WCVI Threat to saltchuck fishin'
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
MyEscape
Active Member
Iron Noggin you continuue to fill us with a wealth of info Thank-You
we need to stand strong together as sports fishermen....Don't lurk on the sidelines speek your opinion thats what this all about. Mabye I am wrong but numbers thats all our gov really cares about or is it???
Like voting if you don't speek you won't be heard..
Thanks again Cheers ME
Happy Hookin!!!
we need to stand strong together as sports fishermen....Don't lurk on the sidelines speek your opinion thats what this all about. Mabye I am wrong but numbers thats all our gov really cares about or is it???
Like voting if you don't speek you won't be heard..
Thanks again Cheers ME
Happy Hookin!!!
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
This is a follow-up to the post I made just the other day regarding Parks Canada's attempted shutdown of some West Coast Vancouver Island fisheries (see: http://forum.fishbc.com/index.php?showtopic=14249 ) I just this moment returned from the meeting between the SFAB and the Department, and thought this was now deserving of a second post, as many will have read the first, and might therefore miss this report.
The DFO representatives were candid, genuine in their presentation in this regard. They are concerned, for a myriad of reasons. It seems Parks dropped this bombshell on them, basically unannounced. The SFAB (which I just rejoined BTW) voiced numerous concerns, these I will present here:
- The current Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCA's) were developed in implicit and meaningfull consultation with stakeholders, designed to provide sanctuary from human interference with a slow maturing and fragile stock. The IMPOSITION of expanded no fishing areas without related consultation will dramatically increase public resistance to the process as a whole, as stakeholders will get the perception of being dictated to, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the RCA program as a whole. DFO would be viewed once again as having been given an inch, only to wrest out a mile.
- The current RCA's in the area in question are large in size, providing local protection in excess of overall WCVI targets of twenty percent.
- The expansion areas include some of the most heavily utilized areas for salmon fishing on the entire West Caost, and would have serious negaitive effects on the fishery and local economics as a consequence.
- The move by Parks is viewed as an underhanded way to introduce an eventual ecological reserve within which harvest of any marine organisms would be strictly forbidden (admitted to by Parks to DFO).
- Further, this first step is viewed as just that, the initial stage establishing the trend for further and expanding such area closures, including Cape Beale, points south to Renfrew (off all of the West Coast Trail), and eventually all waters off the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (again admitted, albiet under reported duress, by Parks). If realized this would spell an end to nearly all inshore fisheries from Port Renfrew through to Tofino.
- That Parks is blatently misusing the RCA program in order to further their own protectionist agenda without having to conduct meaningfull public consultations, as will likely eventually be forthcoming under the Parks Act (should we be successfull in aborting this initial attempt).
For these reasons, the SFAB voted unaminously to reject the current Parks proposal, and provided DFO with a resolution to that effect. It should further be noted that Parks Canada was conspicuosly absent from this meeting.
Now is where YOU can help. Even if you personally never plan to fish the west coast, the arrogant behaviour by Parks is an affront. It takes away what is currently yours, and completely ignores any thoughts or concerns you might have in that regard. If you do fish the west coast, or plan on doing so, the need for your help is even more pressing, as the option of doing so hangs in the balance!
I provided a link in the initial post in this regard, and now do so again: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co...abitat/WC_1.htm That page incorporates a comments section for you to voice your concerns. Although weight will be given to those with appropriate affiliates (local SFAB's, Regional Districts, City Councils, mayors, etc) each and every comment helps. The numbers DO make a difference. In my original post, I noted it was just a heads up, and suggested this might be worthy of your time to comment. This time, I implore each and every one of you to let Parks Canada know we are not in agreement with their underhanded dictation of what we are allowed to do on OUR coastal waters. Rest assured, this matter will come up again, round two will see them attempting the same thing, but under the terms of their own Act, they will be forced to ask for public concern. Again, we will take the fight to them, a LOT is at stake. For now, PLEASE take a moment of your time to let them know their actions are WRONG! For those who've already commented and feel strongly in this matter, I further suggest you might want to consider contacting your MLA and the Fisheries Minister. Again, lets keep the comments civil here, rants will of course be hastily discarded.
To those that previously commented and noted that I thank you. It is sincerely appreciated!!!
Now more than concerned, downright PO'd!
