Minister's decision on SFAB Chinook announced
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
Derby
Crew Member
Dude .. whatever floats your boat and you wonder why the disfunction?
Derby
Crew Member
Really? Is that how you debate with DFO....call them bozo’s when you have nothing to left to defend your position. No wonder why we lost again. Sorry admin I’m trying to raise legitemate concerns and have a level headed debate but it seems like when some can’t it becomes personal. I wasn’t calling any one individual out just the entire SFAB process and DFO.
I think it’s time to think for next year : I would think it’s safe to say that with the same people and the same strategy we should expect same results .I would let it go.. its the same clown show every year by the same bozo's
Thunder21
Well-Known Member
I don’t know too many details about what was presented to DFO but there is always the chance that the proposal was excellent and the volunteers presented an extremely strong case and the federal government and DFO were not going to budge regardless. If the people fighting DFO on our behalf are all volunteers I think we should be pretty careful how we treat these people or we may find ourselves in worse shape when they finally tell us to go **** ourselves and walk away. If there are people on here that think they have better ideas or are better candidates then step up and get er done.
This is not the volunteers fault that we have woke virtue signalling morons above them calling the shots.
This is not the volunteers fault that we have woke virtue signalling morons above them calling the shots.
Last edited:
Well said.I agree totally
Well, for once, anyone who understand how government works, knows that they have a duty to consult before making a decision. What real consultation means has been the debate of all times but luckily FN, environs etc have won many battles in court over inadequate consultation on things they didn't like and forced the government into negotiations. That's an angle the sport fishery should take. This phoney SFAB process is not proper consultation. The courts have decided many times that the government cannot just hold a fake meeting having already a preconceived decision and blatantly ignore all stakeholder input. But that's exactly what has been happening year after year in the SFAB process. That's not consultation in good faith and would fail under scrutiny. FN and other groups cried foul in these situations, walked out or went to court and won. The SFAB comes faithfully back to the table each year and gives this phoney and disgraceful process legitimacy by just participating, giving DFO the alibi of having completed "consultation". Throw the book at them and walk away until they come back and offer real consultation. This will then be more like negotiations and with the sport fishery from a way more powerful position as DFO needs this consultation before a decision can be signed off on. It has worked many times for the other groups.
But this needs some people with backbone, charisma and negotiating skills on our side. Our current SFAB leaders who rolled and bent over so many times now and who were only worried that the tiny retention-open strip along the west coast be advertised properly while the rest of the coast is shackled - are hardly the right material. High time for a change. Just saying but I believe with a Bob Wright at the helm we would be in a different position even though I don't condone the offensive language and intimidation that was used back then sometimes but these were different times and much what is socially unacceptable today was fine back then.
But this needs some people with backbone, charisma and negotiating skills on our side. Our current SFAB leaders who rolled and bent over so many times now and who were only worried that the tiny retention-open strip along the west coast be advertised properly while the rest of the coast is shackled - are hardly the right material. High time for a change. Just saying but I believe with a Bob Wright at the helm we would be in a different position even though I don't condone the offensive language and intimidation that was used back then sometimes but these were different times and much what is socially unacceptable today was fine back then.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Most of guys on here that are involved in the organizations fighting all this don't get too worked up on comments. There is forum land and then the real world.
Volunteering is thankless job at end of day. People are just looking for something to blame right now. Part of the grieving process.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I would let it go.. its the same clown show every year by the same bozo's
100 percent agree.
I am glad that you springvelocity, as Derby's constant echo, are on the same page and made out of the same stuff as him. And some wonder why we are no further with issues...I would let it go.. its the same clown show every year by the same bozo's
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Ask yourself is what I am doing right now going too help the situation? Is this how you think people conduct themselves with working together?
All your doing is lashing out at everyone blaming them for something beyond their control. Are we the government?
Now I am not making this personal, but there are serious issues in the Area 19 and 20 politics that are airing on here. It is painfully obvious with what was said on here.
This isn't the place for it really. If you have a beef with Ryan as the chair and past history with the election take it up with Martin our chair. Have you done that?
You had every right to say all if this as it's your opinion. But why were you not at your spring SFAC meeting? All the right people were on that call. Same for you Profisher. If you have a beef show up and air it.
Anyways I really wish we could get passed this resentment within the Sooke area. Not sure how to fix it. How can we ever be effective as a group when we are divided on a small island?
Last edited:
Derby
Crew Member
pretty sad Profisher.. U carry on
We have let this thread marinate so people could blow off steam regarding the latest announcement from DFO/Fisheries Minister, but the time has come to lay off the personal back and forth and accusations and innuendo directed at the volunteers that put in countless hours, only to be slapped in the face by DFO and the Ministers office. The system they operate in is limiting at best but they don't deserve to be called out publicly for their efforts. If you don't like the system, change it by stepping up and initiating that change. Don't think the current representatives do enough, step up and take your best swing at DFO and the government, but the public commentary on individuals performance on this platform is now over.
Too many volunteers quit because they aren't thick skinned enough to take the abuse thrown their way by those that have lots of ideas and lots to say, but when the time comes to step forward and join the ranks for change, they somehow start staring at their toes. I have seen the drop in volunteerism in my 30 plus years in hockey and it is alarming. Pushing for change is always the right thing to do, but doing it in a constructive way is extremely important.
Brian
Too many volunteers quit because they aren't thick skinned enough to take the abuse thrown their way by those that have lots of ideas and lots to say, but when the time comes to step forward and join the ranks for change, they somehow start staring at their toes. I have seen the drop in volunteerism in my 30 plus years in hockey and it is alarming. Pushing for change is always the right thing to do, but doing it in a constructive way is extremely important.
