IMPORTANT NOTE FROM SFI-BC & SVIAC Re: FISHING REGS
- Thread starter SVIAC
- Start date
searun
Well-Known Member
Thanks for this perspective that pretty much nails what took place. Countless hours by many dedicated volunteers and science staff to model various options to help craft a solution that strikes a balance between conservation objectives and creating opportunity and expectation of catch necessary to create a decent Rec fishery.
As you will see from the fisheries notices coming out today there are many “areas” that will be impacted by the Ministers decisions. Some on here have speculated about what is about to happen. The speculation in many cases is not correct. What is correct is there are sweeping changes that impact many areas and I would characterize the decisions made as a profound failure to understand the value of the recreational fishery by the Minister. We will likely see this style of political thinking play out in future. So whether the decisions impact areas you like to fish or not, I would strongly urge you to take a moment and send a letter to the Minister. Sit on the sidelines and do nothing is a vote for status quo decision making.
Agree or not, that’s my perspective. Please consider writing your letter.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Well when those notices go out and get posted all over their respected fishing report threads. There will be lots of people pissed off. This anger will have a short window in witch in can be utilized before people become complacent and not care.
As of right now we only have this note from SFI and SVIAC talking more more restrictions and closures in area 20.
It would be nice to have something from BCWF and SFI, That is geared towards all anglers on the coast that can then be passed along on all the social media/report threads and generate interest coast wide.
Proposed DFO Closure – East Point, Port Renfrew to Otter Point, Sooke BC
https://islandfishermanmagazine.com...t-point-port-renfrew-to-otter-point-sooke-bc/
again no mention of the other closures, pender bluffs, fraser river mouth ect..
Last edited:
outoftowner
Banned
So why do we keep accepting this behaviour from the DFO as ok? As long as we keep doing what they want this will never change . The SFAB needs to be disbanded. Not because the people arent doing there best, It just doesn't work. They have not enough data not even time for consulting and end the of the day the DFO doesn't care what they think. I've read somewhere a comment along the lines "it would be alot worse if we didn' have the sfab" well I'm ready to take that gamble
swimmingwiththefishes
Member
This is all part and parcel of KM. Not really that much to do with Horgan, but more BC enviro NGO's (Suzuki, Georgia Straight Alliance etc...) and their Orca campaign. Mr. Dress-up is throwing them a bone as a consolation prize for putting through KM. He can now say that his government is doing more than any other has to protect Orca's.
Ironically, if the sportfishing community had been more outspoken about KM (against it) in some sort of campaign. He might have thrown us a bone too
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Ironically, if the sportfishing community had been more outspoken about KM (against it) in some sort of campaign. He might have thrown us a bone too
The sports fishing community has been very out spoken against fish farms and donated money to all the groups you just mentions. Nice to be stabbed in the back using our own donations...
swimmingwiththefishes
Member
On the big issues politics trumps science everytime. Some sort of a flag or protest symbol that we put on our boats would be great.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Awesome, glad to see some of you want to have a new system for sports fishermen.
Well go hard. Take the lead and set up your ideal.
Well go hard. Take the lead and set up your ideal.
Derby
Crew Member
So why do we keep accepting this behaviour from the DFO as ok? As long as we keep doing what they want this will never change . The SFAB needs to be disbanded. Not because the people arent doing there best, It just doesn't work. They have not enough data not even time for consulting and end the of the day the DFO doesn't care what they think. I've read somewhere a comment along the lines "it would be alot worse if we didn' have the sfab" well I'm ready to take that gamble[/QUOTE
Thank God your not involved in any of this....
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Without these guys we probably wouldn't be fishing period !
outoftowner
Banned
What would happen? We wouldn't be able to keep any halibut over 40 lbs, We would have lots of people buying quota, We would have zero rentention on yellow eye, reduction of ling possessin, full Chinook closures and most of the coast severely restricted all In the SAME year?
Oh wait that IS what we have. This is not to take away all the hours the volunteers have put in to this flawed system. But the facts are it just doesn' work. The DFO does not allow or want it to as shown by their actions.
Oh wait that IS what we have. This is not to take away all the hours the volunteers have put in to this flawed system. But the facts are it just doesn' work. The DFO does not allow or want it to as shown by their actions.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Would you rather be able to fish or not ?
