Call to Action – Help Save BC’s Public Fishery

Discussion in 'Saltwater Fishing Forum' started by Admin, Mar 9, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jencourt

    Jencourt Well-Known Member

    I suspect there will be some ****ing happening.

    To quote a once active Rabbi.

    “ bite the sheets bitches we are coming in dry”
     
  2. cohochinook

    cohochinook Well-Known Member

    Here's the SFAB proposal attached and posted below:
    SFAB Recommendation for Fraser Chinook Management 2019

    The SFAB has reviewed the contents of the letter to First Nations and stakeholders from DFO dated February 5, 2019 regarding Fraser River Chinook Conservation Measures. After much consideration we are pleased to offer the following response on behalf of the Public Fishery of southern British Columbia.
    Recommendation #1:
    After careful consideration, the SFAB on behalf of the Public Fishery recommends the implementation Scenario B with minor boundary adjustments. The Public Fishery recognizes its shared responsibility along with other non-indigenous fishery sectors, to bear the brunt of conservation measures implemented to conserve Fraser River stocks of concern. By implementing this scenario, we also preserve the bare minimum of opportunity and expectation that is necessary to avoid the devastating socio-economic consequences that would be the inevitable result of the implementation Scenario A.
    OVERVIEW
    Scenario A vs Scenario B
    With modelling provided by DFO, the SFAB has been advised that the difference in the recreational component of the Calendar Year Exploitation Rates (CYER) from Scenario A to Scenario B is less than 1% for the recreational sector.
    The implementation of a Mark Selective Fishery in Juan De Fuca Strait, the conservation corridor approaching the Fraser River and the Southern Georgia Strait in times and areas as identified by DFO in Scenario B will limit harvest in the recreational fishery exclusively to
    marked fish of hatchery origin. This will effectively drive harvest away from Fraser River stocks of concern.
    In addition to the above, as consistent with scenario B, implementation of a reduction of both the daily and possession limit will further reduce harvest of stocks concern in the key areas of Northern Georgia Strait and Johnstone Straits.
    Our consideration and evaluation of scenarios A vs B is based on the Public Fishery contribution to these measures. When modelled the results of A vs B are nearly identical (0.8%) in their contribution to conservation benefits.
    The marginal conservation benefit in terms of CYER reduction from the Public Fishery that would be achieved by the implementation of Scenario A recreational fishery management measures does not justify the devastating impacts to communities that depend on the fishery for their social and economic well being.
    If DFO is going to seek further conservation contributions the model indicates that those contributions will have to come from other fisheries.
    First Nations Fisheries:
    The Public Fishery recognizes both the rights associated with and importance of FSC fisheries to First Nations communities. Therefore, we support the low impact Canadian CYER that is achieved by the implementation of Scenario B. Further, we note that during DFO’s modelling exercises we observed that implementation of Scenario A would require a reduction of at least 60% in FSC fisheries in order to achieve a CYER of 5%.
    2019 Regulation Boundaries
    In order to provide the ability for the recreational fishery to focus its efforts on marked hatchery stocks that are abundant in the area in the spring, the SFAB recommends the following minor adjustments to the conservation corridor outlined in scenario B:
    That the boundaries of what is known as the “chinook conservation corridor” in the southern Strait of Georgia north of Cadboro Point reflect the boundaries as detailed in 2018 Fishery Notice #0370 – “Subareas 18-1 to 18-6, 18-9, 18-11, 19-5, and portions of 29-3 to 29-5 that lie southeasterly of a line from a point on the east side of Valdes Island located at 49°05.562'N and 123°39.989'W then extending approximately 57 degrees True to the North Arm Jetty Light located at 49°15.440'N and 123°16.778'W.”
    Recommendation #2
    Optimizing Hatchery Opportunity
    Further, in order to focus harvest on abundant age 2 & 3 hatchery stocks available in the corridor and Southern Georgia Strait, the SFAB recommends the follow adjustment of minimum size in the corridor east of Cadboro Point:
    That the minimum size limit for chinook in the southern Strait of Georgia chinook conservation corridor be lowered from 62 cm to 55 cm from April 1 – July 31. Data from logbook and Avid Angler programs indicates a significant percentage of the chinook encountered in the corridor during this time are hatchery origin fish slightly below the present inside waters minimum size limit, the same fish that are legal for retention on the other side of sub-area line originating from Cadboro Point.
