OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
The latest notification from our Department of Fisheries and Oceans arrived in my in-box today. It was their heads up on the process leading to yet another Integrated Fisheries Management Plan, this time for the 2021 fishing season. My question to DFO – how do you pass the red face test this time?
To begin, the message is addressed to “First Nations and Stakeholders”. That order alone speaks volumes about DFO’s agenda. It gets better. The notification is ten pages worth of process descriptions. Nine and one half of those pages deal with southern BC. The northern half of the province doesn’t warrant more than honourable mention. Northern coho and chinook each garnered a brief paragraph. I guess the fact that Skeena chum, acknowledged decades ago as a conservation concern, showed the lowest abundance, by far, ever recorded in 2020 doesn’t matter because there isn’t a roe fishery for them like there is for the (enhanced) Fraser stocks. Those steelhead that have done nothing but follow a similar trajectory in recent years were never mentioned either. All the non-enhanced sockeye (i.e. the other 90-95% of Skeena sockeye that don’t originate from the Babine Lake spawning channels) also escaped DFO’s radar again.
Ah, but there was much ink attached to Interior Fraser Steelhead. We were reminded of processes and results, already well publicized, that govern the foreseeable future of those endangered fish. Thanks DFO. I’d almost forgotten that all those learned scientists who participated in the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) had recommended listing of Interior Fraser Steelhead (IFS) as endangered under Canada’s Species at Risk Act two years ago and that the federal Minister of the Environment had decided against doing so. Noticeably absent was any reference to DFO’s unilateral “adjustments” to the COSEWIC recommendations central to the the Minister’s decision. Now that COSEWIC has reviewed the IFS scenario again (what did anyone thing was going to change in the intervening two years?) and reiterated its earlier recommendation to list, DFO’s notification reminds us of the process now to be repeated. Lest I be accused of making things up, here is a cut and paste from DFO’s message:
“Addressing declines in spawner abundance of Interior Fraser River (IFR) Steelhead (the management group that includes Thompson and Chilcotin River Steelhead) requires a precautionary approach to reduce incidental fishery mortalities and allow as many of these fish as possible to reach spawning areas. For many years, a window closure approach has been used within the Fraser River to reduce bycatch of Steelhead during commercial fisheries targeting salmon. The window closure approach was expanded significantly starting in 2018 to all fishing sectors, and to all areas within the migration corridor of Interior Fraser River Steelhead in marine waters and into the Fraser River and tributaries.
Expectations for IFR Steelhead in 2021 are for continued extremely poor returns, requiring ongoing measures to reduce impacts in salmon fisheries to maximize the number of potential IFR Steelhead spawners. As we await additional analyses that will be developed as part of the next SARA Listing Process, the Department is committed to maintaining minimal impacts on IFR Steelhead. At this time, we anticipate that measures applied to the Chum fishery in 2021 to protect IFR steelhead will closely follow those implemented in 2019 and 2020, and significant changes to existing IFR Steelhead measures are not expected. Consultations will occur on all fisheries management measures taken to protect IFR Steelhead in the coming year as part of the Department’s preseason planning and associated management measures for management of chum salmon.
In addition to the measures taken to reduce incidental fisheries mortalities of IFR Steelhead in salmon fisheries, DFO continues to work with the Province of BC to address other threats to IFR Steelhead. As part of this process, DFO will be working to ensure that all our programs, including hatchery and habitat management, are aligned to support IFR Steelhead recovery.”
Think about this. An initial COSEWIC process that undoubtedly cost taxpayers deep into the six figure bracket, if not more, resulted in mere tokenism in terms of addressing a conservation concern that is worse than any that confronts Fraser River salmon stocks. Now we’re about to repeat that performance with the condition that measures applied in past will not be altered until the process is complete. That will not be until at least the conclusion of yet another commercial and First Nations fishing season. And, those measures will mirror the ones that have seen zero improvement in the status of either the Thompson or Chilcotin steelhead spawning populations. The only measure of any detectable consequence was closure of the recreational fishery. That would be the one with negligible influence on the status of Interior Fraser Steelhead but also the one with the least political consequences associated with elimination.
