The Beat Goes On. By Bob Hooton

OldBlackDog

Well-Known Member
 
The pile of unsupported assertions and snide remarks aside - it just sounds like this blogger is mad simply because nobody invited him to the party for the Area 23 Harvest Management Committee and is having a tanty.
 
The pile of unsupported assertions and snide remarks aside - it just sounds like this blogger is mad simply because nobody invited him to the party for the Area 23 Harvest Management Committee and is having a tanty.

Pretty much. Had to laugh at this one:

"The recreational fisheries reps are focused entirely on sockeye and chinook because the rec fishery voices are all, or close to all, owned by commercial recreational fishery interests."
 
Last edited:
Pretty much. Had to laugh at this one:

"The recreational fisheries reps are focused entirely on sockeye and chinook because the rec fishery voices are all, or close to all, owned by commercial recreational fishery interests."
Kinda demonstrates his lack of experience and knowledge on Area 23 with that comment, SV. There really are no commercial coho, chum, pink openings nor fisheries in Area 23. But having ANY openings invalidates everyone's input - except his - of course. Very magnanimous and noble for him to share with the peons in Area 23. Because presumably no reps in the area 23 process know anything about salmon - only him (whom isn't an invited rep). Must hurt one's head trying to fit that ego inside.
 
The way I read it, Mr. Hooton’s comments were focused specifically on steelhead and the very notable differences in DFO compliance language when you compare the stipulated guidelines for the commercial net fisheries in Area 4 as compared to Area 23.

For an outsider like myself looking in, based on the lack of any specific compliance language (gear specifications, soak times, fish handling practices etc) that accompany DFO announcements of openers in Area 23, it does appear that the last remaining Stamp/Somass steelhead warrant close to zero attention by managers in this region compared to how the Skeena fisheries are managed. Whether they are true “commercial” openers or FN openers is besides the point. They are sanctioned net fisheries by the DFO

Again, for an outside like me who doesn’t sit at the management tables for these two regions, it sure appears from the outside looking in that the managers in Area 4 are at least a making an attempt to show they give a shiat about the long term viability of the steelhead resource.

Area 23....not so much
 
Last edited:
The way I read it, Mr. Hooton’s comments were focused specifically on steelhead and the very notable differences in DFO compliance language when you compare the stipulated guidelines for the commercial net fisheries in Area 4 as compared to Area 23.

For an outsider like myself looking in, based on the lack of any specific compliance language (gear specifications, soak times, fish handling practices etc) that accompany DFO announcements of openers in Area 23, it does appear that the last remaining Stamp/Somass steelhead warrant close to zero attention by managers in this region compared to the how the Skeena fisheries are managed. Whether they are true “commercial” openers or FN openers is besides the point. They are sanctioned net fisheries by the DFO

Again, for an outside like me who doesn’t sit at the management tables for these two regions, it sure appears from the outside looking in that the managers in Area 4 are at least a making an attempt to show they give a shiat about the long term viability of the steelhead resource.

Area 23....not so much
Yes I have to say that is how I read it as well and it is very unfortunate that no-selective measures are still used in this fishery and others.
 
The way I read it is that this blogger is always perpetuating the myth that all watersheds are the same as the Fraser and Skeena wrt conservation issues vis-a-vis gillnet fisheries, enforcement, run timing, conservation needs and management measures - w/o acknowledging any of these critical pieces - nor providing any evidence to support his allegations. Watersheds are markedly different wrt run timing, species and weak run compositions, fishing impacts, management and the like. They are not so different wrt residual logging impacts that still affect species that depend upon FW for a substantial portion of their life histories like steelhead and coho:



Then he slags the reps on the Area 23 board - whom likely have many many years in fisheries management (and collectively way more than this blogger does and certainly in the area and management of that same area) and know any conservation issues that may exist and how they may or may not be dealt with within the Area 23 fisheries measures. I will continue to point out that gillnets - like all nets and fishing techniques including angling - may or may not be selective dependent upon the situation and the points I raised above. To purposely NOT raise these points indicates to me either gross inexperience in fisheries management or worse - is presenting a purposely negligent false narrative; while demonstrating a lack of understanding of how to work with the fishing community at large to solve any issues that may exist since (as far as I am concerned) that person is a narcissist and lacks the interest in being a team player or acknowledging any other evidence, opinion or experience.

And how successful has this strategy of belligerence and lack of participation in or acknowledgement of fisheries management bodies that include different opinions and experiences and knowledge been?
 
