IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Yes, just a head's up for now, but likely a call to arms for support to follow soon.
This week, the local SFAB will meet with DFO to discuss the proposed new rockfish conservation areas (RCA's) off the west coast of Vancouver Island. The topic has become somewhat more than controversial of late.
Those that know me are completely aware that I am in full support of scientifically-based conservation regimes, and that I always place my concern for the resource above and beyond all other considerations. In this particular case, I cannot see my way to condone what is being proposed, as it is indeed NOT based on science, rather a nefarious back-door attack on the very areas I frequent for a lot of my saltwater forays (and likely many here as well).
Parks Canada has determined that the RCA's are an effective mechanism to shut down ALL fin-fish fisheries in some areas adjacent to the Pacific Rim National Park. THEY have proposed MAJOR expansions to the current closure in the Broken Island Group (see: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co...abitat/WC_1.htm and for a list of allowable activities within RCA's: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co..._fishing_e.htm)
These proposed closures, if adopted, will spell an end to fishing in a fair amount of Barkely Sound, and specifically the areas of Swale & Sail Rocks, Meare's Bluff, Cree/Austin Islands, etc. The current existing boundaries were developed in consultation with fishers, guides, and lodge operators cooperatively with DFO, and afford the area's rockfish a reasonably large sanctuary from exploitation, something that I, amongst many, fully support. Given that the vast majority of sportsfishing in the proposed enlargement area is focused on salmon fishing (very few focus at all on bottom fish in these areas) a simple rockfish retention closure in the expansion area appears to be a much more realistic way to go. Parks Canada, in their wisdom, have to date refused to meet with the SFAB in conjunction with the Department, and at this point it looks like they'll not be attending this week's meeting on the matter yet again. They have become entrenched in their position of lofty conservation ideology, and many suspect the very real possibility that the end intent is to close ALL fin-fish fishing adjacent to their onshore holdings, a reach that runs from Port Renfrew through Tofino! (Something Parks does NOT deny) This would indeed spell the death knell to many of the small communities, a host of folks who rely directly on the sports industry for a living, and of course an end to the wonderfull experiences that WCVI fishing offers.
The back-door approach I am not suprised at, having dealt with this Ministry on several controversial issues in the North. It seems that when THEY want something, it simply doesn't matter who they knock over on their way towards realizing their target. In this case, the application of regulation is being misrepresented (MHO) and misapplied in a directed and focused drive to further Park's protectionist agenda. Note that Parks has NOT asked for any meaningful consultation on this matter, and basically slid it under the door with no announcements, no requests for input, and are now standing firm on their position in this regard.
As stated above, I am in FULL support of conservation regimes when they adhere to the principles of science. When not, and they are simply to further a body's ideological protectionist agenda, I take offense.
Also as noted, this post is simply a head's up for now. There is a comments section on the above noted link, and the proposed changes for coast as a whole can be found here: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co...l_2004/home.htm (Sorry for the looong links - dunno how to do that shorter version). I would encourage anyone who fishes (or wants to) the West Coast of Vancouver Island to take a hard look, and consider sending in a comment in this regard. Please note that the Department is NOT the proponent in this case, and comments should be kept to a polite and focused nature, rather than a vent.
Stay tuned. I'll be reporting back on this following this week's meeting (IF they let me in the door that is). Likely with more advice on just who to send any related concerns towards.
Concerned,
Nog
This week, the local SFAB will meet with DFO to discuss the proposed new rockfish conservation areas (RCA's) off the west coast of Vancouver Island. The topic has become somewhat more than controversial of late.
Those that know me are completely aware that I am in full support of scientifically-based conservation regimes, and that I always place my concern for the resource above and beyond all other considerations. In this particular case, I cannot see my way to condone what is being proposed, as it is indeed NOT based on science, rather a nefarious back-door attack on the very areas I frequent for a lot of my saltwater forays (and likely many here as well).
Parks Canada has determined that the RCA's are an effective mechanism to shut down ALL fin-fish fisheries in some areas adjacent to the Pacific Rim National Park. THEY have proposed MAJOR expansions to the current closure in the Broken Island Group (see: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co...abitat/WC_1.htm and for a list of allowable activities within RCA's: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co..._fishing_e.htm)
These proposed closures, if adopted, will spell an end to fishing in a fair amount of Barkely Sound, and specifically the areas of Swale & Sail Rocks, Meare's Bluff, Cree/Austin Islands, etc. The current existing boundaries were developed in consultation with fishers, guides, and lodge operators cooperatively with DFO, and afford the area's rockfish a reasonably large sanctuary from exploitation, something that I, amongst many, fully support. Given that the vast majority of sportsfishing in the proposed enlargement area is focused on salmon fishing (very few focus at all on bottom fish in these areas) a simple rockfish retention closure in the expansion area appears to be a much more realistic way to go. Parks Canada, in their wisdom, have to date refused to meet with the SFAB in conjunction with the Department, and at this point it looks like they'll not be attending this week's meeting on the matter yet again. They have become entrenched in their position of lofty conservation ideology, and many suspect the very real possibility that the end intent is to close ALL fin-fish fishing adjacent to their onshore holdings, a reach that runs from Port Renfrew through Tofino! (Something Parks does NOT deny) This would indeed spell the death knell to many of the small communities, a host of folks who rely directly on the sports industry for a living, and of course an end to the wonderfull experiences that WCVI fishing offers.
The back-door approach I am not suprised at, having dealt with this Ministry on several controversial issues in the North. It seems that when THEY want something, it simply doesn't matter who they knock over on their way towards realizing their target. In this case, the application of regulation is being misrepresented (MHO) and misapplied in a directed and focused drive to further Park's protectionist agenda. Note that Parks has NOT asked for any meaningful consultation on this matter, and basically slid it under the door with no announcements, no requests for input, and are now standing firm on their position in this regard.
As stated above, I am in FULL support of conservation regimes when they adhere to the principles of science. When not, and they are simply to further a body's ideological protectionist agenda, I take offense.
Also as noted, this post is simply a head's up for now. There is a comments section on the above noted link, and the proposed changes for coast as a whole can be found here: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co...l_2004/home.htm (Sorry for the looong links - dunno how to do that shorter version). I would encourage anyone who fishes (or wants to) the West Coast of Vancouver Island to take a hard look, and consider sending in a comment in this regard. Please note that the Department is NOT the proponent in this case, and comments should be kept to a polite and focused nature, rather than a vent.
Stay tuned. I'll be reporting back on this following this week's meeting (IF they let me in the door that is). Likely with more advice on just who to send any related concerns towards.
Concerned,
Nog
