wildmanyeah
Crew Member
all it means is Rebecca Reid is going to have to be told from top down to implement MSF. no amount of meetings with her lackys will change that fact. Going to have to done through top level lobbying at the Minister level.
FOPO Minutes and Motions
- Thread starter wildmanyeah
- Start date
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Exactly right WMY. On top of that near end of 2 hours she is asked what’s the next big step to ensure fraser River salmon survival. She didn’t say habitat. She didn’t say hatcheries. She said management measures.
I am writing her and Andrew Thomsen tonight asking how that is justified when it is scientifically shown rec sector only takes less than 5% of all salmon. And it is well known the stocks need more than a 5% increase. And other measures like habitat and hatchery production increase that drastically more. On top of that history SHOWS management measures do not help bring back stocks. Ie interior coho. Clearly this is an interior fraser issue, not a management issue. She is so god damn stupid.
I am writing her and Andrew Thomsen tonight asking how that is justified when it is scientifically shown rec sector only takes less than 5% of all salmon. And it is well known the stocks need more than a 5% increase. And other measures like habitat and hatchery production increase that drastically more. On top of that history SHOWS management measures do not help bring back stocks. Ie interior coho. Clearly this is an interior fraser issue, not a management issue. She is so god damn stupid.
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Will be a tough slog to get much of a MSF for at least 4-5 years I think. From what I hear there has been sizeable split among dfo staffers on this subject. Meetings had conversations of “we don’t want our fish being caught” from some of the hatcheries.
That’s what I was told by a trusted source anyway.
edited the last line for obvious “fat thumbs small keyboard “ issues.
That’s what I was told by a trusted source anyway.
edited the last line for obvious “fat thumbs small keyboard “ issues.
Last edited:
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
This comuttiee has been suspended for covid reasons .
However some of the minutes and evidence has now been posted.
This conversation is very telling
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/FOPO/meeting-4/evidence
Hon. Ed Fast:
Okay.Ms. Rebecca Reid: Actually, I don't believe that's the case.
Hon. Ed Fast:
I met with them yesterday. That is the case. They were with me in my office.
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
More selective fishing is what they have told us they want. They're not proposing mass marking. There is a difference between those.
Hon. Ed Fast:
I understand the difference, but they want to see more opportunities to catch fish. It's a significant industry on the west coast. Maybe they're telling me something quite different from what they're telling you, but they would love to see much greater marking of fish. I did notice a reluctance on your part earlier to go down that path. I'd like to know why.
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
I was trying to explain in just a few short words some of the technical considerations around mark-selective fishing, and particularly mass making. We're going to need to adapt our systems and processes in order to ensure we have the scientific information we need and that we can protect wild salmon.
There are ways to do it and we are looking at those. We're working with the sports industry on that.
My point was simply that we need to be thoughtful and careful about how we proceed down that path.
Hon. Ed Fast:
What's happening in Washington state with mass marking?
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
Their situation is very different down there. They have a higher reliance on hatchery fish. Here we have the wild salmon policy, which prescribes our approach to protect wild salmon. In that way we need to be careful about how many hatchery fish we put into the system, because they do have an impact on those wild returns.
Hon. Ed Fast:
In Washington state they obviously have as much concern for protecting the wild salmon, yet they have much broader marking of fish than we do on the west coast of B.C. I just don't see why we wouldn't be exploring the experience of Washington state to try to enhance the opportunities for the sports fishers in British Columbia.
Mr. Andrew Thomson:
We do have a pilot program this year at Conuma hatchery on the northwest coast of Vancouver Island, where we'll be having a pilot marking and mark-selective fishery.
Hon. Ed Fast:
Is it a mass marking project?
Mr. Andrew Thomson:
Yes.
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
SEP hasn't had an increase, but it's not running at a deficit. We balance our budget, if that's what you're asking.
Mr. Brad Vis:
Yes, I know, so it is a deficit that it's operating at if you look year over year.Ms. Rebecca Reid: It will be hard to be concise, but I'll say two things about marking. One is that mass marking affects our stock assessment work. As we mark more fish, we lose information about stocks. The second thing is that unless you do the marking in a particular way, you end up killing wild fish. That's not to say you can't do it, but you need to be careful. You need to have a plan. You can't rush into it. You need to be very deliberate and thoughtful about how you move into a mass marking or a mark-selective fishery regime.
Mr. Brad Vis:
They're doing that, obviously, in Oregon and Washington. We're catching some of that fish. Why is it that we're not tying in with what they're doing?
