SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
agree 100%
2020 Chinook
- Thread starter scott craven
- Start date
agree 100%
Derby
Crew Member
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Both needs to be done
Yep
ChinookExerciser
Active Member
PM Sent
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the enlightening PM.
I find it extremely frustrating to say the least when a senior SFAB member states: I prefer to invite input that is gathered through local SFAC Committee Chairs and Member Organizations rather than coming directly from individuals.
For one who publicly states he is tired of all the infighting, and that individual letters / input to these process' is beneficial, that statement certainly appears to be somewhat hypocritical to me...
Nog
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Nog,
I thought this was salmon? Sorry this information is not a secret I sent it out to our members today in Area 17. All the other SFAC I believe have sent same things out. I will be putting it on social media shortly. The reason is plain and simple is that so few send letters it makes more sense for your SFAC to send it through.
Don't believe me? Anyone have the number of letters sent to DFO on prawns feedback last year after we posted about the 50% reduction? How many on salmon?
Here is the comments you are referring too:
------------------------------------------------
All,
Please see Pat Ahern’s comments below regarding the Draft Prawn IFMP. Comments to DFO need to be sent into DFO by February the 10th. Pat Ahern’s is the Ground Fish Shellfish Chair of the SFAB and is asking those who fish prawns to provide their comments to their respective local SFAC Chair to help collocate our response.
Please note the Recreational Fishery was the only fishery simply having a reduction placed upon it. There is no additional restrictions being placed on the commercial fishery or the First Nations FSC fishery and their is no clear identified conservation concerns. The fishery like some other fisheries is managed by time and area openings and a spawner index methodology which closes the fisheries if stocks are low.
See Appendix 1 section 1.3 reduction of daily limits in the draft plan.
If you fish Prawns but are not part of the SFAB group or process just send you comments into DFO.
---------------------------------------------
SFAC Chairs and Member Organizations,
The draft Prawn IFMP (attached) is now available for public comment until February 10th, 2020. The deadline for the SFAB to comment on the Draft Prawn IFMP is short. I have had a number of questions regarding the IFMP and how SFAC’s can comment.
Timing of when the IFMP comes out doesn’t align with scheduled SFAC meetings to gather feedback and advance motions. To accommodate input to inform the SFAB response to the IFMP, as GFSFWG Chair, I prefer to invite input that is gathered through local SFAC Committee Chairs and Member Organizations rather than coming directly from individuals. SFAC Chairs/Member Organizations can summarize local area input and provide that to me as GFSFWG Chair. Please do so before January 30 to allow sufficient time to be considered in our SFAB response.
You will note in the IFMP, the Department took a decision to reduce the daily prawn limit to 125 from 200. While this is not the decision the SFAB desired, it has been made. As Chair of GFSFWG, I want to state that the SFAB worked hard over 4 years on this issue. DFO has now made that decision after considering SFAB advice. As such, it is my opinion that it is now time for the SFAB to move on from the issue of daily limits. The SFAB is an advisory process, we are not a lobby group. Going forward, our approach will be to continue to review the fishery and offer advice on how it is managed.
Advice from SFAC’s which would be helpful relates to how the overall prawn fishery is managed for sustainability, or specifics within the Draft Prawn IFMP.
People are also asking what the SFAB consultation and advice with DFO has been regarding reduction of daily limits, and how did we arrive at this decision. As this has become a hot topic issue prompting many questions, I will provide some background for reference.
Background:
DFO approached the SFAB entering into discussion dating back 4 years regarding a request to reduce daily recreational prawn limits. In the spring of 2019, the Department advanced a formal proposed reduction of daily limits to 100 prawns – effective April 1, 2019. The SFAB requested an opportunity to go back to our grassroots SFAC local committees in the spring of 2019 to seek input, which is consistent with the SFAB process. The Department kindly delayed their implementation timeline to allow for further local SFAC consultation out of consideration for the SFAB process – something the SFAB greatly appreciates.
After considerable discussion, the SFAB passed a motion to recommend a reduction from 200 to 170, applying this only to South Coast.
