SALMON UPDATE

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by Whaler, Jan 6, 2009.

  1. Whaler

    Whaler Guest

    Published Date: 2009/1/6 16:00:00


    By Terri Theodore
    The Canadian Press

    VANCOUVER — The U.S. government will hand over millions of dollars to compensate the B.C. fishing industry for dramatic cuts to salmon fisheries.

    The US$30 million salve is one of several changes that took effect in the Pacific Salmon Treaty at the beginning of this year, with the aim of ensuring the sustainability of declining Pacific salmon stocks in Canada and the U.S.

    Most of the U.S. funding will be for the loss in the chinook salmon catch off the west coast of Vancouver Island.

    The federal and U.S. governments will also each contribute $7.5 million for other programs aimed at helping the recovery of disappearing salmon stocks along the Pacific coast.

    The most controversial change, and the one that proved the most difficult to negotiate, was the significant reduction to the chinook harvest in southeast Alaska and off the west coast of Vancouver Island.

    Salmon stocks often originate in the rivers of one country but are subject to the ocean fisheries of the other.

    As much as 75 per cent of the chinook caught off Vancouver Island are bound for U.S. waters and some of those salmon are so depressed they're listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Canada has not listed the salmon as an endangered species.

    The renewed treaty will mean a 30 per cent reduction in the fishery this year off Vancouver Island and a 15 per cent cut for Alaskan fishermen.

    As part of the agreement, the Americans are putting up the money to support a transition in B.C. fisheries hurt by the conservation measures.

    Paul Sprout, regional director general for the Pacific Region with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, said they intend to consult with troll fishermen and others to try to mitigate the impact of the losses.

    “Yes, one of the aspects that we would look at is utilizing the money to retire licences for those individuals that are interested in exiting the fishery under these circumstances,” Sprout said.

    He expects a compensation program to be in place by 2010.

    But John Hughes, president of the Gulf Trollers Association, said trollers won't be the only fishermen who may have to live with less because of the changes.

    Hughes said that a complicated total allowable catch system means trollers will always be given a 22 per cent allocation of fish – it just may be a different species of fish.

    Thirty-eight per cent of the allowable catch is designated to gillnet fishermen and the remaining 40 per cent goes to seine fishermen.

    “It's a reduction to some degree for everyone,” said Hughes. “Obviously there is an immediate impact on the west coast of Vancouver Island because your going to have those fish not being caught and processed in that area.”

    But Hughes said many fishermen know there has to be change in the fishery if it's going to be preserved.

    “We're going to have to do things differently. The devil in that process is the details of what we have to do differently.”

    Sprout said if these depressed populations of fish are protected now then in the long run they'll rebound and grow to a number that supports the fishery.

    The changes to five chapters of the treaty took effect Jan. 1 and include new sockeye harvest agreements on the rivers shared by Yukon and Alaska, and an agreement on a catch ceiling for U.S. fishermen for Fraser River chum.

    Federal Fisheries Minister Gail Shea said the renewed pact also promotes increased co-operation between the two countries.

    “This is a crucial agreement that will help people on both sides of the border benefit from sustainable fishing opportunities for years to come,” she said in a news release.

    The Pacific Salmon Treaty was first signed in 1985 to provide the framework allowing Canada and the U.S. to jointly conserve and manage migratory Pacific salmon.

    The treaty has at times been a source of considerable friction between the two countries.

    Don Kowal, with the Pacific Salmon Commission, said in the past fishermen on both sides of the border were taking their maximum allowable catch even if the stock was depressed. That's changed.

    “It's abundance-based management now. It's a concept that doesn't allow one country more than another to capture more salmon that is bound for the country.”

    The latest treaty remain in place until 2018.
     
  2. Little Hawk

    Little Hawk Active Member

    Howdy,

    Thanks for posting this Whaler.

