Politics Before Science: New Chinook Regulations Announced

Discussion in 'Conservation, Fishery Politics and Management.' started by cohochinook, Jun 30, 2020 at 7:54 AM.

  1. cohochinook

    cohochinook Well-Known Member

    Tinny and IronNoggin like this.
  2. Tinny

    Tinny Well-Known Member

    After reading this it is very clear they it is time to kick DFO out of B.C. fisheries responsibilities and have a provincial agency take over that is more in tune with reality on the ground and in the water.
     
  3. the butcher

    the butcher Well-Known Member

    I wish that was an option. Makes sense to me for sure. Local gov and local agency should be more in tune with better decision making.... But I am jaded by all levels of government, federal and provincial. Just look at how provincial agencies like BC Ferries, Translink, Icbc are run.... Can't say that I would agree a provincial agency would do a better job but at least they would at least be here to face the heat rather than a fisheries minister who hides behind a desk and a closed door in their office in Ottawa.

    Amazing that a minister who has Zero marine biology, science or statistical and strategic policy experience is elected into office to make huge decisions that affect and kill of billions worth of economic activity to our province has no accountability for her actions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2020 at 1:03 AM
    IronNoggin likes this.
  4. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    I agree w the Butcher. I am jaded. Look at how the BC Govt dropped the ball on aquaculture management as an example. Remember Stan Hagen and Van Dongen? BC fisheries management would be no better: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-farming-industry-critics-say/article1010359/

    Like many others on this forum - I've seen numerous federal Fisheries Ministers come and go. Almost all of them have little on-the-ground experience wrt fisheries but instead are appointed by the PM due to their party fidelity and support for the current Prime Minister and his/her run-up to be the PM elect before the election (no matter what experience they may/may not have). Extra paychecks and extra pensions for cabinet members are the rewards for good boys n girls - verses something like a job interview where skill sets and experience are appraised. Oppose the PM - any party - and you can be expelled not only from the cabinet - but even from the party. Instead, it is the party system that has corrupted good governance and democracy - federal AND provincial.

    And the federal Constitution Act & other Acts get in the way of Provincial take-over of the federal fisheries - even if that was a viable and desirable alternative.

    I like Nunavut's no-party consensus-based governance system as a goal - also a Constitutional Monarchy form of democratic governance: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nunavutvotes2013/what-is-consensus-government-1.1869577
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2020 at 10:08 AM
  5. Tinny

    Tinny Well-Known Member

    Of course it sounds like a pipe dream and by definition politicians play politics and over time piss people off. But thankfully we live in a democracy. You can get jaded and dig your head in the sand or you can argue for change. In other countries if you argue you go to jail.

    In any case BC is doing well on Covid-19 because Horgan fully delegated, deferred and has followed recommendations by Dr Henry. Now imagine if an equally qualified group of scientists ran DFO or the equivalent provincial agency. That is what I am saying we should push for. By pushing for it we have another way to put pressure on DFO to reform themselves. Change does not magically happen by itself.
     
  6. Dave

    Dave Well-Known Member

    If “an equally qualified group of scientists” ran DFO there would be no, none, zero upper Fraser Chinook harvest.
    Do you really want that?
     
  7. BCRingo

    BCRingo Well-Known Member

    Agreed. But equally qualified group of scientists would also divert some of the funds to habitat restoration projects and also entertain the idea of marked hatchery fish harvest where our license $$ are supposed to feed that process. Don’t you think, Dave?
     
  8. Dave

    Dave Well-Known Member

    No, there is no immediate need for habitat improvements for upper Fraser chinooks ... spawners are what is missing.
    These same scientists would also have concerns of wild fish mortalities from anglers targeting marked fish.
     
  9. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

    Respectfully, I disagree Tinny. We live in a popular oligarchy instead - run by parties. We need to get back to a democracy - something our WWI & WWII veterans fought & died for....
     
    Ryan A, BCRingo and Tinny like this.
  10. Tinny

    Tinny Well-Known Member

    It’s a balancing act. You can’t have everything. DFO is playing politics and ignoring science. Science dictates a cull of the seals, habitat restoration and to be safe throw in a hatchery to give the stocks a boost. They are doing none of this. So in my opinion I would rather have science run the show than this current bag of BS and lies. The rec sector put forward a good plan to DFO that balanced the sectors desire to stay in business with protecting species at risk. We were stabbed in the back. Wake up.
     
