OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Three Solitudes
I think it a bit of an understatement that fisheries management in British Columbia today is more complex and confused than at any time in our history. The past short while has seen three different messages broadcast by the three fishing sectors (First Nations, commercial and recreational) engaged in the continuing struggle to maintain or even increase what they view as their rightful piece of a diminishing pie. First, some facts:
The commercial sector view of where we are and why is illustrated perfectly by a widely broadcast message from union leader Joy Thorkelson in late January, 2020. Have a look:
UNIFOR Report
Quotable quotes:
Dear Ms Thorkelson, a couple of questions for you:
How do you suppose all those upper Fraser stocks managed to get themselves on the endangered list prepared by the best minds in the conservation community, long before that Big Bar slide? Why not look at the first 75-100 years of commercial fishery landings to gauge trends in abundance instead of cherry picking a couple of recent reports and using them out of context? What does your vision of a “climate change adaptation plan” look like? Where is it written that someone employed in a failing business or industry should be bailed out by taxpayers? Do loggers, miners, restaurant operators, house builders……..get similar consideration?
Next up, consider the world as viewed by the Sport Fishing Institute, the self proclaimed voice of the salt water recreational fishery. Point of fact, the SFI is essentially the voice of the commercial recreational fishing industry, not the entire salt water angler population as implied. Have a look at their latest:
https://www.salmonforever.ca/?fbclid=IwAR1pzanozvho8NE5HeVdIID5jwfXhb1J7_2AkXk6km5jQ7MZBVFnCVLLmNo
More quotable quotes:
Dear SFI, some questions for you:
How many of the 300K or 450K are double counted because they hold both tidal and non-tidal licenses? I’m one and I know dozens, perhaps even hundreds of people who also purchase both licenses every year. Do you agree that it’s a bit disingenuous to characterize lake anglers among the supporters of a marked selective fishery for ocean chinook? Where are your data supporting your position there is little or no harm done to released salmon, whether hatchery or wild, legal or sub-legal size? Why do you fail to acknowledge the most appropriate analyses of the day which indicate the survival of released fish has been dangerously overestimated in all management planning to date? By the way, I don’t support a marked selective fishery that disproportionately favours overcapitalized guides who just haven’t been paying attention to conservation issues over the past decade. Perhaps you can explain to Ms. Thorkelson and her union what difference there is between an unlimited fleet of offshore boats fishing the same waters commercial trollers are now essentially banned from. If you’re a chinook out there on the Big Bank or “the highway” what difference is there between a licensed commercial troller harvesting and selling you and a guiding operation selling you? You do appreciate guides are effectively commercial fishermen don’t you? They wouldn’t be on the water if they couldn’t harvest anything would they? Web sites and promotional material replete with photos of patrons with dead things is evidence enough is it not? Maybe I can accept that the public fishery only harvests 10% of all salmon but isn’t it disingenuous again to say “all salmon” knowing that includes the traditional net species (sockeye, pink and chum) that the recreational fishery has no measurable impact on? How about sharing the recreational fishery catch of chinook salmon with the catches by the other two sectors so all of us have a better picture of reality? And about those “millions” of chinook being gobbled by marine mammals. Can you share with us the data in support of that allegation, what recommendations you have to implement area and time specific harvest and what chinook production increment you would predict?
Then there’s the Union of BC Indian Chiefs Facebook post illustrating their view of the same sorts of issues. Have a look:
(3) UBCIC – Posts
I think it a bit of an understatement that fisheries management in British Columbia today is more complex and confused than at any time in our history. The past short while has seen three different messages broadcast by the three fishing sectors (First Nations, commercial and recreational) engaged in the continuing struggle to maintain or even increase what they view as their rightful piece of a diminishing pie. First, some facts:
- Salmon and steelhead are a public resource. They do not belong to any one sector.
- Conservation is paramount according to oft stated Department of Fisheries and Oceans pronouncements.
- First priority after conservation needs have been met is First Nations harvest for food, social and ceremonial purposes. The Canadian Constitution guarantees that. In that context the FN fisheries are legally protected whereas the other two are not. (Just what constitutes “social and ceremonial purposes” has been stretched far beyond what seems to have been intended when the Constitution Act was formalized in 1982.)
- Diminishing salmon and steelhead resources will reach a point where any surplus beyond conservation will be allocated solely to First Nations. The only debate around that is how long before we get there? Many Fraser chinook stocks, all the upper Fraser coho stocks and all the Interior Fraser steelhead stocks are already there. A steadily growing number of other stocks on Vancouver Island and all along the coast of BC are not far behind and certain to follow.
- The Big Bar Slide on the Fraser has dramatically worsened the status of every salmon and steelhead stock originating from upstream tributaries. Many of them had already been classified as threatened and endangered before the slide occurred.
- West coast salmon resources are a throwaway for our Liberal government in far off Ottawa. “Our” fish are a ready currency for reconciliation. Steelhead are, by far, the worst off. Despite being directly implicated in so many fisheries conducted by First Nations (and the commercial sector) they never warrant even an honourable mention in any recent discussions within or between the three fishing sectors, much less with the superior government in Ottawa.