    I'm hoping this reduction in commercial pressure might also have some positive spin-offs for the Cowichan Chinook that are now known to migrate to the West Coast as well as Georgia Straight.

    I remember those days when they were happening on the 'inside'. It used to be a huge sport-fishery.
     
  3. Whaler

    Whaler Guest

    Ya But I am Sure us Sporties will pay a different price .
     
  4. I wonder if they will have money available to retire sports licences?[:eek:)]

    This should add some more fish to the cycle. How should sports fishermen respond? IMHO this is a very small step in the right direction. Reduced catch by commercial fishermen has to be better in the long run, but not if these fish are just caught by us. They are obviously susceptible to being caught by hook and line. So what’s to say we just won't increase our catch with these extra fish around? The only way for this to work is to also reduce the sport fishing limits in the Ocean and in rivers. I hate to say it, but it makes perfect sense to me. DFO needs to forget the word escapement and just plug the rivers full of spawners. I say 1 a day should do, per person, 2 possession. To appease guides, perhaps their guest (or any of us for that matter) could buy an extra tag if they wanted 2 a day. Say $5, for a second fish? I would pay it and I’m sure your guests would pay it and it would help raise some desperately needed money that could go back to the local hatcheries. Just my 5 cents.


    Take only what you need.
     
  5. Whole in the Water

    Whole in the Water Well-Known Member

    Hmmm... I think if the commercial guys get cut back, the sporties will get cut too, otherwise it isn't too fair and doesn't make sense to have the fish their trying to save be caught by us sporties. Kind of a bittersweet situation.

    Long live wild salmon!!!
    [​IMG]
     
  6. wolf

    wolf Well-Known Member

    We heard about this a long time ago and its a joke as this money is going towards the commercial fleet OVER a 10 year plan so 3 mil a year big deal to them the only reason they did this was because wash,oreagon and cal. were threating to sue alaska for overfishing and that why there season was closed last year.

    Notice they didnt mention anything on the alsaka by catch that they ACCIDENTIALLY took 320.000 mature spring during there pollack season by accident ooooppppsssss sorry didnt mean to do that!!!!!!!

    As I said before in 1 year sport fishing brought in 288 MILLION dollars to bc economy where commercial brought in about a 1/8th of that so 3 mil is just another political ploy to make it sound great!!!!!!!
    Again political....

    Wolf

    Blue Wolf Charters
    www.bluewolfcharters.com
     
  7. cuttlefish

    cuttlefish Well-Known Member

    Whoa there Wolf,
    If your talking chinook by-catch in the Alaska pollock fishery, you should check out the numbers in the NOAA Impact Analysis that just came out in December.
    http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/bycatch/salmon/deis1208.pdf
    You don't have to read the whole thing, just check out page 7 in the executive summary. They give the by-catch numbers for 2003-2007. Remember also that 40% of this chinook by-catch is bound for the Yukon River, not BC, Washington, Oregon or California rivers. http://www.yukonsalmon.org/news/fishermensnews.pdf
     
  8. wolf

    wolf Well-Known Member

    OK ill whoa but that wasnt the number thats was put forth at the beginning of the summer!!!! even still I have the numbers from sport caught chinook from creel survey and its from june to sept (from the sfab meeting)from areas 13 to 29 there was 16019 chinook kept so i will even give that estimate higher as we all know ill give, heck 50,000 chinooks caught by sportfisherman that still doesnt even come close to their season of how many days at 120,000 plus springs as a bycatch being taken now does it!!!!!!!!!

    Thats where I am coming from all political bull$hit!!!!!!!

    Wolf

    Blue Wolf Charters
    www.bluewolfcharters.com
     
  9. reel easy

    reel easy Guest

    Little Hawk, I remember catching lots of winter springs right in Chemainus Harbour, Tent Is, Bold Bluff, herring everywhere, could be like that again if the herring stocks where allowed to build in the gulf, but a few greedy politically powerful individuals won't let that happen. The insanity will start in a month or so.
     