I’m seeing reference to habitat issues that have impacted IFS. Forest fire related degradation of rearing habitat, migration obstructions, flow abstraction, etc. No one seems to have noticed that the forest fires of the recent past had no bearing whatsoever on the steelhead returns of the past several years. In fact the jury is out on what influence they may have in future. The DFO author(s) of this latest covering letter might want to review the recent Thompson steelhead focused session sponsored by the BC Wildlife Federation in which the province’s technical expert dismissed the prospect of habitat manipulations having any significant hope of improving stock status. Besides, there is no case to be made habitat issues limit Chilcotin steelhead recovery. The Bonaparte fishway obstruction is another frequently cited contributor to the Thompson steelhead demise. Managers of the day apparently haven’t noticed the historical Thompson steelhead abundance had nothing to do with an obstruction on the Bonaparte. There were thousands more steelhead returning to the Thompson when the fishway didn’t exist and therefore no access to upstream habitat now considered critical to the status of Thompson steelhead. Then there is the reference to fish culture intervention. That begs a host of questions, most of which the science community has already answered in multiple times and places. The simplest summary is that fish culture has no hope of “saving” IFS. Look at DFO’s decades long efforts to restore Cultus and Sakinaw sockeye for evidence. Ask the COSEWIC participants for their opinion. Google “biodiversity” and consider the emerging understanding of its significance in a conservation context. Ask what sense it makes to ante up for a stupidly expensive fish culture exercise that would do nothing more that sentence anything that did materialize to death by gill net.
On with your show DFO but please remind me again how “public” comments will be considered in the preparation of your final IFMPs. I seem to recall sending extensive comments your way in previous years but I just don’t remember ever receiving any acknowledgement or response. Process is the product, though. Pay no heed to how the fish are doing.
Last point to keep firmly in mind – DFO keeps on saying this and I quote from their latest notification again:
“Conservation of salmon populations is the primary objective in managing the resource. After conservation requirements are met, the Department is committed to respecting Constitutional and Treaty obligations to provide priority access for First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial (FSC) harvest opportunities.”
Tell me one more time DFO. How does this apply to a couple of dozen lower Fraser First Nations whom you have sanctioned to soak gill nets for 75% of the run timing window for endangered Interior Fraser Steelhead? While you’re at it perhaps you could offer us a refresher on that time immemorial fishery targeting chum roe from populations enhanced in your own facilities (the ones that us taxpayers support so our opportunity to fish for IFS can be eliminated). Some of us would believe this is clear evidence that economic opportunity fisheries supersede conservation.
To begin, the message is addressed to “First Nations and Stakeholders”. That order alone speaks volumes about DFO’s agenda. It gets better. The notification is ten pages worth of process descriptions. Nine and one half of those pages deal with southern BC. The northern half of the province doesn’t warrant more than honourable mention. Northern coho and chinook each garnered a brief paragraph. I guess the fact that Skeena chum, acknowledged decades ago as a conservation concern, showed the lowest abundance, by far, ever recorded in 2020 doesn’t matter because there isn’t a roe fishery for them like there is for the (enhanced) Fraser stocks. Those steelhead that have done nothing but follow a similar trajectory in recent years were never mentioned either. All the non-enhanced sockeye (i.e. the other 90-95% of Skeena sockeye that don’t originate from the Babine Lake spawning channels) also escaped DFO’s radar again.
Ah, but there was much ink attached to Interior Fraser Steelhead. We were reminded of processes and results, already well publicized, that govern the foreseeable future of those endangered fish. Thanks DFO. I’d almost forgotten that all those learned scientists who participated in the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) had recommended listing of Interior Fraser Steelhead (IFS) as endangered under Canada’s Species at Risk Act two years ago and that the federal Minister of the Environment had decided against doing so. Noticeably absent was any reference to DFO’s unilateral “adjustments” to the COSEWIC recommendations central to the the Minister’s decision. Now that COSEWIC has reviewed the IFS scenario again (what did anyone thing was going to change in the intervening two years?) and reiterated its earlier recommendation to list, DFO’s notification reminds us of the process now to be repeated. Lest I be accused of making things up, here is a cut and paste from DFO’s message:
“Addressing declines in spawner abundance of Interior Fraser River (IFR) Steelhead (the management group that includes Thompson and Chilcotin River Steelhead) requires a precautionary approach to reduce incidental fishery mortalities and allow as many of these fish as possible to reach spawning areas. For many years, a window closure approach has been used within the Fraser River to reduce bycatch of Steelhead during commercial fisheries targeting salmon. The window closure approach was expanded significantly starting in 2018 to all fishing sectors, and to all areas within the migration corridor of Interior Fraser River Steelhead in marine waters and into the Fraser River and tributaries.