SFAB Rationale:
The SFAB considered the Department’s rationale for the bag limit reduction, which was focussed on concern expressed by both DFO and other fishery stakeholders about the future sustainability of the public prawn fishery. It was argued that a daily limit reduction was necessary in face of concern over population growth and resultant assumptions about increases in effort, plus the increased catching power of the fishery by the use of technology such as GPS and power trap pullers. SFAB advice contained in our motion was to exclude the North Coast from any daily limit reduction because limited population and low recreational prawning activity did not in our view meet the Department’s stated case for change. In further follow up discussion, the Department expressed a desire to apply whatever their final decision with regard to prawn daily limits, on a coast-wide basis. The SFAB again suggested consideration to apply limit reduction measures only to South Coast, with opportunity for future re-engagement of the SFAC groups to define low use areas where perhaps differential daily limits could be applied.
The example offered in support of this approach was in Washington State, their prawn management model applies lower daily limits in high use areas (80 prawn) and higher (200 prawn) daily limits in low use areas. Washington State differs greatly from B.C. in prawn management approach, applying a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) model, and not fishing to a female spawner recruitment index model employed in B.C. Washington State fishery summary: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01532/wdfw01532.pdf
The SFAB expressed concern with the Department’s proposed approach because measures to reduce catch in the Public Fishery pass prawns to other sectors whom are not similarly reducing catch as they are largely managed to a static spawner index, which unlike the TAC model employed in Washington State, does not limit or cap actual catch. As such, our advice was this does not accomplish the goal of improving sustainability.
Pat Ahern
SFAB GFSFWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------
I thought this was salmon? Sorry this information is not a secret I sent it out to our members today in Area 17. All the other SFAC I believe have sent same things out. I will be putting it on social media shortly. The reason is plain and simple is that so few send letters it makes more sense for your SFAC to send it through.
Don't believe me? Anyone have the number of letters sent to DFO on prawns feedback last year after we posted about the 50% reduction? How many on salmon?
Here is the comments you are referring too:
------------------------------------------------
All,
Please see Pat Ahern’s comments below regarding the Draft Prawn IFMP. Comments to DFO need to be sent into DFO by February the 10th. Pat Ahern’s is the Ground Fish Shellfish Chair of the SFAB and is asking those who fish prawns to provide their comments to their respective local SFAC Chair to help collocate our response.
Please note the Recreational Fishery was the only fishery simply having a reduction placed upon it. There is no additional restrictions being placed on the commercial fishery or the First Nations FSC fishery and their is no clear identified conservation concerns. The fishery like some other fisheries is managed by time and area openings and a spawner index methodology which closes the fisheries if stocks are low.
See Appendix 1 section 1.3 reduction of daily limits in the draft plan.
If you fish Prawns but are not part of the SFAB group or process just send you comments into DFO.
---------------------------------------------
SFAC Chairs and Member Organizations,
The draft Prawn IFMP (attached) is now available for public comment until February 10th, 2020. The deadline for the SFAB to comment on the Draft Prawn IFMP is short. I have had a number of questions regarding the IFMP and how SFAC’s can comment.
Timing of when the IFMP comes out doesn’t align with scheduled SFAC meetings to gather feedback and advance motions. To accommodate input to inform the SFAB response to the IFMP, as GFSFWG Chair, I prefer to invite input that is gathered through local SFAC Committee Chairs and Member Organizations rather than coming directly from individuals. SFAC Chairs/Member Organizations can summarize local area input and provide that to me as GFSFWG Chair. Please do so before January 30 to allow sufficient time to be considered in our SFAB response.
You will note in the IFMP, the Department took a decision to reduce the daily prawn limit to 125 from 200. While this is not the decision the SFAB desired, it has been made. As Chair of GFSFWG, I want to state that the SFAB worked hard over 4 years on this issue. DFO has now made that decision after considering SFAB advice. As such, it is my opinion that it is now time for the SFAB to move on from the issue of daily limits. The SFAB is an advisory process, we are not a lobby group. Going forward, our approach will be to continue to review the fishery and offer advice on how it is managed.
Advice from SFAC’s which would be helpful relates to how the overall prawn fishery is managed for sustainability, or specifics within the Draft Prawn IFMP.
People are also asking what the SFAB consultation and advice with DFO has been regarding reduction of daily limits, and how did we arrive at this decision. As this has become a hot topic issue prompting many questions, I will provide some background for reference.
Background:
DFO approached the SFAB entering into discussion dating back 4 years regarding a request to reduce daily recreational prawn limits. In the spring of 2019, the Department advanced a formal proposed reduction of daily limits to 100 prawns – effective April 1, 2019. The SFAB requested an opportunity to go back to our grassroots SFAC local committees in the spring of 2019 to seek input, which is consistent with the SFAB process. The Department kindly delayed their implementation timeline to allow for further local SFAC consultation out of consideration for the SFAB process – something the SFAB greatly appreciates.
