The ENGO Narrative....

[wildmanyeah]

Its amazing how fast it changes, At one point the most important thing to helping fraser river salmon was stopping fish farms, Then it was stopping the pipeline and tankers, Then it was stopping recreational fishermen, now it's stopping LNG terminals.

What is the most important thing???? While I do agree that that habitat protection is key. Misty's most important things for salmon change on a whim.


https://thenarwhal.ca/how-scientists-are-giving-fraser-river-salmon-a-fresh-chance/

"MacDuffee emphasized.

“The most important thing is we have to stop destroying what’s left of the habitat in the Lower Fraser. There are a lot of proposals in the works right now that would erode and degrade those remaining stretches of habitat that still function,” she said pointing to LNG storage and export proposals and the Terminal Two plan, now under review, to expand cargo handling capacity at Roberts Bank."

 

[OldBlackDog]

Remember, she is a mouthpiece for the Americans.

She makes her living with her paid opinions.

Follow the money.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Follow the cash....

 

[GLG]

Follow the IQ

 

[Derby]

LOL

 

[GLG]

I think it was a really smart move to rebrand Conservation and Restoration groups as ENGO's as now you can **** on them without raising the alarm with local anglers that have strong ethics and roots in Conservation. You know those folks that take but also put far more back. After all where do you think most of these people come from that take the time a volunteer to get the job done. I think it's disgraceful that projects like this, that has been in the works for years, get **** on by members here. Projects like this are part of why we are seeing a recovery in Cowichan Chinooks but let's focus on ENGO's and those big bad people.

Signed : Disappointed in BC

 

[OldBlackDog]

Our tax dollars working for us?




The aim of the $75-million coastal restoration fund — part of the federal five-year, $1.5-billion oceans protection plan — is to restore vulnerable coastline areas and protect marine life and ecosystems.

In addition to the five-year Raincoast project, which is receiving $2.7 million,

 

[SpringVelocity]

LOL

All say But we take so we can't say anything.

 

[GLG]

All say But we take so we can't say anything.

SV your record is very clear if your the guy that I listened to at South Coast in the matter of contaminated soil dumping in the Shawnigan Lake Watershed. I was there and after the meeting I found you to thank you personally as well as spent time talking to you. You are not part of the problem, you are part of the solution. You did not rebrand Conservation / Restoration as ENGO's, that was others that have their roots elsewhere. Can you imagine if when you were working on the Shawnigan Creek coho that your activities would have been branded as something else and then **** on by members here. Think about that.

Think it is all nonsense? Well transpose ENGO's for Conservation / Restoration in some of the posts here on this website and see if it makes sense. I'll think you might feel alarmed too as maybe you have direct experience with this type of rebranding when you fought the good fight to protect your watershed.

 

[searun]

SV your record is very clear if your the guy that I listened to at South Coast in the matter of contaminated soil dumping in the Shawnigan Lake Watershed. I was there and after the meeting I found you to thank you personally as well as spent time talking to you. You are not part of the problem, you are part of the solution. You did not rebrand Conservation / Restoration as ENGO's, that was others that have their roots elsewhere. Can you imagine if when you were working on the Shawnigan Creek coho that your activities would have been branded as something else and then **** on by members here. Think about that.

Think it is all nonsense? Well transpose ENGO's for Conservation / Restoration in some of the posts here on this website and see if it makes sense. I'll think you might feel alarmed too as maybe you have direct experience with this type of rebranding when you fought the good fight to protect your watershed.

And when all your recreational fishing opportunities are closed, look in the mirror for the reason. Supporting some of these ENGO's is a vote to close your opportunity. The ENGO network is actively working to close your fishery. They sit in the same meetings I attend, and that is precisely their advice ....close recreational fishing.

 

[GLG]

And when all your recreational fishing opportunities are closed, look in the mirror for the reason. Supporting some of these ENGO's is a vote to close your opportunity. The ENGO network is actively working to close your fishery. They sit in the same meetings I attend, and that is precisely their advice ....close recreational fishing.

And you just continue to **** on the messenger and rebrand Conservation / Restoration groups because you can't dispute the message.

http://www.frafs.ca/sites/default/files2/Day 1 2019 Fraser River Chinook Conservation Measures.pdf

 

[SpringVelocity]

And you just continue to **** on the messenger and rebrand Conservation / Restoration groups because you can't dispute the message.

http://www.frafs.ca/sites/default/files2/Day 1 2019 Fraser River Chinook Conservation Measures.pdf

What message? Misinformation?

 

[GLG]

What message? Misinformation?

