URGENT: Southern Resident Killer Whale Recovery - DFO Online Survey-Deadline March 2nd (Salmon Fishing Area Closures 2022)

So this is the criteria for an Interim order which is what has been used to create Whale Sanctuaries

Interim order — Minister of Transport

  • 10.1 (1) The Minister of Transport may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made, under this Act, on the recommendation of only that Minister, if he or she believes that immediate action is required to deal with a direct or indirect risk to marine safety or to the marine environment
So I think this oversteps the criteria and intention of an Interim Order
1) clearly the order is not in regard to a direct or indirect risk to marine safety.
2) so what Is the risk, or indirect risk to the marine environment that only sometimes exists? Bearing in mind this order is enacted based on a calendar start/ stop and little else. What is the immediate risk to the marine environment, that only exists at a certain time of the year and if (and it’s a stretch), its because migratory whales are present? Is this immediate risk still there if whales aren’t? If it requires immediate action why is it recurring annually and why is it based on nothing more than calendar dates. Would not a directive that applied to boaters only when whales were present in the area make more sense? Seems to me this is an abuse of the Ministers Power, a shortcut to avoid political scrutiny.
I wrote my MP but it’s Elizabeth May so go figure. Also wrote the Minister but I suspect with the frequent turnover, my question was lost, so no reply. Anyway I think it’s worth asking if this is the proper use of anInterim Order, particularly if you can get the ear of a MP.
 
From the Jason Tonelli on the Pacific Angler Friday Fishing Report. Reminder the Deadline for the Survey is March 2nd.

Potential SRKW Measures for the Mouth of the Fraser River:

You may or may not know that there are some proposed SRKW management measures for a lot of important fishing areas, including off the mouth of the Fraser. Some of which would end our September chinook fishery and make it very difficult to fish for sockeye this summer if we get an opening.

These options can be found in a document called the Proposed 2022 Management Measure Options in Support of the Southern Resident Killer Whale Recovery.

You can comment on these options by completing this SURVEY but before you do, please read my personal thoughts on the subject which are specific to the Vancouver area and our fisheries.

There is a document from the Sport Fish Advisory Board that should be out shortly, and it will have detailed information from experts in other areas on how to fill out the survey for those areas if you require assistance. When that document becomes officially available, I will post about it on social media, so make sure you follow Pacific Angler and Pacific Angler Sportfishing on Instagram and Facebook for access to this document. We will put it up on our blog on the Pacific Angler website.

In the meantime, here are my thoughts for the Vancouver area.

After personally talking to a lot of Vancouver anglers, the overwhelming consensus for the Mouth of the Fraser River is for Option 1, status quo. This option will provide significant protection for SRKW when they are present and still allow an important public fishery.

Option 2 or 3 would be devastating to the public on several levels and are not acceptable for reasons that I will be list in detail.

Currently there is a long-standing closure for salmon fishing in Areas 29-6, 29-7, 29-9, 29-11, and 29-12. If SRKW are present, these significant closures are more than adequate to protect their migration in and out of the area and any foraging that may occur.

The local experts, such as the Vancouver Sport Fishing Guides Association (among others) with multiple members having 40 year of fishing experience in this area or more, have spoken in the public process.

These local experts with thousands of hours in this area will tell you the SRKW are not off the Fraser mouth consistently. It is not a staging area. When they do arrive, they are generally moving from S to N in the currently closed areas mentioned above, at a high rate of speed in a consistent direction. Active foraging is rarely observed, and if done, is within the closed areas. The SRKW are usually out of the area entirely within a matter of a few hours, not days or weeks.

Furthermore, there is currently a no fishing for chinook regulation in place in the surrounding Vancouver waters from April 1st to Aug 31st. This adds an additional layer of protection to any SRKW in the area either for migration or foraging purposes.

The aforementioned chinook closure has had devastating social and economic impacts on the people of Vancouver and surrounding areas. The only remaining chinook opportunity is now in the first 2-3 weeks of September when there are fall chinook present off the North Arm and South Arm of the Fraser River. These are predominantly Vedder/Chilliwack chinook of hatchery origin where recent hatchery releases have increased from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000. This is a very modest opportunity in comparison to the previous August fishery of more abundant Thompson 4.1 chinook. Note by September the vast majority of Fraser chinook have already gone up the river with peak migration of chinook into the Fraser occurring on August 21st.

All the Vancouver public has left is the 2-3 week window (Sep 1 to Sep 21) to harvest some fall chinook. Sometimes this opportunity is cut very short with any significant precipitation. These fall chinook are lower river spawners and do not spend much time off the river mouth. When it rains they are gone, effectively ending that years marine opportunity.

