Steelhead Voice's from Bob Hooton
- Thread starter cohochinook
- Start date
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
For you that may have forgotten or did not know, this is becoming a possibility?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moran_Dam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moran_Dam
searun
Well-Known Member
Well unfortunately the future of IFS was sealed when the population dropped below 1000 fish, likely the Limit Reference Point where serious measures should have been enacted to save the genetic stock. That was well over a decade ago, and to try now given the stock is clearly reaching functional extirpation is sadly TOO LATE. Much more robust efforts, including protecting the genetic stock through a fish culture hail mary was required. Now it's simply too late. Relying on "wild only" in face of serious threats to these fish from all sides was a tactical error. Not to worry, DFO is going down the Province of BC's management approach of Do Nothing by following the Wild Salmon Policy all the way to extirpation. Steelhead are simply the canary in the coal mine that we ignored until it was too late.
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
Here's the reply Bob Hooton got from DFO to his letter to Rebecca Reid in the link:
Mr. Hooton
I’ve been asked to respond on behalf of Rebecca Reid.
Thank you for the email regarding Fraser River Chum fisheries. The Department is also concerned about the low returns of Chum Salmon this year however the expected return of Fraser Chum, while low, is not the lowest observed in the historical record and is expected to be above what the Department currently considers the lower biological threshold to be (500,000). The escapement goal of 800,000 is a target that was developed with maximum sustainable yield as the main outcome, and is not a critical threshold required to ensure the conservation of Chum Salmon for future generations.
We also understand the concern for any additional impacts however the Food Social and Ceremonial fisheries that have occurred are consistent with the management approaches laid out in the South Coast Salmon Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) for both Chum Salmon and Steelhead, as well as the Minister of Fisheries’ decision to implement a 27-day moving window closure for this priority FSC fishery. Due to low abundance of Chum throughout Southern BC in 2019, the limited commercial chum fisheries that were anticipated for 2019 have not proceeded, and Interior Fraser Steelhead have therefore had almost no exposure to net or troll fisheries in the Fraser River or in marine approach areas, including Nitinat and Johnstone Strait.
It is worth noting that the Department undertakes widespread consultation on the IFMP, and the management objectives contained therein, to seek input and advice on the approaches identified to address stocks of concern. Similarly, there was considerable effort put into consultations on the listing of Interior Fraser Steelhead that informed the management actions announced by the Minister earlier on this year. I would ask that you continue to participate actively in that process, through the SFAB if appropriate, to raise these concerns for potential inclusion in the 2020-21 IFMP.
To your question on separation between FSC and sales fisheries, there is no allowance for sale of Chum Salmon caught in any fisheries currently occurring within the Fraser River. I have forwarded your concern to our Conservation and Protection staff and would ask that, should you become aware of potential illegal activity, that you report that through our Observe, Record, Report line at 1-800-465-4336 or via email at dfo.orr-ons.mpo@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Andrew J L Thomson
Regional Director | Directeur régional
Fisheries Management Branch | Direction de la gestion des pêches
Pacific Region | Région du Pacifique
Fisheries & Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada
Mr. Hooton
I’ve been asked to respond on behalf of Rebecca Reid.
Thank you for the email regarding Fraser River Chum fisheries. The Department is also concerned about the low returns of Chum Salmon this year however the expected return of Fraser Chum, while low, is not the lowest observed in the historical record and is expected to be above what the Department currently considers the lower biological threshold to be (500,000). The escapement goal of 800,000 is a target that was developed with maximum sustainable yield as the main outcome, and is not a critical threshold required to ensure the conservation of Chum Salmon for future generations.
We also understand the concern for any additional impacts however the Food Social and Ceremonial fisheries that have occurred are consistent with the management approaches laid out in the South Coast Salmon Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) for both Chum Salmon and Steelhead, as well as the Minister of Fisheries’ decision to implement a 27-day moving window closure for this priority FSC fishery. Due to low abundance of Chum throughout Southern BC in 2019, the limited commercial chum fisheries that were anticipated for 2019 have not proceeded, and Interior Fraser Steelhead have therefore had almost no exposure to net or troll fisheries in the Fraser River or in marine approach areas, including Nitinat and Johnstone Strait.
