Judge overrules+minister+decision+open+herring+fishery
- Thread starter Derby
- Start date
finaddict
Well-Known Member
Now you understand my earlier posts about how science just gets in the way of DFO
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
What makes this worse is I hear that DFO allowed a herring roe fishery in the Comox area recently after they finally had a decent # of herring show up. Now some of the locals are upset as this now means much less food for salmon.
Anyone know anything more on the recent herring roe fishery in the Comox area?
Anyone know anything more on the recent herring roe fishery in the Comox area?
Andrew P
Well-Known Member
Here is the link to the fisheries notices. They are somewhat hard to follow.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?pg=view_notice&DOC_ID=157313&ID=all
From what I have read over the last few days is that they took over 6000 tons from the Comox area and are now making their way south.
It also looks like there is an opening coming for the North Coast of BC....which I know is hit as hard or harder than WCVI.
I am calling the DFO herring manager now with some questions....
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Page 8 of the Judge's Decision:
"The setting of the total allowable catch at 10% instead of 20% as a precautionary measure is, in my view, “fudging the numbers.” It is not science-based, but in effect a statement “there is a conservation concern here, but if the fishery is to be opened, take less.” Adoption of this approach is being used to sidestep the conservation assessment.
It seems to me once the Minister and the DFO depart from science-based assessments the integrity of fisheries management system is harmed. "
http://www.ratcliff.com/sites/defau...4-14 Reasons for Order and Order 20140228.pdf
Cheers,
Nog
"The setting of the total allowable catch at 10% instead of 20% as a precautionary measure is, in my view, “fudging the numbers.” It is not science-based, but in effect a statement “there is a conservation concern here, but if the fishery is to be opened, take less.” Adoption of this approach is being used to sidestep the conservation assessment.
It seems to me once the Minister and the DFO depart from science-based assessments the integrity of fisheries management system is harmed. "
http://www.ratcliff.com/sites/defau...4-14 Reasons for Order and Order 20140228.pdf
Cheers,
Nog
From the judge's decision:
Page: 4
[10] The commercial fishing industry has recommended a commercial roe herring fishery this season, albeit at reduced harvesting rates.
[11] DFO management considered such an option, and noted in a memorandum for the Minister dated December 9, 2013 discussed allowing “some harvest but at a more conservative 10% harvest rate until the harvest management strategy is evaluated.”
[12] DFO management ultimately recommended to the Minister that the WCVI remain closed to a commercial roe herring fishery for the 2014 season in order to continue work on licence fee reform, renewing the current management framework, and working with industry to maintain necessary science activities. In the memorandum for the Minister the Department noted it may need to negotiate an agreement with the First Nations Applicants and stated “the Department would like to see more evidence of a durable and sustained recovery before re-opening.”
[13] The Minister did not concur with the Department’s recommendation, and the following notation was made: “The Minister agrees to an opening at a conservative 10% harvest rate for the 2014 Fishing season in the three fishing areas.”
What is so hard to understand here?
Page: 4
[10] The commercial fishing industry has recommended a commercial roe herring fishery this season, albeit at reduced harvesting rates.
[11] DFO management considered such an option, and noted in a memorandum for the Minister dated December 9, 2013 discussed allowing “some harvest but at a more conservative 10% harvest rate until the harvest management strategy is evaluated.”
[12] DFO management ultimately recommended to the Minister that the WCVI remain closed to a commercial roe herring fishery for the 2014 season in order to continue work on licence fee reform, renewing the current management framework, and working with industry to maintain necessary science activities. In the memorandum for the Minister the Department noted it may need to negotiate an agreement with the First Nations Applicants and stated “the Department would like to see more evidence of a durable and sustained recovery before re-opening.”
[13] The Minister did not concur with the Department’s recommendation, and the following notation was made: “The Minister agrees to an opening at a conservative 10% harvest rate for the 2014 Fishing season in the three fishing areas.”
What is so hard to understand here?