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
The biggest headwind we face is the big change in management style in DFO. All those Baby boomers that joined DFO back in the day that also fished/commercial fished/worked at packing plants and used the resource are retiring.
The people that are joining DFO now are being pumped out from collages like Langra, BCIT resource/enviormental programs ect brainwashed hippy dippy types that love flowers and think fish are their babies and have zero concept of what the average every day user is doing.
Combine that with a Liberal government/reconciliation policy and our increasing west coast population and all the other environmental issues salmon face and I think it was pretty inevitable that we were going to see some pain sooner or later.
The question is how do we navigate this new landscape? how do we deal with ENGO's? How do we all work together to find good solutions that allows access and promotes rebuilding of our stocks?
Prairie Locked
Well-Known Member
The Georgia Straight Alliance? Is this politically correct and acceptable these days? I wonder what the LGBTQ+ groups would have to say about it?
. Maybe I’m confusing it with the Georgia Strait Alliance?Lol, just having a little fun trying to lighten the mood.
outoftowner
Banned
I'm going to fish regardless. Saying we wouldn' be fishing at all if we didn' have the sfab is complete nonsense and IMO potentially a scare tactic to keep the status quo.
swimmingwiththefishes
Member
Also a lot easier to close a bunch of areas to sportfishing( and metaphorically kick a bunch of fishermen in the teeth) claiming your helping Orcas than to actually put in money and resources for adequate disaster response to pipeline incident or respond to enviro NGO concerns about this. Politically we are a perfect red herring.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Sportie's have been so disorganized that without the support groups, DFO would have no problem closing it down.
In fact I'm sure they would prefer it closed.
Derby
Crew Member
I'm going to fish regardless. Saying we wouldn' be fishing at all if we didn' have the sfab is complete nonsense and IMO potentially a scare tactic to keep the status quo.[/QUOTE
pretty much shows just how little u understand how things work.. easy to sit back behind the key board, no skin in the game & fire away.
As wildmanyea stated, we are dealing with is an ideology and a mindset that the “old ways” of doing business have to go. Favorite pastimes and traditions mean nothing to these people.
I’m sure some of the policy makers actually get a kick out of screwing with us.
The only way forward is voting for (if you have a choice) political candidates that genuinely have a love for these types of activities and are willing to engage the public with science based facts.
Your average Joe is willing to hear the truth if put forward to them rationally, but getting the air time for the message is next to impossible when people actually think Suzuki cares about the environment.
I’m sure some of the policy makers actually get a kick out of screwing with us.
The only way forward is voting for (if you have a choice) political candidates that genuinely have a love for these types of activities and are willing to engage the public with science based facts.
Your average Joe is willing to hear the truth if put forward to them rationally, but getting the air time for the message is next to impossible when people actually think Suzuki cares about the environment.
tincan
Well-Known Member
letter sent:
Dear Minister & RDG,
I am writing to express my concern for what seems to be an imminent closure / restriction on sportfishing for recreational anglers in and around the Strait of Georgia. I write as someone who has enjoyed recreational fishing in the Southern Gulf Islands for nearly 40 years. Have the opportunity to fish as a kid got me on the water and taught me about fish, conservation issues, and ecosystems as a whole. Like many BC residents, some of my fondest memories involve a boat and a fishing rod.
Recreational angers like myself spend countless hours volunteering for local stream-keeping groups, hatcheries, fundraising derbies, etc. We do this because we deeply care about wild salmon populations and want to see them around for our children to enjoy as we have. In my lifetime the salmon fishing in the Strait of Georgia has plummeted to a small fraction of what it was in terms of recreational harvest. Does rec fishing have some impact on salmon stocks? Yes. Is rec fishing the main reason for low chinook abundance? Absolutely not! Rec fishing pressure / effort in the early 1990's dropped off sharply and have not rebounded. If rec fishing was the main reason for low salmon returns and now rec fishing effort is but a fraction of what it was, why haven't populations rebounded? The fact is there are much larger and complex reasons this SOG fishery is in that state it is. Habitat loss in both fresh and marine waters; increased predation by growing pinniped populations, pathogen/disease transfer from open net pen salmon farms, and warming waters from climate change are all contributing factors.
The SRKW population are estimated to eat 500K-1M chinook salmon (typically larger ones as well) annually. The entire rec fishing sector in BC catches around 200-300K chinook annually!!! Out of that the SOG rec fishery harvests what? 50K max? That's not enough to sustain 2 SRKW dietary needs for the year and yet targeting certain swaths of rec fishing communities is 'the answer'?
