british-columbia/first-nations-push-to-restore-columbia-river-salmon-runs
- Thread starter Derby
- Start date
200,000,000 smolt are released into the Columba system each and every year. not a single run of salmon has been restored as a result. this is all about propping up the sea food industry with fish to catch and sell. the tribes in the US have exactly this same objective although they like to put on the underdog face when it suits them. as a tax payer, I think its beyond time for those profiting from all of this to fund the entire enterprise to the tune of billions of dollars every year.
The Okanagan River Sockeye are one of two remaining populations of Sockeye in the Columbia River Basin. The Okanagan Nation Alliance works collaboratively with DFO and MOE on enhancement of the Okanagan Sockeye, but they have been the main driving force with this revitalization of Sockeye in this area. They are even hiring their own hatchery staff including biologists to oversee this work. The "tribes" have been undertaken most if not all the monitoring. Important thing to note is that non-aboriginal sportfishers have been able to catch Sockeye that return - it is not just for aboriginals.
As for aboriginals and the sea food industry profiting from all this on the backs of the taxpayer....Well....what do you think created these extirpated and sporadic salmon runs in Columbia Basin? Aboriginals, sport anglers, non-aboriginal commercial fisherman or was it dams, river channelization and urban and agricultural development. Who have been the people really profiting all these years since?
As for aboriginals and the sea food industry profiting from all this on the backs of the taxpayer....Well....what do you think created these extirpated and sporadic salmon runs in Columbia Basin? Aboriginals, sport anglers, non-aboriginal commercial fisherman or was it dams, river channelization and urban and agricultural development. Who have been the people really profiting all these years since?
always an excuse for overharvest no matter from which quarter it comes from. no accountability regarding the 50% share the tribes are allowed to take, no enforcement of their members who overfish or poach....
believe it or not, choices were available when all of this was coming down over a hundred years ago. our local aboriginals saw the future and took appropriate action to save themselves and a way of life. they are an active and vibrant part of the community I live in, giving and receiving. but its way more convenient to blame white society. I don't deny the abysmal history of what was going on over 100 years ago but I was not there. I am here today and choose to view what is going on through the lense of today, and its not a pretty sight. I see the continued commercial rape of the resource along with the big buck players, power, farming, etc. denying much responsibility.
no matter the spin on hatcheries, they exist for one simple reason, fish for the commercial sector. way of life? hardly. its all about making big bucks, that simple. and those that benefit directly need to anty up the billions needed to continue with this folly.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
no matter the spin on hatcheries, they exist for one simple reason, fish for the commercial sector.
You are getting pretty tiresome blaming EVERYTHING on the commercials..
You are getting pretty tiresome blaming EVERYTHING on the commercials..
tiresome indeed. there are enough variables to go around and please everyone with their personal theories as to what is happening right now. but when you personally see how the commercial harvest is being handled, all else falls by the way side. come on down and take a look at the bank to bank net sets on the OP. the Sol Duc is a pretty much untouched river but the fish can't get past those nets. nothing gets past, not even the ESA listed fishes. read up on the new commercial regs on the lower Columbia and see how they are trying to handle this. or check out the banning of gill nets by the non tribal commercials. then drive up the Columbia and start counting the number of bank sets all the way up to grand coolee, then come back and tell me how tired you are of hearing about the commercials.
seems to me you have no problem with criticism of the AK fishing fleet and 'your' halibut but I guess that must be a different type of overharvest.
How much do you know about the initiatives taken by the Okanagan Nation Alliance or the role of the Canadian Okanagan Basin Technical Working Group on this issue? Do you know how the fishery is managed and monitored? It is not just a free-for-all. Not sure where you are getting 50% from. The Canadian First Nations harvest is based on a projected run size past the Wells Dam each year. Under 10,000 there is no harvest. A count of 60,000 or greater allows for a 10% harvest as of July 1st. The ONA takes this issue seriously and has devoted a great deal of effort, along with other partner groups here and in the US (including US Corps of Engineers), to keep this success going. Monitoring a fishery on the ground is an issue no matter where it located or who is doing it, but the challenges associated with it should not negate from the hard work put into this to date nor the benefits to the First Nations and non-aboriginal sport anglers. The bigger challenges from a management perspective now are what is alluded to in the G&M news article as well as changes to the Pacific Salmon Treaty to deal with Okanagan salmon originating in Canadian waters.
