West Coast fishers see empty seas, demand Pacific Salmon Treaty fundin

Have to say I don't agree with this idea. If the Feds have an extra $17 million it would be better spent on habitat restoration, salmon enhancement and possibly paying the lower Fraser FN's not to fish the last of the early Chinook and the Steelhead by-catch. Sure there are a great many reasons for the demise of those fish, but in my view, the big current factor that will lead to the extinction of the last of those fish in the next few years is the massive lower Fraser FN net fishery. It won' t be the sport fishermen in JDF who will kill off the last of those runs, we have not been permitted to keep those fish for many years now, (slot restrictions) even though by DFO's own numbers we took a comparative tiny amount of for example, the early 4-2 stream type Chinook compared to the in river fishery.
At the time that was imposed on us, the lower Fraser Bands were taking pressure from the upper Fraser Bands to let those fish through for spawning. So they wrote a letter to the minister demanding that the JDF sport fishing sector be closed down to protect the 4-2's, and in terms of the large Chinook spawners, it was, with the slot restriction. They also said they would ASK their people not to fish the early runs. How well did that turn out? Since then, the JDF Chinook sport restriction have kept rolling forward.
A great many that support/supply or make a living in the Sport Fishing Sector are also taking a huge financial hit. If compensation funds for loss of income are going to be handed out, I am sure they would like to get in line with the commercial sector.
 
"the federal agencies have invested 12-15 billion dollars in salmon restoration efforts in the Columbia and Snake Basin that hasn't brought a single listed salmon run back from the brink."

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/giulia-cs-good-stefani/another-crack-snake-river-dams

17 Million wont bring back salmon but it will certainly help thoes who lives who are immediately affected this year reduction. The problem is in the Ocean environment how are you going to restore the ocean?
 
Have to say I don't agree with this idea. If the Feds have an extra $17 million it would be better spent on habitat restoration, salmon enhancement and possibly paying the lower Fraser FN's not to fish the last of the early Chinook and the Steelhead by-catch.

Quite obvious you do not know what you are talking about.
That 17 mill is what is left of an original 30 mill US that was handed over to DFO by the US government with the express direction it be utilized to offset the problems Area G Troll was realizing through quota and fishing time reductions. It is NOT Canadian taxpayers funding. DFO merrily accepted the funds, and have refused to deploy it for it's intended purpose ever since.

Capiche?
Nog
 
Quite obvious you do not know what you are talking about.
That 17 mill is what is left of an original 30 mill US that was handed over to DFO by the US government with the express direction it be utilized to offset the problems Area G Troll was realizing through quota and fishing time reductions. It is NOT Canadian taxpayers funding. DFO merrily accepted the funds, and have refused to deploy it for it's intended purpose ever since.

Capiche?
Nog

That's interesting. Since the Feds. have not handed it out, does that mean the Feds have a different view of it's possible uses and take the position they have no legal requirement to do so, or are they just waiting for the need to do more buy outs, as in further reductions.

If these US originating funds are being held in trust for this purpose only, why has it not been subject to litigation? Did the US provide these funds to stop/decrease the interception of Columbia/US salmon through the buy out of Canadian commercial west coast licenses, at the time, for those willing to sell them, which is what it appears happened with $13 million of the 30 mil?

All sectors seem to be taking a hit on recent Fraser salmon restrictions. If this and other restrictions are making commercial fishing less viable on the lower west coast, do commercial fishermen want to have their licenses bought out using these funds or just be paid for the loss of income till the funds are gone and keep the license? I have the impression that the Feds may want to buy out commercial licenses to transfer to First Nations but that would not seem to reduces licenses over all, which is what I assume the US wanted. There seems to be two industries, sport and commercial which suffer financially when there are reductions, I understand you derive income from both so I would think you have a rather unique perspective on this.

I still think if there are limited funds available, using them to put more salmon in the ocean benefits everyone and the whales, but if there were a contractual agreement to use specific funds to compensate commercial licenses only, I understand those who would benefit would want it used for that purpose.
 
Last edited:
I'll attempt to answer you as best as I can...

When the US handed over the 30 million, they were actively paying their troll fleet to remain tied up at the docks rather than fishing. The discussion between the US and Canada focused on much the same, and possible alternatives to reduce pressure on US origin stocks. The offer was tagged explicitly to Area G Troll. That part was agreed to, but once the funds changed hands, the US had no way of ensuring that Canada stuck with the program.

Once the other groups of commercial operators realized the funding exchange was complete, entreaties from Area H, inside trollers, gillnetters and more began to pour in. And despite having agreed that Are G was the target, the department began to court such applications from outside of that licensing area. The US expressed serious concern over that, so the feds pulled back their horns, just a little in that regard. Some buy backs outside of Area G were what spurred that action.

Very little was afforded to Area G itself. The department set a Fire Sale rate for buying back licenses, which was a hell of a lot more an insult than coming anywhere near market value of said licenses. However, there were a few who were at or beyond retirement age who decided something was better than nothing, and took the low-ball offers.

Time marched forward, and the department refused to offer any aid beyond the deflated buy back "offer". Area G took the department to court. The feds held the matter up until they could be absolutely certain of positioning one of their own appointed (favorable) judges to oversee the case before proceeding. There was no doubt as to the outcome under these circumstances, and Area G lost.

Since then, the department has made a habit of buying back the odd license as they have become available. But instead of retiring them, they have handed them over to FN organizations. They have also supported many bands in the purchase of trolling rigs to accommodate. This action is directly against the spirit of the agreement with the US, but as noted, the US no longer holds any control on where the funds are dispersed. They (US) have noted they will never ever enter into this type of agreement with Canada again as a consequence.

