservation. At that point its all about half length nets, short sets, mandatory re-circulating pump recovery tanks with detailed flow through requirements for water volume, etc. The rules description in the DFO bulletin takes up almost a page! Further: “There will be observers present in the fishery. All vessel masters must take an observer on board if requested to do so by a representative of the Department. The commercial gill net fleet is reminded that the compliance of this selective fishery is critical to their future access to Skeena Sockeye.” Sounds great on paper but there is reality afoot. A participant in a conference call with DFO’s management staff on the same day the above announcement was made reports that DFO admitted it could not afford to deploy observers. Besides, they said, there was no conservation concern for steelhead nor coho so it wasn’t that important anyway. Smoke and mirrors all over again and again.
Dear DFO: Show us one shred of evidence your officers have ever charged and convicted a north coast gill netter for non-compliance with any of your conditions of license respecting steelhead. How about those mandatory steelhead catch reports that are readily exposed as gross underestimates but are never challenged? Needless to say there has never been a gill net fishery curtailed or constrained for anything to do with steelhead. Then we go up the river and enter that GWA territory where set nets and drift nets are the order of the day. Anyone who thinks there is anything selective about those nets, or gill nets in general, is terribly misinformed. Try looking at the catches of DFO’s Albion test fishery for Fraser River chinook for evidence. There we have a large mesh gill net operated by an experienced contractor who is constantly under a microscope in terms of methodology and results. The records show that net catches as many or more sockeye as chinook even though it is designed and operated to target large chinook.
The take home message in all of this is a GWA member can fish (if licensed) as a commercial fisherman down around Prince Rupert one day and the rules appear tight but are never enforced. The next day that same person can be one of the exclusive participants in a demonstration or economic opportunity fishery with rules that are even less likely to ever be enforced. After all that, the same person can head upstream to his/her territory and fish a gill net with no rules whatsoever. And DFO is telling us those selective fishing rules at the rivermouth are saving fish. For who?
A few questions I can’t help but ask. Who is paying for the activities of the GWA? Where is it written that salmon and steelhead resources are the exclusive property of First Nations? Why is there no non-FN voice in the room when allocation decisions are being made? Why should the non-FN community continue to pay taxes and license fees to have what it believes to be public resources managed for all when those resources and access to them is being ripped away at an unprecedented rate? When is conservation conservation?