Expectations for IFR Steelhead in 2021 are for continued extremely poor returns, requiring ongoing measures to reduce impacts in salmon fisheries to maximize the number of potential IFR Steelhead spawners. As we await additional analyses that will be developed as part of the next SARA Listing Process, the Department is committed to maintaining minimal impacts on IFR Steelhead. At this time, we anticipate that measures applied to the Chum fishery in 2021 to protect IFR steelhead will closely follow those implemented in 2019 and 2020, and significant changes to existing IFR Steelhead measures are not expected. Consultations will occur on all fisheries management measures taken to protect IFR Steelhead in the coming year as part of the Department’s preseason planning and associated management measures for management of chum salmon.
In addition to the measures taken to reduce incidental fisheries mortalities of IFR Steelhead in salmon fisheries, DFO continues to work with the Province of BC to address other threats to IFR Steelhead. As part of this process, DFO will be working to ensure that all our programs, including hatchery and habitat management, are aligned to support IFR Steelhead recovery.”
Think about this. An initial COSEWIC process that undoubtedly cost taxpayers deep into the six figure bracket, if not more, resulted in mere tokenism in terms of addressing a conservation concern that is worse than any that confronts Fraser River salmon stocks. Now we’re about to repeat that performance with the condition that measures applied in past will not be altered until the process is complete. That will not be until at least the conclusion of yet another commercial and First Nations fishing season. And, those measures will mirror the ones that have seen zero improvement in the status of either the Thompson or Chilcotin steelhead spawning populations. The only measure of any detectable consequence was closure of the recreational fishery. That would be the one with negligible influence on the status of Interior Fraser Steelhead but also the one with the least political consequences associated with elimination.
I’m seeing reference to habitat issues that have impacted IFS. Forest fire related degradation of rearing habitat, migration obstructions, flow abstraction, etc. No one seems to have noticed that the forest fires of the recent past had no bearing whatsoever on the steelhead returns of the past several years. In fact the jury is out on what influence they may have in future. The DFO author(s) of this latest covering letter might want to review the recent Thompson steelhead focused session sponsored by the BC Wildlife Federation in which the province’s technical expert dismissed the prospect of habitat manipulations having any significant hope of improving stock status. Besides, there is no case to be made habitat issues limit Chilcotin steelhead recovery. The Bonaparte fishway obstruction is another frequently cited contributor to the Thompson steelhead demise. Managers of the day apparently haven’t noticed the historical Thompson steelhead abundance had nothing to do with an obstruction on the Bonaparte. There were thousands more steelhead returning to the Thompson when the fishway didn’t exist and therefore no access to upstream habitat now considered critical to the status of Thompson steelhead. Then there is the reference to fish culture intervention. That begs a host of questions, most of which the science community has already answered in multiple times and places. The simplest summary is that fish culture has no hope of “saving” IFS. Look at DFO’s decades long efforts to restore Cultus and Sakinaw sockeye for evidence. Ask the COSEWIC participants for their opinion. Google “biodiversity” and consider the emerging understanding of its significance in a conservation context. Ask what sense it makes to ante up for a stupidly expensive fish culture exercise that would do nothing more that sentence anything that did materialize to death by gill net.
On with your show DFO but please remind me again how “public” comments will be considered in the preparation of your final IFMPs. I seem to recall sending extensive comments your way in previous years but I just don’t remember ever receiving any acknowledgement or response. Process is the product, though. Pay no heed to how the fish are doing.
Last point to keep firmly in mind – DFO keeps on saying this and I quote from their latest notification again:
“Conservation of salmon populations is the primary objective in managing the resource. After conservation requirements are met, the Department is committed to respecting Constitutional and Treaty obligations to provide priority access for First Nations Food, Social and Ceremonial (FSC) harvest opportunities.”
Tell me one more time DFO. How does this apply to a couple of dozen lower Fraser First Nations whom you have sanctioned to soak gill nets for 75% of the run timing window for endangered Interior Fraser Steelhead? While you’re at it perhaps you could offer us a refresher on that time immemorial fishery targeting chum roe from populations enhanced in your own facilities (the ones that us taxpayers support so our opportunity to fish for IFS can be eliminated). Some of us would believe this is clear evidence that economic opportunity fisheries supersede conservation.