  11. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    The science is debatable



    https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01947/wdfw01947.pdf




    Page 68. Harvest Constraint Cannot Effect Recovery. Recovery for most populations cannot be accomplished solely by constraint of harvest. For the immediate future, harvest constraint will assist in providing optimal escapement, suited to current habitat condition. Productivity is constrained by habitat condition, and is not influenced by harvest, providing harvest does not reduce escapement to the point of demographic or genetic instability. The quality and quantity of freshwater and estuarine environment determines embryonic and juvenile survival, and oceanic conditions influence survival up to the age of recruitment to fisheries. Physical or climatic factors, such as stream flow during the incubation period, will vary annually, and have been shown to markedly reduce smolt production in some years. The capacity of Chinook salmon to persist under these conditions is primarily dependent on their diverse age structure and life history, and habitat factors (e.g. channel structure, offchannel refuges, and watershed characteristics that determine runoff) that mitigate adverse conditions. For several Puget Sound populations, mass marking of hatchery production has enabled accurate accounting of the contribution of natural- and hatchery-origin adults to natural escapement. Sufficient data has accumulated to conclude that a significant reduction of harvest rates, and increased marine survival in some years, has increased the number of hatchery-origin fish that return to spawn, whereas returns of natural-origin Chinook salmon, though stable, have not increased. Abundance (escapement) data for the North Fork Nooksack, Skokomish, Skykomish, and Dungeness rivers shows NOR returns have remained at very low levels, while total natural escapement has either increased or held stable where hatchery supplementation programs exist. Skokomish River spawner abundance data is presented as an example of this trend (Figure 6-2). It is evident that natural production has not increased under reduced harvest pressure, and is constrained primarily by the condition of freshwater habitat. Therefore, the harvest rates governed by this plan are not impeding recovery. Harvest constraint has, for most populations, contributed to stable or increasing trends in escapement. For many populations this includes a large proportion of hatchery-origin adults. But stable or negative trends in NOR returns strongly suggests that recruitment will not increase substantially unless constraints limiting freshwater survival are alleviated.

    Page 44. Rules for Allowing Fisheries. For the purposes of this Plan, “directed” fisheries are defined as those in which more than 50 percent of the total fishery-related mortality is made up of ESA protected, Puget Sound-origin Chinook Salmon. Total mortality includes all landed and non-landed mortality. Landed and non-landed incidental mortality of ESA listed Chinook Salmon will occur in fisheries directed at other salmon species. Additional impacts will occur as a result of fisheries directed at hatchery-origin Chinook salmon, including mark-selective fisheries. In both cases the fisheries will be strictly constrained by harvest limits that are established expressly to conserve naturally-produced Chinook salmon. The annual management strategy, for any given Chinook salmon management unit, shall depend on whether a harvestable surplus is forecast. This Plan prohibits directed harvest on naturalorigin populations of Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, unless they have harvestable surplus. If a management unit does not have a harvestable surplus, fishery-related mortality will be constrained to incidental impacts. Similarly, in some cases constraints will be proposed to protect escapements of hatchery populations. Directed and incidental fishery impacts are constrained by specified exploitation rate ceilings or escapement goals for each management unit.


    The following rules define how and where fisheries can operate:

    · Fisheries may be conducted where more than 50 percent of the resulting fishery-related mortality will accrue to management units and species with harvestable surpluses.

    · Within this constraint, the intent is to limit harvest of ESA protected Chinook salmon populations or management units that lack harvestable surplus and develop a fishing regime that will not exceed specified ceiling exploitation rates or escapement goals.

    · Incidental harvest of weak stocks will not be eliminated, but to avoid increasing the risk of extinction of weak stocks, fishery-related impacts will be reduced to the minimal level that still enables fishing opportunity on non-listed and non-ESA protected Chinook and other species, when such harvest is appropriate.

    · Exceptions may be provided for tribal ceremonial and/or subsistence fisheries, and research fisheries that collect information essential to management.


    Where it is not possible to effectively target productive natural stocks or hatchery production, without exceeding specified harvest controls for runs without a harvestable surplus, use of the above rules will likely necessitate foregoing the harvest of much of the surplus from those more productive management units.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2020 at 9:57 AM
    cohochinook likes this.
  12. Dave

    Dave Well-Known Member

    The last part of sentence 3 says it all ..
     
  13. wildmanyeah

    wildmanyeah Crew Member

    Unfortunately we are at that state with many stocks.
     
    Dave likes this.
  14. agentaqua

    agentaqua Well-Known Member

  15. Whole in the Water

    Whole in the Water Well-Known Member

    Great idea. Can start a petition to build support as it will require a constitutional amendment to make this happen.
     
  16. Dave

    Dave Well-Known Member

    Yeah, the province has done a great job with steelhead.
     
  17. Whole in the Water

    Whole in the Water Well-Known Member

    Yeah DFO has done a great job with east coast cod, atlantic salmon, lobster, west coast coho, sockeye, chinook, etc...
    It may be an unfortunate choice of the lesser of two evils to go with the province.

    At least if it is the province they are closer to influence and easier to vote a provincial govt. out as our votes our not diluted with all those from back east. DFO has failed repeatedly in the past, is failing now and is itself one giant ongoing failure. Time for a change!!!
     
  18. ziggy

    ziggy Well-Known Member

    Or perhaps if they had had more say in previous years and exercised that say, instead of the bureaucrats making all the decisions for Dept., there would be plenty of salmon and no need for the closures.
     
    Dave likes this.

Share This Page