The way I feel about it - is that:
1/ DFO manages herring on a coast-wide TAC, verses more stock/area-specific quotas. By that I mean, DFO alleges that there are no mini-population area capacities. Most non-DFO people reject that argument, and point-out the inadequacies in DFOs program to determine meta-populations through their coarse DNA techniques. I think this area needs way more work. Work to answer the question about what levels of herring each area needs in order for proper ecosystem functioning - as WitW has pointed-out.
2/ If there are valid, defensible ecosystem goals with target levels triggering conservation restrictions - we should utilize these levels on an area-by-area basis, and have higher benchmarks for openings more destructive fisheries. If we do not already have this type of DFO management operational (and we do not - it's just what Gail wants at this stage) - then we have to go to more local area management licencing. This means more integration with local FN marine plans.
3/ If there are valid conservation reasons to have conservation benchmarks set at some appropriate level - then NOBODY (incl. FN) fishes if the stocks are below that conservation threshold. If you look at how fisheries allocations and conservation benchmarks trigger various management actions in other fisheries (e.g. salmon) - there are a number of steps along the way to a full commercial opening. Usually there are conservation levels set - below which nobody fishes - incl. FN FSC catch. Then, the next bar is FN FSC catch. Then a FN economic fishery. Then (often) - a FN commercial opening. Lastly there is a full commercial opening. The Fraser and the Nass operate yearly fishing plans like this. Herring - well out of sight - out of mind, apparently.
1/ DFO manages herring on a coast-wide TAC, verses more stock/area-specific quotas. By that I mean, DFO alleges that there are no mini-population area capacities. Most non-DFO people reject that argument, and point-out the inadequacies in DFOs program to determine meta-populations through their coarse DNA techniques. I think this area needs way more work. Work to answer the question about what levels of herring each area needs in order for proper ecosystem functioning - as WitW has pointed-out.
2/ If there are valid, defensible ecosystem goals with target levels triggering conservation restrictions - we should utilize these levels on an area-by-area basis, and have higher benchmarks for openings more destructive fisheries. If we do not already have this type of DFO management operational (and we do not - it's just what Gail wants at this stage) - then we have to go to more local area management licencing. This means more integration with local FN marine plans.
3/ If there are valid conservation reasons to have conservation benchmarks set at some appropriate level - then NOBODY (incl. FN) fishes if the stocks are below that conservation threshold. If you look at how fisheries allocations and conservation benchmarks trigger various management actions in other fisheries (e.g. salmon) - there are a number of steps along the way to a full commercial opening. Usually there are conservation levels set - below which nobody fishes - incl. FN FSC catch. Then, the next bar is FN FSC catch. Then a FN economic fishery. Then (often) - a FN commercial opening. Lastly there is a full commercial opening. The Fraser and the Nass operate yearly fishing plans like this. Herring - well out of sight - out of mind, apparently.