April 1 Fishing Regs-sell your Boats!!

[wolf]

i honestly dunno. i’m just getting sick and tired of hearing about salmon shortages when the fishing outside my door is flat out stupid. 20 plus fish days not uncommon and not one clipped fish so if it goes to marked select up here we are just wasting time, gas and injuring fish.

YES !!!! last year DFO and some other group did a look at sooke river said hardly any fish???? and reports came in about chinook being in creeks and river in spots they never seen them before. FUNNY that??? went and looked myself there were chinnok all over!!!!!!! I guess the net pen must work !!!!!!!!!!!!! AND here is the best part DFO allowed a FN NET fishery off the spit and river ... so tell me why would they do that when there is "NO FISH" hmmmmmm thanks Wilf....

 

[Whole in the Water]

I’m no lawyer; but i think one needs to legally determine if chinook, hali ling prawns etc are a public, natural resource. it doesn’t feel that way anymore if they are.

Yup they still are, that is why we need a supreme court case to remind DFO, the politicians, the ENGO's and the public!

Let's truly hope this can happen soon and stop wasting time trying to play nice with DFO and hope that the current Fed govt. will protect the public right to catch fish. DFO and politicians and the other fishing sectors use demonstrations, protests, media campaigns, fund raising and lobbying - WE MUST DO THE SAME and FAST!

 

[wildmanyeah]

Remember that the salmon allocation policy is being review and DFO has been asked to change it by the courts. So the battle is coming.

 

[fish brain]

I asked earelier, and so far have had no reply, which I find interesting. If you call for money to fight DFO in court, if you say that we are not fighting something because we have no money, then you just have an undefined wish....we want to be able catch fish more often....you don't go raising money to fight an undefined wish in court, and of course it would reach Supreme court.

There needs to be a clear, defined statement about how our legal rights have been ignored or decided against, and then you can raise money for a clear and reasoned fight....so what is the legal basis for a court challenge?

We need to establish our right to fish and therefore a portion of the tac. I am not a lawyer, but there must be some legal grounds for this.

 

[eroyd]

We need to establish our right to fish and therefore a portion of the tac. I am not a lawyer, but there must be some legal grounds for this.

We don't have a big list of "rights" as Canadians. We have a lot of privileges allowed to us. If fishing, driving a car, hunting etc. were rights we would need to have a license for them.

 

[fish brain]

We don't have a big list of "rights" as Canadians. We have a lot of privileges allowed to us. If fishing, driving a car, hunting etc. were rights we would need to have a license for them.

If the government puts public money into things like roads and parks etc, they are public assets, owned by everyone, no? If the government puts public money into a hatchery, are the fish raised there not a public asset? If so we should have a right to access it. Am I way off track here?

 

[Sea lyin’]

I’m wracking my brain that somehow user groups that take more should be paying more. Hatcheries should be funded by FN and commercial guys first. Our pittance in the pot should be reduced considering we’re being restricted each year. Meaning our license fees should be going down with every years limit reduction. My mind keeps coming back to ICBC as an example.

 

[eroyd]

I’m wracking my brain that somehow user groups that take more should be paying more. Hatcheries should be funded by FN and commercial guys first. Our pittance in the pot should be reduced considering we’re being restricted each year. Meaning our license fees should be going down with every years limit reduction. My mind keeps coming back to ICBC as an example.

We're pay less than $30 for a tidal license with a salmon tag. Doubt that even covers the administration. Are we willing to pay more, a lot more so we can say these x amount of hatchery fish are payed for directly by sports fishermen? I read somewhere that a Washington State hatchery figures it's $1000+ per chinook adult that returns to the hatchery.
Our taxes do pay for these fish, and it's a good investment for the government to have them caught by sportsmen, as the spin-off profits from tourism is huge. Not much of an argument for Joe local guy who wants to brag he's got his maximum limits in his freezer.

 

[Sea lyin’]

We're pay less than $30 for a tidal license with a salmon tag. Doubt that even covers the administration. Are we willing to pay more, a lot more so we can say these x amount of hatchery fish are payed for directly by sports fishermen? I read somewhere that a Washington State hatchery figures it's $1000+ per chinook adult that returns to the hatchery.
Our taxes do pay for these fish, and it's a good investment for the government to have them caught by sportsmen, as the spin-off profits from tourism is huge. Not much of an argument for Joe local guy who wants to brag he's got his maximum limits in his freezer.

