Interview with Jason Tonelli on CKNW this morning

If I heard correctly (and maybe I should go back and listen again), he said there was "no opening when the fish of concern were in the relevant area" - this is not the same as saying there were no openings. Assuming then that the fish are higher up in the system (which imo is a blatant lie), why is Rec not open? Regarding why no hatchery allowed, did he not say the FN threatened to go full tilt on the river if we were allowed hatchery?

While I agree this whole thing has an alternate agenda (think reconciliation and oil), I shudder to think what the cons would do (and have done) to the fish and the environment. I honestly do not think there is a way out of this and expect what we have seen to be status quo for the rest of my fishing years, regardless of who is in power.
 
If I heard correctly (and maybe I should go back and listen again), he said there was "no opening when the fish of concern were in the relevant area" - this is not the same as saying there were no openings. Assuming then that the fish are higher up in the system (which imo is a blatant lie), why is Rec not open? Regarding why no hatchery allowed, did he not say the FN threatened to go full tilt on the river if we were allowed hatchery?

While I agree this whole thing has an alternate agenda (think reconciliation and oil), I shudder to think what the cons would do (and have done) to the fish and the environment. I honestly do not think there is a way out of this and expect what we have seen to be status quo for the rest of my fishing years, regardless of who is in power.
Well said
 
If I heard correctly (and maybe I should go back and listen again), he said there was "no opening when the fish of concern were in the relevant area" - this is not the same as saying there were no openings. Assuming then that the fish are higher up in the system (which imo is a blatant lie), why is Rec not open? Regarding why no hatchery allowed, did he not say the FN threatened to go full tilt on the river if we were allowed hatchery?

While I agree this whole thing has an alternate agenda (think reconciliation and oil), I shudder to think what the cons would do (and have done) to the fish and the environment. I honestly do not think there is a way out of this and expect what we have seen to be status quo for the rest of my fishing years, regardless of who is in power.

Nimo,

To bring this back to the Conservatives right now is ridiculous! You have a Fisheries Minister that outright lied to the Canadian Public that there were no gillnet openings for FSC Fisheries. Since April 18 to June 30 there have been 94 separate gill net openings, some as long as 7 days. The math comes out to 587 days of gill net effort on the Fraser for endangered chinook stocks. Your willing to accept this as he didn't outright lie and then point at the Conservatives. I for one will not accept his lies any longer!
 
All I can repeat is. Under the last Gov my outdoor passions and abilities to participate were not as they are today. Are there more fish today, that's a big YES but only if yo are a minority. I would be willing to bet if current Gov gets past Oct my abilities will go away to a minority. Lets not forget I am also a criminal private gun owner while the real criminals run rampart.

Maybe rec fishers need huge billboards just like the one wildmanyeah made already on the 401, QEW, Hywy 20 in other parts of Canada in Sept and Oct to remind the millions in the East what happened in the West. Even few wisely converted dumbed down Libs may help. I do not think they don't care as much as they don't know, they only see the Lier BS.

HM
 
We can expose their lies, but the fact of the matter is, most of the public that doesn't fish could care less... remember that. What's the way forward for us? I don't know!
Frustrating as it is if you do nothing you become part of the problem. Politicians count on the public forgetting their lies. Send a copy to the other Candidates running against him, that’ll get his attention.
 
If I heard correctly (and maybe I should go back and listen again), he said there was "no opening when the fish of concern were in the relevant area" - this is not the same as saying there were no openings. Assuming then that the fish are higher up in the system (which imo is a blatant lie), why is Rec not open? Regarding why no hatchery allowed, did he not say the FN threatened to go full tilt on the river if we were allowed hatchery?

While I agree this whole thing has an alternate agenda (think reconciliation and oil), I shudder to think what the cons would do (and have done) to the fish and the environment. I honestly do not think there is a way out of this and expect what we have seen to be status quo for the rest of my fishing years, regardless of who is in power.
To quote Bill Clinton,“I have never had sex with that woman” lol
 
Nimo,

To bring this back to the Conservatives right now is ridiculous! You have a Fisheries Minister that outright lied to the Canadian Public that there were no gillnet openings for FSC Fisheries. Since April 18 to June 30 there have been 94 separate gill net openings, some as long as 7 days. The math comes out to 587 days of gill net effort on the Fraser for endangered chinook stocks. Your willing to accept this as he didn't outright lie and then point at the Conservatives. I for one will not accept his lies any longer!