  10. Barbender

    Barbender Active Member

    Code:
    Thats where I am coming from all political bull$hit!!!!!!!
    Amen to that. Also keep in mind most commercial fisheries undereport their by catch by a large margin out of fear they will be closed down. So if the number is 120 000 it is probably easily double that.
     
  11. Barbender

    Barbender Active Member

    Code:
    Thats where I am coming from all political bull$hit!!!!!!!
    Amen to that. Also keep in mind most commercial fisheries undereport their by catch by a large margin out of fear they will be closed down. So if the number is 120 000 it is probably easily double that.
     
  12. Do they not all have cameras on board that run 24/7. lol

    Take only what you need.
     
  13. Do they not all have cameras on board that run 24/7. lol

    Take only what you need.
     
  14. cuttlefish

    cuttlefish Well-Known Member

    You guys can believe what you want, but page 103 (180 of the .pdf file) of that NOAA link I posted earlier describes how chinook by-catch is monitored and estimated in the pollock fishery. On board observers, not cameras. It may not be 100% accurate, but is at least as accurate as a creel survey.

    Just want to keep to the facts. If you disagree with what NOAA has to say, they are welcoming comments on their analysis until Feb. 2009.
     
  15. cuttlefish

    cuttlefish Well-Known Member

    You guys can believe what you want, but page 103 (180 of the .pdf file) of that NOAA link I posted earlier describes how chinook by-catch is monitored and estimated in the pollock fishery. On board observers, not cameras. It may not be 100% accurate, but is at least as accurate as a creel survey.

    Just want to keep to the facts. If you disagree with what NOAA has to say, they are welcoming comments on their analysis until Feb. 2009.
     
  16. Charlie

    Charlie Active Member

    FYI
    Not so sure who's watching who!


    For Immediate Release: September 24, 2007
    Contact: Jeff Ruch (202) 265-7337

    NOAA SHIFTING TO INDUSTRY CONTROL OVER FISHING OBSERVERS — Death Knell for Independent Monitoring of Marine Mammal and Over-Fishing Rules


    Washington, DC — A plan to put substantially more fishing observers under direct industry control precludes independent monitoring and saps protections for shrinking fish populations, endangered sea turtles and marine mammals, according to comments filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under the plan, observers in the North and Mid-Atlantic, now under contract to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), would be industry selected and funded – a move that greatly expands a much-criticized model in use only for Alaskan groundfish monitoring.</u>

    Professional observers accompany commercial fishing vessels to ensure compliance with catch limits, by-catch rules and regulations protecting marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and other non-commercial sea life. Most of these observers now work under contract to the National Marine Fisheries Service, a branch of NOAA, or through a direct contract between the Service and the Observer Provider Contractor. But under a plan whose public comment period ends today, approximately half of all observers would work for the fishing fleets they are supposed to police.</u>

    “Placing the observers under industry control undermines vital safeguards for marine mammals and other sea life by compromising the reliability of any report resulting from observer data,” commented PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that professional observers are the only independent source of information for what occurs on the high. “This is like assigning investigation of white collar crime to corporate rent-a-cops.”

    Apart from the inherent conflict-of-interest for the observers on the approximately 2,100 vessels covered by the plan, other concerns include —
    • Crippling already weak protections for observers facing interference, intimidation and harassment. Observer reporting can have direct and significant financial consequences for violating vessels, but the ability of NOAA to act on complaints by purely private observers is questionable, at best;
    • Deemphasizing all observer activities not required for monitoring by-catch limits, such as marine mammal interactions, fishing gear entanglements and fishing quota limits; and
    • Shielding much of the raw data from observer reports from review by researchers and regulators.
    Significantly, the Alaskan groundfishing program which uses a similar industry funded system has been strongly criticized in evaluations conducted by NOAA, the Commerce Department Inspector General and independent experts. The Association of Professional Observers also strongly opposes the latest plan, contending that the Alaska system produces “lower wages, fewer benefits and inferior employee retention – all of which ultimately affect the quality of the data collected by the observers and the resulting science based on observer data.”</u>

    “Privatizing protection of ocean resources is precisely the opposite direction of where we should be heading,” Ruch added. “While enlisting market forces can be a powerful dynamic, this plan creates direct economic incentives for the industry to evade monitoring and distort data.” </u>
     
  17. Charlie

    Charlie Active Member

    FYI
    Not so sure who's watching who!