Yea that’s so. But... there is a ton of out of area fishers who are at the other end of the spectrum. I’m just throwing it out there that they (gov) might not pay attention to a bunch more emails, letters and phone calls when they’ve been Flooded with them for the last 5 years at least. Hit them In the pocket book somehow and they will sit up and pay attention.

 

[traveller]

We do have a right to fish, it is called a regulated right, and it is because fish, all of them, are a common property resource, which exists under federal law, and under the constitution. We do have a defined part of the TAC for groundfish, and an allocation agreement we helped to build for salmon, which of course is right now being re-negotiated
.

What I am trying to get across is that we have a government that is very carefully, in the Pacific Region, trying to reduce access by failing to build robust rebuilding plans for stocks of concern( Chinook) by using management reductions only to try to address Species at Risk legislation, and looking to maintain or increase First Nations involvement, which has been poorly, In my opinion, until now, brought into the picture. What to do? There are two NGO 's that are working hard to carefully watch the Government decisions, and constructively working to use science based advocacy....very carefully studied, evaluated, and presented science based advocacy to advise fishing management plans. This is the Sport Fishing Institute and the BC Wildlife Federation working with the Sport Fishing Advisory Board, yes it is just allowed to advise, but the BCWF and SFI are able to enter into legal process when it is clear that is being violated.

What everyone needs to do is get informed, and join the SFI or BCWF, membership numbers and fees help the legal and political fighting, and that is where we are...get going and join!

 

[searun]

^^^^
Yes....Traveller's post rocks. The future rests with individuals, groups and businesses JOINING the cause. While it is entertaining for all of us on SFBC to state our concerns and opinions on web forums such as this, for all those energies expended, it will amount to nothing constructive other than sharing ideas. If you want to actually make a difference, please join the SFI or BCWF - they are advancing science-based alternatives. Think back to the Halibut allocation court battle - who led the charge for our community? It was the SFI and BCWF that funded and directed the legal team.

Actions often speak louder than words. Bill Otway always hammered home to anyone who would listen that our public fishery does have a right to access our fishery, and the foundation for this was established in Common Law dating back to the Magna Carta, not just a license printed on a piece of paper.

Think about which organizations have lead these court battles, who has the track record...and vote with your support and membership. But a word of caution, we need to remain realistic about the risks vs rewards of litigation.

 

[wildmanyeah]

The new allocation policy will determine what the rec sector does. How the negotiations unfold will be the telling hand.

I’m surw there is a team of rec reps looking at all of it very closely. Litigation is always on the table but imo are reps are waiting for certain criteria and most of that has to do with what’s already been defined in the courts.

imo that would have to mean the rec sector looses acess to an abundant stock where there is not FSC or conservation concern.

 

[fish brain]

We do have a right to fish, it is called a regulated right, and it is because fish, all of them, are a common property resource, which exists under federal law, and under the constitution. We do have a defined part of the TAC for groundfish, and an allocation agreement we helped to build for salmon, which of course is right now being re-negotiated
.

What I am trying to get across is that we have a government that is very carefully, in the Pacific Region, trying to reduce access by failing to build robust rebuilding plans for stocks of concern( Chinook) by using management reductions only to try to address Species at Risk legislation, and looking to maintain or increase First Nations involvement, which has been poorly, In my opinion, until now, brought into the picture. What to do? There are two NGO 's that are working hard to carefully watch the Government decisions, and constructively working to use science based advocacy....very carefully studied, evaluated, and presented science based advocacy to advise fishing management plans. This is the Sport Fishing Institute and the BC Wildlife Federation working with the Sport Fishing Advisory Board, yes it is just allowed to advise, but the BCWF and SFI are able to enter into legal process when it is clear that is being violated.

What everyone needs to do is get informed, and join the SFI or BCWF, membership numbers and fees help the legal and political fighting, and that is where we are...get going and join!

You seem informed about the legal aspects of our dilemma. If all fish are common property, and we have a regulated rifgt to them, would it not be good to have that right recognized by the courts? The management of the stocks/ fish farms could take up another whole thread I'm sure,
I am a member of the SFI perhaps I should become a member of BCWF, I think of them more as a hunting group.