It's clear there is a problem but I don't understand why you don't see it.
This PDF is from last year.
The most telling is page 17 table 7 as I see this as why we are in the position we find ourselves in.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/mpo-dfo/fs70-7/Fs70-7-2018-035-eng.pdf

If there is not enough fish returning to these systems the problem will just get worse.
We need to get past low productivity and back to something approaching normal.

 

[SpringVelocity]

It's clear there is a problem but I don't understand why you don't see it.
This PDF is from last year.
The most telling is page 17 table 7 as I see this as why we are in the position we find ourselves in.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/mpo-dfo/fs70-7/Fs70-7-2018-035-eng.pdf

If there is not enough fish returning to these systems the problem will just get worse.
We need to get past low productivity and back to something approaching normal.

I am more shocked that you are challenging this honestly. Challenging our own Angler Avid DNA data and making statements completely inline with the NGO's. Not only making a statement but taking a direct run at Searun who was at the working group. Really as an ex SFAC area chair who's side are you on? You know very well this is about politics/optics. Maybe you forgot that. Anyway I will leave this, and you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't agree with it. Take care Gil.

 

[searun]

And you just continue to **** on the messenger and rebrand Conservation / Restoration groups because you can't dispute the message.

http://www.frafs.ca/sites/default/files2/Day 1 2019 Fraser River Chinook Conservation Measures.pdf

Actually its quite easy to dispute their message. As you full well know there are many areas and times where stocks of concern are simply not encountered in the public fishery. Putting the DNA and CWT data to work so we can place a finer point on these measures and create some fishing opportunity on Chinook stocks that are considerably more abundant is the right thing to do. Sticking to broad based blanket regulations choices where there are alternatives that allow us to protect stocks of concern by fishing areas/times when they are either not encountered at all, or the encounter rate is so low as to be biologically insignificant to the recovery of these stocks is irresponsible.

We also know that fishing restrictions are not the answer to actually recovering these stocks. The close all fishing crowd is grossly over-simplifying the actual root cause of the problem and the real pathway to recovery. By taking that approach, they are irresponsibly taking focus off the root causes of the decline and the actual solutions. This government is looking for the cheap route to give the appearance of taking strong action, while dodging the actual investments required to affect an actual recovery.

The path forward isn't paved with fishing restrictions, it is paved with investments into short-term hatchery augmentation, long-term habitat restoration, and predator control. And even with all that, we are likely looking at 10 years or more before seeing substantive change. If we close every fishery down and cross our fingers it would take a life-time to recover these fish, if ever.

Orca's can't wait...and neither can coastal communities.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Amazing it's no longer about critical habitat its about all their range. AT some point the Government will have to say No this is enough.

"MacDuffee said the foundation hopes to see future steps including protection for southern resident killer whales for their full range, not just within critical habitat."

https://www.mypowellrivernow.com/22...e-to-protect-southern-resident-killer-whales/

 

[Islander57]

Its amazing how fast it changes, At one point the most important thing to helping fraser river salmon was stopping fish farms, Then it was stopping the pipeline and tankers, Then it was stopping recreational fishermen, now it's stopping LNG terminals.

What is the most important thing???? While I do agree that that habitat protection is key. Misty's most important things for salmon change on a whim.


https://thenarwhal.ca/how-scientists-are-giving-fraser-river-salmon-a-fresh-chance/

"MacDuffee emphasized.

“The most important thing is we have to stop destroying what’s left of the habitat in the Lower Fraser. There are a lot of proposals in the works right now that would erode and degrade those remaining stretches of habitat that still function,” she said pointing to LNG storage and export proposals and the Terminal Two plan, now under review, to expand cargo handling capacity at Roberts Bank."

I don't see her priorities changing on a "whim." She includes LNG into the big picture. Again, I will say what I feel our sector really lacks. We lack science based research to support our argument. This thread has three links that use science as a means of conveying the problems faced by chinook salmon, habitat and SRKW's. We as a user group of the chinook fishery have none. People will listen to science. Sadly, it seems that if science is used as a measuring stick in the fisheries management, it's twisted by our user group as either ENGO propaganda or political posturing. We'll never win a thing as long as we maintain that attitude. Finger pointing doesn't work. Hatcheries are not the answer. They can help, but only to an extent. This problem with declining stocks has been years in the making, and fisheries practices have played a role. I agree that jobs will be lost as a result of closures, I get that, but I'm not sure it will collapse the overall economy of the west coast. I don't feel our "entitlement" argument is getting us very far at the table. The science behind DFO's decision to close the fishery until mid July, and set back the commercial fishery until mid August along with tighter regulation of the FN ceremonial fishery are tough to swallow for each user group.
There are many sides to the debate of the fisheries. When it comes to the politics, one thing I am certain of, we only represent a very small group of the voter base in Canada. People in Ontario could care a less about salmon stocks. Politicians along the south coast in the fall elections will use the fisheries situation and the state of the SRKW's as a talking point to get elected. The "tell us what we want to hear" approach. But if elected, they won't change a damn thing. It might take up a little time in parliament, but will soon die away. Liberal and Conservative governments have shown us that time and time again. I look at what all groups, ENGO, DFO and our own representative groups bring to the table, and we seem to bring the least. That disappoints me.

