IMPORTANT: SVIAC Town Mtg w/ Mel Arnold MP Re Fisheries Issues

[ziggy]

There seems to be some issues with this experiment if you can call it that. Were acoustic measurement/ spectrum analysis done when boats were fishing the area? If not what is the benchmark to determine if banning them is a success. Hopefully it’s more specific than a less boats= less background noise, therefore no need to actually measure and see if it’s accomplishing anything. If that’s the end game,then nothing short of complete closure for all vessels will be a 100% solution, so failing that what % of reduction is the target?

Are hydrophones currently collecting data currently, and if so will they analyze seasonal differences, ambient noise levels and or specific frequency range noise level ?Will the summer boating season when many pleasure craft transit the area be analyzed? Will the noise levels when Whales are not present be compared to when they and Whale Watchers are present?

I suspect that no measurables have been established, so guess what? Recreational Fishing Closure was the answer!

 

[profisher]

They had an underwater microphone right at the Sheringham lighthouse for a couple of years. They removed it last summer or a least they appeared to as a zodiac was there one morning with a shore crew and the cable running down into the water was removed. The sensor was located a mere 200 ft from the reef at the light where 90% of the sport boats had fished.

 

[profisher]

Plus get this one....commercial boats with halibut quota can go into the refuge and set a 1200 hook long line all legal...but a sport boat can't go in there, anchor, sit quietly with 2 sets of hooks on the bottom for halibut. A dragger can make a tow and drag a trawl through there and of course no restrictions to FN. How much F'en sense does that make for a study area?

 

[casper5280]

Plus get this one....commercial boats with halibut quota can go into the refuge and set a 1200 hook long line all legal...but a sport boat can't go in there, anchor, sit quietly with 2 sets of hooks on the bottom for halibut. A dragger can make a tow and drag a trawl through there and of course no restrictions to FN. How much F'en sense does that make for a study area?

This is what Searun and myself are saying. How can this be a control zone when the only people being controlled are us. For everyone else it’s just a free for all. The way I see it is DFO doesn’t have a leg to stand on with this closure

 

[profisher]

If that is what Searun was implying then I appologize for misunderstanding. I'm not interested in going after any of the others who are permitted in there. I want us to go after DfO (minister) and challenge this and threaten going to court for the reasons you mention...for being singled out unfairly and under the disguise of a study that has no legs.

 

[scott craven]

I agree it is unfair and punishes rec fisher's.
My only concern is that the minister might take a harder line and close down fishing altogether.

 

[calmsea]

No science as far as I can see. No sensors on the whales, no microphones in the water , no cameras or any other measuring devices anywhere to register or record anything. And you still use the word science when talking about these closures? Ridiculous!

 

[searun]

If that is what Searun was implying then I appologize for misunderstanding. I'm not interested in going after any of the others who are permitted in there. I want us to go after DfO (minister) and challenge this and threaten going to court for the reasons you mention...for being singled out unfairly and under the disguise of a study that has no legs.

Thank you. Point taken. We are in real trouble if we cannot move this government off the political social media induced agenda, and onto something based on actual objective scientific facts. You will now see what I was getting at...the "new consultation" on the expansion of this strategy via the new process to collect our external review stakeholder feedback to help justify expanding to Swiftsure and LaPerouse...forgot to mention north end of Charlottes too. Same process, same highly likely political outcome is on its way. I'm highly concerned that some of the whale scientists and the ENGO's have an agenda to close down as much of the rec fishery as possible by whatever means possible. We have to fight the junk science being used to justify the end goal...much of their work appears on face to be totally based on assumptions not science.

Here's an example of a broad conclusion based upon no scientific observation, acoustic monitoring evidence, and yet wide sweeping "assumptions" are being made to connect this as a habitat of special critical importance to SRKW - shocking and notice the word..."likely"... ergo I haven't any evidence to support my conclusion - junk science. This paper is what DFO is using as justification to expand the Area of Critical Habitat for SRKW.

Here it is:

Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) Research Document 2017/035 Pacific Region June 2017 Habitats of Special Importance to Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) off the West Coast of Canada John K.B. Ford1 , James F. Pilkington1 , Amalis Reira2 , Mayuko Otsuki1 , Brian Gisborne1 , Robin M. Abernethy1 , Eva H. Stredulinsky1 , Jared R. Towers1 , and Graeme M. Ellis

"The proposed critical habitat area includes the Canadian portions of Swiftsure Bank, where acoustic monitoring revealed considerable habitat use by both SRKW and NRKW over much of the year. It also includes several other relatively shallow banks including La Perouse Bank to the northwest which, like Swiftsure Bank, are among the most productive fishing areas for Chinook and other salmonids on the North American west coast (Healey et al. 1990; McFarlane et al. 1997). It is probable that the whales make greater use of these banks than the modest number of documented Resident Killer Whale encounters might suggest – this is likely a reflection of the relatively low observer effort in those areas."

 

[searun]

I agree with the rule of law. My experience going down that road is unless you have very, very deep pockets DON'T. If you have ever actually paid the legal bills that flow like rivers from litigation, you would not comprehend how fast you can vaporize money. Moreover, seldom do litigants ever truly "win" - most judges look for the middle ground, resulting in a tie in most cases.

 

[searun]

Let's be real...litigation is prohibitively expensive. All very brave talk until you actually have to doll out the cold hard cash. There are other less expensive and risky ways to accomplish our objectives.

 

[searun]

Being real is actually doing something and not giving up before you even start. Lets ask ourselves how do other groups accomplish similar challenges. Stop thinking like an individual and focus on a broader picture. Its time.

That's pretty bold statement, you have no idea what we are working on. It won't be litigation...just a hint.

 

[wildmanyeah]

...the sad part of this statement is, that you shouldn't be speaking about any aspect of it at all. I am just a pee-on feeble licensed sport fisherman, commercial license holder and aboriginal status food fisher trying to offer insight. Moving on. see ya.

Being realistic we would probably need DFO to completely shut down the coast, even then we would be litigating for C&R. Then you have to consider First Nations would probably take intervener status against us and commercial fishermen as well would take intervener status against us. Would have to go to the supreme court. Very Lengthy

That does not mean we can't pull what the ENGO's just did to DFO on the SRKW file, Come up with a sound plan with solutions get all the recreation groups to sign on and threaten litigation.

But we are not ENGO's or FN we can't expect some pro bono lawyers to take on our case....

 

[searun]

Yes that is the point. Litigation is a very impractical way for anyone to resolve issues like this. Appreciate what the law is, however unless we are in a courtroom it’s not particularly helpful other than to point out to DFO that they should respect it...but the practical response from their side will be they don’t agree with our interpretation of the law and if you want that tested see you in court. Circular argument that gets us nowhere.

So back to exploring other more pragmatic tools.