Not saying he didn't lie, outright, I'm saying he didn't say, "that there were no openings"...he said there were no openings in the area of concern - ie, the fish of concern have already moved on or aren't there yet. That's a different lie, albeit now up to interpretation. If we are going to accuse him of something it should be what was actually said, rather than let him slip along. If I missed something I'm happy to back through the tape, and actually I will for my own sake.

I'm sure as hell not deflecting this onto the Cs, I just know that it won't matter who is at the helm, we are Fck'd. When I vote C again, and I don't currently see a better option, it won't be because I believe they will magically bring back access to the resource that my family has enjoyed on this island since the 1800s.
 
Many in our community have stated things that seem to suggest they have all but accepted that the current regs are going to be status quo for the foreseeable future.

I would like to be more positive. BUT!
Looking at the theme of discussions around catch and release, combined with the increased attention it is getting by the department. RE; study on impact. I fear we will be considering our selves lucky if we are status quo next April. This is putting a bad taste in my mouth. One that tastes like full fin fish closures on most or even all early run Fraser approaches. Hope I am being overly concerned. ?????

Either way I believe these round table meetings he says will begin in a month desperately need to have lots of time dedicated to address the significance of the C&R element. No C&R = no fishing period.
 
Sure there's been no FN openings, just like they aren't lobbying to use drones for caribou hunting. What a farce this has all become.
 
Not saying he didn't lie, outright, I'm saying he didn't say, "that there were no openings"...he said there were no openings in the area of concern - ie, the fish of concern have already moved on or aren't there yet. That's a different lie, albeit now up to interpretation. If we are going to accuse him of something it should be what was actually said, rather than let him slip along. If I missed something I'm happy to back through the tape, and actually I will for my own sake.

I'm sure as hell not deflecting this onto the Cs, I just know that it won't matter who is at the helm, we are Fck'd. When I vote C again, and I don't currently see a better option, it won't be because I believe they will magically bring back access to the resource that my family has enjoyed on this island since the 1800s.
There is no excusing Wilkinson from this outright lie. As Wildmanyeah points out! We have to stop letting him get away with this smoke + mirrors PR campaign!
 
Not saying he didn't lie, outright, I'm saying he didn't say, "that there were no openings"...he said there were no openings in the area of concern - ie, the fish of concern have already moved on or aren't there yet. That's a different lie, albeit now up to interpretation. If we are going to accuse him of something it should be what was actually said, rather than let him slip along. If I missed something I'm happy to back through the tape, and actually I will for my own sake.

I'm sure as hell not deflecting this onto the Cs, I just know that it won't matter who is at the helm, we are Fck'd. When I vote C again, and I don't currently see a better option, it won't be because I believe they will magically bring back access to the resource that my family has enjoyed on this island since the 1800s.


For those that are interested in precisley what Wilkinson said in the interview this morning, I am putting these quotes together for another purpose so already have them in a document:

Minsister Wilkinson said in response to Jill Bennett's questions:

" Again, the Food and Ceremonial is closed for the period of time that the Fraser River chinook are in the relevant area"

----

"So again, the way in which the closures work with respect to retention are only when these relevant stocks are in the relevant area and in that context we are tying to ensure, working very hard to ensure, that the regulations that we put into place are respected . Our conservation and protection officers work to do that every day and they will continue to do so"

----

"No..... there is no opening for Food and Ceremonial puroposes while the relevant Fraser chinook stocks are in the area. If in fact there were gill nets that have been used then they would be out of compliance with the regulations and that is the role of the conservation and protection officers to ensure that the regulations are complied with"

I would suggest that his over use of the word relevant was done on purpose because it is vague. "relevant area" or "in the area" means to me that he just didn't want to instead say "in the Fraser River" (where the stocks of concern exist). Saying "relevant time" would then also mean when the stocks of concern are there present in the Fraser River.

*
I note that every time Jill Bennett pressed him for an answer about numbers of FN gill net openings or numbers of endangered chinook taken in the many openings, he would then go into his rehearsed broken record rant about the conservation officers jobs monitoring for illegal nets in the river. Jill never even asked him anything about illegal fishing/netting but Wilkinson never failed to end going straight to how they monitor the river for illegal netting. That in itself shows me a clear attempt to constantly deflect from answering the question that was asked.
 
