Do we need a new way of influencing the fisheries minister

winephart

Crew Member
So yes I am an old fart in my 70th year and I tend to rant and ramble. But I believe that we as sport fishers need to re-evaluate how we react to DFO Policy and our new Fisheries Minister.
Over the last 20 years we have seen a decline in our fishery and our ability to influence and be included in Fishery Policy.
20 years ago I had a belief that fishery policy was science driven and that decisions were made on the basis enhancement and fishery viability. I don't believe that is the case now. We have watched as the scientific end of DfO was withered and and died and the bureaucracy in Ottawa grew to be the largest budget line.
Years of record keeping and scientific data disappeared at the hands of the Harper Government.
DFO still maintains that decisions are science driven in spite of an abundance of evidence that policy decisions have very little basis in science but have the stamp of politics.
If we go back a few years to the Cohen Commission we see DFO looking to the Canadian Food agency for permission to respond to the Commissions questions.
In more recent times we see the outgoing Fisheries Minister ignoring his departments counsel last summer in imposing draconian regulations in regards to protecting early fraser chinook. Those were not science based decisions . The department had no valid data on how many fish were returning to the upper fraser tributaries and had spent 10 years removing enhancement by the 3 hatcheries in the area. To add insult to injury the minister followed up the northern Georgia Strait closures with a month long slot size that included hatchery clipped fish??? Throw back put and take fish?
I can only conclude that the regulations were imposed to cause economic chaos in our fishery. Don't get in the way of the pipeline unless you are prepared to bleed.
So lets step back and take another look at how we deal with the new fisheries minister. I look at DFO and see it as a broken culture. Lots of good people on the ground but still a bureaucracy that has lost track of its mission!
Maybe we should be approaching this new Minister differently. Lets kick it around and see what kind of ideas we can come up with. Please this is too important towrite off. I don't have a ton of time to fish but I do ahve children and grandchildren that deserve the opportunities I've had!
 
You, your parents, and your grandparents screwed your grandchildren when the governments of the day gained a mandate to run residential schools. Trudeau is going to set things right by "government to government" deals to renew cultural pride, increase employment, re-build stocks, and improve fisheries management.
How does one argue against this without sounding like a racist? Enjoy it while it lasts, which won't be long.
 
wrt the "science" purports to use in management decisions - unfortunately it is often highly biased & filtered science that DFO uses to support it's decision making. Opposing or contradictory science never makes it past the gate-keepers at the communications branch - even if the scientists @ DFO know it exists.

Ever since The Fisheries Research Board of Canada was disbanded in 1979 - the fisheries management decisions declared on behalf of the Minister of DFO are often more political rather than precautionary - and the real decision-makers in the upper echelon of DFO are shielded from the accountability and consequences of their decisions. Most of the public are blissfully unaware of the real decision-makers and the lobbying going on @ the upper levels.

And that's how the upper managers @ DFO like it.

Not sure exactly how to change that...
 
wrt the "science" purports to use in management decisions - unfortunately it is often highly biased & filtered science that DFO uses to support it's decision making. Opposing or contradictory science never makes it past the gate-keepers at the communications branch - even if the scientists @ DFO know it exists.

Ever since The Fisheries Research Board of Canada was disbanded in 1979 - the fisheries management decisions declared on behalf of the Minister of DFO are often more political rather than precautionary - and the real decision-makers in the upper echelon of DFO are shielded from the accountability and consequences of their decisions. Most of the public are blissfully unaware of the real decision-makers and the lobbying going on @ the upper levels.

And that's how the upper managers @ DFO like it.

Not sure exactly how to change that...

Within DFO Science there are drastically different positions that have been taken to try to inform/influence high level decision making in recent years. In my opinion, the bias begins before it even makes it to decision makers. Communications branch has nothing to do with it, they are simply messengers and wouldn't know how to interpret the science in order to filter it.

Agree with the high level lobbying, that has much to do with what is going on here, although I am also aware that the high level and lower level lobbying by the SFAB, SFI etc was heard loud and clear by DFO and MINO decision makers and has influenced things greatly to date. There are barriers at levels lower than most here would think to alternatives that don't involve simply shutting down fisheries for the foreseeable future.

The Province of BC could be a good advocate, but their messaging and position on salmon has been bungled from the outset of their Wild Salmon Council.
 
the influence by the communications branch really isn't downwards on the scientists - it is upwards onto the minister (particularly) in the form of carefully-massaged speaking notes and out onto the public where they obfuscate the concerns and messaging so that confidentiality & secrecy of the decision makers is maintained.

The communications branch takes a lead role in collating and then picking and choosing (filtering) responses from the science experts within DFO so that the department as envisioned by the communications branch - avoids red flags and contentious issues and avoids giving factual, accurate and current information to the public.

It's all there in the ATIPs and the Cohen exhibits...
 
wrt the "science" purports to use in management decisions - unfortunately it is often highly biased & filtered science that DFO uses to support it's decision making. Opposing or contradictory science never makes it past the gate-keepers at the communications branch - even if the scientists @ DFO know it exists.

Ever since The Fisheries Research Board of Canada was disbanded in 1979 - the fisheries management decisions declared on behalf of the Minister of DFO are often more political rather than precautionary - and the real decision-makers in the upper echelon of DFO are shielded from the accountability and consequences of their decisions. Most of the public are blissfully unaware of the real decision-makers and the lobbying going on @ the upper levels.

And that's how the upper managers @ DFO like it.

Not sure exactly how to change that...

You absolutely nailed it AA..
 
Need to get some lawsuits going. How FN and enviro pushed their narrative. Take a page out of their book.
I completely agree. Without this the rec sector will always be the weakest link in the chain and the easiest target for the DFO, the politicians and other sectors to screw IMHO.
 
With a minority govt., it might be a good time to get the House Fisheries Committee to undertake a study on the impacts of closures, etc. to the sector.
Not sure what a lawsuit would be based upon.
As for influencing the Minister, there is a reason why so many lobby groups like the Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance have their head offices in Ottawa.
 
So do it...

...
There was supposed to be a group formed to take legal action last spring, nothing has happened with it. I asked about the status of this group at the Nanaimo SFAB fall meeting and was met with worried looks and an" it's complicated answer".
 
Back
Top