Nog
The DFO representatives were candid, genuine in their presentation in this regard. They are concerned, for a myriad of reasons. It seems Parks dropped this bombshell on them, basically unannounced. The SFAB (which I just rejoined BTW) voiced numerous concerns, these I will present here:
- The current Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCA's) were developed in implicit and meaningfull consultation with stakeholders, designed to provide sanctuary from human interference with a slow maturing and fragile stock. The IMPOSITION of expanded no fishing areas without related consultation will dramatically increase public resistance to the process as a whole, as stakeholders will get the perception of being dictated to, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the RCA program as a whole. DFO would be viewed once again as having been given an inch, only to wrest out a mile.
- The current RCA's in the area in question are large in size, providing local protection in excess of overall WCVI targets of twenty percent.
- The expansion areas include some of the most heavily utilized areas for salmon fishing on the entire West Caost, and would have serious negaitive effects on the fishery and local economics as a consequence.
- The move by Parks is viewed as an underhanded way to introduce an eventual ecological reserve within which harvest of any marine organisms would be strictly forbidden (admitted to by Parks to DFO).
- Further, this first step is viewed as just that, the initial stage establishing the trend for further and expanding such area closures, including Cape Beale, points south to Renfrew (off all of the West Coast Trail), and eventually all waters off the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (again admitted, albiet under reported duress, by Parks). If realized this would spell an end to nearly all inshore fisheries from Port Renfrew through to Tofino.
- That Parks is blatently misusing the RCA program in order to further their own protectionist agenda without having to conduct meaningfull public consultations, as will likely eventually be forthcoming under the Parks Act (should we be successfull in aborting this initial attempt).
For these reasons, the SFAB voted unaminously to reject the current Parks proposal, and provided DFO with a resolution to that effect. It should further be noted that Parks Canada was conspicuosly absent from this meeting.
Now is where YOU can help. Even if you personally never plan to fish the west coast, the arrogant behaviour by Parks is an affront. It takes away what is currently yours, and completely ignores any thoughts or concerns you might have in that regard. If you do fish the west coast, or plan on doing so, the need for your help is even more pressing, as the option of doing so hangs in the balance!
I provided a link in the initial post in this regard, and now do so again: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co...abitat/WC_1.htm That page incorporates a comments section for you to voice your concerns. Although weight will be given to those with appropriate affiliates (local SFAB's, Regional Districts, City Councils, mayors, etc) each and every comment helps. The numbers DO make a difference. In my original post, I noted it was just a heads up, and suggested this might be worthy of your time to comment. This time, I implore each and every one of you to let Parks Canada know we are not in agreement with their underhanded dictation of what we are allowed to do on OUR coastal waters. Rest assured, this matter will come up again, round two will see them attempting the same thing, but under the terms of their own Act, they will be forced to ask for public concern. Again, we will take the fight to them, a LOT is at stake. For now, PLEASE take a moment of your time to let them know their actions are WRONG! For those who've already commented and feel strongly in this matter, I further suggest you might want to consider contacting your MLA and the Fisheries Minister. Again, lets keep the comments civil here, rants will of course be hastily discarded.
To those that previously commented and noted that I thank you. It is sincerely appreciated!!!
Now more than concerned, downright PO'd!
Nog
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Seems I somehow screwed up the link, Here it is again:
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/p...fish_Maps_Fall_2004/Rockfish_Habitat/WC_1.htm
Comments sincerely appreciated!
Nog
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/p...fish_Maps_Fall_2004/Rockfish_Habitat/WC_1.htm
Comments sincerely appreciated!
Nog
I
islandphile
Guest
Unreal!
Nog, if you know....who are the people (by association) in Parks who are pushing this agenda? What if any other motive (other than simpletonistic conservation) might they have to see this through? Are they really THAT dyed in the wool environmentalists??? I find that hard to believe....
Also hard to believe all other science based viewpoints are being ignored by them....which gives me cause to suspect and wonder what else might be going on behind the scenes??
In this plan, one starts to wonder who will benefit from, say, a lack of salmon fishing on these fertile fishing grounds. How will it impact commercial fishing on nearby but harder to access areas where the fish might run deeper in open water where sporties dare not venture?? Will it benefit them if the sporties can't get access, or if sporties access is dramatically reduced?
And last but not least, who, of these policy mongerors, is in the pocket of interest groups which would benefit from reduced access by sporties???
Not to sound like it's all a big conspiracy theory but when the interests of so many are being trampled on by few (and perhaps for unknown reasons at this time.... the conservation agenda may be just a front) the red flags go on all over the place especially when it's be done in such a clandestine fashion and not discussed on the big stage of media attention. Who do these people think they are???
Remember, "When the Fish aren't Biting...the Fish aren't Biting!!"
