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
Matt, you probably did not see this, but here is the Area G response. I will highlight, because you accuse the SFAB promoting reducing the number of days Area G was to be allowed to fish under both Scenario A & B, that....
the table included in the response you quote was not part of the official SFAB response, and simply a copy of the table that DFO prepared to outline their two scenarios....the SFAB did not propose anything specifically related to Area G troll.
I would also point out, that Area G did indeed submit a proposal to the IFMP process. I waited to post this because I was hopeful that you might find the Area G response rather than having me post it. Clearly you were not aware of this letter, so I'm in no way accusing you of hiding anything etc. I should point out that Area G did indeed take a shot at the recreational fishery contrary to what you might have thought.
Also note that Area G response specifically asked for a re-allocation of savings from reductions they proposed in the recreational fishery to be "passed along" to Area G. I don't know where you have received your information, but clearly there appears to me to be an effort to toss the rec fishery under the bus to advance an allocation issue for Area G....or that's how I read the letter. Correct me if I got it wrong? I would still like to see the Rec sector and Commercial sector one day be able to work together with other stakeholders - specifically FN's. True reconciliation cannot be successful unless we are all sitting together at the table making win/win decisions co-managing these fisheries for all our mutual benefits....or we can just continue to fight it out in court.
Here is that response from Area G - Note the bolded section of the letter:
>> From: The Area G Troll Harvest Committee
>> RE: 2019 Fraser Chinook Conservation Measures
Dear Sir,
>>
>> In respect to the proposed chinook management measures presented in >>your letter dated February 5, 2019, the Area G Troll Harvest Committee >>has reviewed the conservation objectives in detail and we see that our >>impact in a May fishery on early run chinook is very minimal and we >>are requesting a May fishery for 100% percent of our pre-season TAC.
>>
>> The Area G troll fishery has been successfully managed to avoid
>>Fraser stocks of concern which is shown by the low impact on all of
>>the CWT indicator stocks, particularly on the earlier timed Nicola >>chinook of which Area G impacts represent only 0.84%. The Area G >>fishery is closed for June and most of July in recent years which is >>designed to protect the other Spring and Summer Fraser Chinook stocks >>for which there is no CWT indicator.
>>
>> Although the in-season abundance index for the WCVI AABM fisheries is >>not available at this time, by all accounts there will be a very
>>limited fishery for Area G troll in 2019 under the current
>>distribution of TAC amongst the AABM fisheries. As such, Area G must
84
DFO Chinook Feedback- IHPC 3/6
>>have access to a May fishery which provides the best prices and >>economic return from the expected meager harvest opportunity. The >>further reduction in the available harvest for Area G in-itself should >>further reduce the impacts as a smaller and smaller proportion of the >>AABM TAC is harvested by this fishery. Additionally, not fishing in >>April which has been an important time period in the past, will >>further reduce impacts on early timed stocks.
>>
>>
We are also proposing that there be a reduction in the recreational
>>catch limits from 2 to I a day in June and July, and reduce the
>>overall annual limit to ten per year in order to help with the
>>conservation of the Fraser chinook. We will expect that these
>>conservation measures will reduce the overall recreational catch in
>>the AABM area and will should provide the Area G fishery with more of
>>the overall AABM chinook number. We know that the Department can
>>calculate what the expected reduction in recreational catch will be
>>based on reduced catch limits and we need access to that uncaught fish starting in our August fishery. >>
>> Sincerely,
>> Area G Toll Harvest Committee >>
I should also point out that Area G really should have a chat with Area F Troll, whom harvest the highest number of Shuswap Chinook, and whom also would be part of what DFO needs to consider when determining the fisheries reductions of other users such as Area G Troll, Recreational and FN's. Yes, other stakeholders also contribute to ER, but we should be looking at the outliers for larger "proportional" contributions...not Area G at only 5.6% of total ER.
Exploitation Rate on Total Run ER ............ Share of ER
Northern BC Commercial Troll 7.0% ........... 25.8%
WCVI Commercial Troll 1.5% ......... 5.6%
Juan de Fuca Recreational 2.8% ............ 10.5%
Strait of Georgia Recreational 3.0% ............ 11.3%
Johnstone Strait Recreational 1.1% ........... 4.3%
WCVI AABM Recreational 1.2% ........... 4.6%
WCVI ISBM Recreational 0.1% ............ 0.5%
Northern BC recreational 2.5% ............ 9.1%
Fraser Recreational 2.2% .............. 8.1%
Fraser Indigenous FSC 4.4% .............. 16.4%
All other 1.1% ............... 3.9%
CDN Fishing Removals 27.0% ............. 100.0%
