DFO decisions and FN

[high tide]

First Nation Aboriginal salmon closure.
So, DFO has closed retention of Sockeye to Aboriginal in several areas on approach to the Fraser ....... Areas, 11-21, 111,121,123,127 , 29-1 to 5........

Glad to see it ........ If that's what it takes to save these fish.

Yet, FN are allowed to retain Sockeye in the Fraser River upstream ....... Where they concentrate and are quite frankly easy pickings. Higher catch ratio, more mortality, incidental Chinook ....... That's really good for the vulnerable runs now isn't it?

DFO and Government of Canada, are you for real.?

Where the hell do they come up with these decisions?

 

[agentaqua]

Well said ST!

In reality, fisheries management is a very challenging job. Prob no more so - than on the Fraser. Large system, many species, many stocks, many weak stocks, different timing on the runs, many user groups, many gear types - both in-river and beyond. Predicting run size and apportioning risk management at the place and time needed has also gotten much more difficult. Changes and more variability in ocean survival rates - seemingly more adult and juvenile in-river mortality - less money to do the basic science. A "perfect" storm of negatively interacting factors.

In Ottawa - meanwhile - the Rideau canal looks the same way it always has as our disinterested elected officials scurry off to the parliament trying to avoid both the cameras and the hard questions...

Waiting inside the office is an army of industry lobbyists - where the real decisions are made.

Just can't wait for lunch - maybe there's some yummy farmed salmon in the cafeteria? Which reminds them - "oh Ya! Gotta phone back Vivian Krause. Maybe ol' Duff has her #..."

 

[ziggy]

I agree with what you're saying, but let's be honest here. DFO gets its marching orders from their political masters as do all government departments. The guys on the front line have little say and are just carrying out the wishes of their managers, who are in turn, carrying out the wishes of the ruling,elected, government.
With no desire from the higher echelon to enforce regulations and no public outcry about their lack of will, things will never change. Face it, no politician wants to risk losing popularity, which is why big problems are shelved rather than being faced head on. Small problems are solved and crowed about, endlessly! The the bottom line is each government is biding time until the next election. It's all about getting reelected!

 

[agentaqua]

I agree with what you're saying, but let's be honest here. DFO gets its marching orders from their political masters as do all government departments. The guys on the front line have little say and are just carrying out the wishes of their managers, who are in turn, carrying out the wishes of the ruling,elected, government.
With no desire from the higher echelon to enforce regulations and no public outcry about their lack of will, things will never change. Face it, no politician wants to risk losing popularity, which is why big problems are shelved rather than being faced head on. Small problems are solved and crowed about, endlessly! The the bottom line is each government is biding time until the next election. It's all about getting reelected!

Yep - 4 sure, Ziggy! Which is why I keep saying - that needs to change.

We need a consensus-based governance model along with consensus-based environmental assessment processes. Parties are anti-democratic. Nothing in our Constitution that says we have to run it the way it is - as a sporting event every 4 years - where the team with the most people wearing the same colour of shirt gets to rum away with all the goodies. Nunavut - also a British Parliamentary system model - has no parties. It is consensus-based. Politicians will always be politicians no matter the colour of the shirt they wear. They need accountability. Desperately. More involvement and focus from their constituents vis-a-vis more consensus - less BS and corruption.