cohochinook
Well-Known Member
Interesting and well done commentary from Rod on FIRST NATIONS' FOOD FISHERIES:
Fishing with Rod speaks out about FIRST NATIONS' FOOD FISHERIES
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
He lost me in terms of getting out a message when he clearly sidesteps by not mentioning Open Net Cage Fish Farms in his list of things contributing the lack of salmon returns. I guess he never heard of the Cohen Report.
Last edited:
From the video he states he earns money from fishing so maybe a retired biologist. I happen to agree with his position of getting the FN food fishery to be more selective and monitored as well. It's easy to point fingers at the FN but there are very few fish returning in the first place and if the Rec fishery is shut down due to these conservation concerns at the very least the Fish Farms should be moved out of the Ocean to address these concerns at the same time. I'm not a scientist but the Wild Salmon started dissapearing in the early 90's at the same time the Fish Farmers showed up. Coincidence? Well maybe.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Whether he is a biologist or not, he states above that net pen fish farms are a problem to wild salmon and an unsustainable practice - smart guy!
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
Thanks, Admin.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
It’s splitting hairs on my part but it can be misleading to say the Courts ruled First Nations have first access to the fish. I know this is true but I think it’s extremely important to also say that first access is only AFTER Conservation goals are met. No one has nor should have a priority over conservation. Often I hear people saying the part about First Nations priority access over other fishers, but leaving out the Conservation priority trumping everyones When we’re talking nets and poaching we are talking conservation not access rights. Non selective net fishery is not a guaranteed right!
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Rebecca Reid speaks about this in a letter where she defines conservation objectives as actually being very very very small returns. ITs different from sustainable or fishery objectives. I believe it was in response to last years Fraser salmon FSC fishery. The courts I don't believe have actually defined what conservation (in the sparrow decision) means so its really up for interpretation.
I think everyone on here would like conservation to mean that if fishing is going to impact futures years access that then no one should fish but I don't think DFO thinks that.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I would suggest that when you require closures to save endangered runs you’re pretty much admitting you are not meeting conservation goals? If not, wouldn’t the species be off the endangered list? If not what is the criteria to be “endangered”? The problem with DFO is like many Departments once a Bureaucrat moves up in the organization they practise the same double speak as their political master ( how they moved up). Anyone on here think the government is doing enough for conservation? Are spot closures the Silver bullet ? I bet the answer is no. Surely DFO isn’t thinking they are?
It’s sad when we need the courts to define conservation for the government, something departmental biologists should be asked to do. Also something that if the Fisheries hierarchy is either incapable, or unwilling to do, should result in them looking for other work. The more I deal with Fisheries the more it’s apparent it a rudderless ship and has been for many years. They no longer seem to know what their job is and neither does the public.
We are rapidly approaching a system where elected politicians are abdicating both decision making and responsibility to an unelected judiciary, maybe to have someone else to blame. There has to be a better balance.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Yes and yet the opposite is also true, Cowichan have made their conservation goal now for a few years and yet some areas still have no access.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Area 14 where the most closures for Cowichan are, are now gone so there is that.
https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/tidal-maree/co-chq/14-chq-eng.pdf
https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/tidal-maree/co-chq/14-chq-eng.pdf
Last edited:
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that’s a completely different story. It falls into once closed it will never reopen if at all possible, which seems to be the DFO mantra for discouraging Public Fishery. It however highlights the fact that although Conservation is supposed to be a huge part of DFO’s mandate they seem to have lost their way on it. Closures seem to be an easy alternative to actual action. The use of manpower for enforcement and expenditure of Departmental funding would have to be increased in most scenarios that don’t embrace total closure and the Department avoids that. After all how much work is involved in a closure message as opposed to enforcement. Also if they are unable to define their Conservation Goal, how can they realize if or when they have met it.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Area 14 SFAC pushed with resolutions in the SFAB process to the Chinook / Coho working group to get this done. I should know as I and others were involved on a number of them and worked with Jeremy over many years. Jeremy is a good man and has my respect but to think this was all him is selling short the good people on the Area 14 SFAC.
GLG
Well-Known Member
To me there should be a case for a terminal fishery in the Cowichan Bay. You have a round table for that river where I would plead the case. One thing I have learned is you need the patience of Jobe. Good luck and know there are many who support you fellas down there.
Similar threads
