OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
35 Years After
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/westland/items/1.0048237
So, how far have we come? Harvest is still the central issue, regardless of which stock or species we care to look at. The mixed stock fisheries issues, many of them aggravated by enhancement, are more pronounced today than at any time in history. The harvesting capacity of all fishing sectors has escalated dramatically, driven by a combination of technology and communication mechanisms. Habitat issues remain but are now more of a concern during the ocean life history of salmon than in fresh water. Protection of habitat is still a far better investment than trying to restore it once compromised. There is more prime salmon rearing habitat in our rivers that is unoccupied and/or unutilized than ever before. Finally, resolution of the social issues has become inversely proportional to the supply of fish.
Here’s a chilling reminder of where we find ourselves today (courtesy Misty MacDuffee, Raincoast Conservation Foundation)
If Wayne Shinners thought there was a conservation problem for chinook in 1984, what would he have to say today? Only one of 13 Fraser stocks assessed by the most competent and thorough scientists in the business is not at risk! A mere one third of all Fraser sockeye not at risk! The steelhead scene is actually worse than presented. The two populations alluded to here (Thompson and Chilcotin) does not recognize at least three other smaller populations (Nahatlatch, Stein, Bridge) that are already functionally extirpated. The reference to one coho population is somewhat misleading as well in that it likely represents the status of interior Fraser coho in general, rather than a single population. The absence of any reference to pink and chum salmon is not a reflection of their ecological significance, I’m sure. It merely represents the lower conservation profile and social value attached to them for most of the history of the Fraser fisheries.
The Fraser is the most obvious example to put forward as an illustration of where we find ourselves today. One must recognize, however, there are similar patterns evident for Vancouver Island, the central coast and the north coast of BC. The reason they don’t get as much attention is they don’t have the same level of historic records and, even where there may be reasonable records, the level of assessment required to be able to compare past and present has been seriously eroded by budget cuts.
The most obvious 35 year old message from DG Shinners was we needed to reduce harvest. Nothing else has anywhere near the potential to stop the bleeding. This is where we have failed miserably. Of the three sectors involved, only one has been constrained significantly in terms of time on the water. That would be the commercial fishery. But, that doesn’t accommodate the fact the increased efficiency of the fleet more than offsets reduced fishing time. As Shinners pointed out, a small fraction of the fleet could harvest the total allowable catch (TAC) in an equally small fraction of time allotted. The catching efficiency of the recreational fishery has grown just as rapidly as has the commercial fleets’. The difference is, there are no restrictions on the size of the rec fleet, there has never been a TAC and the open seasons are only recently beginning to be constrained. Then we have the First Nations fisheries.
Any hint that a FN fishery might represent a conservation threat is met with immediate accusations of misrepresentation, ignorance, bias or worse. The fact remains that we are miserable failures at conservation if all we accomplish is to take fish from one sector and hand them to another that never stops growing. There is a perception that the FN sector remains at a strong disadvantage relative to either of the other two. Who realizes that a substantial proportion of the commercial sector is comprised of FN licensees and vessel owners? (I’ve asked DFO for the latest figures but they haven’t even acknowledged my message.) Who understands that a FN owned, licensed commercial fishing vessel can be fishing as part of a commercial fishing opening one day and be out on the water with the same vessel and gear the next day if/when DFO authorizes an “economic opportunity fishery” or a “demonstration fishery”? Either of those operate in addition to constitutionally enshrined Food Social and Ceremonial fisheries that are, all too often, best described as a blank cheque. If conservation is the issue, as those other two sectors are told it is when they are ruled off the water, and if the stated priorities of DFO emphasize that conservation takes precedence over all fishing (i.e including FSC fisheries), what is the agenda?
The size of the fish pie is diminishing, precisely as Shinners stated in 1984. What we are doing today is intensifying the same social arguments of his day while making conservation harder than ever. Using fish as the currency of reconciliation makes no sense when the pie has shrunk to the size it has. Sanctioning and even promoting ever increasing mixed stock fishing in rivers after dwindling supplies of potential spawners have been managed to get that far and then authorizing the use of the most destructive fishing methods known to our waters (i.e. gill nets) is a recipe for steadily increasing numbers of stocks being added to the threatened and endangered roster. We can do better. We have to do better.
I’ll conclude with an example of where we find ourselves. Last year all commercial and recreational fisheries with any potential to catch Skeena bound chinook were either seriously constrained (ocean recreational) or closed (commercial fisheries and in-river recreational fishery). Conservation was paramount according to DFO. Long after the fishing season ended, DFO stated the Skeena FNs reported harvesting 8,036 chinook. Rest assured that harvest came via gill nets. In the same correspondence reporting that harvest was the bombshell there was a fixed, non-negotiable, annual allocation of 13,770 chinook to the Skeena FNs. That number is independent of how many chinook may enter the Skeena in any given year. Square that with conservation. For perspective, consider that we’re not talking about Columbia or Fraser wild chinook production here. Skeena chinook abundance is following the same trajectory as those others but its productivity is orders of magnitude lower.
- “A salmon crisis is no longer impending, it is here”
- “All five species of salmon showing signs of overfishing but chinook have been reduced to a remnant of their former abundance. Some bios saying the species may be in danger.”
- The problems are mostly social.
- Too many boats are chasing too few fish.
- The sum of the demands placed on our fisheries resource is greater than the capacity of the resource to meet them.
- There is no doubt that we are overfishing.
- Technology has been the enemy of fish.
- A lot can be done about the supply of fish IF we can reduce the fishing pressure.
- Enhancement will not solve the problem of too much fishing capacity.
