Prawn Closure

[LocalYokel]

It looks like DFO is considering closing prawns on Oct 1. I have never noticed the statement on the species regulation "Open until Oct 1"

https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/tidal-maree/a-s14-eng.html

 

[Noel]

Aaaandd....they also add that opening for Jan/feb/March is in question since they want to assess spawn, but they will open for commies by May o1. Ling will also close oct 1. The only thing rec fishers will be able to target is crabs. Area 17 anyway..

 

[ziggy]

It looks like DFO is considering closing prawns on Oct 1. I have never noticed the statement on the species regulation "Open until Oct 1"

https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/tidal-maree/a-s14-eng.html

If they keep closing the season down and applying limits will they still tout it commercially as a “sustainable fishery“. It seems misleading to try and sell the public on how sustainable it is all the while limiting public access to the fishery in order to keep commercial fishery open!

 

[SpringVelocity]

News to me it is closing, and haven't heard anything. We go through this every year. Pulse fishing in certain areas which is a good thing, and promotes spawners/growth.

I strongly still disagree with daily limit, and way it was handled my department so that part I agree.

 

[michael_reiber]

I also see closed october 1st tried searching through the fishery notices with no avail, could have scrolled right on past it though who knows. Does anyone have info on this?

 

[SpringVelocity]

Area 17, 19, and 23 is below. It's open until end of year. Pulse fishing in effect in some areas just like previous years. All the other areas are open without pulse fishing. No decision on closure after Jan.1st as far as I know yet.

Category(s):
RECREATIONAL - Shellfish
Subject:
FN0859-RECREATIONAL - Shellfish - Prawn and Shrimp - Areas 17, 19, 23 - Closures


Recreational Prawn and Shrimp by Trap Fishers are advised that the harvest of prawns and shrimp by trap, ring net, or spear while diving, will close in the following Subareas as described in the Pacific Fishery Management Area Regulations:

1. Subareas 17-5, 17-6, and 17-9 (Stuart Channel);
2. Subareas 19-7 to 19-12 inclusive (Saanich Inlet);
3. Subareas 23-1 to 23-3 inclusive (Alberni Inlet).

These areas will be closed for the following periods:

from 00:01 hours September 8 until 23:59 hours September 15, 2020;
from 00:01 hours October 1 until 23:59 hours October 15, 2020;
from 00:01 hours November 1 until 23:59 hours November 15, 2020;
from 00:01 December 1 until 23:59 hours December 15, 2020;
from 00:01 hours January 1, 2021, until further notice.

Decisions will be made and announced in December on the possibility for further openings or the need for winter closure from January 1 through to March 31, 2021 to allow the prawn spawning cycle to complete. The 3 month winter closure protects large, mature egg-bearing female prawns as their eggs prepare to hatch.

All other coastal areas remain open to the harvest of prawns and shrimp by trap, ring net, or spear while diving until further notice, except the following protected areas which are closed year round:

Strait of Georgia and Howe Sound Glass Sponge Reef Marine Refuges;
Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site Strict Protection Zones;
Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound Glass Sponge Reefs Marine Protected Areas;
Race Rocks Ecological Reserve and Area of Interest (AOI);
Whytecliffe Park;
Porteau Cove;
Point Atkinson; and
Vancouver Harbour between Lions Gate Bridge and Ironworkers Memorial Bridge (also known as Second Narrows Bridge).

Variation Order No. 2020-RCT-273.


Daily, possession and trap limits are in effect coast-wide.

All prawns carrying eggs externally on the underside of the tail must be returned to the water immediately and in the manner that causes the least harm.

Refer to the B.C. Sport Fishing Guide for further information
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/index-eng.html

To plan ahead, refer to the following website: Seasonal Prawn Closures
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/shellfish-coquillages-eng.html#prawn

Information for BC Recreational Fishers on the Coronavirus (COVID-19):
https://notices.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?pg=view_notice&DOC_ID=231503&ID=all

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Laurie Convey 250-756-7233 laurie.convey@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Mike Kattilakoski 250-756-7315 mike.kattilakoski@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
David Fogtmann 250-339-3799 david.fogtmann@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Fisheries & Oceans Operations Center - FN0859
Sent August 21, 2020 at 1200

 

[SpringVelocity]

Here is a reminder of the change in daily prawn limits.

Fishery Notice
Category(s):
RECREATIONAL - Shellfish
Subject:
FN0186-RECREATIONAL - Shellfish - Prawn and Shrimp - Reduced Daily Limit


Effective April 1, 2020, the recreational daily quota (daily limit) for Shrimp,
including Prawn, is reduced from 200 to 125.

The combined possession limit is 250, which is twice the daily quota (daily
limit).

This is a precautionary fisheries management decision made to provide stable
access to the recreational fishery for the future.

In recent years, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada has been making
adjustments to how the prawn fishery is managed under a conservation framework
guided by the Prawn and Shrimp by trap Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for
all sectors in support of conservation and sustainable management. This
adjustment to the recreational daily limit is responding to increased interest
and effort in the recreational prawn fishery.

The Department has consulted on reducing the recreational limit with the Sport
Fishing Advisory Board over the past four years. This is the first time the
recreational daily limit has decreased since 1996. Reducing the daily limit is
part of a broader effort to ensure responsible fishing practices and
sustainable prawn harvests throughout the BC coast.

Daily, possession and trap limits are in effect coast-wide.