 

[terrin]

I don't see her priorities changing on a "whim." She includes LNG into the big picture. Again, I will say what I feel our sector really lacks. We lack science based research to support our argument. This thread has three links that use science as a means of conveying the problems faced by chinook salmon, habitat and SRKW's. We as a user group of the chinook fishery have none. People will listen to science. Sadly, it seems that if science is used as a measuring stick in the fisheries management, it's twisted by our user group as either ENGO propaganda or political posturing. We'll never win a thing as long as we maintain that attitude. Finger pointing doesn't work. Hatcheries are not the answer. They can help, but only to an extent. This problem with declining stocks has been years in the making, and fisheries practices have played a role. I agree that jobs will be lost as a result of closures, I get that, but I'm not sure it will collapse the overall economy of the west coast. I don't feel our "entitlement" argument is getting us very far at the table. The science behind DFO's decision to close the fishery until mid July, and set back the commercial fishery until mid August along with tighter regulation of the FN ceremonial fishery are tough to swallow for each user group.
There are many sides to the debate of the fisheries. When it comes to the politics, one thing I am certain of, we only represent a very small group of the voter base in Canada. People in Ontario could care a less about salmon stocks. Politicians along the south coast in the fall elections will use the fisheries situation and the state of the SRKW's as a talking point to get elected. The "tell us what we want to hear" approach. But if elected, they won't change a damn thing. It might take up a little time in parliament, but will soon die away. Liberal and Conservative governments have shown us that time and time again. I look at what all groups, ENGO, DFO and our own representative groups bring to the table, and we seem to bring the least. That disappoints me.

Hows this for science from our side?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2454822464746300

 

[Islander57]

Hows this for science from our side?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2454822464746300

Something I have never disputed, but it's one of many man made causes, added to environmental causes.

 

[searun]

I don't see her priorities changing on a "whim." She includes LNG into the big picture. Again, I will say what I feel our sector really lacks. We lack science based research to support our argument. This thread has three links that use science as a means of conveying the problems faced by chinook salmon, habitat and SRKW's. We as a user group of the chinook fishery have none. People will listen to science. Sadly, it seems that if science is used as a measuring stick in the fisheries management, it's twisted by our user group as either ENGO propaganda or political posturing. We'll never win a thing as long as we maintain that attitude. Finger pointing doesn't work. Hatcheries are not the answer. They can help, but only to an extent. This problem with declining stocks has been years in the making, and fisheries practices have played a role. I agree that jobs will be lost as a result of closures, I get that, but I'm not sure it will collapse the overall economy of the west coast. I don't feel our "entitlement" argument is getting us very far at the table. The science behind DFO's decision to close the fishery until mid July, and set back the commercial fishery until mid August along with tighter regulation of the FN ceremonial fishery are tough to swallow for each user group.
There are many sides to the debate of the fisheries. When it comes to the politics, one thing I am certain of, we only represent a very small group of the voter base in Canada. People in Ontario could care a less about salmon stocks. Politicians along the south coast in the fall elections will use the fisheries situation and the state of the SRKW's as a talking point to get elected. The "tell us what we want to hear" approach. But if elected, they won't change a damn thing. It might take up a little time in parliament, but will soon die away. Liberal and Conservative governments have shown us that time and time again. I look at what all groups, ENGO, DFO and our own representative groups bring to the table, and we seem to bring the least. That disappoints me.

I think your completely out of touch....our sector bringing the least? Please explain that!! Whom do you think helps fund and staff with volunteers all the non SEP hatchery facilities? Perhaps your circle of friends aren't lifting a finger to help salmon, but I know lots of recreational anglers who donate their personal time, funds, donations to PSF dinners, fund-raisers to help salmon conservation etc. When it comes to science, we have the Avid Anglers program providing thousands of DNA samples and scientific catch data, I have personally provided hundreds of DNA samples and CWT heads, guide log books....and just scratching the surface here as I couldn't do complete justice to all the countless rec anglers who are putting back....because we care deeply about the future of salmon.