Can You Smell The Bull?

IronNoggin

Well-Known Member
First nations act on the salmon crisis -- when will Ottawa?

By Stephen Hume, Vancouver Sun May 5, 2010

The next beleaguered generation of wild Pacific salmon is barely launched on its life journey, and already the fish politics on the Fraser River approach full boil.

Even as a federal inquiry sorts out what caused sockeye runs to collapse last year, first nations and the sport angling industry square off over this season's Chinook.

The clash puts the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans between a rock and a hard place.

The rock is Ottawa's obligation to ensure the survival of salmon stocks, a fiduciary duty that first nations on the Fraser demand be honoured before other economic interests.

First nations want sport angling shut down where there's a likelihood of incidental mortalities among depressed Fraser Chinook populations. When sport anglers intercept Chinook at sea and upstream aboriginal fisheries are later closed for conservation purposes, constitutionally protected fishing rights are hijacked by a subordinate interest, first nations argue.

The DFO studies attribute almost 12 per cent of last year's mortalities for Fraser-bound Chinook stocks to sport anglers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Overall, sport anglers killed twice as many Fraser Chinook as the total traditional aboriginal fishery in 2009. Figures suggest that sport anglers now catch about 30 per cent of all Chinook and coho.

"The sport fishery is having an impact on the early Chinook bound for the Fraser," says Ernie Crey, a former fisheries manager, now senior adviser to the Sto: lo Tribal Council. "Right now, DFO has our fishery shut down as tight as a drum but is allowing the sport fishery to blaze away out in the salt chuck."

The hard place for DFO is pressure from the powerful sport fishing lobby, which wants to keep on fishing.

Chinook and coho are the centre-piece to B.C.'s saltwater game fishery. This sector is worth about $650 million a year to the provincial economy, providing about 7,500 jobs.

Meanwhile, similar confrontations over sockeye also fester. While conservation concerns have idled the commercial fleet, sport anglers want to continue fishing the Fraser. They argue that salmon from precarious populations caught incidentally can be safely released to continue to the spawning grounds.

Sport anglers point to two recent studies supported in part by first nations on the lower Fraser that show a 98-per-cent survival rate for sockeye caught on hook and line in the Fraser River, held for 24 hours in a pen and then released.

But even first nations are doubtful about precisely what those studies mean.

"The crucial test for determining the impact of catch and release on sockeye will only come after it can be demonstrated through future studies that female sockeye taken in such fisheries actually make it to their natal spawning beds and produce the next generation of fish," wrote Sto: lo Tribal Council Grand Chief Clarence Pennier in a letter to DFO last week.

Others in the fisheries science community appear to share that caution. A team of scientists from the University of British Columbia, Memorial University in Newfoundland and Carleton University in Ontario has applied for a National Science and Engineering Research Council grant to find out, making the argument that "The current management process does not have and therefore cannot use scientifically defensible estimates for post-release mortality for different species caught in the multi-sector fisheries. This situation has created acrimonious relationships."

Acrimonious is an understatement.

From Sto: lo territory below Hell's Gate to the upper Fraser watersheds, first nations tribal organizations are serving notice that, in their view, enough is enough. They want constitutionally defined conservation measures enforced and their legal requirements satisfied.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled unequivocally that conservation needs trump all others, followed by aboriginal food and ceremonial fisheries requirements. Only after these needs have been satisfied can commercial and recreational fisheries be authorized.

A particularly galling issue for first nations has been the opening of recreational fisheries in tidewater while the commercial sector has been largely closed and while aboriginal fisheries further up the river have been either closed or severely restricted when predicted runs failed to materialize.

In a letter to Fisheries Minister Gail Shea, the Nicola Tribal Association wants an end to all fishing of Fraserbound Chinook. Recent evaluations by DFO indicate that in 2009, even as some Fraser-bound Chinook and coho stocks were in deep crisis, sport anglers contributed to about one-third of the mortalities of early run Nicola Chinooks.

Such Chinook returning to the tribal association's collective territory have declined precipitously, and last year's returns were down by more than 90 per cent from a decade earlier, Siska Band Chief Fred Sampson informed Shea on March 22.

Sampson said that to maintain a stable spawning population and sustain aboriginal and other fisheries, at least 25,000 Chinook must return to their spawning streams.

"In 2009, the total spawner return for the seven stocks in this group was approximately 2,000 fish," he wrote. "Louis Creek had six spawners return. In our territory, fewer than 80 returned to the Coldwater River and only 26 were left to spawn in the wild. This group of fish is in crisis and has been for many years ... These stocks cannot sustain ANY harvesting."