    Overview
    Opportunity Costs vs Benefits
    Other options modelled: During this process and with the assistance of DFO the SFAB has modelled other options. We do note that during our modelling exercise by using MSF as a tool
    to drive harvest away from stocks of concern, that if the recreational fishery were to allow for the retention of 2 hatchery fish per day in many areas of SoG and Johnstone Strait that the increased impact on the CYER would be less than 1%. We have agreed that in the spirit of maximizing conservation benefit, and reducing our fishery to survival status we are bearing the brunt of conservation concern as required. We also suggest that there is opportunity to provide significant additional benefits for the future without significantly increasing impacts by optimizing the opportunity provided through MSF.
    Long Term Planning
    While the use of MSF as a conservation tool in specific times and areas in the current does achieve considerable conservation benefit to the stocks of concern. While it also maintains the bare minimum of opportunity and expectation required to enable the fishery to survive, it does represent a significant decrease in opportunity and does not allow for the fishery to even come close to achieving its potential benefit to Canadians.
    The SFAB fully acknowledges this is necessary in order for the recreational fishery to bear its share of the brunt of conservation measures, however we suggest that Fraser River stocks of concern will not recover in the short term.
    Therefore, the SFAB urges DFO to consider implementation of mass marking of hatchery produced salmon in BC to further drive harvest away from wild stocks of concern. By doing so DFO can in certain times and areas significantly increase mark rates without producing any additional hatchery fish. This would provide benefits to all Canadian Fisheries and promote conservation objectives to stocks of concern by removing the harvest of key stocks of concern.
    SFAB Proposal 2019 Fraser Chinook
    Fishery Scenario B
    NBC AABM (Area F) Troll
    Closed to July 10
    WCVI AABM (Area G) Troll
    Closed to August 1
    Kamloops Lake Chinook Demonstration Fishery
    Closed
    NBC AABM
    No measures proposed for Fraser chinook
    NBC ISBM
    No measures proposed for Fraser chinook
    WCVI AABM (Areas 121 to 127)
    No measures proposed for Fraser chinook
    WCVI ISBM (Areas 20-1 to 27)
    No measures proposed for Fraser chinook
    Central Coast (Areas 7 to 11)
    No measures proposed for Fraser Chinook
    Johnstone Strait (Area 12)
    a) Apr 1 to August 29, 1 Chinook/day (with option for terminal fisheries).
    b) Aug 30 to Dec 31, 2 Chinook/day.
    Strait of Georgia – North
    Areas 13 to 17, 28, portion of 29 (29-1 and 29-2)
    a) Apr 1 to August 29, 1 Chinook/day (with option for terminal fisheries).
    b) Aug 30 to Dec 31, 2 Chinook/day.
    Strait of Georgia – South
    and
    Juan de Fuca
    Area 19-3 to 19-6, 20-3 to 20-7, Subareas 18-1 to 18-6, 18-9, 18-11, 19-5, and portions of 29-3 to 29-5 that lie southeasterly of a line from a point on the east side of Valdes Island located at 49°05.562'N and 123°39.989'W then extending approximately 57 degrees True to the
    a) Apr 1 to July 31, 1 chinook/day; hatchery marked only
    b) Aug 1 to Aug 29, 1 Chinook/day (with option for terminal fisheries)
    c) Aug 30 to Dec 31, 2 Chinook/day.
    North Arm Jetty Light located at 49°15.440'N and 123°16.778'W.”
    Fraser River Tidal and Non Tidal and Sub area 29-6 to 29-10
    a) Jan. 1 to August 23 , No fishing for salmon.
    b) Aug. Aug 23 to December 31, 1 Chinook/day
    Freshwater Regions 3,5,7 &8
    c) closed to fishing for salmon except in some areas where fisheries on other stocks or species may take place.
    South Coast
    A) Fishing to FSC communal allocations as in previous years; marine FSC Chinook fisheries are largely terminal and directed at local Chinook stocks. No measures proposed for SCA First Nations chinook fisheries.
    Lower Fraser
    a) Jan. 1 to Aug 10, limited chinook directed FSC fisheries with effort limitations extended to Aug. 10 or bycatch during sockeye-directed opportunities
    b) After Aug. 10, targeted chinook fishing or bycatch during sockeye-directed opportunities.
    BC Interior - d/s of Thompson Confluence
    a) Jan 1 to Aug 10 limited communal FSC fisheries. Time or gear restrictions.
    b) After Aug 10, Directed chinook fishing or bycatch during sockeye-directed opportunities.
    BC Interior - u/s of Thompson Confluence
    Note: the only chinook in the area are Spring 52 and Summer 52 chinook.
    Fisheries in the area constrained by preferred gear type or fishing times
     

