RANT: SFAB meeing Wednesday Mar 21 7pm (Victoria)

3% less than last year Charlie. Why is someone south of the boarder so interested.?

No problem, I hear there is an experimental program where you can buy excess lease quota - there is probably a ton of unused quota they couldn't sell to the sporties.:D
 
3% less than last year Charlie. Why is someone south of the boarder(sp) so interested.?

Haha...I guess you didn't send that through Harper for approval - they would have caught your glamor error?

I have no problem answering any direct question with a direct answer! Apparently, you do as that is a normal, typical, evasive answer that I have learned to expect and receive from Harper? Therefore, just to be direct in my question how many "POUNDS" of quota did YOU receive when you renewed your license in 2011? How many "POUNDS" of quota did you receive when you renewed your license this year - 2012? This is "directly" asking how many "POUNDS" of quota do you think you OWN? The reaons for the question is to know, exactly how this is effecting an individual - nothing more, noting less. Please do NOT give me that % BS, unless you want to tell the "individual" % of TOTAL TAC, you received last year and % you received this year? Or, do I have to waste my time going through the Canada freedom of information act (whatever it is called).

The “direct” answer to your question is:
1) I go to BC and "sport" fish; therefore, I am interested, concerned with any regulation changes that "directly" effect me.

2) Read your "HISTORY"! While, I agree both the U.S. and Canada "commercial" halibut industry "FINALLY" realized they were both "OVERFISHING" and formed what is now called IPHC. BOTH Alaska and British Columbia commercial halibut sectors lobbied "heavy" for the IPHC to control the "sport” sector. The IPHC declined! Then both of those “commercial” sector started lobby efforts through the state of Alaska and U.S. YOU directly lobbied the "government of Canada" which resulted in the IPHC was "FORCED" to include the sport sector. Simply put... “YOU” are now receiving what you sowed... ever hear of that term "harvest what you have sow"! And as I see it, this now coming right back at YOU the commercial sector. I am loving it as FYI... "you" ain’t in Alaska babby and when this halibut issue goes to Canada Supreme Court that can and will equal in only one result – “SLIPPER SKIPPERS LOSE! Reap it while you can, as the "you asked for it - you got it" and "what goes around - comes around" really does put a "smiley" on this ole' mans face!

Oh, forgot... feel free to PM me any time you wish; however, I sure do wish you would learn how to add! :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well done Charlie, wish I could put things in that perspective.

Haha...I guess you didn't send that through Harper for approval - they would have caught your glamor error?

I have no problem answering any direct question with a direct answer! Apparently, you do as that is a normal, typical, evasive answer that I have learned to expect and receive from Harper? Therefore, just to be direct in my question how many "POUNDS" of quota did YOU receive when you renewed your license in 2011? How many "POUNDS" of quota did you receive when you renewed your license this year - 2012? This is "directly" asking how many "POUNDS" of quota do you think you OWN? The reaons for the question is to know, exactly how this is effecting an individual - nothing more, noting less. Please do NOT give me that % BS, unless you want to tell the "individual" % of TOTAL TAC, you received last year and % you received this year? Or, do I have to waste my time going through the Canada freedom of information act (whatever it is called).

The “direct” answer to your question is:
1) I go to BC and "sport" fish; therefore, I am interested, concerned with any regulation changes that "directly" effect me.

2) Read your "HISTORY"! While, I agree both the U.S. and Canada "commercial" halibut industry "FINALLY" realized they were both "OVERFISHING" and formed what is now called IPHC. BOTH Alaska and British Columbia commercial halibut sectors lobbied "heavy" for the IPHC to control the "sport” sector. The IPHC declined! Then both of those “commercial” sector started lobby efforts through the state of Alaska and U.S. YOU directly lobbied the "government of Canada" which resulted in the IPHC was "FORCED" to include the sport sector. Simply put... “YOU” are now receiving what you sowed... ever hear of that term "harvest what you have sow"! And as I see it, this now coming right back at YOU the commercial sector. I am loving it as FYI... "you" ain’t in Alaska babby and when this halibut issue goes to Canada Supreme Court that can and will equal in only one result – “SLIPPER SKIPPERS LOSE! Reap it while you can, as the "you asked for it - you got it" and "what goes around - comes around" really does put a "smiley" on this ole' mans face!

Oh, forgot... feel free to PM me any time you wish; however, I sure do wish you would learn how to add! :eek:
 
Charlie - our Yankee Bro'!

fish4all... more accurately - fish4me!
 
3% less than last year Charlie. Why is someone south of the boarder so interested.?

This is a trans-border issue.