On the basis of such grim numbers, Sampson wrote, the tribal association will forgo its aboriginal right to harvest fish. It will enforce a self-imposed moratorium on fishing in its watersheds. But it wants DFO to impose a simultaneous closure for recreational and commercial fisheries where migrating Fraser chinook are present.

The Okanagan Nation Alliance has also written to DFO advising that chinook runs to its traditional territories are "in a state of crisis."

"Given the depleted condition of these stocks, it is critical that DFO immediately implement all possible measures to eliminate mortality impacts from non-aboriginal fisheries," wrote Grand Chief Stewart Phillip. "'Sharing the burden' amongst different sectors does not meet DFO's legal duties to the Okanagan Nation and other first nations; what is required is the elimination of mortality impacts from competing sectors."

Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. First nations are showing the kind of leadership we should expect from our federal government in protecting wild salmon stocks.

DFO should be shutting these fisheries down right, left and centre for strict conservation reasons. Only as stocks recover former abundance and first nations' access to traditional food and ceremonial harvests can be satisfied should commercial and recreational fisheries be reactivated.

In the meantime, anglers who care about their sport and the stocks that sustain it are already putting their rods away. Only the greedy and the stupid squabble over who gets to kill the last fish for fun.

shume@islandnet.com


Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/...+will+Ottawa/2988302/story.html#ixzz0n4iEdxso

Someone outta kick this one... Right in The Nadz methinks! [}:)]
 
Hume is an idiot.

avatar1038543gif.jpg
 
Hold on just a sec! There are two different fisheries discussed here! The Fraser & Okanagan!

Not talking about the Fraser, I agree - I can smell that bull!

But, First Nations in Okanagan have this one right! They have tried for five years to get those fish listed on SARA and the ESA, closing it completely down, including them. DFO just recently flat out refused to recommend it for "complete" Bull **** reasons - stating it was not economical sound to protect them? And to do so would create economic hardships? I am not even sure that one's legal? Then they also advised the stock would rebuild itself from "staying" fish out of the U.S.? That is complete DFO mismanagement! I can smell that bull, too?

That Okanagan fishery - NEEDS SHUT DOWN, PERIOD!

quote: The Okanagan Nation Alliance has also written to DFO advising that chinook runs to its traditional territories are "in a state of crisis."

"Given the depleted condition of these stocks, it is critical that DFO immediately implement all possible measures to eliminate mortality impacts from non-aboriginal fisheries," wrote Grand Chief Stewart Phillip. "'Sharing the burden' amongst different sectors does not meet DFO's legal duties to the Okanagan Nation and other first nations; what is required is the elimination of mortality impacts from competing sectors."

Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. First nations are showing the kind of leadership we should expect from our federal government in protecting wild salmon stocks.
 
quote:Originally posted by Charlie

Hold on just a sec! There are two different fisheries discussed here! The Fraser & Okanagan!

Not talking about the Fraser, I agree - I can smell that bull!

But, First Nations in Okanagan have this one right! They have tried for five years to get those fish listed on SARA and the ESA, closing it completely down, including them. DFO just recently flat out refused to recommend it for "complete" Bull **** reasons - stating it was not economical sound to protect them? And to do so would create economic hardships? I am not even sure that one's legal? Then they also advised the stock would rebuild itself from "staying" fish out of the U.S.? That is complete DFO mismanagement! I can smell that bull, too?

That Okanagan fishery - NEEDS SHUT DOWN, PERIOD!

quote: The Okanagan Nation Alliance has also written to DFO advising that chinook runs to its traditional territories are "in a state of crisis."

"Given the depleted condition of these stocks, it is critical that DFO immediately implement all possible measures to eliminate mortality impacts from non-aboriginal fisheries," wrote Grand Chief Stewart Phillip. "'Sharing the burden' amongst different sectors does not meet DFO's legal duties to the Okanagan Nation and other first nations; what is required is the elimination of mortality impacts from competing sectors."

Sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. First nations are showing the kind of leadership we should expect from our federal government in protecting wild salmon stocks.

you sure you understand how the chinook get to the Okanogan? It's up the Fraser, that's how, so we are not talking about 2 different fisheries. It's all about early timed Fraser chinook. Okanogan FN's travel to places like the Nicola river, and upper Shuswap river tribs to harvest their FSC fish.
I see Hume mentions sport mortalities of 12% but gets the other 88%? I wonder when reporters like Hume will do all the real leg work needed to put out an accurate report on the real total catch and just how many FN's truely catch, kill and sell. The lower Farser FN's that I live by had their best year in the last decade with all the closure last year because they still went out gill netting. The tribes can only request that their members do not fish meanwhile their members do what they want.
Also notice the lack of talk on a recovery plan for these stocks as DFO does not have one yet and hope to develop one in the future. Saltwater sport fishing in winter , spring and early summer is doomed if the FN's get their way.
 
quote:Originally posted by rln

quote:Originally posted by Charlie

Hold on just a sec! There are two different fisheries discussed here! The Fraser & Okanagan!

Not talking about the Fraser, I agree - I can smell that bull!

But, First Nations in Okanagan have this one right! They have tried for five years to get those fish listed on SARA and the ESA, closing it completely down, including them. DFO just recently flat out refused to recommend it for "complete" Bull **** reasons - stating it was not economical sound to protect them? And to do so would create economic hardships? I am not even sure that one's legal? Then they also advised the stock would rebuild itself from "staying" fish out of the U.S.? That is complete DFO mismanagement! I can smell that bull, too?


That Okanagan fishery - NEEDS SHUT DOWN, PERIOD!
you sure you understand how the chinook get to the Okanogan? It's up the Fraser, that's how, so we are not talking about 2 different fisheries. It's all about early timed Fraser chinook. Okanogan FN's travel to places like the Nicola river, and upper Shuswap river tribs to harvest their FSC fish.
I see Hume mentions sport mortalities of 12% but gets the other 88%? I wonder when reporters like Hume will do all the real leg work needed to put out an accurate report on the real total catch and just how many FN's truely catch, kill and sell. The lower Farser FN's that I live by had their best year in the last decade with all the closure last year because they still went out gill netting. The tribes can only request that their members do not fish meanwhile their members do what they want.
Also notice the lack of talk on a recovery plan for these stocks as DFO does not have one yet and hope to develop one in the future. Saltwater sport fishing in winter , spring and early summer is doomed if the FN's get their way.

Nah… sorry rin, I think this would be very much “two” different fisheries - unless those Okanagan Chinook can start swimming/walking over land… they migrate down the Columbia!

The Okanagan Chinook need to be put on SARA… and that fishery “SHUT DOWN- TO ALL”! IMHO!

http://www.fnfisheriescouncil.ca/in...o-protect-imperiled-okanagan-chinook-mar-2210
http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2010/2010-03-17/html/sor-dors33-eng.html
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/p...06/documents/factsheets/chinookdaceseal_e.htm

Then not wanting to get into the lower Fraser "political" thing... but "if" it needs shut down - then shut it down for all? You might find this of interest? I don't think First Nations is currently taking that many, but you know there might be a difference in what is reported "legally" and that other "bull"? But, I think, that count would by two ("2")?
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/PDFs/ChinookKeptCatch.pdf



Map_of_the_Okanagan_River.jpg
 
try to find out what DFO's long term plan is right now to rebuild this run. It's teh religous method of "Hope and Pary" some come back because at this point the only plan is close it all down and do nothing about habitat or other similar issues.
The Alaskan commercial fleet will continue to pound these early fish and the FN's will continue to net the river. Nothing will change expect there will be no sport or commercial fishing on the BC coast.
 
quote:Originally posted by Charlie
The Okanagan Chinook need to be put on SARA… and that fishery “SHUT DOWN- TO ALL”! IMHO!

Do you realize the implications of SARA listing a stock? If I understand correctly, all fisheries that could intercept these fish would be shut down. As in, the whole columbia springer fishery would be closed and the rest of the coast where these fish could pass. Please correct me if I'm wrong though. My problem is that this stock is likely doomed due to habitat loss and water use issues not to mention negotiating all the dams. My point is, even if we close all fishing, NOTHING will stop the fact that the Okanagan region contines to be developed at a fast rate. Water use issues will likely never be solved and demand for water & polution will continue to grow. Don't forget about all the non native fish introduced to that system as well. Bass, yellow pearch, carp, ect...There has to be some issues with competition. If we take the drastic but feel good measure to list this stock and close down the coast, will it actually save the stock if we don't address the habitat issues? I don't think it will, but would like to hear others opinions...
 