    Attached Files:

    wildmanyeah and islandboy like this.
  3. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Can I PUKE yet??

    Yep. An Eff You very nicely for us from the SFAB.
    Nice job.
    Splintering at it's finest.
    Thanks for the support. NOT! [​IMG]

    Guess it's time for Area G to rethink it's position and recommendations regarding the recreational sector...

    Sadly,
    Nog
     
    ductility likes this.
  4. littlechucky

    littlechucky Well-Known Member

  5. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    scott craven likes this.
  6. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

  7. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    Well, there is a legal precedent that states the recreational and commercial sectors bear the primary responsibility of conservation, and that Section 35 rights must be protected and maintained. That is a fact, like it or not. Area G, I'm sure, recognizes this if you check with them. So we can either work together (preferable) or fire buns at one another, which I submit is a waste of energy and talent.
     
    islandboy likes this.
  8. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    I well understand the legal precedent here. The puke note might give an inkling of what I think of that is all.

    Your sector directly suggesting Area G stay off the water until August 1 is your version of "working together"?
    Really?

    Guess no-one bothered to inform the SFAB that our impact on Fraser stocks through our traditional May fishery is well proven to be less than one percent.
    Recommending keeping us off the pond at that time appears to be little more than spite.
    If that's not the case, I am all ears...

    Nog
     
    brutus and ductility like this.
  9. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Two days... Crickets... :(
     
    brutus likes this.
  10. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    Do you get a better size or a better price or better CUPE for May fishery?

    also would you be willing to share the letter that area G submitted?
     
  11. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Yes and Yes.

    Chiefly US origin fish, making their way home.
    Decent sizes, decent numbers and the price is the highest of the year.
    But apparently Pat and his cronies at the SFAB don't want us to fish then??

    Kind of a slap in the yap if you know what I mean...

    Nog
     
  12. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    I'd be all for that, That SFAB letter was put together and submitted above my paygrade tho.
     
    Sotally Tober likes this.
  13. searun

    searun Well-Known Member

    I would be most interested in the Area G response...the SFAB response has been made public and speaks only for the rec fishery because the SFAB is an Advisory Board to the Minister on recreational fisheries. I'm pretty sure there is nary a word in the Area G response speaking in support of the recreational fishery...so climb off your high horse there Nog. Also, as stated you might also wish to read some of the case law on Section 35 rights vs recreational and commercial fishing - unless FN's can achieve their Section 35 FSC, there is to be no other fisheries. We might not like it, but that's the law of toy land at this moment in time.
     
    MRWood likes this.
  14. brutus

    brutus Well-Known Member

    I think all users get a crack at it , cant have one user group alowed to fish and the others not, that goes to FN , REC, and the Commy, we share the pond or we off period. Some might not agree with my 2 cents but i am used to that, and not easelly offended. As a rec fisher i choose to spend money and lots of it,to go salt water fishing, on the other hand the commy make their living in the fishing industry its their jobs taking that away from them is a kick in the nuts. I for one respect what they do , i dont bash anybody for going out there trying to make a living
     
  15. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Area G did not submit a single. unified response. Alternatively the message went out to the various Advisors and members to do so individually. I certainly did note support in the letter I wrote and sent in, and I did encourage others to do the same. Certainly getting the "weird eye" from a few now that the SFAB stance is understood.

    Nog
     
  16. Cuba Libre

    Cuba Libre Well-Known Member

    "cant have one user group alowed to fish and the others not, that goes to FN " ...................
    In a perfect world --yes. But our Constitution does not work that way unfortunately.
     
    searun and brutus like this.
  17. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    The only Comment Ill make on this is the FSC quotas's are completely up in the air. How much is each individual/tribe is entitled to is often negotiated in season. Theoretically there is actually no ceiling on how much they harvest, What gets allocated to them is a complete mystery for the most part and certainly not shared publicly.

    This is from 2002 but its still very relevant today, The sparrow decision was in 1990 and the most update allocation framework is from 1999 so this is well after that.


    http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/37-1/FOPO/meeting-54/evidence

    upload_2019-4-10_10-51-5.png
    upload_2019-4-10_10-53-35.png
     

    Attached Files:

    searun likes this.
  18. Jencourt

    Jencourt Well-Known Member

    Are there representatives of one sector engaged in a strong lobby effort as we speak, to see the other less organized sector shut down on Chinook???!!

    Could that effort be contributing to the delay in announcing what it will be??
     
  19. IronNoggin

    IronNoggin Well-Known Member

    Not that I am aware of.
    That said, I am aware that the various FN groups want everyone off the water for the balance of the season, excluding themselves of course.
    Despite looking us in the eye and saying they would support Area G, they turned around and did the exact opposite (in writing).
    Some in our group lean towards the same thoughts with the SFAB just now. Trying to address that...
    Tough when the optics are what they are just now...

    It may well be that the FN's are putting their foot down?
    Or perhaps the minister's Conference in Ottawa has taken temporary precedence??

    I too am wondering...
    Matt
     
    wildmanyeah likes this.
  20. OldBlackDog

    OldBlackDog Well-Known Member

    The Greens and the FN would like us gone.
    The Greens are lobbying every day here and in Ottawa.
    As noted elsewhere, will be decided in about two weeks on a Friday afternoon. Just as all bad news is.


     
    wildmanyeah likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page