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
We have looked at what Washington is doing. It has a very different situation down there. Our priority here is wild fish, so in order to protect wild fish, we need to make sure they are able to return to their streams. Having huge marked fishing opportunities means you're picking up wild fish and marked fish at the same time, and there is an impact on those wild fish. That's not to say you can't do it, but you need to be thoughtful about it.
Mr. Brad Vis:
They're already doing it right now. They're catching fish and releasing. In terms of conservation, we see this as a pathway forward. We can have a longer debate about this, and I hope there's room at some point, because the communities want the department to come to the communities and have this conversation. It's of utmost importance, and we're hearing it from everyone up and down the coast.
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
We are having that conversation, and that's part of some of the chinook meetings that we are leading right now.
However some of the minutes and evidence has now been posted.
This conversation is very telling
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/FOPO/meeting-4/evidence
Hon. Ed Fast:
Okay.Ms. Rebecca Reid: Actually, I don't believe that's the case.
Hon. Ed Fast:
I met with them yesterday. That is the case. They were with me in my office.
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
More selective fishing is what they have told us they want. They're not proposing mass marking. There is a difference between those.
Hon. Ed Fast:
I understand the difference, but they want to see more opportunities to catch fish. It's a significant industry on the west coast. Maybe they're telling me something quite different from what they're telling you, but they would love to see much greater marking of fish. I did notice a reluctance on your part earlier to go down that path. I'd like to know why.
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
I was trying to explain in just a few short words some of the technical considerations around mark-selective fishing, and particularly mass making. We're going to need to adapt our systems and processes in order to ensure we have the scientific information we need and that we can protect wild salmon.
There are ways to do it and we are looking at those. We're working with the sports industry on that.
My point was simply that we need to be thoughtful and careful about how we proceed down that path.
Hon. Ed Fast:
What's happening in Washington state with mass marking?
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
Their situation is very different down there. They have a higher reliance on hatchery fish. Here we have the wild salmon policy, which prescribes our approach to protect wild salmon. In that way we need to be careful about how many hatchery fish we put into the system, because they do have an impact on those wild returns.
Hon. Ed Fast:
In Washington state they obviously have as much concern for protecting the wild salmon, yet they have much broader marking of fish than we do on the west coast of B.C. I just don't see why we wouldn't be exploring the experience of Washington state to try to enhance the opportunities for the sports fishers in British Columbia.
Mr. Andrew Thomson:
We do have a pilot program this year at Conuma hatchery on the northwest coast of Vancouver Island, where we'll be having a pilot marking and mark-selective fishery.
Hon. Ed Fast:
Is it a mass marking project?
Mr. Andrew Thomson:
Yes.
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
SEP hasn't had an increase, but it's not running at a deficit. We balance our budget, if that's what you're asking.
Mr. Brad Vis:
Yes, I know, so it is a deficit that it's operating at if you look year over year.Ms. Rebecca Reid: It will be hard to be concise, but I'll say two things about marking. One is that mass marking affects our stock assessment work. As we mark more fish, we lose information about stocks. The second thing is that unless you do the marking in a particular way, you end up killing wild fish. That's not to say you can't do it, but you need to be careful. You need to have a plan. You can't rush into it. You need to be very deliberate and thoughtful about how you move into a mass marking or a mark-selective fishery regime.
Mr. Brad Vis:
They're doing that, obviously, in Oregon and Washington. We're catching some of that fish. Why is it that we're not tying in with what they're doing?
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
We have looked at what Washington is doing. It has a very different situation down there. Our priority here is wild fish, so in order to protect wild fish, we need to make sure they are able to return to their streams. Having huge marked fishing opportunities means you're picking up wild fish and marked fish at the same time, and there is an impact on those wild fish. That's not to say you can't do it, but you need to be thoughtful about it.
Mr. Brad Vis:
They're already doing it right now. They're catching fish and releasing. In terms of conservation, we see this as a pathway forward. We can have a longer debate about this, and I hope there's room at some point, because the communities want the department to come to the communities and have this conversation. It's of utmost importance, and we're hearing it from everyone up and down the coast.
Ms. Rebecca Reid:
We are having that conversation, and that's part of some of the chinook meetings that we are leading right now.
Last edited:
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Like I've always said, Rebecca Reid is no friend to the public fishery. Quite the opposite, she needs to go somehow as this is who is advising the liberal government's fisheries minister who so far have not known much about BC fishing, therefore take her advice.
DFO's scientists are the ones advising Ms. Reid, who in turn advises the Minister. Perhaps you should be asking these scientists for their take on the matter.
littlechucky
Crew Member
This is crazy.