After considerable discussion, the SFAB passed a motion to recommend a reduction from 200 to 170, applying this only to South Coast.
SFAB Rationale:
The SFAB considered the Department’s rationale for the bag limit reduction, which was focussed on concern expressed by both DFO and other fishery stakeholders about the future sustainability of the public prawn fishery. It was argued that a daily limit reduction was necessary in face of concern over population growth and resultant assumptions about increases in effort, plus the increased catching power of the fishery by the use of technology such as GPS and power trap pullers. SFAB advice contained in our motion was to exclude the North Coast from any daily limit reduction because limited population and low recreational prawning activity did not in our view meet the Department’s stated case for change. In further follow up discussion, the Department expressed a desire to apply whatever their final decision with regard to prawn daily limits, on a coast-wide basis. The SFAB again suggested consideration to apply limit reduction measures only to South Coast, with opportunity for future re-engagement of the SFAC groups to define low use areas where perhaps differential daily limits could be applied.
The example offered in support of this approach was in Washington State, their prawn management model applies lower daily limits in high use areas (80 prawn) and higher (200 prawn) daily limits in low use areas. Washington State differs greatly from B.C. in prawn management approach, applying a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) model, and not fishing to a female spawner recruitment index model employed in B.C. Washington State fishery summary: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01532/wdfw01532.pdf
The SFAB expressed concern with the Department’s proposed approach because measures to reduce catch in the Public Fishery pass prawns to other sectors whom are not similarly reducing catch as they are largely managed to a static spawner index, which unlike the TAC model employed in Washington State, does not limit or cap actual catch. As such, our advice was this does not accomplish the goal of improving sustainability.
Pat Ahern
SFAB GFSFWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------
searun
Well-Known Member
It appears to me that you may not have familiarity with the SFAB process. Participants working in their local SFAC's pass motions or provide feedback to the various Working Group Chairs and SFAB through their local Chair. Much more efficient way to gather input, as opposed to flooding one person's email inbox. It also ensures local SFAC Chairs are in touch with the views of their local area constituents to better reflect the local area issues. I'm fairly certain you know how to connect with your local SFAC Chair.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
More than aware of the process as you know.
Just find it somewhat ludicrous that one who touts the point that everyone should get involved turns around and states he is not very open to receiving any such concerns from individuals that don't flow through "the process" is all...
Very reminiscent of how the gov operates IMHO...
Carry on...
Nog
fish4all
Well-Known Member
Speaking with a few concerned fishermen this morning. The new factory boat coming across from Europe to fish on WCVI has a net that is 2500ft (8 football fields) wide by 360 ft deep and will be the largest on the BC coast. Not to mention the vessel will have a built in reduction plant..... how does this fit in with Chinook conservation.
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Sorry Pat-- I do NOT agree with your idea to let it go.... "You will note in the IFMP, the Department took a decision to reduce the daily prawn limit to 125 from 200. While this is not the decision the SFAB desired, it has been made. As Chair of GFSFWG, I want to state that the SFAB worked hard over 4 years on this issue. DFO has now made that decision after considering SFAB advice. As such, it is my opinion that it is now time for the SFAB to move on from the issue of daily limits. The SFAB is an advisory process, we are not a lobby group. Going forward, our approach will be to continue to review the fishery and offer advice on how it is managed."
What is the point of continuing to provide "advice" if DFO continually ignores at us. Remember this ??? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
What is the point of continuing to provide "advice" if DFO continually ignores at us. Remember this ??? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
kingspring
Active Member
I notice the traditional sustenance fishers reduction of 37 %(that’s us non indegenious folks by the way) and also note no commercial sector or FN sector reductions. This is an entirely statistical inquiry, what is the South Island Commercial, FN and non FN prawn catch? My apologies if I missed the data but feel it is important to clearly see who is catching what and who is reducing their harvest.
searun
Well-Known Member
Fair enough, but again, the SFAB isn't a lobby group. Once we consult and offer advice and the Department makes their decision, that is essentially it. On this issue in particular the message loud and clear from the Department is we are done....move on. If some people wish to carry on, please do. I have no interest in continuing a fight on the issue of daily limits. We can comment that we disagree with the decision, but far more productive to now focus on how Prawn are managed. We could and should be commenting on the management approach and it's capacity to achieve the stated goal of "sustainability" as opposed to passing prawn from one sector to another. Hoping that people pass along their ideas and advice to their SFAC Chairs, whom we need to have engaged in this issue....many are not. We need the Chairs tapped into their constituent base to gather local expertise.
