April 1 Fishing Regs-sell your Boats!!

[Breakin"even]

Governent/Dfo are allowing wild Salmon retention under 80 cm so they have a reason to shut down lower coast Salmon retention.
All they needed to do is, only allow marked retention in all the lower end of the island. Obviously, they are catering to the more powerfull lobby groups. Do we have that big of impact that we need to be shut out? My boat doesn't go out unless I can bring
one home and I'm sure Charter business , tackle stores and all the other business in this sector are feeling this restriction. At least I'm saving money not fishing. Cup half full I guess.

 

[the butcher]

What about we pick up a day we all go fishing the Hump?

how about we pick a few days and all go all over the coast in areas they closed down and help oursleves to some fat hatchery fish?

 

[eroyd]

Governent/Dfo are allowing wild Salmon retention under 80 cm so they have a reason to shut down lower coast Salmon retention.
All they needed to do is, only allow marked retention in all the lower end of the island. Obviously, they are catering to the more powerfull lobby groups. Do we have that big of impact that we need to be shut out? My boat doesn't go out unless I can bring
one home and I'm sure Charter business , tackle stores and all the other business in this sector are feeling this restriction. At least I'm saving money not fishing. Cup half full I guess.

People have to adapt to C & R fishing if they actually enjoy fishing for fishing. That's the way it has been in many other successful fisheries for a long time. Such like steelhead locally. If killing fish is your primary motivation for taking your boat out, please sell it now.

 

[Ringo]

People have to adapt to C & R fishing if they actually enjoy fishing for fishing. That's the way it has been in many other successful fisheries for a long time. Such like steelhead locally. If killing fish is your primary motivation for taking your boat out, please sell it now.

How about people learning to say things where they have proper knowledge of the subject. Comparing a wild steelhead and a hatchery Chinook is the apples a d oranges thing. And if you think wild steelhead is a successful fishing, you better do some reading. How about we leave it at that for now??

 

[Breakin"even]

People have to adapt to C & R fishing if they actually enjoy fishing for fishing. That's the way it has been in many other successful fisheries for a long time. Such like steelhead locally. If killing fish is your primary motivation for taking your boat out, please sell it now

I get what you mean, but I have harvested plants, animals, fish, crustations, and birds my whole life for food only.
The thought of C&R to me is play, but I respect others feel differently. Sugesting my primary modivation is to kill
is insulting.

 

[eroyd]

Sugesting my primary modivation is to kill
is insulting.

Insulting? Really? Some guys on here clearly state if they can't kill a fish their boats tays home. Do you guys really think things are going to go back to how they were a decade or more ago? We are scratching for what little we can get right now. No we can't give up the fight. I like to eat salmon as much as the next guy, but I'm tired of seeing all you fortunate guys, with expensive, beautiful boats and free time, whining that your not going to go out because you can't bonk a fish. Not to hurt anyone's feelings but why do you fish? The salmon are out there, not "closed" so go and enjoy them.

 

[advTHXance]

how about we pick a few days and all go all over the coast in areas they closed down and help oursleves to some fat hatchery fish?

I know everyone is upset, and rightly so, but if the sport fishing sector actually did something like this it would make us look like greedy idiots and wouldnt do us any favors in the court of public opinion. Just some food for thought (since we wont be eating salmon)

 

[fish brain]

I keep saying our access to the fishery is in the courts. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly what case you would bring. But we just keep getting ignored. It used to be like that for the FN's before they started taking their grievances to the courts, and I don't fault them for doing it. But now we are ones who need to have our right to access acknowledged in context of all these new decisions that give FN's such power over our shared resource.

 

[Rain City]

People have to adapt to C & R fishing if they actually enjoy fishing for fishing. That's the way it has been in many other successful fisheries for a long time. Such like steelhead locally. If killing fish is your primary motivation for taking your boat out, please sell it now.

I would argue that C&R fishing kills more fish than being able to keep a fish. I don't enjoy catching and releasing half dead fish for the seals to eat.

 

[the butcher]

if we all added up the expenses related to owning a boat and salmon fishing setups, its not about keeping a fish. That part is a bonus. I will not starve if I dont get to bring a fish home. For me, its about the entire experience.... which includes bringing friends and family along for the adventure...and part of the experience which is the icing on the cake is to enjoy a prepared meal with friends and family from the minimum we harvested that day necessary to prepare that meal.. I agree that "playing" a fish and releasing it to have it in a damaged or weaken state to make them easy targets for predation is not my idea of fun. What bothers me is our rights to access a resource that isnt endangered is blocked by a select few due to selfishness, negligence and just plain ignorance.

 

[Saxe Point]

I keep saying our access to the fishery is in the courts. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly what case you would bring. But we just keep getting ignored. It used to be like that for the FN's before they started taking their grievances to the courts, and I don't fault them for doing it. But now we are ones who need to have our right to access acknowledged in context of all these new decisions that give FN's such power over our shared resource.

