OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
http://steelheadvoices.com/?p=1341&...nk7fa_z3smdfX2eNr_SLFVpWyT-VOtAv3qU7i_D1x8SeA
Taken from part of the article.
Before going any further here, consider some simple basics. We’re down to a forecast of a cumulative total of roughly 230 steelhead that have passed the DFO test fishery on the lower Fraser River this season and might make it to the Thompson and Chilcotin rivers to spawn next spring. Think about that. How stark does a conservation issue have to be to justify immediate intervention by regulatory authorities? A couple of hundred steelhead is all that remains in two of the largest and most productive river habitats in the Fraser system. Collectively those two systems have produced millions of sockeye salmon in a single year in recent times. The remaining stocks (Nahatlatch, Stein, Bridge/Seton) of that same IFS “conservation unit” don’t even warrant honourable mention any more. There is no credible estimate of how many of the 230 have been or will be removed by First Nations nets operating upstream from the test fishery either.
Now, here we are immersed in the debate around listing IFS under our endangered species legislation (SARA). The options being trotted out by DFO in their carefully calculated consultative processes boil down to a choice between the status quo (meaningless constraints on commercial and First Nations fisheries, no constraints on ocean recreational fisheries but continued closure of the freshwater recreational fishery) and draconian measures like closing all commercial, recreational and First Nations fisheries for the entire time that IFS are suspected of being present while migrating to the Fraser River on either side of Vancouver Island and through into the river itself (i.e. 60 days). The mischief here is our dedicated steelhead conservationists in DFO are pitting ocean recreational fishers with their staggering investments in boats, lodges, marina facilities, etc. against 5% or less of their numbers who advocate for wild steelhead conservation. Energizing all the commercial recreational fishing lobbyists out there on the briny with the threat of complete angling closures to protect steelhead they never catch anyway can’t be viewed as anything less than a deliberate strategy to demonstrate to the endangered species listing decision makers the recreational fishery supports the status quo. That would be precisely the suite of circumstances that got us to where we are today.
The commercial fishing lobby is loudly apoplectic over the prospect of their steadily shrinking opportunities being constrained over a few dozen steelhead they claim they never catch. Needless to say, their well established conspiracy of silence concerning catch reporting of that troublesome species has never been challenged by DFO. No matter. History proves the commercial fishery has very sympathetic ears in government halls. First Nations are equally vociferously opposed to any steelhead based constraints. Not the least of that opposition stems from the fact there is a large and growing number of FN commercial fishing vessel owners and crew members. It doesn’t seem to register that those same boats frequently fish under FN rights and privileges when commercial fisheries are forbidden. Then there is that other commonly stated FN condemnation of anglers for playing with their food. Even if there were significantly more constraints imposed on the commercial fishery, recent experience points squarely to DFO treating FN fisheries as untouchable. That leaves only the recreational fishers, the least impactful group by far, for DFO to sell on which of its two option is best. The protest of all those heavily invested lobbyists who like to subsidize their habit and/or extract wealth from a public resource out there in the far off ocean approaches to the Fraser River will easily outweigh the influence of a few hundred (at most) steelhead anglers who have already faded into the background because they have been eliminated as users.
Ultimately, the mismatch between conservation and business will carry the day while DFO does spares no expense or process to create the illusion consultation and strict adherence to its well worn pronouncements about the precautionary principle, sustainability and conservation are the foundation of everything it does. All this while the underlying theme that everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die takes IFS down the path of no return.
Taken from part of the article.
Before going any further here, consider some simple basics. We’re down to a forecast of a cumulative total of roughly 230 steelhead that have passed the DFO test fishery on the lower Fraser River this season and might make it to the Thompson and Chilcotin rivers to spawn next spring. Think about that. How stark does a conservation issue have to be to justify immediate intervention by regulatory authorities? A couple of hundred steelhead is all that remains in two of the largest and most productive river habitats in the Fraser system. Collectively those two systems have produced millions of sockeye salmon in a single year in recent times. The remaining stocks (Nahatlatch, Stein, Bridge/Seton) of that same IFS “conservation unit” don’t even warrant honourable mention any more. There is no credible estimate of how many of the 230 have been or will be removed by First Nations nets operating upstream from the test fishery either.
Now, here we are immersed in the debate around listing IFS under our endangered species legislation (SARA). The options being trotted out by DFO in their carefully calculated consultative processes boil down to a choice between the status quo (meaningless constraints on commercial and First Nations fisheries, no constraints on ocean recreational fisheries but continued closure of the freshwater recreational fishery) and draconian measures like closing all commercial, recreational and First Nations fisheries for the entire time that IFS are suspected of being present while migrating to the Fraser River on either side of Vancouver Island and through into the river itself (i.e. 60 days). The mischief here is our dedicated steelhead conservationists in DFO are pitting ocean recreational fishers with their staggering investments in boats, lodges, marina facilities, etc. against 5% or less of their numbers who advocate for wild steelhead conservation. Energizing all the commercial recreational fishing lobbyists out there on the briny with the threat of complete angling closures to protect steelhead they never catch anyway can’t be viewed as anything less than a deliberate strategy to demonstrate to the endangered species listing decision makers the recreational fishery supports the status quo. That would be precisely the suite of circumstances that got us to where we are today.
The commercial fishing lobby is loudly apoplectic over the prospect of their steadily shrinking opportunities being constrained over a few dozen steelhead they claim they never catch. Needless to say, their well established conspiracy of silence concerning catch reporting of that troublesome species has never been challenged by DFO. No matter. History proves the commercial fishery has very sympathetic ears in government halls. First Nations are equally vociferously opposed to any steelhead based constraints. Not the least of that opposition stems from the fact there is a large and growing number of FN commercial fishing vessel owners and crew members. It doesn’t seem to register that those same boats frequently fish under FN rights and privileges when commercial fisheries are forbidden. Then there is that other commonly stated FN condemnation of anglers for playing with their food. Even if there were significantly more constraints imposed on the commercial fishery, recent experience points squarely to DFO treating FN fisheries as untouchable. That leaves only the recreational fishers, the least impactful group by far, for DFO to sell on which of its two option is best. The protest of all those heavily invested lobbyists who like to subsidize their habit and/or extract wealth from a public resource out there in the far off ocean approaches to the Fraser River will easily outweigh the influence of a few hundred (at most) steelhead anglers who have already faded into the background because they have been eliminated as users.
Ultimately, the mismatch between conservation and business will carry the day while DFO does spares no expense or process to create the illusion consultation and strict adherence to its well worn pronouncements about the precautionary principle, sustainability and conservation are the foundation of everything it does. All this while the underlying theme that everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die takes IFS down the path of no return.
