Boycott corporations that support Chinook non-retention or a total fishery closure
- Thread starter saltcod
- Start date
Again very noble thoughts and idealistic way of thinking. But lets do some math - again using Patagonia as an example. (Remember I don't work for them.)
You tell and beg 20 of your friends to not purchase from Patagonia. Of those 20, how many are going to swear they will never purchase and also spread your boycott crusade to their friends? To be generous, lets say 10% of the 20 = 2 people. Of those 2, how many of their each 20 friends are they really, really going to convince to also join your crusade?
Statistics show that the further away from the source person advancing a cause, the odds drop sharply after the first or second group of friends. So using the above example numbers, you may be very lucky to have 3-5 people willing to never purchase from the company again. Even if you extrapolate that over a hundred people who believe in the same crusade as you and they try and convince their 20 friends and end up with maybe a few people each, the true final number of people boycotting the company is not even close to being a measurable statistic on the company's balance sheet.
Interestingly enough, in the time I took to write this, the company has gained those same number of customers (and more) of those 3-5 loyal (and perhaps naive) friends and friends of friends who joined your crusade - that will ultimately fail to achieve your noble thoughts and ideas of a boycott.
Never mind. I deleted my post. Patagonia it is!
Not Fraser, but...... Another important river.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...polluting-bcs-columbia-river/article28962151/
saltcod
Active Member
No argument there. Teck ( formerly Inco) has been polluting the Columbia for half a century or more, and mostly getting away with it. However, our original conversation was about the upper Fraser, and I don't think there is a lot of industrial development there, more like agricultural water extraction issues, deforestation due to accelerated cut of spruce budworm harvest, resulting in much less forest cover and resulting rapid snowmelt.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
The problem is ocean survival not freshwater.
Hatchery's are here to stay for a lot of rivers and streams that have been dammed/damaged etc or where populations are unable to survive without enhancement. Won't disagree there at all. My comment was meant to be idealistic.
I do somewhat disagree with the introduction of non-native species, but have to accept that it was the norm back in the day for tonnes of wildlife around the world.
saltcod
Active Member
Yes, there may be some ocean survival issues, but upper Fraser Chinook are, for the most part, stream type Chinook, spending up to two years in freshwater. Their survival depends on adequate water flow and cool temperatures. They then migrate great distances to feed before returning to their natal streams. One of the reasons that Strait of Georgia Chinook are doing well is that they are mostly ocean type Chinook, spending less than a year in freshwater, and then often never getting more than 200 km from their natal stream. Herring populations have recovered quite well in the past few years, possibly the reason why fishing has been so good lately
saltcod
Active Member
Footnote here, I get everybody's point about boycotts not working, mostly. There have been a few times when they have. I get pretty fired up sometimes over issues that pertain to our right to fish. Pretty sure I haven't hurt anybody's feelings. I know the patagonia fishing rep well and after discussing this with a local guide who is a mutual acquaintance, it turns out that the rep has already been in conversations with patagonia about their perceived support of a fishing ban. I know they do a lot for wild salmon but if we were only depending on wild salmon for our fishery, there wouldn't be one at this point. Next time I see the rep, who we buy quite a bit of stuff from, just not patagonia, I'll be sure to have a discussion about this. Pressure can be applied in a variety of ways. It is not unheard of that if a company sees too much negative feedback over a group they are supporting, that they will cut ties with that group. One way to fight back against groups that advocate for an end to salmon fishing is to de-fund them.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I see where you are going, and I wouldn't count on it. The truth is many not all of the anglers just think its all to do with FN harvest etc. Yes that is probably a component, but the problem is when we focus on just that we lose the bigger picture. I wouldn't expect to get support for boycotts etc. Hell we can't even get the joe angler to donate cash as they argue about who will be leader. THAT ABSOLUTELY KILLED US.
BE CAREFUL. Don't ignore these groups. If this is successful this year they will back again to take the rest of the inside of the straight and beyond. It will never ever stop.
As Greg Taylor from MCC stated yesterday with his comments to minister on SRKW protections, and re-quoting:
As a member of the SRKW Technical Working Group on Prey Availability and Accessibility, we find the actions taken on prey availability and accessibility insufficient. Our specific concerns are:
1. A key objective was to reduce disturbance associated with recreational fishing. DFO has proposed going to non-retention fisheries in Areas 20-1, 19, 18, and 29. Experience with non-retention fisheries in North America indicates that moving to non-retention may not reduce effort and therefore disturbance.
2. Non-retention fisheries only means mortality of key Fraser River Chinook populations is reduced, not eliminated. And research indicates short-term mortality is high, especially in respect to what is reported by DFO, see: https://www.mccpacific.org/.../Fraser-Chinook-FRIM...
3. In 2019 DFO is proposing to introduce a guidance that would ask recreational fishers to quit fishing if SRKW come within one kilometer of them. This is a voluntary requirement with little associated monitoring and no ability to enforce the guidance. It is disturbing that when fishery management agencies around the world are moving to independent, third party monitoring and tighter enforcement of fishing regulations; DFO is moving in the opposite direction. There is a reason why the rest of the world is moving to independent monitoring and better enforcement, good fishery management - as outlined by the FAO - demands it.