Aboriginal people have s. 35 Charter rights that can be enforced in the courts. Those include fishing rights. There are no other rights to fish that are enforceable through the courts, but you are welcome to try. If you have no right to fish, then it is a privilege and is regulated by the government of the day. If you don’t like the way your privilege is regulated, try to persuade the government to regulate it differently. Or vote to change the government and see if another one will regulate it differently.

 

[Saxe Point]

I would argue that C&R fishing kills more fish than being able to keep a fish. I don't enjoy catching and releasing half dead fish for the seals to eat.

I keep fish and release fish and respectfully disagree with your first statement.

 

[brad00]

Well said. We repeat the same process of disagreeing with the regs, via email, phone calls, blogs, etc and the occasional protest and we keep getting the same result - Nothing - not even a small portion of what we want. What we have done and continue to do has no impact or influence on the decision makers whatsoever. Zero. Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Don't fool yourself into thinking that anybody other than us cares about our concerns. They don't!! We won't win against the whale lovers and seal lovers, even though their concerns are misguided. As long as that status continues, and other lobby groups have more power and influence than we do, nothing will change for the better for us. I do thank all the people that have worked very very hard on our behalf though. Today must be an incredibly frustrating day for them. Thank you for all the work you did. You tried.

how about we pick a few days and all go all over the coast in areas they closed down and help oursleves to some fat hatchery

Aboriginal people have s. 35 Charter rights that can be enforced in the courts. Those include fishing rights. There are no other rights to fish that are enforceable through the courts, but you are welcome to try. If you have no right to fish, then it is a privilege and is regulated by the government of the day. If you don’t like the way your privilege is regulated, try to persuade the government to regulate it differently. Or vote to change the government and see if another one will regulate it differently.

I've been doing some research on this and have consulted a couple of constitutional lawyers. In addition to the s. 35 rights many treaties exist that are in effect a contractual obligation that the government of Canada must consider. Resource rights under the
are restricted to non renewable resources (minerals, oil and gas etc) and forestry. There is nothing that gives citizens rights to natural resources and control over fisheries (oceans) is specifically given to the federal government. (and have been since 1867)
There is some question whether the actual fish (salmon) are a provincial resource vs a federal one. ( they are created on provincial land ) If there was a friendly provincial government there may be things a province could do to guarantee the rights to access resources (fish) through legislation. This would be a major source of conflict with the federal government and aboriginals and is unlikely to happen.

It is clear to me that the sports industry needs friends, and needs to rethink the strategy regarding requests to government. Partnership with aboriginal groups that could result making joint submissions to DFO and a broad range of MP's and Cabinet Ministers may be a path to success. I know there are many here that don't want to hear that, but this is the current reality of the situation. I acknowledge that there are some groups that can't be worked with, but there are undoubtedly some that would be amenable. I also know that this already occurs in some places in the province (somas sockeye)

If government is confident that a majority of stakeholders support decisions it's makes it easy to make proper and fair regulations.

Science rarely is the sole or most important factor government considers when decisions are made. Although logical based solely on the health of the resource, other groups can come up with various "scientific" reasons why the science they oppose is wrong. There needs to be more than one argument.

All of these efforts are multi year initiatives that will take time, effort and money. I am willing to donate my time and resources and admittedly limited knowledge but I really don't know where to start. I am sure there are many others like me. While there are many well intentioned groups, the larger and more coherent the organization larger voice it will have with government.

 

[Stizzla]

I've been doing some research on this and have consulted a couple of constitutional lawyers. In addition to the s. 35 rights many treaties exist that are in effect a contractual obligation that the government of Canada must consider. Resource rights under the
are restricted to non renewable resources (minerals, oil and gas etc) and forestry. There is nothing that gives citizens rights to natural resources and control over fisheries (oceans) is specifically given to the federal government. (and have been since 1867)
There is some question whether the actual fish (salmon) are a provincial resource vs a federal one. ( they are created on provincial land ) If there was a friendly provincial government there may be things a province could do to guarantee the rights to access resources (fish) through legislation. This would be a major source of conflict with the federal government and aboriginals and is unlikely to happen.

It is clear to me that the sports industry needs friends, and needs to rethink the strategy regarding requests to government. Partnership with aboriginal groups that could result making joint submissions to DFO and a broad range of MP's and Cabinet Ministers may be a path to success. I know there are many here that don't want to hear that, but this is the current reality of the situation. I acknowledge that there are some groups that can't be worked with, but there are undoubtedly some that would be amenable. I also know that this already occurs in some places in the province (somas sockeye)

If government is confident that a majority of stakeholders support decisions it's makes it easy to make proper and fair regulations.

Science rarely is the sole or most important factor government considers when decisions are made. Although logical based solely on the health of the resource, other groups can come up with various "scientific" reasons why the science they oppose is wrong. There needs to be more than one argument.