I think its kinda funny that with the success of the Columbia runs and what the Americans have done to it.... look at this one little part of it that happens to fall into Canada and that run is doomed... I mean they swim up the Columbia with the half million plus other springs.
 
quote:Originally posted by Lipripper

I think its kinda funny that with the success of the Columbia runs and what the Americans have done to it.... look at this one little part of it that happens to fall into Canada and that run is doomed... I mean they swim up the Columbia with the half million plus other springs.

You would have to keep in mind that a large scale hatchery would not likely fix the wild stock. As in, if you did nothing to solve the habitat issues and then removed the hatchery, the stock would most likely crash again. Also, you would probably have to remove all avaliable wild broodstock to get enough eggs for a signifcicant return. Then the next thing would be for DFO to decide if such a project would get a return on investment. Would it create a large enough fishery on the Canadian side of the border to justify? Are the fish in good enough shape by the time they reach Canada to be valuable? If not,would it make sense to put that kind of money into a Columbia run when we get to catch US raised fish off the WCVI for free? It would be a tough sell when there's not enough money for hatcheries and habitat work as it is. I think we would be better off spending money on restoring chinook habitat in our battered wild streams and increasing terminal hatchery programs where the fishing pressure is greatest. Thoughts?
 
I wasnt really implying that over enhancement would be the right thing to do?
Should the fishery get shut down.... sounds like a start.
With being a shared system and the success on the rest of it. It just looks like a red herring on DFO's part and typical of the way they run the show in general.
If those fish were endangered what implications would that have on the American fisheries and after all the work they have done to improve them? Simply because we are too lazy to figure it out
 
quote:Originally posted by Lipripper

I wasnt really implying that over enhancement would be the right thing to do?
Should the fishery get shut down.... sounds like a start.
With being a shared system and the success on the rest of it. It just looks like a red herring on DFO's part and typical of the way they run the show in general.
If those fish were endangered what implications would that have on the American fisheries and after all the work they have done to improve them? Simply because we are too lazy to figure it out

There is no terminal fishery in the Okanagan river in BC. The river is closed in the fall. The debate is, do we close all fisheries that could possibly intercept this stock? That would include all mainstem Columbia River fishing as well as the salt water approach area's up the coast. If so, the US might as well back right off on hatchery production of stocks with similar run timing as the non terminal fisheries would be gone and there wouldn't be a need for as many fish.

They are doing habitat work on the Okanagan. http://www.obtwg.ca/pdf/ORRIBrochure.PDF
The question is, will it be enough to bring them back? I sure hope so, but am not holding my breath.

Interesting read...
http://www.obtwg.ca/initiatives.html
 
The Canadian Okanagan Chinook already have protection from the U.S. ESA, by default! The U.S. has listed all upper Columbia Chinook on the ESA, so at least they have that. Listing these on SARA would/has no effect on any U.S. fishery, Columbia or otherwise… just would protect them in Canada.

I admit, there is a difference between the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Canada Species at Risk Act (SARA), but for DFO to even suggest closing down the entire west coast fishery due to a listing of this specific stock on SARA is a "VERY WEAK" argument – almost to the point of being ludicrous! Maybe they need to re-read the SARA, a little closer!

Those fish by far, have the toughest migration and those are the only "salmon" that migrate that far - to my knowlege!
 
There are several salmon stocks in Canada that have been "listed" under COSEWIC as threatened or endangered (but not Species At Risk SARA). And the fisheries continue in the ocean where some interception occurs on those COSEWIC listed stocks. DFO do try to shape the fisheries by time and location to avoid those fish as part of the broader fishery recovery plan. As I recall the Cultus Lake Sockeye is listed by COSEWIC as endangered and has an allowable ocean fishing mortality of 20% but DFO manages the Canadian portion to less than 5%, while US fisheries have agreed to and can intercept upto 10%. If I remember correctly the science argument is that upto 20% ocean fishing mortality will not further reduce the stock. I am not a scientist so I do not know whether that 20% is real science or not.

And just so we all understand ... if there is a Canadian SARA listing on a specific salmon stock, the only acceptable catch is with an allowable harm collection permit (that is written into the act), so ALL Canadian fisheries would close at times and locations where those fish migrate or live. Or perhaps each angler would have to have a special permit handed out with each fishing license sold (Ha!). But under that same SARA listing the US river and ocean fisheries would continue to be managed by the USA and would only be requested by Canada to keep their interception mortality to a minimum percentage(agreed to through inter-country Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations) And that would likely still be 10%.