 

[the butcher]

You seem informed about the legal aspects of our dilemma. If all fish are common property, and we have a regulated rifgt to them, would it not be good to have that right recognized by the courts? The management of the stocks/ fish farms could take up another whole thread I'm sure,
I am a member of the SFI perhaps I should become a member of BCWF, I think of them more as a hunting group.

even if we challenged DFO in court and loose, DFO may think twice the next time they continue to pick on us since we demonstrate we will fight back... If we get perceived as a group that will punch and kick back rather than play dead and be an easy target, it could signal to DFO even though they may win future battles against us, it wont be a fight where they come out unscathed. So far we have taken whats given to us and have yet to challenge these ludicrous policies. I would hazard a guess the chances of success to better than writing letters.

 

[Saxe Point]

We do have a right to fish, it is called a regulated right, and it is because fish, all of them, are a common property resource, which exists under federal law, and under the constitution. We do have a defined part of the TAC for groundfish, and an allocation agreement we helped to build for salmon, which of course is right now being re-negotiated
.

What I am trying to get across is that we have a government that is very carefully, in the Pacific Region, trying to reduce access by failing to build robust rebuilding plans for stocks of concern( Chinook) by using management reductions only to try to address Species at Risk legislation, and looking to maintain or increase First Nations involvement, which has been poorly, In my opinion, until now, brought into the picture. What to do? There are two NGO 's that are working hard to carefully watch the Government decisions, and constructively working to use science based advocacy....very carefully studied, evaluated, and presented science based advocacy to advise fishing management plans. This is the Sport Fishing Institute and the BC Wildlife Federation working with the Sport Fishing Advisory Board, yes it is just allowed to advise, but the BCWF and SFI are able to enter into legal process when it is clear that is being violated.

What everyone needs to do is get informed, and join the SFI or BCWF, membership numbers and fees help the legal and political fighting, and that is where we are...get going and join!

Please explain what federal law and what section of the constitution makes fish, or any other “common property resource” a right. With respect, I don’t think your statement is correct, especially if, as you seem to suggest, it is an individual right rather than a collective right. If the right is collective, the government of the day manages the right as the authority elected by the people (the collective). The collective right is much more like a privilege.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Please explain what federal law and what section of the constitution makes fish, or any other “common property resource” a right. With respect, I don’t think your statement is correct, especially if, as you seem to suggest, it is an individual right rather than a collective right. If the right is collective, the government of the day manages the right as the authority elected by the people (the collective). The collective right is much more like a privilege.

Correct.

 

[seahorse]

I have been a member of the BCWF for the last 25 years as part of my local Fish and Game club. I think their membership dues are $10 or $15 annually, good money spent on fishing and hunting advocacy.

 

[Whole in the Water]

We all have opinions on the viability of Supreme Court case to promote/protect public fishing access rights on the basis of common property right case law. Since the vast majority of us are not lawyers or judges that specialize in constitutional law maybe we should just stick to promoting our opinions and not saying what is and isn't viable as a Supreme Court challenge in this context since most of don't really on here don't much of a clue.

My opinion - we need to push for a supreme court case as DFO and current and past Fed govt's. are not willing to protect and promote the public fishery and access to common property resources (salmon). The current course of action of trying to win over DFO and politicians to promote the public fishery has proven to be a lost cause over the last 5 years - things have only gotten steady worse!

I am NOT saying SFI, BCWF, PFA, SVIAC and SFAB should stop working with DFO to advise/pressure them with practical science based proposals (more power to them) but common sense dictates that we need to up the ante if we are going to save the saltwater public fishery in BC. A supreme court case on this issue in my opinion is worth pursuing as the public fishery is too valuable to lose forever like they have on the east coast. My 2 bits.

 

[Derby]

who says its not being looked at & being tracked? What is being needed is a case that is build and winable ...

 

[wildmanyeah]

I think the five nation decision is probably very close to going back to court. I remember the sports reps being very excited and considered it a win that there was some serious limitations put on it. Depending on what DFO does with the IFMP in the coming years as they have been asked to review that fishery i can see it going to court again. The recreational priority with chinook and coho over the FN commercial fishery was deemed unjustified. IF DFO went and took all the quota away from the Recs i think it would force the rec sector to go to court.