Weather is also a consideration. The mouth of the Fraser River is an open water fishery that is subject to significant SE or NW winds that often render the area unsafe to navigate or simply too windy and rough to effectively fish for salmon.

As a result, the rain, wind, or both will often limit the number of days the public will attempt to fish off the mouth of the Fraser for chinook September 1-21. After September 21 the fishing is usually very slow and public participation drops off dramatically. The actual number of days the public is present off the mouth of the Fraser fishing for chinook in September is therefore quite limited. Certainly not 21 days. The reality is approximately 50% of those days are fishable. Many years the effort drops off prior to September 21 because of major precipitation events.

The end result is the actual potential interaction days with SRKW and public fishers is extremely low. The public is just not there on enough days. To compound this, the SRKW are also not there very often. How many days are the SRKW observed from September 1 to September 21 off the mouth of the Fraser? 0, 1, 2 days in those 3 weeks? Combine that with the actual days anglers are present and there are potentially seasons where the interaction with SRKW is 0.

As such, further non-surgical, broad based areas closures should not be accepted or endorsed by the Vancouver public. They are not necessary in this situation and will cause significant social and economic impact to an area that has already been hit very hard by large scale closures.

In addition to the measures in Option 1, and as an alternative to those seeking Options 2 and 3, I suggest adaptive measures. As you can see the actual number of interaction days in September is going to be very low. When they have the potential to occur, there can be measures put in place to further reduce interaction potential, such as VHF broadcasts so anglers or boaters so they can move until the SRKW have passed through. The solutions exist and have been used in other areas. Lack of manpower and funding are not acceptable excuses and not a reason to use large broad-based closures that might have maximum political impact on a press release but very little actual impact for the SRKW.

I also suggest education. The current SRKW avoidance guidelines have not been in place for very long and further education would benefit all boaters, fisher or non-fisher. I believe these guidelines in addition to the existing no fishing for salmon and no fishing for chinook closures provide more than ample protection for SRKW presence of the mouth of the Fraser.

Speaking to public boating safety, I also believe that Option 2 or 3 will create unnecessary public risk, as you will have the public boaters further offshore where there is significant commercial traffic.

Option 2 and 3 would also have a significant impact on the publics ability to fish for sockeye or pinks on years of abundance, noting that 2022 has a high probability of being one of those years for sockeye. It will also push these fishers into areas where there will be significant commercial traffic.

Also note Option 2 or 3 are stated as adding protection for SRKW when foraging increasingly on chum in the fall. The public does not fish for chum in the fall off the mouth of the Fraser. It is not a fishery and never has been. Peak chum migration into the Fraser occurs in the third week of October and there are no boats fishing off the mouth of the Fraser at that time. If SRKW are present in October to forage for chum, there will be no boats there. Chum are not present off the Fraser in the first 3 weeks of September when some boats are present, fishing for chinook. Therefore, no further closures are needed as there are literally no public fishers present when the chum are present.
 
Last edited:
There are also no public boaters or tourist boaters present when the chum are present. The boating season is over, and the tourist season is over. Previously mentioned NW and SE winds are also very strong in the fall, further increasing the likely hood of no boats being in the area.

Furthermore, there is significant commercial activity in and around the North Arm and South Arm of the Fraser such as commercial crabbing, tugs and barges, tankers, freighters, car carriers, large vessel marine traffic, commercial sight-seeing boats, larger commercial commuter vessels, and the Fraser dredge. All of these activities are immensely louder than boats that are fishing where the emphasis is on being quiet while trolling with efficient and quiet 4-storke engines at low rpm. Our sonar units are also lower wattage than commercial applications.

Why are we looking at shutting down an important but brief fishery that has little or no impact on SRKW migration or foraging when these activities are slated to continue? In particular, the commercial crab boats are of concern. These are large, noisy vessels that operate up on the closed areas to public salmon fishing and set long lines of traps with ropes where the SRKW are transiting or potentially foraging. Is this fishery going to be shut down for the commercial or First Nation operators that are present in this area all summer long and have maximum interaction potential with SRKW on a prolonged and daily basis?

Is the dredge that goes right off the South Arm mouth of the Fraser where the heat map shows peak SRKW occurrence and dumps thousands of liters of turbid water while creating a significant amount of noise going to be shut down as well?

If Option 2 or 3 are accepted, then the public should expect the answer to these questions to be yes.

If Option 2 or 3 are accepted, it would also trigger the responsibility of the government to provide financial assistance to the public fishing businesses affected by this closure as per the SARA (species at risk act) document.

Option 1 is the only option that has balance. It will protect SRKW and take into consideration the social and economic needs of the public. I strongly advise that this is your choice for the mouth of the Fraser River. Please fill out the survey and take the time to add comments where you have the opportunity, this makes your survey input even more valuable.