Brian
We also need dfo to fully elaborate on the decisions they make. Posting on the dfo website with zero details leads to frustration and mistrust. Why would anyone believe that dfo based this minuscule opening on science? The science and catch data punches holes in their decisions year in and year out. They need to publicly and fully explain their decision making process and how it benefits the majority of Canadians. That’s who they work for! Hopefully SFAB can get a detailed account of the process that ended up here. I look forward to their answers. It’s no longer enough that dfo says this is for conservation when there clearly are other factors involved here. This is an election year if Trudope has his way, every decision made this tear is through that lense. So let’s hear the reasoning behind another partisan disaster for the Coast. In the meantime, Conservative Party of Canada, get iff your asses and start fighting for us. There’s 100,000 voters here disenfranchised
searun
Well-Known Member
Thanks Powerset, about the most productive post yet on this topic.
We need the Department Sr Managers to clearly articulate precisely what their advice to the Minister was, and the political rationale for not following the science where there are clearly science supported fishery opportunities that could have been implemented. DFO needs to spell out the path forward.
Here's what DFO can do IMO:
1) Define how we move from where we are today, toward achieving that balance between conservation objectives and achieving sustainable social and economic opportunities for all interested stakeholders.
2) Establish how we create a conservation (or migration) corridor to pass stocks of concern through all fishery areas (includes river) at times and places they are encountered based on best available stock assessment data?
3) Define what is an acceptable biological risk threshold - zero isn't an acceptable response for any stakeholder interest, so lets define what scientifically supported exploitation removals are possible without amounting to a biological risk to recovery. We need to know what the boundaries or goal posts look like so everyone (all stakeholders) have a clearly defined playbook of what falls into the art of the possible.
4) If there are barriers to implementing MSF, define what those are, what needs to be done to address them, and work with all stakeholders to address them....in other words we need a plan, clearly defined objectives, and realistic timelines.
We need the Department Sr Managers to clearly articulate precisely what their advice to the Minister was, and the political rationale for not following the science where there are clearly science supported fishery opportunities that could have been implemented. DFO needs to spell out the path forward.
Here's what DFO can do IMO:
1) Define how we move from where we are today, toward achieving that balance between conservation objectives and achieving sustainable social and economic opportunities for all interested stakeholders.
2) Establish how we create a conservation (or migration) corridor to pass stocks of concern through all fishery areas (includes river) at times and places they are encountered based on best available stock assessment data?
3) Define what is an acceptable biological risk threshold - zero isn't an acceptable response for any stakeholder interest, so lets define what scientifically supported exploitation removals are possible without amounting to a biological risk to recovery. We need to know what the boundaries or goal posts look like so everyone (all stakeholders) have a clearly defined playbook of what falls into the art of the possible.
4) If there are barriers to implementing MSF, define what those are, what needs to be done to address them, and work with all stakeholders to address them....in other words we need a plan, clearly defined objectives, and realistic timelines.
Old Fisher
Active Member
Obviously there are many exasperated fishers here, including all the hardworking volunteers of the various organizations. We need all those volunteers and, although many have differing opinions on the best courses of action, all have basically the same goals and we should try to remember that. Unfortunately those goals may be difficult to ever reach because we are negotiating (fighting) with DFO, a government department that answers to only one entity. The heads of DFO must, at the end of the day, satisfy not the public fishery or the ENGOS, etc but they have to do what the federal government wants. Our Liberal government's main concern is getting and maintaining power (votes) and those votes lie principally in eastern Canada. Reconciliation is popular in large urban centers and will continue to be pushed by the Liberals to the detriment of the west coast public fishery. They simply don't care as much about west coast fishers and businesses as they do about garnering votes in Ontario and Quebec. And that's not going to change. It doesn't help either that Justin's dream is to have his portrait hanging in the halls of the U.N. Headquarters. I believe this is another reason for the strong Liberal support for UNDRIP. Whether you favor reconciliation or not, it is obvious that it hurts the goals of the public fishery. Unless things change, we will continue to see recreational fishing closures (under the guise of conservation) while the same salmon that are supposedly being protected are swimming into river gill nets.
While all of this is going on, I can't help wondering why the B.C. Provincial government is so silent and contrite about the issue of BC businesses being hurt by closures. Should they not be reminding the Feds on a constant basis about the billions of dollars that recreational fishing brings into BC?
While all of this is going on, I can't help wondering why the B.C. Provincial government is so silent and contrite about the issue of BC businesses being hurt by closures. Should they not be reminding the Feds on a constant basis about the billions of dollars that recreational fishing brings into BC?
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
in the 2019 notice the restrictions were "Fraser River Chinook conservation concerns" https://notices.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?pg=view_notice&DOC_ID=220737&ID=all
In the 2021 notice the restrictions are "conservation concerns for at-risk Southern BC Chinook stocks" https://notices.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?pg=view_notice&DOC_ID=245124&ID=all
I think that is very purposeful wording change but what do I know.
The SFAB proposal was designed to avoid fraser stocks of concern. IMO DFO has changed the game and now its to say the resections are to avoid all stocks of concern. IMO this is just going to be the media red herring as the real reason is First Nation advice.
In the 2021 notice the restrictions are "conservation concerns for at-risk Southern BC Chinook stocks" https://notices.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?pg=view_notice&DOC_ID=245124&ID=all
I think that is very purposeful wording change but what do I know.
The SFAB proposal was designed to avoid fraser stocks of concern. IMO DFO has changed the game and now its to say the resections are to avoid all stocks of concern. IMO this is just going to be the media red herring as the real reason is First Nation advice.
Last edited:
Similar threads