This benefits the local First Nations by revitalizing a traditional way of life (damaged primarily by no fault of their own I might add) and allowing for the possibility of sustainable, commercial opportunities through the Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (PICFI) when abundance exceeds conservation levels. In 2010, a surplus of 200,000 Sockeye was counted at the Wells Dam (the management level is about 60,000), so it allowed for First Nations economic fisheries and recreational fisheries. As for commercial rape, where are your facts? For instance, Okanagan Sockeye is unique in that they are not exploited by Canadian commercial fisheries. Whether you agree with it or not, First Nations in Canada are exploring these commercial opportunities in terminal areas more and more – and this trend is likely to continue. Seeing this as “propping up” is short-sighted because this is actually a much better way of harvesting because unlike mixed stock fisheries further downstream and in the ocean which are much more non-selective you can drastically reduce the impact to weaker stocks closer to spawning grounds by being more selective. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with providing First Nations these commercial opportunities because when conservation and food, social and ceremonial (FSC) purposes are met any surplus could really benefit the local community (aboriginals and non-aboriginals). With limited spawning habitat, the decision to allocate harvest opportunities for commercial and sport fisheries is not a bad thing either. This also benefits sport anglers as it provides opportunity to catch Sockeye which they otherwise might not get in a river like the Fraser. As a sport fisher, you should be encouraging the work by First Nations and partner groups (which includes local volunteers) because if you want any hope of other salmon species to return in any number it will be because of this collaboration.
So, you are trying to tell me that First Nations in the area (such as members of the ONA) had choices available to them when “this was coming down”? What were these choices? Did this include them being consulted or having some say about river channelization, hydro-electric dam construction and urbanization in the basin? I am sure Howie Wright at the ONA would be happy to hear about these choices First Nations on this side of the border had in the face of this development. I am not surprised why your quote omitted the last part of that paragraph because it clearly identifies the main culprits in the declines in the basin. As for seeing the future, well…the ONA is actually trying to seize it by trying to rebuild what was basically taken away from them. Instead, they get labeled as being in this for the money. That is just plain silly. If it was all for the "big bucks" they wouldn’t waste their time in the commercial fishing business – they would be putting more of their energy into doing something else. The commercial aspect is not the main goal - trying protect an important cultural connection is. Trying to sell and market fish caught in terminal areas takes work and building a reputation and a brand that sets you apart from the others is not easy.
As for your take on hatcheries in this circumstance you are greatly exaggerating this because relatively small, commercial opportunities are primarily focused in the terminal areas by First Nations where it is still not certain if these operations will be economically viable or not in the long run. In addition, these commercial fisheries are dependent on a surplus of fish past the Wells Dam (at least on this side of the border) – if there is none then there is no commercial or even a sport fishery. Who is making "big bucks" from these demonstration fisheries where the economics and the marketing are still in its infancy? As for those “antying up” you should be aware that funding has come from Bonneville Power Administration as well as some from the Pacific Salmon Foundation and even the bands. It is not all from the taxpayer who actually stands to benefit also if they partake in any sport fishery opportunities. However, when you think about it shouldn’t Bonneville anti up money to continue this considering they were a primary contributor to this situation in the first place?
Last edited by a moderator:
Right on shuswap! The ONA can only be congratulated for their effort and success. With the right intention and the right people onboard, this could be a role model for other regions. As long as conservation comes first and all stakeholder groups share the work, responsibility but also benefits then this can be an overwhelming success. There is nothing wrong with FN realizing economic benefits from healthy fish stocks just as there is only to be gained from creating more sportfishing opportunities. The benefits can be far reaching. Mutually created, mutually enforced, mutually enjoyed is the winning formula.
Similar threads