Variation Order 2020-RFQ-067


Please consult the online BC Sport Fish Guide on our web page at
www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/index-eng.html to confirm the latest
information on:
-species regulations;
-open areas where these species may be retained;
-gear restrictions; and
-protected areas where these species may not be retained.

For planning ahead, please refer to the following website: Seasonal Prawn
Closures
www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/shellfish-coquillages-eng.html#prawn

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Laurie Convey 250-756-7233 laurie.convey@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Mike Kattilakoski 250-756-7315 mike.kattilakoski@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
David Fogtmann 250-339-3799 david.fogtmann@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Greg Hornby 250-286-5886 greg.hornby@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

 

[Bryan Allen]

And this from the notice.... "

The Department has consulted on reducing the recreational limit with the Sport
Fishing Advisory Board over the past four years BS--- they didn't consult. In spite of the SFAB putting forth many reasons why this was not necessary, they just went ahead and reallocated prawns from the public fishery to the FNs and commercial fishers.

 

[Noel]

Area 17, 19, and 23 is below. It's open until end of year.
/QUOTE]

well from my POV it’s open until Oct 1st.
Correct me if I’m wrong

 

[SpringVelocity]

It's not correct. It's not closed 1st of Oct. Pulse fishing in some areas of 17.

 

[wildmanyeah]

And this from the notice.... "

The Department has consulted on reducing the recreational limit with the Sport
Fishing Advisory Board over the past four years BS--- they didn't consult. In spite of the SFAB putting forth many reasons why this was not necessary, they just went ahead and reallocated prawns from the public fishery to the FNs and commercial fishers.

in fairness I did here that they did consult the upper levels of the SFAB for a few years but really dropped it in the lower level at last Minuit with no consulting.

On of my big issues with the SFAB is when DFO consults the executive committee or the various committees like chinook or halibut, shellfish and the info never trickles down to the SFAC level. Then they go out publically and state they have consulted us. Honestly it makes participating at the SFAC level pretty pointless. I guess you could say the point is to elect a chair who is then suppose to go to higher levels to represent you.

now you could say that the SFAC level can create motions that get escalated up. However someone a few years ago shared with me draft executive Minutes where they talk about having like 36 pages of motions that DFO has not even looked at.

this is not a knock at the hard working volunteers, this is a knock at DFO and how they handle the bord. Really seems like a one way consultation and just of an information dump.

 

[searun]

in fairness I did here that they did consult the upper levels of the SFAB for a few years but really dropped it in the lower level at last Minuit with no consulting.

On of my big issues with the SFAB is when DFO consults the executive committee or the various committees like chinook or halibut, shellfish and the info never trickles down to the SFAC level. Then they go out publically and state they have consulted us. Honestly it makes participating at the SFAC level pretty pointless. I guess you could say the point is to elect a chair who is then suppose to go to higher levels to represent you.

now you could say that the SFAC level can create motions that get escalated up. However someone a few years ago shared with me draft executive Minutes where they talk about having like 36 pages of motions that DFO has not even looked at.

this is not a knock at the hard working volunteers, this is a knock at DFO and how they handle the bord. Really seems like a one way consultation and just of an information dump.

For the record, there were ongoing discussions within the SFAB and DFO regarding the issue of Prawn limits in the 2 years prior to the decision. Those discussions however hadn't arrived at any form of conclusion nor was there any sense of "urgency" or imminent issue until DFO announced at a February MB meeting their intentions of proceeding with lowering daily and possession limits for the upcoming season. DFO intended to announce the regulation change in April of that year, however following a strong SFAB request, allowed the SFAB to engage the SFAC's and bring forward motions to the next MB meeting in April. That led to a long delay in DFO moving forward with their eventual decision and announcement regarding Prawn daily limits in the following fall. So to say that there was not an opportunity for input is not precisely correct.

Again, worth repeating - The SFAB asked and received a time extension to engage the SFAC's for input regarding how to handle the DFO request. Bear in mind the first proposal from DFO was to reduce the daily limit to 100. Following input from the SFAC's the SFAB took the position that we "advised" the Department that if they wished to proceed with a reduction, that our recommendation was 165, and that there were other conservation options available to DFO is the issue is achieving sustainability. Several options were advanced.

Was the outcome satisfactory?..well it doesn't take rocket surgery to figure that out. Notwithstanding, as they say it is what it is. We now have to move on to other issues in managing the Public Prawn fishery. This October 1 closure scare is totally news to me, and the Prawn Advisory Board meeting (multi-sectoral meeting) doesn't take place until October 8th, so frankly I do not believe an October 1, coast-wide closure without any input from the Sectors and particularly the SFAB is in the works. If someone has specific evidence that Oct 1 closure is indeed a fact, please share the specific details.

 

[Bryan Allen]

Pat-- unfortunately WMY is correct. " Really seems like a one way consultation and just of an information dump." Yes thats all "consultation" with DFO has become. The paper put forward by the Shellfish Committee to DFO asking for biological justification for cuts to the public fishery was brushed aside. As I get older I see a Department that is obviously taking direction from above and too damn bad for us.

 

[searun]

Pat-- unfortunately WMY is correct. " Really seems like a one way consultation and just of an information dump." Yes thats all "consultation" with DFO has become. The paper put forward by the Shellfish Committee to DFO asking for biological justification for cuts to the public fishery was brushed aside. As I get older I see a Department that is obviously taking direction from above and too damn bad for us.

No argument from me on that. As we all know this government, and now those whom work for it are myopically focused on one word....starts with an "R" ends in no soup for you Recreational fishery.