So essentially a Canadian SARA listing of a specific Pacific salmon deme means Canada would shut all fisheries on that stock and inadvertently re-allocate opportunity to the USA. It is essentially what is happening in reverse with the Canadian chinook fishery off Victoria (many US ESA listed Puget Sound fish in the stock mix) and the Area G troll who focus on US chinook stocks on route to the southern Pacific states, of which some are in very low abundance.

As I see it, a SARA listing is one of those "you have to be very careful what you ask for" situations. i.e don't cut your nose to spite your face.



God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
 
I guess, I am confused again!

Gov, good information and solid points, but I think you just made the case way the Okanogan should be listed on SARA? The Sockeye Salmon (Cultus Lake population) “ARE” listed on SARA, since 2003! And as you stated, they are still fished and done so, without shutting down their migration routes – so, why can’t that be done for the Okanogan runs?
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=730

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) is the first step/process for a species to be listed on SARA!
quote: COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) is a committee of experts that assesses and designates which wildlife species are in some danger of disappearing from Canada.

Mission
The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) determines the national status of wild Canadian species, subspecies, varieties or other designatable units that are suspected of being at risk of extinction or extirpation. COSEWIC uses a process based on science and Aboriginal or community knowledge to assess wildlife species at risk. All native mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, arthropods, molluscs, vascular plants, mosses and lichens are included in COSEWIC's current mandate.

In doing its work, COSEWIC develops the prioritized COSEWIC Candidate List of wildlife species needing assessment, manages the production of wildlife species status reports, and holds meetings at which wildlife species are assessed and assigned to risk categories. In all of its actions, COSEWIC uses the best available information relevant to assessing a wildlife species' risk of extinction or extirpation, which it may obtain from any credible source of knowledge of the wildlife species and its habitat. The evaluation process is independent and transparent, and the results are reported to CESCC and the public.

COSEWIC and the Species at Risk Act
COSEWIC was established in 1977 to provide Canadians with a single, scientifically sound classification of wildlife species at risk of extinction. COSEWIC began its assessments in 1978 and has met each year since then to assess wildlife species. COSEWIC uses a process based on science, Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge and community knowledge to assess the risk of extinction for wildlife species. Its process is thorough, independent and transparent.

In 2003, the Species at Risk Act (SARA) was proclaimed. The purpose of SARA is to protect wildlife species at risk in Canada. Within the Act, COSEWIC was established as an independent body of experts responsible for identifying and assessing wildlife species considered to be at risk. This is the first step towards protecting wildlife species at risk. Subsequent steps include COSEWIC reporting its results to the Canadian government and the public, and the Minister of the Environment's official response to the assessment results. Wildlife species that have been designated by COSEWIC may then qualify for legal protection and recovery under SARA.

It is up to government to legally protect wildlife species designated by COSEWIC. COSEWIC's assessments do not take into account political, social or economic factors. The potential impacts of legal listing are for Government to analyse, and the Act applies only to wildlife species on the SARA legal list.
For more information on how COSEWIC assesses wildlife species, visit the Wildlife Species Assessment section of the COSEWIC website.

For more information on the Species at Risk Act, visit the SARA Public Registry website.
http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/sct6_1_e.cfm

SARA? Sounds to me there would be “ requirements that recovery strategies or management plans be developed for all listed species, and that critical habitat for listed species be defined and protected.”
quote:
What happens when a species is listed?
As soon as a species is added to the legal list, there are automatic prohibitions against killing or harming the species or destroying a residence. This applies to an aquatic or migratory bird species anywhere. These prohibitions also extend to all species including plants and mammals on federal lands. There are also requirements that recovery strategies or management plans be developed for all listed species, and that critical habitat for listed species be defined and protected.
Only problem... "DFO" see "NO" benefit to even try to save them... that's just plain, "WRONG"! IMHO!
 
Charlie:

Forgive me but I think you may be slightly off here and know that I do not profess to be an expert, so this is by no means a challenge to your comments.

Quote from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species-especes/cultus_sockeyesalmon-saumonsockeye-eng.htm
What’s being done
The Cultus Lake sockeye salmon is designated as endangered by COSEWIC. In January 2005, a final decision was made by the Government of Canada to not list Cultus Lake sockeye salmon under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), due to the significant socio-economic impacts on sockeye fishers and coastal communities.


COSEWIC, after studying the status of the stock, made recommendation to the Cdn Min of Environment and DFO to formally list Cultus Lake Sockeye "endangered" under SARA. Yet the government came back and said no! Hence they are NOT listed or so I believe to be true to this day. Although a first step in the listing process and a determining factor of the health of a specific species, COSEWIC recommendations have to be responded to officially within 9 months of the formal recommendation being made by the Minister of Environment and Minister of Fisheries to list under SARA or not.