If according to the SFAB family I'm doing a ****** job, please replace me....I welcome that.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Correct you can't make SFAB something it isn't.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Then It really does not matter how many people participate in it does it.
That’s why I disagree and I think you do too because the more people in it the. Then strength of the “advice” is greater and the stick is bigger. Aka lobbying power
You guys also realize how demoralizing this conversation is for someone considering participating in the process?
That’s why I disagree and I think you do too because the more people in it the. Then strength of the “advice” is greater and the stick is bigger. Aka lobbying power
You guys also realize how demoralizing this conversation is for someone considering participating in the process?
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
One wonders if all the other groups are being held to the same rules?
I am pretty sure they are not and that they lobby at every opportunity with DFO and influential politicians.
So, is it time to level the playing field?
I am pretty sure they are not and that they lobby at every opportunity with DFO and influential politicians.
So, is it time to level the playing field?
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I fail to see where you were going with that comment, and that it is demoralizing.
You can't make a lobby group after something it isn't. This keeps being asked on here. SFAB is an advisory processes that gives out information on recreational changes to our fishery and also brings your concerns to the table through a process. Those are done through public meetings that free for all to attend. I don't want to hear I can't show up anymore. It becomes absolutely frustrating, and quite simply I don't get it anymore.
As for you OBD you of all people as an ex SFAB member of the family knows how the process works. Other groups as you know our paid. Such as the NGO groups etc. To lobby people need to stop complaining and join a lobby groups such as SFI etc. How can we go into a court with no money? If no one joins these groups how can we expect to fight anything?
As for SFAB they are working on a new platform for 2021, but until that changes it remains an advisement process only.
Last edited:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Well, i do know how the process works and after many years I see that it is failing the sports angler.
DFO ignores them because they can and there is no blowback to be concerned about.
You cannot say that about the other groups involved.
Other groups are not all paid. The commercial sector is not.
The Greens raise their own money to fight.
The FNS are another story.
The BCWF raise there own money as do the SFI and other groups.
The greens do not provide advise and not lobby. They demand and think nothing of going directly to the RDG whenever they like to lobby.
So, as I said, I believe that the system is broken and the last few years are a great example of this.
So, in my opinion, we either change how we operate, or as shown keep on loosing ground.
So, a question for you, maybe the SFAB is now the wrong vehicle for the sports anglers?
Does it require a more political group rather than a advisory one?
Seems to work really well for the competition, the one we have does not appear to be working?
Just a thought.
DFO ignores them because they can and there is no blowback to be concerned about.
You cannot say that about the other groups involved.
Other groups are not all paid. The commercial sector is not.
The Greens raise their own money to fight.
The FNS are another story.
The BCWF raise there own money as do the SFI and other groups.
The greens do not provide advise and not lobby. They demand and think nothing of going directly to the RDG whenever they like to lobby.
So, as I said, I believe that the system is broken and the last few years are a great example of this.
So, in my opinion, we either change how we operate, or as shown keep on loosing ground.
So, a question for you, maybe the SFAB is now the wrong vehicle for the sports anglers?
Does it require a more political group rather than a advisory one?
Seems to work really well for the competition, the one we have does not appear to be working?
Just a thought.
I for one say you are doing an exemplary, time consuming, life altering dam good job BUT it seams not to matter. DFO has the plans, future and end result already decided and in my opinion only engages SFAB as a customary PR event. They have not heeded advice, recommendations or even science on most changes that affect the REC sector. How long are you going to keep offering ignored advice? I also say we should never mention sustainability as I for one do not believe that has anything to do with current management practices for any tidal water specie. I could not do what you are doing, pushing a bus uphill with a rope if to dam hard. BZ for your continued attempts.
HM
I remember allot of promises from the Liberals about enhancement of salmon stocks. Huge announcements last summer after killing our recreational fishing and many businesses along with it. Its time for Trudeau to deliver to Western Canada. We need that money now. He wants to rebuild Ottawa’s relationship with the West, start here. Western alienation isn’t just a gas & oil issue, we’ve been ignored allot longer that the fossil fuel industry has been.
Similar threads
