Better read all of this..... the spin is tremendous

[URL='https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/06/05/features/he-lives-share-his-salmon-faces-tighter-regulations-and-waning-fish-stocks?utm_source=National+Observer&utm_campaign=c907109c96-WEEKLY_Jun8_NS&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cacd0f141f-c907109c96-254393929&mc_cid=c907109c96&mc_eid=708299502c' said:
WEEKLY_Jun8_NS&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cacd0f141f-c907109c96-254393929&mc_cid=c907109c96&mc_eid=708299502c[/URL] If the "link:" does not work go to the National Observer website. It should be there.

Scary stuff for the Sports Fishing industry!!
https://www.nationalobserver.com/special-reports
I found the story on the National Observer site…see third story under special reports and it has been posted before on this forum.
Sorry to say it, but public opinion, when it come to our Sport fishery, is on the side of the Conservationist and the First Nations and all the political parties know it.
Doesn’t really matter if you vote Liberal, Conservative or Green.
You will see if you open the link the National Observer is using the story as a fund raiser.
My guess change will be slow and we will be able to enjoy fishing for years to come, but it will never be the same as it once was.
AND as I have been trying to say on this site and have been attacked for it, I believe it best we be conservative in our posts and put our egos aside.
 
so which party do you think we should vote for and what do you think they will give Sport Fishermen???
My family and I had lots more opportunity with last Fed and Prov Govs. That's a fact, maybe you believe that current new no fishing regs will save, increase and make the whales happy. Me, I call it nothing but a slap in the face and a reallocation of a resource. Closure of Grizz is same on Provincial level. Gov chest pounding BS, no fact or science.

HM
 
And you can expect more of the same pointed calls to close recreational fishing unless we are able to engage FN's in the recreational fishery and for them to be truly benefiting from it.
 
There have been groups attempting to do that on the Fraser river for the last 2o years and if you talk to them they would say that they have not been given any support from marine rec fishermen.

I am sure you have talked to the leader of the B.C. federation of drift fishermen, Rod Clapton has been involved in that game for a very long time.

What’s his suggestions on that frount
 
Taken from a poster on FWR but its something I have not previously read but sheds a great deal of light what goes on in the background wrt aboriginal allocation.

"Don't feel badly Rod. Even the Cohen Commission couldn't get that info. Here's a section of the Cohen Report that describes the process. It's for all salmon, not just Chinook or sockeye.

"Allocation to Aboriginal fisheries

DFO manages allocations in the Aboriginal fishery by providing a given Aboriginal organization access to a certain number of fish, whether presented as an absolute number or calculated as a percentage of the TAC. According to Kaarina McGivney, former regional director, Treaty and Aboriginal Policy and Governance Directorate, having allocations is important because they facilitate fisheries management. She said that having an agreed amount of access provides some stability and understanding for fisheries management.

DFO states that Aboriginal fishing allocations are reached by negotiation with Aboriginal organizations. In these negotiations, DFO staff are provided with “mandates” setting out the maximum number of fish and funding that may be agreed to at a given negotiation. Since 2007, the mandates associated with the FSC fisheries of individual British Columbia Aboriginal groups have been determined by the regional director general. Before that, they were set in Ottawa. Mandates associated with the economic opportunity fisheries continue to require approval from the minister. According to Barry Huber, Aboriginal affairs advisor, BC Interior, DFO, mandates are reviewed annually and can be adjusted if necessary.

Mr. Huber also told me that mandates are not disclosed to Aboriginal groups, as doing so would detract from the negotiations under way. He said that each negotiator needs flexibility, and laying all the “chips on the table” at the start is not a good way to negotiate because it “forces you to be positional right off the bat.” At the end of the negotiations, the agreement reached may include fewer FSC fish or less funding than is stipulated in the mandate, though most are at the top of mandate levels.

The Aboriginal Fisheries Framework contains an articulation of the overall percentage of the available salmon harvest that is to be allocated to First Nations. The actual percentage was not disclosed to the Commission. When I ordered that this percentage allocation be disclosed, I was provided a certificate from the clerk of the privy council certifying that the information and related documentation was a cabinet confidence.

Despite not knowing the percentage of salmon allocated to First Nations in the Aboriginal Fisheries Framework, I did hear evidence on how this percentage is used. According to Ms. McGivney, the percentage allocation covers both FSC fishing and Aboriginal communal fishing for economic purposes. The percentage is to be achieved on average, over a number of years, recognizing that, in years of low salmon returns, the Aboriginal FSC fishery may form a higher percentage of the catch.

According to DFO’s Aboriginal Fisheries Framework, on a year-to-year average, Aboriginal FSC and economic opportunity fisheries are allocated approximately 30 percent of the total salmon harvested in British Columbia. In contrast, the First Nations Panel on Fisheries recommended in its 2004 report, Our Place at the Table: First Nations in the B.C. Fishery, that the government immediately transfer a minimum of 50 percent of all fisheries to First Nations, with the potential that the total may reach 100 percent in some fisheries.""
 
Back
Top