For those that are interested in precisley what Wilkinson said in the interview this morning, I am putting these quotes together for another purpose so already have them in a document:

Minsister Wilkinson said in response to Jill Bennett's questions:

" Again, the Food and Ceremonial is closed for the period of time that the Fraser River chinook are in the relevant area"

----

"So again, the way in which the closures work with respect to retention are only when these relevant stocks are in the relevant area and in that context we are tying to ensure, working very hard to ensure, that the regulations that we put into place are respected . Our conservation and protection officers work to do that every day and they will continue to do so"

----

"No..... there is no opening for Food and Ceremonial puroposes while the relevant Fraser chinook stocks are in the area. If in fact there were gill nets that have been used then they would be out of compliance with the regulations and that is the role of the conservation and protection officers to ensure that the regulations are complied with"

I would suggest that his over use of the word relevant was done on purpose because it is vague. "relevant area" or "in the area" means to me that he just didn't want to instead say "in the Fraser River" (where the stocks of concern exist). Saying "relevant time" would then also mean when the stocks of concern are there present in the Fraser River.

*
I note that every time Jill Bennett pressed him for an answer about numbers of FN gill net openings or numbers of endangered chinook taken in the many openings, he would then go into his rehearsed broken record rant about the conservation officers jobs monitoring for illegal nets in the river. Jill never even asked him anything about illegal fishing/netting but Wilkinson never failed to end going straight to how they monitor the river for illegal netting. That in itself shows me a clear attempt to constantly deflect from answering the question that was asked.
Relevant is his BS bolt hole. When cornered he will claim he never actually said no netting was taking place. Did he lead people to believe no nets were in the Fraser, of course he did. Relevant will be his escape word! Bottom line he will claim not to have lied and be sorry if he misled anyone. Slimy at best! The follow up question is what irrelevant stock was being caught and what part of the Fraser is irrelevant to This run. Guys got to go.
 
We should email the radio host and ask for an oppty for Jason to respond to the minister’s lies on the same show ASAP. This is how we can eventually put pressure on DFO and shed some light on their politically driven decision making. THIS IS THE PR OPPORTUNITY WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR.

can someone send the link to that DFO website? Time to push the facts to these MFs.

https://globalnews.ca/author/jill-bennett/

Dear Jill,

Thanks for covering the recreational angling restriction in your last week’s program. This provided and opportunity for listeners to hear both sides of the story from one of the most reputable sport angling representatives in the province as well as the minister “responsible “ for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

I have been a recreational fishing enthusiast and have enjoyed angling in the southern coast of BC for over twenty years. I am not financially dependent on the fishing-related income but can relate to the hardships that the coastal communities of BC have endured because of this year’s closures.

While listening to Mr. Wilkinson’s interview there were two items in particular that I think needed further elaboration by the Minister:

1- Mr. Wilkinson stated “So again, the food and ceremonial is closed for the period of time that Fraser chinooks are in relevant areas”. Nothing could be further from the truth, as there have been 94 gill net openings in the Fraser River since the recreational Chinook closures were announced in April. This number is based on DFO’s website and I believe Mr. Wilkinson is ultimately in charge of these openings.
https://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/...ns/HTMLs/CeremonialOpeningTimes_Previous.html

https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/fraser/abor-autoc-eng.html

2- When asked why recreational anglers cannot be given the opportunity to harvest hatchery marked Chinook in the ocean, Mr. Wilkinson responded “because we cannot make sure that’s what they are keeping”. Part of DFO’s mission is to enforce regulations and that means there is proper oversight on all sectors by DFO, including the sport anglers. Is Mr. Wilkinson implying that DFO has neglected this critical part of their mission? Then how is that going to work after July 15 when there will be broader fishing opportunities for sport anglers, First Nations and the Commercial sector? Or is the Minister contradicting himself to defend a poor decision?

In any event, I am going to ask for a follow up interview with Mr. Jason Tonelli in your next program to get a more detailed view to the actual stats and make sure Canadians can trust their politicians in the election year.

Thanks again to you and CKNW for giving the general public the opportunity to have a view of this issue.
 
Last edited:
Relevant is his BS bolt hole. When cornered he will claim he never actually said no netting was taking place. Did he lead people to believe no nets were in the Fraser, of course he did. Relevant will be his escape word! Bottom line he will claim not to have lied and be sorry if he misled anyone. Slimy at best! The follow up question is what irrelevant stock was being caught and what part of the Fraser is irrelevant to This run. Guys got to go.

Well said.
What scientific method is DFO using to ensure the “stocks of concern” aren’t in the “relevant areas”? It’s a f$#ng long river and according to his earlier statement 12 out of 14 Fraser chinook runs are in trouble. The guy shows no shame with all his repeat lies. This is a true modern politician’s quality.
 
Back
Top