- Enhancement has aggravated the mixed stock problem.
- Habitat isn’t the primary problem. There is Lots of prime habitat unaffected by logging and hydro but devoid of salmon. Overfishing is not allowing habitats to produce as they can and should.
- If this resource fails, and that could happen, those social, economic and cultural values that depend on it are doomed as well.
- “We must reduce harvest, especially for chinook. The future of the resource depends on it. For the chinook salmon, a massive rebuilding program must be done. No one wants a smaller share. In fact, everyone wants a bigger share. We need to drastically reduce fishing pressure on the most endangered stocks and let them rebuild. It is not too late but we must act now.”
https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/westland/items/1.0048237
So, how far have we come? Harvest is still the central issue, regardless of which stock or species we care to look at. The mixed stock fisheries issues, many of them aggravated by enhancement, are more pronounced today than at any time in history. The harvesting capacity of all fishing sectors has escalated dramatically, driven by a combination of technology and communication mechanisms. Habitat issues remain but are now more of a concern during the ocean life history of salmon than in fresh water. Protection of habitat is still a far better investment than trying to restore it once compromised. There is more prime salmon rearing habitat in our rivers that is unoccupied and/or unutilized than ever before. Finally, resolution of the social issues has become inversely proportional to the supply of fish.
Here’s a chilling reminder of where we find ourselves today (courtesy Misty MacDuffee, Raincoast Conservation Foundation)
If Wayne Shinners thought there was a conservation problem for chinook in 1984, what would he have to say today? Only one of 13 Fraser stocks assessed by the most competent and thorough scientists in the business is not at risk! A mere one third of all Fraser sockeye not at risk! The steelhead scene is actually worse than presented. The two populations alluded to here (Thompson and Chilcotin) does not recognize at least three other smaller populations (Nahatlatch, Stein, Bridge) that are already functionally extirpated. The reference to one coho population is somewhat misleading as well in that it likely represents the status of interior Fraser coho in general, rather than a single population. The absence of any reference to pink and chum salmon is not a reflection of their ecological significance, I’m sure. It merely represents the lower conservation profile and social value attached to them for most of the history of the Fraser fisheries.
The Fraser is the most obvious example to put forward as an illustration of where we find ourselves today. One must recognize, however, there are similar patterns evident for Vancouver Island, the central coast and the north coast of BC. The reason they don’t get as much attention is they don’t have the same level of historic records and, even where there may be reasonable records, the level of assessment required to be able to compare past and present has been seriously eroded by budget cuts.
The most obvious 35 year old message from DG Shinners was we needed to reduce harvest. Nothing else has anywhere near the potential to stop the bleeding. This is where we have failed miserably. Of the three sectors involved, only one has been constrained significantly in terms of time on the water. That would be the commercial fishery. But, that doesn’t accommodate the fact the increased efficiency of the fleet more than offsets reduced fishing time. As Shinners pointed out, a small fraction of the fleet could harvest the total allowable catch (TAC) in an equally small fraction of time allotted. The catching efficiency of the recreational fishery has grown just as rapidly as has the commercial fleets’. The difference is, there are no restrictions on the size of the rec fleet, there has never been a TAC and the open seasons are only recently beginning to be constrained. Then we have the First Nations fisheries.
Any hint that a FN fishery might represent a conservation threat is met with immediate accusations of misrepresentation, ignorance, bias or worse. The fact remains that we are miserable failures at conservation if all we accomplish is to take fish from one sector and hand them to another that never stops growing. There is a perception that the FN sector remains at a strong disadvantage relative to either of the other two. Who realizes that a substantial proportion of the commercial sector is comprised of FN licensees and vessel owners? (I’ve asked DFO for the latest figures but they haven’t even acknowledged my message.) Who understands that a FN owned, licensed commercial fishing vessel can be fishing as part of a commercial fishing opening one day and be out on the water with the same vessel and gear the next day if/when DFO authorizes an “economic opportunity fishery” or a “demonstration fishery”? Either of those operate in addition to constitutionally enshrined Food Social and Ceremonial fisheries that are, all too often, best described as a blank cheque. If conservation is the issue, as those other two sectors are told it is when they are ruled off the water, and if the stated priorities of DFO emphasize that conservation takes precedence over all fishing (i.e including FSC fisheries), what is the agenda?
The size of the fish pie is diminishing, precisely as Shinners stated in 1984. What we are doing today is intensifying the same social arguments of his day while making conservation harder than ever. Using fish as the currency of reconciliation makes no sense when the pie has shrunk to the size it has. Sanctioning and even promoting ever increasing mixed stock fishing in rivers after dwindling supplies of potential spawners have been managed to get that far and then authorizing the use of the most destructive fishing methods known to our waters (i.e. gill nets) is a recipe for steadily increasing numbers of stocks being added to the threatened and endangered roster. We can do better. We have to do better.
I’ll conclude with an example of where we find ourselves. Last year all commercial and recreational fisheries with any potential to catch Skeena bound chinook were either seriously constrained (ocean recreational) or closed (commercial fisheries and in-river recreational fishery). Conservation was paramount according to DFO. Long after the fishing season ended, DFO stated the Skeena FNs reported harvesting 8,036 chinook. Rest assured that harvest came via gill nets. In the same correspondence reporting that harvest was the bombshell there was a fixed, non-negotiable, annual allocation of 13,770 chinook to the Skeena FNs. That number is independent of how many chinook may enter the Skeena in any given year. Square that with conservation. For perspective, consider that we’re not talking about Columbia or Fraser wild chinook production here. Skeena chinook abundance is following the same trajectory as those others but its productivity is orders of magnitude lower.