Jason Tonelli
 
This is a great video to share on social media by the Public Fishery Alliance to engage more anglers to do the survey! Please share it far and wide. March 2nd is the deadline to complete the survey

 
Good stuff Jason !
The only thing I'd add to that is Recreational Fishers pretty much know that fishing is bad when Orcas are around and we either go home, or go somewhere there aren't any Orcas. We're generally been pretty good at self regulating and don't effectively compete with Orcas. Add to that the DFO data shows that the average catch of Chinook by recreational fishers is only 1 per boat per day.
 
Filled out the survey. Always choose options that either remain status quo or with minimum amount of closures. The government tell us to believe the science when it comes to Covid/Killer Whales Sanctuary yet they would just ignore their own science if it supports salmon openings. What a bunch of hypocrites.
 
Filled out the survey. Always choose options that either remain status quo or with minimum amount of closures. The government tell us to believe the science when it comes to Covid/Killer Whales Sanctuary yet they would just ignore their own science if it supports salmon openings. What a bunch of hypocrites.
Just filled out the survey. Pretty much in line with the comments above.
 
Here are few maps for survey. Look at East Sooke in particular. Sooke stands to lose basically the East Sooke fishery. Even still the Beachy Head would be off limits in both cases.

Renfrew stands lose the entire beach fishery worse case. Just imagine what fishing at East point would be like.

View attachment 75086View attachment 75087
Where can we find these maps and information ,just wondering the amendments to the other side of the coast that they’re proposing
 
Thanks everyone who took time to either write letters or provide input via the survey. There were 58 individual letters and just over 1000 survey's completed. From a stakeholder input perspective, There were 7 meetings with Recreational fishers, 1 with an ENGO group, 1 with Whale Watching group. The SFAB was engaged in 6 of the 7 recreational stakeholder meetings with DFO. Next steps are DFO will prepare a briefing note and recommendations on options for the Minister's consideration. That will lead to a decision in early April, followed by an announcement of 2022 management measures. This is about to be in the hands of the Fisheries Minister. If you have a particular option you wish the Minister to consider and want an opportunity for her to consider your views, now (as in over next 10 days) would be a great time to document those in a letter to the Minister.

Breaking it down by Area and preferred option - least impact to recreational fishery while affording SRKW protection (my opinion):

Mouth of Fraser - Option 1 - status quo makes most sense

Southern Gulf Islands - Option 1 - status quo - if DFO/Minister opts to implement further protection in the area between Moresby and South Pender Islands (Option 2) there must be a 500m shoreline fishery buffer along Moresby.

Juan de Fuca - Option 3 is the least impactful one - leaves a fishery corridor along shorelines in Area 20-5 and 20-1

Swiftsure - Option 2 is the least impactful option for 20-1 and out on swiftsure bank
 
Thanks everyone who took time to either write letters or provide input via the survey. There were 58 individual letters and just over 1000 survey's completed. From a stakeholder input perspective, There were 7 meetings with Recreational fishers, 1 with an ENGO group, 1 with Whale Watching group. The SFAB was engaged in 6 of the 7 recreational stakeholder meetings with DFO. Next steps are DFO will prepare a briefing note and recommendations on options for the Minister's consideration. That will lead to a decision in early April, followed by an announcement of 2022 management measures. This is about to be in the hands of the Fisheries Minister. If you have a particular option you wish the Minister to consider and want an opportunity for her to consider your views, now (as in over next 10 days) would be a great time to document those in a letter to the Minister.

Breaking it down by Area and preferred option - least impact to recreational fishery while affording SRKW protection (my opinion):

Mouth of Fraser - Option 1 - status quo makes most sense

Southern Gulf Islands - Option 1 - status quo - if DFO/Minister opts to implement further protection in the area between Moresby and South Pender Islands (Option 2) there must be a 500m shoreline fishery buffer along Moresby.

Juan de Fuca - Option 3 is the least impactful one - leaves a fishery corridor along shorelines in Area 20-5 and 20-1

Swiftsure - Option 2 is the least impactful option for 20-1 and out on swiftsure bank
Best email address to use for the letter to the Minister?

I encourage as many people on this forum to send a letter. I know there is doubt about doing them, but as you can see from Searun's post there is accountability when we can say the stats that he listed above from engagement by the public and the SFAB.
 
I filled this out but if Beachy is going to be closed past the trap shack then Sooke harbour and otter point are going to be gong shows....

Maybe we can just all start fishing in US waters
The price of gas and tackle might keep people off the water - $2.00 @ litre could be the breaking point.
 
Back
Top