The commercial sector view of where we are and why is illustrated perfectly by a widely broadcast message from union leader Joy Thorkelson in late January, 2020. Have a look:
UNIFOR Report
Quotable quotes:
- ….the low harvests from 1999 to 2018 reflected DFO policy decisions to reduce commercial catches. Until 2019, poor harvests were not due to poor run sizes – or overfishing.
- After 20 years of low harvests and income driven by DFO policy choices, by 2018 the fleet was in a poor financial position, unresilliant and unable to withstand the impacts of huge drop in 2019 BC coast-wide salmon returns.
- Climate change and its various impacts on salmon have created a crisis; salmon did not return to BC from the North Pacific where they over-winter. Who knows if this pattern of low salmon returns will continue? But until there is a climate change adaptation plan for commercial fishing people and fish processors, government needs to ante-up and give fishermen and anciliary workers financial support.
- The future looks bleak. 2020 is predicted to be as bad as 2019 all across the BC coast. The Big Bar slide will further restrict any possible Fraser fishery as work to create fish passage will likely not be fully completed in 2020 and it will take years to rebuild damaged upper Fraser salmon stocks.
- What can be done to keep a fishing fleet in viable condition? To attract new entrants? To pass on fishing skills? To meet First Nations aspirations? To assist and engage fishing communities in retaining economic value from our fisheries? What changes need to be made?
Dear Ms Thorkelson, a couple of questions for you:
How do you suppose all those upper Fraser stocks managed to get themselves on the endangered list prepared by the best minds in the conservation community, long before that Big Bar slide? Why not look at the first 75-100 years of commercial fishery landings to gauge trends in abundance instead of cherry picking a couple of recent reports and using them out of context? What does your vision of a “climate change adaptation plan” look like? Where is it written that someone employed in a failing business or industry should be bailed out by taxpayers? Do loggers, miners, restaurant operators, house builders……..get similar consideration?
Next up, consider the world as viewed by the Sport Fishing Institute, the self proclaimed voice of the salt water recreational fishery. Point of fact, the SFI is essentially the voice of the commercial recreational fishing industry, not the entire salt water angler population as implied. Have a look at their latest:
https://www.salmonforever.ca/?fbclid=IwAR1pzanozvho8NE5HeVdIID5jwfXhb1J7_2AkXk6km5jQ7MZBVFnCVLLmNo
More quotable quotes:
- The Sport Fishing Institute of BC, representing the interest of hundreds of thousands of anglers…….
- Since 1980 the Sport Fishing Institute of BC (SFI) has represented the interests of over 300,000 tidal water anglers and related businesses to elected officials, management agency staff, other fishery sectors and the non-angling public. (N.B. the bolded font half way through their letter states “450,000 in BC between fresh and salt water”)
- ……..we want to bring attention to and support for a Mark Selective Fishing strategy as the best and most progressive solution to protecting our salmon, our economy, and our way of life.
- The Big Bar slide will have long term impacts on runs of salmon and the real toll will not be fully understood for years. Adopting a mark selective fishery program, with retention of hatchery produced salmon only, during periods of time when Chinook stocks of concern are passing is an important addition to management tools.
- Addressing area and time specific predator control of seals and sea lions would aid in the survival of millions more Chinook.
- Since 1980 the Sport Fishing Institute of BC (SFI) has represented the interests of over 300,000 tidal water anglers and related businesses to elected officials, management agency staff, other fishery sectors and the non-angling public. (But the bolded font half way through their letter states “450,000 in BC between fresh and salt water”)
- The public fishery in BC harvests only 10% of all salmon.
Dear SFI, some questions for you:
How many of the 300K or 450K are double counted because they hold both tidal and non-tidal licenses? I’m one and I know dozens, perhaps even hundreds of people who also purchase both licenses every year. Do you agree that it’s a bit disingenuous to characterize lake anglers among the supporters of a marked selective fishery for ocean chinook? Where are your data supporting your position there is little or no harm done to released salmon, whether hatchery or wild, legal or sub-legal size? Why do you fail to acknowledge the most appropriate analyses of the day which indicate the survival of released fish has been dangerously overestimated in all management planning to date? By the way, I don’t support a marked selective fishery that disproportionately favours overcapitalized guides who just haven’t been paying attention to conservation issues over the past decade. Perhaps you can explain to Ms. Thorkelson and her union what difference there is between an unlimited fleet of offshore boats fishing the same waters commercial trollers are now essentially banned from. If you’re a chinook out there on the Big Bank or “the highway” what difference is there between a licensed commercial troller harvesting and selling you and a guiding operation selling you? You do appreciate guides are effectively commercial fishermen don’t you? They wouldn’t be on the water if they couldn’t harvest anything would they? Web sites and promotional material replete with photos of patrons with dead things is evidence enough is it not? Maybe I can accept that the public fishery only harvests 10% of all salmon but isn’t it disingenuous again to say “all salmon” knowing that includes the traditional net species (sockeye, pink and chum) that the recreational fishery has no measurable impact on? How about sharing the recreational fishery catch of chinook salmon with the catches by the other two sectors so all of us have a better picture of reality? And about those “millions” of chinook being gobbled by marine mammals. Can you share with us the data in support of that allegation, what recommendations you have to implement area and time specific harvest and what chinook production increment you would predict?
Then there’s the Union of BC Indian Chiefs Facebook post illustrating their view of the same sorts of issues. Have a look:
(3) UBCIC – Posts