Many conservation groups have made the point that the Canadian federal government is not doing enough to protect at-risk salmon stocks from being overfished as they migrate through Alaskan waters to their natal streams in BC and the Yukon. The groups also say Ottawa is turning a blind eye to Alaskan ocean-ranching operations (hatcheries) that every year flood the North Pacific ocean with billions of farm-raised salmon which compete with wild Canadian salmon for limited food supplies.

This reality is one of the biggest contributors to declining stocks - DFO calls it "the mystery" of ocean survival - directly influenced by Alaskan practice. Everything's a mystery when you choose ignorance over field observation and science.

Most of us understand that and appreciate Charlie's contributions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sent this off to Craig Orr at Watershed Watch.
I'll send a similar version to the TC as a rebuttal.
If, and that's a big IF the TC prints it, I'll bet they edit the hell out of it.



Hi Craig,

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Just wanted to touch base with you and offer my thoughts on Hill's article in the TC yesterday.

http://www.timescolonist.com/techno...fisheries+conservationists/6353999/story.html

As a recreational fisherman I take strong exception to being referred to as a 'scofflaw'.

Before Arron shot his mouth off, he might have taken a moment to look at the catch-reductions and conservation-concessions the South Island anglers have made in the last few years concerning early timed Fraser fish.

If any degree of accuracy had figured - or was required - in this blatant-defamation of the angling-community, Hill would also have conceded that the South Island anglers have bore the brunt of these conservation efforts over the last few years. As well, he would understand fully our frustration with the DFO, as throughout this period First Nations have carried out - unabated - their annual F&C slaughter of these fish as they swim up the Fraser, while the DFO-sanctioned salmon-farming industry continues its slaughter of these out-migrating young salmon as they try to swim past these Norwegian-owned disease & parasite infested feedlots. Then there's the highly contentious issue of the DFO allowing a massive herring harvest in the Gulf of Georgia (to send their row to Asia) while our gulf Salmon starve; which, in turn impacts our Orca's. So many problems, not many answers...

Seriously Craig, for a long time I have had the greatest respect for the work you and Watershed Watch have done, especially where it concerned the opposition to the salmon-farming industry. Yet, to allow one of your 'loose-guns' to point the finger at the rec-fishing community when our impact on these fish is so minimal while providing the greatest return and socioeconomic-benefit to our Province, is irresponsible at best.

This is a bad rap further aggravated by an over-zealous 'pot-stirring' reporter.

I would urge you and Watershed Watch to remember that we, BC's recreational fishing community, have the word CONSERVATION stamped all over the front page of our 'Bible of Fisherman's' Ethics!'

Yours truly,

Terry Anderson

Wild Salmon Alliance

Great letter Terry. Glad to see a response to that article.
 
Aaron Hill ( Watershed Watch) was on C.B.C. at about 7:15 this morning. He did not bash sportfishing. He did say that even though there is some doubt regarding some means of data collection, there is no doubt that some Fraser stocks are precipitously declining.

He is an intelligent and articulate guy that should not be discounted. He went on to say that all groups, including F.N.'s, will be required to make substantial concessions if we do not want to see extinctions. For any group to say that they will not abide by any new conservation regulations is irresponsible.

He has a good point that I believe will be embraced by the general public. As a harvesting group, we should be portraying a reasonable, collaborative, unified disposition. To project polarization, self-interest and fragmentation with the other groups likely means that our voice will be discounted and ignored by the public and all others with influence.

Hill went on to say that the proposed changes to Federal regulations regarding fish habitat will be disasterous. We can all agree on that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The point that he misses is that no one proposed to ignore regulation. What happened was that the sportfishing community refused to accept the proposals by DFO during the consultation process. And that is our fair right to do and very reasonable. We do not have to agree with every BS DFO comes up with. Is that so hard to express correctly?
 
Great letter Terry. Glad to see a response to that article.

Uh, it's hardly a "great letter" at all.

It's full of inflamatory and accusatory language, hyperbole and whining.
Classic case of making a mountain from a molehill and letting emotions overcome common sense.
Had it been sent to a politician it might have been thrown to an underling for a reply, but I doubt it.
Craig might respond as he is a large cut above politicians.

Oh, and it's roe that's sold to Asian markets, not row.


Take care.
 
The point that he misses is that no one proposed to ignore regulation. What happened was that the sportfishing community refused to accept the proposals by DFO during the consultation process. And that is our fair right to do and very reasonable. We do not have to agree with every BS DFO comes up with. Is that so hard to express correctly?

Apparently it is, given it was basically saying you wouldn't obey any new regs or "laws" brought in by DFO should they bring some in.
Call it future scoffing or whatever but it was clearly the message from the sporties.