Is closing / limiting rec fishing easy? yes. Is it politically expedient? yes. Will it accomplish it's intended goal of providing the SRWK with the food they need to thrive? No!
Real change is needed. Change that doesn't have a quick fix but will have a lasting positive impact. A few immediate action items that should be taken before any restrictions on rec fishing occur are:
-Invest a substantial ($50M-$100M/year for 10 years min) sum of funds in fresh water habitat/estuary restoration in SOG river systems. Have an arms length independent group of salmon experts handle/distribute funds based on area of need.
-Remove all salmon farms from the marine environment. Start with those on salmon migration routes immediately and phase out the rest over a few years while transitioning to land-based closed containment.
-Invest $50M/year in sea-pen grow out facilities at strategic locations for certain chinook stocks that are known to be critical to SRWK (Harrison, Thompson, Cowichan, etc). You might even be able to get a good deal on some used pens!!!
-Increase the value of the salmon conservation stamp by 5-fold (to $30) which will allow PSF to support more of the small scale habitat and enhancement work that their volunteer communities
As a federal government (who I voted for) who campaigned on science-based policy making this pending rec fishing closure is an assault on that ideal.
Thanks for your consideration. I look forward to your response.
Dear Minister & RDG,
I am writing to express my concern for what seems to be an imminent closure / restriction on sportfishing for recreational anglers in and around the Strait of Georgia. I write as someone who has enjoyed recreational fishing in the Southern Gulf Islands for nearly 40 years. Have the opportunity to fish as a kid got me on the water and taught me about fish, conservation issues, and ecosystems as a whole. Like many BC residents, some of my fondest memories involve a boat and a fishing rod.
Recreational angers like myself spend countless hours volunteering for local stream-keeping groups, hatcheries, fundraising derbies, etc. We do this because we deeply care about wild salmon populations and want to see them around for our children to enjoy as we have. In my lifetime the salmon fishing in the Strait of Georgia has plummeted to a small fraction of what it was in terms of recreational harvest. Does rec fishing have some impact on salmon stocks? Yes. Is rec fishing the main reason for low chinook abundance? Absolutely not! Rec fishing pressure / effort in the early 1990's dropped off sharply and have not rebounded. If rec fishing was the main reason for low salmon returns and now rec fishing effort is but a fraction of what it was, why haven't populations rebounded? The fact is there are much larger and complex reasons this SOG fishery is in that state it is. Habitat loss in both fresh and marine waters; increased predation by growing pinniped populations, pathogen/disease transfer from open net pen salmon farms, and warming waters from climate change are all contributing factors.
The SRKW population are estimated to eat 500K-1M chinook salmon (typically larger ones as well) annually. The entire rec fishing sector in BC catches around 200-300K chinook annually!!! Out of that the SOG rec fishery harvests what? 50K max? That's not enough to sustain 2 SRKW dietary needs for the year and yet targeting certain swaths of rec fishing communities is 'the answer'?
Is closing / limiting rec fishing easy? yes. Is it politically expedient? yes. Will it accomplish it's intended goal of providing the SRWK with the food they need to thrive? No!
Real change is needed. Change that doesn't have a quick fix but will have a lasting positive impact. A few immediate action items that should be taken before any restrictions on rec fishing occur are:
-Invest a substantial ($50M-$100M/year for 10 years min) sum of funds in fresh water habitat/estuary restoration in SOG river systems. Have an arms length independent group of salmon experts handle/distribute funds based on area of need.
-Remove all salmon farms from the marine environment. Start with those on salmon migration routes immediately and phase out the rest over a few years while transitioning to land-based closed containment.
-Invest $50M/year in sea-pen grow out facilities at strategic locations for certain chinook stocks that are known to be critical to SRWK (Harrison, Thompson, Cowichan, etc). You might even be able to get a good deal on some used pens!!!
-Increase the value of the salmon conservation stamp by 5-fold (to $30) which will allow PSF to support more of the small scale habitat and enhancement work that their volunteer communities
As a federal government (who I voted for) who campaigned on science-based policy making this pending rec fishing closure is an assault on that ideal.
Thanks for your consideration. I look forward to your response.
Similar threads
