Somas Sockeye Bulletin

You of course realize that fish travel from the South in Barkley Sound and where the test fishery is to the North up Alberni inlet into the Somass and into papermill dam - which takes a few days - and not the other way around, Aces? and what is taken in papermill dam does not affect the test fishery #s
 
6000 pcs over two sets. With all planned quota exceeded. They are still Fishing. DFO has no plan to stop them.
Sad, maddening - but true. Another example how DFO does not manage the fisheries based upon what is good for conservation, they manage it on what is good for whatever political party is in power! :mad:
We the people must come together all sectors work together to make this disastrous situation better.

What about a 'Defund the DFO' movement?

We need to get the province to take over from the feds on the management of salmon. At least if the province managed it they are closer to home to bring about political pressure to improve things and much easier to vote the political party out of power as we don't have to worry about eastern Canada skewing the vote and screwing the west - yet again.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile let’s plan another K
6000 pcs over two sets. With all planned quota exceeded. They are still Fishing. DFO has no plan to stop them.

Is there an official answer to why they continue after exceeding quota? Would be interesting to hear the answer to that question.
 
How do the rest of the groups at the round table feel about this . And then we wonder why our stalks are in danger in 4 years if there's a poor return it will be everyone's fault except those that exceeded their quota. GREED
 
Very sad reading this, seen this posted on Facebook,

The Barkley Sound Harvest Roundtable met this afternoon for three hours. This was one of our most difficult meetings. The relationships that have taken decades to build up are feeling some strain with the stresses that the table is currently under. My intention is to just stick to the facts, so I apologize if this update seems a little sterlized or flat.

Escapement number are proceeding at a steady level, through both sets of counters, into both lakes. Escapement is not huge, but it is steady and acceptable for the run size.

The run-size has been reforcasted to 330,000 adults, with the split to Great Central likely to arrive at around 45% by the end of the run, which is a good ratio. There is some uncertainty around the age of some of the escaped fish, because the aging laboratory is off-line right now due to Covid. So the age is being estimated by body length, which is not as accurate, but it is good enough for us to use for in-season purposes.

There is some concern that with the smaller females, egg counts could be lower, so we need to keep that in mind when we are considering escapement.

There is some concern about the accuracy of the total harvest being reported. While this inaccuracy does change allocations, more importantly it could damage future years, and make it harder for us to get this run back up to a level where we can harvest an a more economically viable number.

The Area D specific allocation has not been caught, but it is the feeling of the table today that the total catch allocation has already been exceeded at the 330,000 run size.

The Area D advisors on the call today made a very difficult decision to not plan a fishery for us next week to take the rest of our allocation, even though we have fish remaining, because it is not sustainable to fish into the escapement numbers that the entire table has agreed were responsible numbers in the past.

The recreational fishery will also be phasing out their sockeye fishery and switching to target chinook, although making regulation changes for the recreational fishery is more difficult and takes more time, and more notice has to be given, due to the size and scope of the fishery and its broadly distributed participants.

The food fishery in outer Barkley proceeds at a steady pace, with the catch being spread out over multiple weeks. There is allocation remaining and this fishery will continue because it is a negotiated treaty fishery that is triggered by run-size alone, and was never negotiated to respond to escapement.

The food fishery in the Somass River has exceeded its allocation and there will be no more licensed food fisheries in the Somas River unless the run size is substantially upgraded.

The next meeting could be on Monday, if there is a substantial abundance of fish seen by the test boat, and/or large numbers of fish seen escaping through the counters. Otherwise the next meeting is next Thursday.

Any potential Area D fishery is extremely unlikely, for all the reasons you can figure out in the above paragraphs, plus the fact that if the run size gets upgraded to 350,000 then the seine fishery comes on-line, which splits the commercial fishers allocation 60:40. The result of that split coming into play at 350,000 means the Area D allocation remains fairly constant between 300,000 and 350,000, and doesn't start to grow again until the run hits 400,000 - which seems extremely unlikely at this point.

-Ryan

Arthur Nott no, its good to have the discussion in the open if possible - usually others have the same questions. So - most years each group of harvesters work hard to stay within their own allocation. Everyone has an allocation, except for the sports fleet, which has an expected catch. If the sport fleet ever got close to their expected catch, then we would consider lowering their bag limit, but since the sports fleet has gradually shrunk since the allocation tables were built, they rarely catch their expected catch these days.

The challenge with this year is that one harvester has decided to keep fishing even though they have already exceeded their allocation. This is a large scale problem, and the harvest table doesn't have the resources to deal with it - it is squarely in the hands of the DFO to deal with this problem. The harvest table is good for dealing with small conflicts, opening plans, sharing information, etc - but if one group decides not to attend the meetings or follow the allocation tables that have been negotiated, then it is really out of our hands and all we can do is react to save the fish as best as we can.

A difficult topic.

-Ryan
 
Hard to fathom how aparthied policies can proceed in fisheries management in Canada particularly in light of the current world wide focus on equality. The systemic problems in DFO management need to be addressed in my opinion. Perhaps it is time to defund DFO and start with a renewed focus on scientific management.
 
The challenge with this year is that one harvester has decided to keep fishing even though they have already exceeded their allocation. This is a large scale problem, and the harvest table doesn't have the resources to deal with it - it is squarely in the hands of the DFO to deal with this problem. The harvest table is good for dealing with small conflicts, opening plans, sharing information, etc - but if one group decides not to attend the meetings or follow the allocation tables that have been negotiated, then it is really out of our hands and all we can do is react to save the fish as best as we can.

A difficult topic.

-Ryan[/QUOTE]

Thank you for taking the time to write all that, with such a complete disregard for conservation will contacting DFO actually amount to anything in your opinion?
 
The challenge with this year is that one harvester has decided to keep fishing even though they have already exceeded their allocation. This is a large scale problem, and the harvest table doesn't have the resources to deal with it - it is squarely in the hands of the DFO to deal with this problem. The harvest table is good for dealing with small conflicts, opening plans, sharing information, etc - but if one group decides not to attend the meetings or follow the allocation tables that have been negotiated, then it is really out of our hands and all we can do is react to save the fish as best as we can.

A difficult topic.

-Ryan

Thank you for taking the time to write all that, with such a complete disregard for conservation will contacting DFO actually amount to anything in your opinion?[/QUOTE]

Please identify this group by giving names. This is public information on a public fishery that needs to be shared.
 
Please identify this group by giving names. This is public information on a public fishery that needs to be shared.

I read that they have decided no to name the group or go to the media because they are still trying to get this First Nation group back to the table.
 
It would seem that they are a bit busy outdoors to be bothered going to a table.
I am sure they will show up in a couple of weeks, but only if they get paid their per diem.
 
Back
Top