Not clipping hatchery fish to protect wild fish?
I think we would all happily release a wild fish in favour of a hatchery fish.
Trouble is most of the “wild” fish are actually just unclipped hatchery fish.
I bet around southern Vancouver island and the SoG, more than 1/2 the “wild fish” which are caught are just not clipped.
Not clipping hatchery fish to protect wild fish?
I think we would all happily release a wild fish in favour of a hatchery fish.
Trouble is most of the “wild” fish are actually just unclipped hatchery fish.
I bet around southern Vancouver island and the SoG, more than 1/2 the “wild fish” which are caught are just not clipped.
Last edited:
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Go ahead and ask the scientists (not sure how one would go about this, or if they would even respond) and you will find that they are increasingly biased against the public fishery too. They seem to want to stubbornly promote the wild salmon policy that has obviously failed and keep reducing the public fishery while doing little to provide data against other sectors over- harvesting.
Why? Because what they say and what they get to research on is always monitored by the party in power and reflects whatever the party leaders what. Also it is easier, cheaper and politically expediate to keep cutting back on the public fishery (even though we only catch approx. 10% of the fish of concern) and it looks like the govt. is doing something to the public and especially the ENGO's. Yet DFO is usually unable to produce any reliable data that justifiy the cutbacks and closures to the public fishery - such as is the case we were in for 2019 and now with the 2020 salmon fishing regs.
It is also cheap and easy to promote the wild salmon policy. Just sit back and wait for mother nature to make things better, and if it doesn't then just shrug your shoulders and say what could we have done, because we can have humans intervening too much, and if that doesn't work, then blame it all on climate change. Strange WA state doesn't see things this way and their fishery is showing changes of improvement over time.
DFO agrees with the ENGO's as they increasingly support the unproven and biased ideas that hatcheries are bad, temporary fish pens are bad, marking hatchery fish is bad. All the while the wild salmon policy year after year results in no improvement! Such poor management, incompetence, and disregard for the public fishery and those people and communities that rely on it!!!
Unfortunately, it has less to do with unbiased science and more to do with biased personal perspectives and politics. As older DFO scientists that saw value in the public fishery retire and leave they are being replaced by younger scientists that have much more in common with what the ENGO's want - which is less or no public fishery! This is a political issue now that has to be handled politically if we want to see and increased support for the public fishery.
Good on Gord Johns, Ed Fast, and Brad Vis and other MP's that take DFO to task on their feckless management of our fisheries. Bottom line it is more effective to make this a political issue with politicians then to try to change the minds of DFO management. Change the minds of ruling politicians to get DFO to better support the public fishery - that is the way forward. My 2 bits.
Why? Because what they say and what they get to research on is always monitored by the party in power and reflects whatever the party leaders what. Also it is easier, cheaper and politically expediate to keep cutting back on the public fishery (even though we only catch approx. 10% of the fish of concern) and it looks like the govt. is doing something to the public and especially the ENGO's. Yet DFO is usually unable to produce any reliable data that justifiy the cutbacks and closures to the public fishery - such as is the case we were in for 2019 and now with the 2020 salmon fishing regs.
It is also cheap and easy to promote the wild salmon policy. Just sit back and wait for mother nature to make things better, and if it doesn't then just shrug your shoulders and say what could we have done, because we can have humans intervening too much, and if that doesn't work, then blame it all on climate change. Strange WA state doesn't see things this way and their fishery is showing changes of improvement over time.
DFO agrees with the ENGO's as they increasingly support the unproven and biased ideas that hatcheries are bad, temporary fish pens are bad, marking hatchery fish is bad. All the while the wild salmon policy year after year results in no improvement! Such poor management, incompetence, and disregard for the public fishery and those people and communities that rely on it!!!
Unfortunately, it has less to do with unbiased science and more to do with biased personal perspectives and politics. As older DFO scientists that saw value in the public fishery retire and leave they are being replaced by younger scientists that have much more in common with what the ENGO's want - which is less or no public fishery! This is a political issue now that has to be handled politically if we want to see and increased support for the public fishery.
Good on Gord Johns, Ed Fast, and Brad Vis and other MP's that take DFO to task on their feckless management of our fisheries. Bottom line it is more effective to make this a political issue with politicians then to try to change the minds of DFO management. Change the minds of ruling politicians to get DFO to better support the public fishery - that is the way forward. My 2 bits.
Last edited:
searun
Well-Known Member
There is no one - No other MP - who has stood up more for Salmon and our Fishery than Gord Johns. People should give him a great big shout out of thanks.
Similar threads