The US did reduce it's fleets' capacity, and still funds them to tie up during periods of low abundance.
Canada has not followed that in good faith, and instead appears to remain determined to destroy Area G, while promoting FN fisheries.
The department remains firm that the only use of these funds will be to "retire" licenses.
But retirement is not at all what they really have in mind, rather a simple transfer to the FN sector (at zero cost to the latter).

As for Area G fishermen, I can't tell you what the current mindset is beyond desperation and depression.
I am uncertain if any more buy back programs are in the works, however if they follow the pattern of previous ones, the offers will be so low as to be ludicrous.
With the way the fishery is being driven in Canada these days, perhaps ludicrous may appear tempting over complete destitution...

Sadly,
Nog
 
Last edited:
Read the judgment, it is very clear DFO plans to use the funds to move these licenses and quota over to FN's. One of the hold up's that I was hearing was no one wanted to accept the "deflated" or whatever you call it offer. People are holding out for more $ for their licenses, even though the market value is shrinking at the same rate as the Chinook themselves.
 
... People are holding out for more $ for their licenses, even though the market value is shrinking at the same rate as the Chinook themselves.

Intentional drive down in market value by DFO at direction of the government. Period.
In any other venue, we would be able to hold them to task.
Instead, we bleed. To Death.

Sorry sate of affairs.
Nog
 
And pray tell who is going to want these licences?
There is no value as there is no market due to the government.


Read the judgment, it is very clear DFO plans to use the funds to move these licenses and quota over to FN's. One of the hold up's that I was hearing was no one wanted to accept the "deflated" or whatever you call it offer. People are holding out for more $ for their licenses, even though the market value is shrinking at the same rate as the Chinook themselves.
 
Last edited:
And pray tell is going to want these licences?
There is no value as there is no market due to the government.
Did you miss the word " who " in your statement ??? Ya- I know-- sometimes the fingers dont keep up with the brain LOL!
 
Thank you.

Did you miss the word " who " in your statement ??? Ya- I know-- sometimes the fingers dont keep up with the brain LOL!
 
Precisely, no one wants an Area G license in this climate. Market value for a fishery with landed value in low $30K range doesn't add up.
 
I'm not too clear on this.

Is it really that we want the "government" (wherever the source of the funds; taxpayers in one form or another anytime its government money) to pay fishermen not to fish for fish that aren't there?

What exactly is the ask?
 
There is a long standing fund paid for through the Treaty negotiations with the US to do precisely that.
 
There is a long standing fund paid for through the Treaty negotiations with the US to do precisely that.

Which has however, never been implemented for the purpose it was provided for.
Instead the department continues to play smoke & mirror games with both the US, and the fleet involved.

Nog
 
Here's Alaska's take on it:

The Pacific Salmon Treaty
Trials, Tribulations and a Tribute: An Editorial

By Charles O. Swanton
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=862

That was a really good read but shows people are more interested in getting more share then they are rebuilding stocks.

It also ignored the previous 85 years of history but that was mainly centered around the Fraser River and Sockeye, between Washington state and BC. They also did not point out that Alaska has been the sole harvester of Fraser River sockeye in most years besides FSC First Nations.
 
That was a really good read but shows people are more interested in getting more share then they are rebuilding stocks.

It also ignored the previous 85 years of history but that was mainly centered around the Fraser River and Sockeye, between Washington state and BC. They also did not point out that Alaska has been the sole harvester of Fraser River sockeye in most years besides FSC First Nations.
TOTALLY, WMY! Also ignored the ferry blockade, and the reasons for the ferry blockade.
 
Thanks agentaqua; wonderful info. As for the PST Chinook portion, I expect that interception of endangered stocks will be a big issue. The more you have to lose, the more the denial. A new harvest plan for Puget Sound Chinook is in the works by NOAA. Since some endangered Puget Sound Chinook are heavily harvested In SEAK, and the SEAK fisheries are mixed stocks, the ESA (Endangered Species Act) prevents ANY US citizen from an unauthorized take of the endangered Chinook.

FYI from the table below to the best of my knowledge US net & US troll numbers are all tribal treaty fish. The table is part of an earlier draft of a Puget Sound Chinook Harvest plan

Reality is that these stocks will never recover until the Canadian interception is resolved. Most reductions would require trading (like WCVI AABM fish), but the waters governed by the Fraser River Panel are to the best of my knowledge within bounds of any Puget Sound Chinook Harvest plan.

upload_2018-5-9_8-57-6.png
 
Thanks agentaqua; wonderful info. As for the PST Chinook portion, I expect that interception of endangered stocks will be a big issue. The more you have to lose, the more the denial. A new harvest plan for Puget Sound Chinook is in the works by NOAA. Since some endangered Puget Sound Chinook are heavily harvested In SEAK, and the SEAK fisheries are mixed stocks, the ESA (Endangered Species Act) prevents ANY US citizen from an unauthorized take of the endangered Chinook.

FYI from the table below to the best of my knowledge US net & US troll numbers are all tribal treaty fish. The table is part of an earlier draft of a Puget Sound Chinook Harvest plan

Reality is that these stocks will never recover until the Canadian interception is resolved. Most reductions would require trading (like WCVI AABM fish), but the waters governed by the Fraser River Panel are to the best of my knowledge within bounds of any Puget Sound Chinook Harvest plan.

View attachment 37787

Eric a lot of plans are in the works to pass fish through now in the works.

Also do you really think overfishing is why all the stocks coast wide are in the tolet?
 
Back
Top