Last edited:
And a really good reminder to all those who wish decisions regarding fish should be in BC and not in Ottawa.

BC has totally thrown Steelhead under the bus.
 
some references NOT found in that blog:






 


Note discussions on Steelhead!
Note concerns on Steelhead.
 
Last edited:
Ya - I'm not following neither, SV. Not seeing any "Note concerns on Steelhead." in the minutes posted - just an escapement number.
 
Ya - I'm not following neither, SV. Not seeing any "Note concerns on Steelhead." in the minutes posted - just an escapement number.
There is no concern for Steelhead because if there was then it would effect all fishing of the runs of Salmon.
Not one of the representatives has shown any interest in ensuring Steelhead will survive.
They are not and it is a known fact.
 
I'm not stating steelhead are not a "concern". I am pointing out any concerns (if they exist and what they are in relation to) are not documented in the minutes OBD posted. I'm also pointing out anyone can claim "it's a fact" w/o actually posting any facts or supporting data. I would also point out that so far the original poster of the blog that started this thread has not provided ANY data/evidence to support his allegations about Area 23. I would also point out that Area 23 has been operating for a very long time and data should exist if the inference is that the Somass has the same problems as both the much larger Skeena and Fraser wrt enforcement and run timing, weak stocks, and other issues that affect steelhead. I would agree that the Province has largely abandoned their regulatory duties for steelhead - including not showing up for Area 23 meetings as well as their other numerous failures.
 
I'm not stating steelhead are not a "concern". I am pointing out any concerns (if they exist and what they are in relation to) are not documented in the minutes OBD posted. I'm also pointing out anyone can claim "it's a fact" w/o actually posting any facts or supporting data. I would also point out that so far the original poster of the blog that started this thread has not provided ANY data/evidence to support his allegations about Area 23. I would also point out that Area 23 has been operating for a very long time and data should exist if the inference is that the Somass has the same problems as both the much larger Skeena and Fraser wrt enforcement and run timing, weak stocks, and other issues that affect steelhead. I would agree that the Province has largely abandoned their regulatory duties for steelhead - including not showing up for Area 23 meetings as well as their other numerous failures.
First, Steelhead are not shown as a concern as no one wants to deal with them because they would cause closures to salmon.

Yes, people on this board absolutely know that Steelhead should be a concern, yet will not bring it up due to the effects.

The Province has shown they have little to no concern for Steelhead.

With the acception of a few groups including all the so called green groups, little to nothing has been done to save Steelhead in the Province.


The next fish that will receive the same lack of concern compared to Salmon will be Sturgeon in the Fraser.
It is already being hushed up as no one is willing to confront the FN and nets.

Conservation is a nice word as long as it does not effect money. Steelhead and soon Sturgeon are examples of this.
 
Maybe not so surprisingly - I agree with your last post, OBD. Where I have an issue is the knee-jerk reaction as to the potential causal effects on steelhead - particularly claiming gill nets are the sole or main reason for steelhead declines w/o looking at the available information while claiming (and not providing any data/evidence) that the Somass has the exact same issues that the Fraser or Skeena has wrt run timing, weak stocks, enforcement & monitoring, management measures, etc. It's been proven with data that the legacy impacts from logging are still affecting FW species like steelhead:


"Watershed logging also intensified over the past 40 years and was associated with (all else equal) ≥97% declines in freshwater productivity for Steelhead, Cutthroat, and Coho."

That doesn't mean that there isn't additional stressors/impacts particularly in the larger systems such as the Skeena and the Fraser with weak stock management. But as I posted earlier - Watersheds are markedly different wrt run timing, species and weak run compositions, fishing impacts, management measures and the like. Anyone involved and experienced in fisheries management in areas outside of the Fraser and Skeena well knows this already.

Claiming that the Somass is the same as the Fraser or Skeena is incorrect and misleading - perhaps purposely so wrt the blog that started this thread. The Province and DFO also have their communications branches that twist the truth. I'm tired of all of this lying. I'd rather spend time and effort in using scientifically-defensible management strategies listed in post #11 above and a successful fisheries management regime rather than spending time and effort on a goose chase initiated by poor or no data and ill intent where there is no resolution.
 
200 year old trees can't be regrown easily, maximizing what remains of adult spawners seems like a reasonable goal. Gill nets are clearly the biggest hurdle adult spawning fish must face. Unfortunately it is not politically correct to call a spade a spade these days.
 
Back
Top