4. DFO, after persistent questioning, has indicated it has no plan to maintain fishery monitoring of effort and encounters in recreational fisheries at a level of what was in place in 2019. Nor does it plan to collect DNA samples from released fish to estimate the stock composition of the catch. Finally, DFO refuses to address the question of how many released chinook survive to eventually spawn, even in the face of its own science that says it is required.
5. DFO has not challenged the statements issued by the recreational industry saying that Fraser 4-2 and 5-2 chinook (which are of critical importance to SRKWs) represent only 1% of their total catch. DFO knows from their DNA samples that the proportion of 4-2 and 5-2 chinook in the recreational catch, in the months these populations are migrating through SRKW critical habitat, is significant. In 2018, the total escapement of these populations was around 16,000. The estimated totality mortality of these populations in the recreational fishery was between 12,103 and 15,428.
The MCC continues to recommend that, for the above reasons, all salmon fishing be closed in SRKW critical habitat between May 1st and July 31st. Anything else is indefensible.
Marine Conservation Caucus
Last edited:
ryanb
Well-Known Member
When you buy things from a company that supports these ENGOs you are literally supporting the ENGOs financially. Will it make a difference if I never but Patagonia again? Probably not, but I have before and can't stomach 1 penny of my money supporting groups that are working against my interests.
There are environmental organizations and then there are environmental organizations. There is no way in hell I will support Patigonia with my purchase dollars when they support some organizations which have in my opinion the goal of ending the public sector fishery as soon as possible and forever. There are too many options for alternatives to their products that are public sector angler friendly and outlets to buy them from that do support the public sector fishery.
They want to change my mind, they can start with a prominent statement of support for the public sector fishery on their slick website and follow it up with web links and some fat checks to angler organizations that sponsor environmental and salmon enhancment projects. There are a great many of them to chose from and unlike many of the ivory tower ENGO's that money will actually end up being used for habitat restoration and getting more Chinook and Coho back into the ocean. Over the years, I have observed that the leaders and executive of angler organizations work for free and are likely to be the first found shivering in cold urban streams removing old tires and rusted shopping carts, placing logs strategically etc and providing safe places for salmon to spawn. They do not spend most of their time back slapping politicians and reporters, designing slick websites and fund raising campaigns and collecting very large paychecks for their efforts. They are selfless unsung hero's. How about Patigonia support them.
They want to change my mind, they can start with a prominent statement of support for the public sector fishery on their slick website and follow it up with web links and some fat checks to angler organizations that sponsor environmental and salmon enhancment projects. There are a great many of them to chose from and unlike many of the ivory tower ENGO's that money will actually end up being used for habitat restoration and getting more Chinook and Coho back into the ocean. Over the years, I have observed that the leaders and executive of angler organizations work for free and are likely to be the first found shivering in cold urban streams removing old tires and rusted shopping carts, placing logs strategically etc and providing safe places for salmon to spawn. They do not spend most of their time back slapping politicians and reporters, designing slick websites and fund raising campaigns and collecting very large paychecks for their efforts. They are selfless unsung hero's. How about Patigonia support them.
Last edited:
littlechucky
Crew Member
Exactly.
barkerfam
Well-Known Member
My only voice with a corporation is my wallet. I also do it all the time. Does it matter to the behemoth? No, not just me. But, it’s what I can do.
As in Sea Lice infested, Disease and Virus spewing Fish Farms?
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Funny reading this just after I read an Article about
Not suggesting a comparison of DFO policies to this guys, frankly I know very little about his policies, but it does show how activism works. Probably the vast majority of New Yorkers don’t actually care, but all the feedback was from those who opposed, so in the absence of any other opinion, the squeaky wheel was greased ( maybe rightfully so).Perhaps boycotts never work, but negative feedback from potential customers can sometimes impact policy, particularly when it outweighs positive feedback. ENGO’s have used this tactic for years, how many people take the time to compliment a program in relation to those who gleefully find fault. No company wants to lose customers, I’d suggest a letter to those companies can make them at least take a second look, particularly if it contains verifiable facts
Not sure if boycotts really work, but interestingly enough I just read where the President of Brazil was due to visit New York to receive an award. The Public outcry was so great that a number of venues cancelled his appearance due to pressure from those who disapprove of his policies. Consequently his visit has been cancelled! How often have we seen similar incidents happen?
Not suggesting a comparison of DFO policies to this guys, frankly I know very little about his policies, but it does show how activism works. Probably the vast majority of New Yorkers don’t actually care, but all the feedback was from those who opposed, so in the absence of any other opinion, the squeaky wheel was greased ( maybe rightfully so).Perhaps boycotts never work, but negative feedback from potential customers can sometimes impact policy, particularly when it outweighs positive feedback. ENGO’s have used this tactic for years, how many people take the time to compliment a program in relation to those who gleefully find fault. No company wants to lose customers, I’d suggest a letter to those companies can make them at least take a second look, particularly if it contains verifiable facts
Derby
Crew Member
Here a interesting question I'm going to ask... say in a prefect world we can get the wild chinook numbers up... is there enough fish ?
ryanb
Well-Known Member
We have to move past this whole wild fish natural world bs. There are simply too many humans having too much impact. We cannot take the path of trying to restore a natural balance and expect things to work out. Humans have to take an active role in managing the environment and try to do the best we can with the outcome...
Thats the elephant in the room. The planet is not infinate and there are too many people in it to keep a natural balance. As long as there is another buck to be made that reality always gets pushed to the backburner. We are the modern day dinasaurs.
Similar threads