Nog, if you know....who are the people (by association) in Parks who are pushing this agenda? What if any other motive (other than simpletonistic conservation) might they have to see this through? Are they really THAT dyed in the wool environmentalists??? I find that hard to believe....
Also hard to believe all other science based viewpoints are being ignored by them....which gives me cause to suspect and wonder what else might be going on behind the scenes??
In this plan, one starts to wonder who will benefit from, say, a lack of salmon fishing on these fertile fishing grounds. How will it impact commercial fishing on nearby but harder to access areas where the fish might run deeper in open water where sporties dare not venture?? Will it benefit them if the sporties can't get access, or if sporties access is dramatically reduced?
And last but not least, who, of these policy mongerors, is in the pocket of interest groups which would benefit from reduced access by sporties???
Not to sound like it's all a big conspiracy theory but when the interests of so many are being trampled on by few (and perhaps for unknown reasons at this time.... the conservation agenda may be just a front) the red flags go on all over the place especially when it's be done in such a clandestine fashion and not discussed on the big stage of media attention. Who do these people think they are???
Remember, "When the Fish aren't Biting...the Fish aren't Biting!!"
I
islandphile
Guest
Linki-Link: West Coast VI
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/p...Maps_Fall_2004/Rockfish_Habitat/WCVI_view.htm
Remember, "When the Fish aren't Biting...the Fish aren't Biting!!"
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/p...Maps_Fall_2004/Rockfish_Habitat/WCVI_view.htm
Remember, "When the Fish aren't Biting...the Fish aren't Biting!!"
I
islandphile
Guest
So... Who can do what in a Rock Fish Conservation Area... Hmmmmmmm... NO salmon fishing for sporties...
Take a look at what the Commercial guys can do in a RCA...managed off course, but still...
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/consultations/fisheriesmgmt/rockfish/permitted_fishing_e.htm
Mad Yet?!?
Remember, "When the Fish aren't Biting...the Fish aren't Biting!!"
Take a look at what the Commercial guys can do in a RCA...managed off course, but still...
http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/consultations/fisheriesmgmt/rockfish/permitted_fishing_e.htm
Mad Yet?!?
Remember, "When the Fish aren't Biting...the Fish aren't Biting!!"
I
islandphile
Guest
Ok... I'll be the first to admit I don't know a lot about the politics of this thing...and I could be entirely wrong on this...
BUT....if you look the size of the proposed RCA's on the WCVI map and then WHO gets to do WHAT inside those RCA's it sure looks like the return of the Commercial Salmon fishery at the expense of the sporties.....We're out, and they're in any way you slice it.... THAT is IF the plan is implemented.
As most of us are keenly aware, the Commercial Fishing Industry has some powerful friends and lobbyists....but they leave a lot to be desired when overall economic impact to local communities is measured...Whereas the sporties walk all over the commercial guys in this regard...
NOG is so right, now is the time for our voices to heard. The government has to acknowledge the economic weight from the growing sport fishing industry... I saw a figure that the economic impact of a single sport caught fish was over $200 and the money stays with the people who need it the most, the people in our small coastal communities.
Anyone have any info on who benefits from Commercial Fishing activities? Who are the big players? Fish packers and processors, who owns them? Small powerful group perhaps? Where does the money eventually go? (Probably some big pile somewhere).
Money is like manure, pile it up it stinks....spread it around it helps things grow!
Remember, "When the Fish aren't Biting...the Fish aren't Biting!!"
BUT....if you look the size of the proposed RCA's on the WCVI map and then WHO gets to do WHAT inside those RCA's it sure looks like the return of the Commercial Salmon fishery at the expense of the sporties.....We're out, and they're in any way you slice it.... THAT is IF the plan is implemented.
As most of us are keenly aware, the Commercial Fishing Industry has some powerful friends and lobbyists....but they leave a lot to be desired when overall economic impact to local communities is measured...Whereas the sporties walk all over the commercial guys in this regard...
NOG is so right, now is the time for our voices to heard. The government has to acknowledge the economic weight from the growing sport fishing industry... I saw a figure that the economic impact of a single sport caught fish was over $200 and the money stays with the people who need it the most, the people in our small coastal communities.
Anyone have any info on who benefits from Commercial Fishing activities? Who are the big players? Fish packers and processors, who owns them? Small powerful group perhaps? Where does the money eventually go? (Probably some big pile somewhere).
Money is like manure, pile it up it stinks....spread it around it helps things grow!
Remember, "When the Fish aren't Biting...the Fish aren't Biting!!"
Similar threads