Take care.
 
Uh, it's hardly a "great letter" at all.

It's full of inflamatory and accusatory language, hyperbole and whining.
Classic case of making a mountain from a molehill and letting emotions overcome common sense.
Had it been sent to a politician it might have been thrown to an underling for a reply, but I doubt it.
Craig might respond as he is a large cut above politicians.

Oh, and it's roe that's sold to Asian markets, not row.


Take care.

As the famous quote says "to each, his own."
 
The point that he misses is that no one proposed to ignore regulation. What happened was that the sportfishing community refused to accept the proposals by DFO during the consultation process. And that is our fair right to do and very reasonable. We do not have to agree with every BS DFO comes up with. Is that so hard to express correctly?

Quite so. However, any minority group (we are one) must be aware that the "message" their representatives express, whether interpreted correctly or "spun" by the media, government or competitors to suit other agendas, will have an influence on public perception. Whether that message has been expressed poorly or has been misinterpreted, either way, we lose. While we may feel better by expressing our indignation in a passionate fashion, does that create a positive effect and an influence that serves our interest?
 
Thanks for pointing out the type-o in my letter Dave and as well for the kind assessment of the work. Nice to know all us rec-fishers are on the same page.

Sorry Foxsea but I can't agree that we (a half-million or more in BC) are a "minority group". We make a HUGE dent in the Provinces economic engine each year.

Regardless we are a fragmented bunch and will continue to be so, especially if we keep bashing the **** out of each other...

Craig did reply to my letter and yes Dave, that's something we can agree on, he is a top-shelf human being who has given endlessly to the cause of Pacific Salmon (opps, I spelt Samon wit a capitol, dat's not very good englisch eh Dave ;)



Terry.

Thanks for your note. I agree that language is important; scofflaw is not an appropriate word, and Aaron and I have had that conversation. I would also agree that many anglers--including me--kill fewer Chinook than in the past, and that many have made substantial conservation concessions. But the facts are still facts, and too many Chinook populations continue to decline. While the reasons for those declines are likely many--including salmon farming impacts, which many in all sectors continue to ignore (as you well know)--the evidence suggests that all sectors continue to harvest certain Chinook populations/age classes at rates that are currently unsustainable, and that harvest restrictions are one of the few tools in the toolbox. We all have to do more, not just rest on we have already done, if we truly wish to turn the tide, never an easy task, given how far things have gone.

Best regards,

Craig
 
Sorry Foxsea but I can't agree that we (a half-million or more in BC) are a "minority group". We make a HUGE dent in the Provinces economic engine each year.=QUOTE]

Just the facts:
Registered B.C. voters:3,200,000
Value of wild salmon capture fishing: $70 million (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/fishstats/capture/index.html)
Value of farmed salmon = $500 million (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/fishstats/aqua/index.html)
Value of recreational fishery (tidal and fresh) $288 million (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/omfd/fishstats/sport/index.html)

Overstating our limited influence will not help us - in fact it may backfire. Some voters in B.C. actually consider sport fishing a priviledge, not a right. Others would like to see the sport fishery end. We are a minority - culturally, in actual numbers and in economic importance. We need a cohesive, unified lobby, as you have noted.
Pogo: "We have seen the enemy..."
 
Thanks for pointing out the type-o in my letter Dave and as well for the kind assessment of the work. Nice to know all us rec-fishers are on the same page.

Sorry Foxsea but I can't agree that we (a half-million or more in BC) are a "minority group". We make a HUGE dent in the Provinces economic engine each year.

Regardless we are a fragmented bunch and will continue to be so, especially if we keep bashing the **** out of each other...

Craig did reply to my letter and yes Dave, that's something we can agree on, he is a top-shelf human being who has given endlessly to the cause of Pacific Salmon (opps, I spelt Samon wit a capitol, dat's not very good englisch eh Dave ;)



Terry.

Thanks for your note. I agree that language is important; scofflaw is not an appropriate word, and Aaron and I have had that conversation. I would also agree that many anglers--including me--kill fewer Chinook than in the past, and that many have made substantial conservation concessions. But the facts are still facts, and too many Chinook populations continue to decline. While the reasons for those declines are likely many--including salmon farming impacts, which many in all sectors continue to ignore (as you well know)--the evidence suggests that all sectors continue to harvest certain Chinook populations/age classes at rates that are currently unsustainable, and that harvest restrictions are one of the few tools in the toolbox. We all have to do more, not just rest on we have already done, if we truly wish to turn the tide, never an easy task, given how far things have gone.