Under great pressure from some of the public, environmentalists and scientists DFO, choosing not to list Cultus sockeye under SARA, had to and did put in place a comprehensive recovery strategy (conservation hatchery program, habitat improvements, fisheries management measures, millfoil removal, and even a squawfish/pike minnow eradication program) So in that case not ALL fishing was stopped and as I understand it the 20% mortality factor is still in place for Cultus sockeye with the USA having 10% of that 20%. I remember reading not too long ago that some disgruntled folks were trying to take DFO to court for not listing Cultus sockeye in the first place.

Also FWIW some now say that COSEWIC is becoming a political beast that from time to time strays from sound science and wields influence to achieve its own ends, sometimes making what are deemed outrageous conclusions. I have also heard they can be guarded about being transparent with the public and sharing information.

And if Cultus sockeye had actually been listed by the minister originally in 2005, DFO would have to have stopped all fishing in the river (legal and illegal, commercial, FN FSC fisheries and sport). And there would be NO fishing (not even catch and release) in the chuck when they were passing through and that's right from the Alaska border to the mouth of the Fraser. So a formal SARA listing carries huge implications. It is, IMHO, easy for gov't to SARA list a localized terrestrial mammal that lives in the middle of nowhere (no one gets hurt), but when the act is tried out upon migratory ocean species it becomes a formidable challenge in its parliament designated management measures. They are just too draconian for politicians to agree to when their voters would be harmed that much. Ah yes, politics again.

The trick is to pressure government into starting the needed recovery program without destroying the important economic and social aspects of the fisheries and coastal communities that have minimal or no impact. Maybe the threat of a listing would do the job here with Okanagan chinook, but as I wrote earlier we have to be very careful what we asks for!



God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
 
Gov,
That’s why I put, “I guess, I am confused again!” No expert here either! :)

Maybe that’s why some are upset? Or, maybe some are right, DFO doesn’t really have a “clue” or, know or care about SARA? Maybe the SARA listing is not right? Maybe “Canada Min of Environment” listed it and didn’t inform DFO? Maybe… who knows? But, SARA clearly lists them “endangered” as of 2003? If you drop down, you will see they where not put on Schedule 1 in 2004, but what about thos other Schedules? What are those effects?

Then you have this:
"To ensure that the remaining species at risk would be re-assessed within an appropriate timeframe, they were all included in SARA with the addition of Schedule 2 and Schedule 3. At the proclamation of SARA in 2003, Schedule 3 comprised 103 special concern species.

COSEWIC has reassessed 90 species using the new criteria, leaving 13 species still to be assessed. After species on Schedules 2 and 3 are reassessed and found to be at risk, they undergo the SARA listing process. Following consultations, the Minister makes a recommendation to Governor in Council; Governor in Council then decides on whether or not they should be added to Schedule 1, the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. The protection and/or conservation measures afforded by SARA apply only to species once they are on Schedule 1."

They are listed with “No schedule, No Status and it is there:
Species Profile
Sockeye Salmon Cultus population
Scientific Name: Oncorhynchus nerka
Other Names: Sockeye Salmon (Cultus Lake population)
Taxonomy Group: Fishes
Range: British Columbia, Pacific Ocean
Last COSEWIC Assessment: May 2003
Last COSEWIC Designation: Endangered
SARA Status: No schedule, No Status

Right from SARA: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=730
http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/approach/act/content_e.cfm

So, I guess they are listed on SARA, but no action taken?
I guess the ESA isn't so bad after all? :)
 
No Schedule, No Status seems to mean "we are not touching this one with a ten foot pole"

IMHO the answer to the big problem here is more wild fish. There must be a way to get public support for comprehensive recovery plans for Cowichan, ET Fraser, Okanagan and West Coast VI chinook stocks of concern. With public support the politicians will find the money needed.

As an aside - one thing I do like about ESA is the high standards construction and development companies must follow in WA to avoid stream habitat destruction of listed salmon. Making the builders use sound sediment management measures on job sites and construction plans with no net increase requirements on off site spillage of pollutants and diliterious substances is badly needed here in Cda. How many times have I reported companies here for doing idiotic things in coho bearing creeks around Victoria, only to have a DFO sniffer dog handler attend two days later and say he doesn't see any infraction.



God never did make a more calm, quiet, innocent recreation than angling - Izaak Walton
 
Back
Top