All of these efforts are multi year initiatives that will take time, effort and money. I am willing to donate my time and resources and admittedly limited knowledge but I really don't know where to start. I am sure there are many others like me. While there are many well intentioned groups, the larger and more coherent the organization larger voice it will have with government.

Partnering with aboriginal groups to fight DFO sounds like lots of fun, but I think you’re forgetting that aboriginal groups also don’t want us fishing.

I think rather than pooling money for a court battle, we should offer it to the FN’s in exchange for them to tell DFO they want us to fish again.

what they say goes.

 

[Connor D]

I keep fish and release fish and respectfully disagree with your first statement.

Catch and release is ********.. you either "play" a fish for no reason other than your own pleasure, releasing it incredibly tired and prone to predation or the hook causes some sort of damage that will render it terminal anyway.. I probably killed 5 fish last year for every one I was allowed to keep.

 

[fish brain]

I've been doing some research on this and have consulted a couple of constitutional lawyers. In addition to the s. 35 rights many treaties exist that are in effect a contractual obligation that the government of Canada must consider. Resource rights under the
are restricted to non renewable resources (minerals, oil and gas etc) and forestry. There is nothing that gives citizens rights to natural resources and control over fisheries (oceans) is specifically given to the federal government. (and have been since 1867)
There is some question whether the actual fish (salmon) are a provincial resource vs a federal one. ( they are created on provincial land ) If there was a friendly provincial government there may be things a province could do to guarantee the rights to access resources (fish) through legislation. This would be a major source of conflict with the federal government and aboriginals and is unlikely to happen.

It is clear to me that the sports industry needs friends, and needs to rethink the strategy regarding requests to government. Partnership with aboriginal groups that could result making joint submissions to DFO and a broad range of MP's and Cabinet Ministers may be a path to success. I know there are many here that don't want to hear that, but this is the current reality of the situation. I acknowledge that there are some groups that can't be worked with, but there are undoubtedly some that would be amenable. I also know that this already occurs in some places in the province (somas sockeye)

If government is confident that a majority of stakeholders support decisions it's makes it easy to make proper and fair regulations.

Science rarely is the sole or most important factor government considers when decisions are made. Although logical based solely on the health of the resource, other groups can come up with various "scientific" reasons why the science they oppose is wrong. There needs to be more than one argument.

All of these efforts are multi year initiatives that will take time, effort and money. I am willing to donate my time and resources and admittedly limited knowledge but I really don't know where to start. I am sure there are many others like me. While there are many well intentioned groups, the larger and more coherent the organization larger voice it will have with government.

Thank you for your well thought out argument.
From Saxe Point and you comments about the s.35 rights I must assume that all other citizens of Canada do not have similar rights, if not enshrined in law, at least by precedent?
If not then we must negotiate a treaty like the one that we have for halibut, where the sports fishers are allocated a portion of the TAC.

 

[brad00]

Partnering with aboriginal groups to fight DFO sounds like lots of fun, but I think you’re forgetting that aboriginal groups also don’t want us fishing.

I think rather than pooling money for a court battle, we should offer it to the FN’s in exchange for them to tell DFO they want us to fish again.

what they say goes.

I agree many groups don't want anyone fishing except for themselves but there are many groups and many diverging interests. A FN and sport-fishing alliance would be a powerful lobby. I don't even know if it's possible but it may be worth a try. What is currently going on isn't working, but there are models in BC that do work.

 

[fish brain]

Partnering with aboriginal groups to fight DFO sounds like lots of fun, but I think you’re forgetting that aboriginal groups also don’t want us fishing.

I think rather than pooling money for a court battle, we should offer it to the FN’s in exchange for them to tell DFO they want us to fish again.

what they say goes.

Regardless of what happens with our access to fish. I believe that we will be buying fishing licences for the privlege of fishing on/in their waters, and paying user fees to hunt or camp on their territories in the foreseeable future.

 

[scott craven]

I probably killed 5 fish last year for every one I was allowed to keep.

That's too bad, but if you did it properly releasing the fish in the water
with a gaff, 99% swim away.
Might as well get used to it, as Eroyd pointed out most sport fishing in the
rest of the world has already gone C&R.

 

[brad00]

Thank you for your well thought out argument.
From Saxe Point and you comments about the s.35 rights I must assume that all other citizens of Canada do not have similar rights, if not enshrined in law, at least by precedent?
If not then we must negotiate a treaty like the one that we have for halibut, where the sports fishers are allocated a portion of the TAC

Thank you for your well thought out argument.
From Saxe Point and you comments about the s.35 rights I must assume that all other citizens of Canada do not have similar rights, if not enshrined in law, at least by precedent?
If not then we must negotiate a treaty like the one that we have for halibut, where the sports fishers are allocated a portion of the TAC.

Correct, basically Fish isn't a "resource" as defined under the Constitution or British North America Act. I do think an allocated portion of TAC may be a workable solution. DFO currently makes all decisions based on the Fraser stock levels so it will likely be a challenge is TAC is set at 0 or close to it.