Best regards,

Craig


First, it wasn't a "type-o" (sic) it was a simple spelling mistake, but the type that oftimes negates whatever genuine concern or message is being put forward as the recipient will consider the writer ignorant. Not fair and not always right but true regardless.
Second, your letters and posts shared on here have shown you to be an over-the-top and sometimes almost hysterical writer without much in the way of diplomatic skills or concern for how the recipients of your offerings may perceive them.
Believe me I've been involved enough to recognize the differences between an effective letter and a rant on paper. The rants appeal to your fishing buddies but will accomplish squat in the end I'm afraid.

And yes, hard to find a more dedicated champion for fish than Craig, and he's never ranted ................to the best of my knowledge.

For your consideration.

Take care.
 
Ah-h-h, an English major; just what we need on this forum.

You will be busy then, offering up critiques/corrections on not just my own mechanical/grammatical errors - and over the top hysterical & impulsive rants - but nearly every other fisherman who posts here. When the day arrives that we have to have a dictionary at hand and scrutinize each and every word - every thought - we post here before hitting the 'submit' button, we are done.

Sure, I screw up and shoot my mouth off sometimes, letting my emotions (and anger) get the best of me. More than once in the past I've submitted my work for publication that I thought was some of my best (edited the hell out of it), only to have it end up in the editors garbage can. To some, writing comes nearly effortlessly, to me - I fight and wrestle every word to the page.

Yet, regardless of my limited capacity as a writer, some of my work has made it through over the years - Vancouver Sun, Province, Cowichan Valley Times, Black Press, BC Outdoors Magazine) and of this, I am proud.

I actually got off my duff and did something.
 
Ah-h-h, an English major; just what we need on this forum.

Sure, I screw up and shoot my mouth off sometimes, letting my emotions (and anger) get the best of me. More than once in the past I've submitted my work for publication that I thought was some of my best (edited the hell out of it), only to have it end up in the editors garbage can. To some, writing comes nearly effortlessly, to me - I fight and wrestle every word to the page. Yet, regardless of my limited capacity as a writer, some of my work has made it through over the years - Vancouver Sun, Province, Cowichan Valley Times, Black Press, BC Outdoors Magazine) and of this, I am proud. I actually got off my duff and did something.

L.H. - I sincerely compliment you for working to get something positive done! ... and backing your honest opinion with action.

What I find annoying is the habit of some here, to attack everything and everyone that is not 100% in agreement with their narrow viewpoint. We need the F.N. community, the environmentalists, some of the commercial guys, the journalists, the general public and the other rec guys behind us on the most prominent issues - fair allocation, getting fish farms out of the ocean and true conservation measures to preserve a way of life that we love. Alienating them all with attacks and rabid fanaticism is not helping us. Instead of building bridges with other groups we alienate all of them. Who's left to support us! Attacking everyone is not politically helpful and these are very political issues.
 
"...narrow viewpoint... rabid fanaticism..." what respect I had for you is evaporating by the minute here. You, who talks of alienation seem to becoming an advocate for it.

The things you speak of I have been bantering about for over a decade. Trust me, we are on the same page on many things.
 
Ah-h-h, an English major; just what we need on this forum.

You will be busy then, offering up critiques/corrections on not just my own mechanical/grammatical errors - and over the top hysterical & impulsive rants - but nearly every other fisherman who posts here. When the day arrives that we have to have a dictionary at hand and scrutinize each and every word - every thought - we post here before hitting the 'submit' button, we are done.

Sure, I screw up and shoot my mouth off sometimes, letting my emotions (and anger) get the best of me. More than once in the past I've submitted my work for publication that I thought was some of my best (edited the hell out of it), only to have it end up in the editors garbage can. To some, writing comes nearly effortlessly, to me - I fight and wrestle every word to the page.

Yet, regardless of my limited capacity as a writer, some of my work has made it through over the years - Vancouver Sun, Province, Cowichan Valley Times, Black Press, BC Outdoors Magazine) and of this, I am proud.

I actually got off my duff and did something.


You're about 20 years behind me as far as getting of your duff and doing something Terry.

And when I used to write letters to the editor locally he eventually hired me to write a column for the paper rather than just writing letters to the editor.
If letters to the editor changed anything things would be a helluva lot different than they are too.

I'm trying to be constructive somewhat but if you're too much smarter than I to listen and heed it than that will be your problem and your future letters will no doubt fare about as well as they have so far.

The Steelhead Society put out a good little pamphlet on how to write effective letters some years back. Try to find a copy and read it. It may be of some value to you.

Also, you might want to learn to take criticism a bit better as your whole escalating tactic shows you to be pretty thin-skinned, which is not what a critic should be.

Take care.
 
Back
Top