    For Immediate Release: September 24, 2007
    Contact: Jeff Ruch (202) 265-7337

    NOAA SHIFTING TO INDUSTRY CONTROL OVER FISHING OBSERVERS — Death Knell for Independent Monitoring of Marine Mammal and Over-Fishing Rules


    Washington, DC — A plan to put substantially more fishing observers under direct industry control precludes independent monitoring and saps protections for shrinking fish populations, endangered sea turtles and marine mammals, according to comments filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under the plan, observers in the North and Mid-Atlantic, now under contract to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), would be industry selected and funded – a move that greatly expands a much-criticized model in use only for Alaskan groundfish monitoring.</u>

    Professional observers accompany commercial fishing vessels to ensure compliance with catch limits, by-catch rules and regulations protecting marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and other non-commercial sea life. Most of these observers now work under contract to the National Marine Fisheries Service, a branch of NOAA, or through a direct contract between the Service and the Observer Provider Contractor. But under a plan whose public comment period ends today, approximately half of all observers would work for the fishing fleets they are supposed to police.</u>

    “Placing the observers under industry control undermines vital safeguards for marine mammals and other sea life by compromising the reliability of any report resulting from observer data,” commented PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that professional observers are the only independent source of information for what occurs on the high. “This is like assigning investigation of white collar crime to corporate rent-a-cops.”

    Apart from the inherent conflict-of-interest for the observers on the approximately 2,100 vessels covered by the plan, other concerns include —
    • Crippling already weak protections for observers facing interference, intimidation and harassment. Observer reporting can have direct and significant financial consequences for violating vessels, but the ability of NOAA to act on complaints by purely private observers is questionable, at best;
    • Deemphasizing all observer activities not required for monitoring by-catch limits, such as marine mammal interactions, fishing gear entanglements and fishing quota limits; and
    • Shielding much of the raw data from observer reports from review by researchers and regulators.
    Significantly, the Alaskan groundfishing program which uses a similar industry funded system has been strongly criticized in evaluations conducted by NOAA, the Commerce Department Inspector General and independent experts. The Association of Professional Observers also strongly opposes the latest plan, contending that the Alaska system produces “lower wages, fewer benefits and inferior employee retention – all of which ultimately affect the quality of the data collected by the observers and the resulting science based on observer data.”</u>

    “Privatizing protection of ocean resources is precisely the opposite direction of where we should be heading,” Ruch added. “While enlisting market forces can be a powerful dynamic, this plan creates direct economic incentives for the industry to evade monitoring and distort data.” </u>
     
  18. alley cat

    alley cat Active Member

    Wow ! a race to the bottom !
    Circle the wagons and shoot inwards , good heavens with no impartial observers and without the ability to stay free of intimidation there is no control whatsoever , looks like every government has the same anal view with their heads firmly planted in their rectums , in a manner of speaking that is !

    S**t no wonder I drink !

    AL
     
  19. alley cat

    alley cat Active Member

    Wow ! a race to the bottom !
    Circle the wagons and shoot inwards , good heavens with no impartial observers and without the ability to stay free of intimidation there is no control whatsoever , looks like every government has the same anal view with their heads firmly planted in their rectums , in a manner of speaking that is !

    S**t no wonder I drink !

    AL
     
  20. scott craven

    scott craven Well-Known Member

    Al, you've hit the nail firmly on the head !
     

Share This Page