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Absolom, every rational person understands only to well what is happening here. That is, science based and precautionary policies are being overruled by a Minister that knows NOTHING about fisheries, ecology, biology or resource stewardship. That is what the judge said in more restrained language than mine.
And that Absolom, is appalling and utterly irresponsible. And if you cannot see the immorality and short sightedness of the Minister's decision, then you too are fully qualified to be a politician. You too have what it takes to ignore science!!
Put your righteous indignation back in your pocket and have another look at what the judge wrote. Clearly the DFO recommended that the fishery not be opened and clearly the decision to open it was taken by the Minister alone. There is a campaign afoot across a number of fishing forums to include or even assign full blame for the opening to the DFO based on a very poorly worded headline in the Globe and Mail and an ill thought out statement by the judge in the decision. My post here, as at those other forums where I have run across the campaign, was addressed at that. Looking at the responses in this thread makes it obvious that a number here have bought into it but as the judge herself acknowledged, it was a ministerial decision and not the DFO that was responsible for the opening.
Maybe you didn't read either my post preceding his, nor his response which not only repeated what I said but also included, rather gratuitously, the following:
And obviously, you either didn't read or didn't understand my follow-up post which included considerably more than you apparently took away from it.
Don’t think that is going to happen. It may be just starting to warm up. This is the infamous Absolon, well known heavy weight cyber shrill, public relations hack and propagandist for interests that virtually never align with the sport fishing sector. Did you miss the major war on here with him a couple of years or so back when he showed up to defend the Atlantic salmon open net pen fish farm industry when it was feeling the heat. This is still down right civil by comparison.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting how we all see "disagreement" in this comment first.
Absolon seems to be trying to emphasize that the herring opening was dictated from the Fisheries Minister's office, rather than through any credible science review internal or external to DFO - IMHO.
I agree.
This is the way that the government has been working for some time - that only got much, much worse when a Harper majority Conservative bully government got in.
That is why we need a dramatic change.
Last edited by a moderator:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Not to be negative, but if we do get this change you want so badly agent, what makes you think things will be different. Like most older Canadians I've lived my life under far more Liberal governments than Conservative! Fisheries has been as badly managed by both. I hope there is a change, but historically one party is as bad as the other.Trudeau, Chretien, Martin, don't remember any of them doing anything for fisheries!
Last edited by a moderator:
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Absolon,
My “righteous indignation” as you characterise it was driven by your condescending comment “What is so hard to understand here?”
You appeared to be questioning everybody’s understanding of what went on even though the title of the thread clearly indicates the failure of the Minister was up for examination. However, your post above shows that it is your zeal to protect the DFO that led to your ill chosen comment. Why you are so sensitive to DFO criticism I cannot imagine, unless you work there. However, notwithstanding your belief that the judge and the Globe and Mail used poor words, the opposite is true. For political reasons formerly, and now increasingly for lack of funding for science based research reasons, the DFO is often caught with its pants down and fudges the numbers. The judge latched on to that with the criticism of the memorandum which “discussed a harvest rate of 10%”, and thus gave the Minister an opening which she exploited, when in fact they had ZERO data to justify that suggestion!
Again we now understand the reasons for your strange post. It is to counter what you perceive as unjustified attacks on the DFO. My interpretation of your condescending comment may have been off base, in one sense, but in another I still think you would make a great politician because you have no qualms about defending the indefensible!!
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
So how are the herring doing.... I guess we need to look at the long term trends.
Not just from 1936 to now.
This is some interesting research from the more distant past.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/E807.full
I'm from the area that use to be "superabundant archaeologically" to now crossing our fingers and hope they come to spawn. Sham of those pencil pusher like minister Shea
Not just from 1936 to now.
This is some interesting research from the more distant past.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/E807.full
I'm from the area that use to be "superabundant archaeologically" to now crossing our fingers and hope they come to spawn. Sham of those pencil pusher like minister Shea
Similar threads