It is worth noting that the Department undertakes widespread consultation on the IFMP, and the management objectives contained therein, to seek input and advice on the approaches identified to address stocks of concern. Similarly, there was considerable effort put into consultations on the listing of Interior Fraser Steelhead that informed the management actions announced by the Minister earlier on this year. I would ask that you continue to participate actively in that process, through the SFAB if appropriate, to raise these concerns for potential inclusion in the 2020-21 IFMP.
To your question on separation between FSC and sales fisheries, there is no allowance for sale of Chum Salmon caught in any fisheries currently occurring within the Fraser River. I have forwarded your concern to our Conservation and Protection staff and would ask that, should you become aware of potential illegal activity, that you report that through our Observe, Record, Report line at 1-800-465-4336 or via email at dfo.orr-ons.mpo@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Andrew J L Thomson
Regional Director | Directeur régional
Fisheries Management Branch | Direction de la gestion des pêches
Pacific Region | Région du Pacifique
Fisheries & Oceans Canada | Pêches et Océans Canada
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
So we know that 800k is the number needed to have decent fisheries in the future but it the FN want to go out, fish and ruin that opportunity for everyone else they can.
Ah got it.
Ah got it.
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
Add to it that they don't give a dam about interior Fraser steelhead!
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
Here's Bob's response to Andrew Thomson at DFO:
Thank you for your response Mr. Thompson. I don’t wish to be unreasonable here but I have to ask, do you actually believe you have addressed any of my questions reasonably or adequately?
The hallmark of DFO in recent times has been to do exactly what you have done here – delay, deny, deflect and make up some new excuse(s) for the issues and failures brought to your attention. By now you should understand the reason steelhead advocates and conservationists still bother to write letters to your RDG and Minister is not because they expect credible answers or any measurable change to the way DFO conducts business on their behalf (remember, you are public servants). Rather, it is to expose the hypocrisy and willful blindness of DFO in the prosecution of anything to do with steelhead. Your response just adds to the evidence.
By DFO’s own published statements and your own response to me you clearly admit there is a conservation concern for chum salmon, so much so that all commercial fisheries were curtailed. Prior to that DFO took numerous measures to conserve chinook and sockeye that also exhibited serious conservation problems. I submit those measures were not referenced in your infamous IFMP but were developed, in-season, as the seriousness of the conservation concern emerged. But, is the same standard ever applied to steelhead? Here you have the worst ever return of ENDANGERED Interior Fraser Steelhead and all you can come up with is to regurgitate your IFMP that you have somehow deluded yourselves into believing was endorsed by your “clients”. You obviously believe the SFAB and the IFMP cover the consultation commitments of DFO relative to IFS. I know of no one in the steelhead conservation community who shares that view. Forgive me for suggesting I know a few more of those people than all of you in DFO put together. And, please, the chum conservation driven measures in Johnstone Strait or Nitinat had nothing to do with IFS and wouldn't ever have done anything other than serve up a few more IFS to in-river First Nations gill nets anyway.
It is beyond all of us who have been involved in IFS conservation how you can put in writing that you sought widespread consultation and advice on approaches to address IFS conservation and that there was considerable consultation on the potential listing of IFS that informed the management actions announced by your Minister. Failure to list IFS under Canada’s Species At Risk Act was bad enough but are you trying to tell us you were unaware that DFO staff had manipulated the science community recommendations regarding the most appropriate conservation measures? Shame on you.
I note you have, once again, ignored the question of gill net mortality for incidentally caught steelhead. The IFMP seems to be silent in that regard as well. Please enlighten all privy to this correspondence how gill net fishing results in conservation of IFS. It is unconscionable that DFO continues to support gill nets operating in the confined migration corridors for IFS when those fish exhibit the most critical and widely publicized fisheries steelhead conservation issue in the history of British Columbia. Economic opportunity fisheries for pink salmon right on top of IFS run timing are not much better. Show me the evidence of any public consultation on those fisheries or any reference to them in your IFMP. Need I forward you more of my collection of photos of lower Fraser beach seining operations?
I note also you advised you had forwarded my concern about fish sales to C&P staff. Perhaps you can share with us what steps they took to address the Craig’s List ad that I provided to RDG Reid on Oct 25. Persistent rumors of chum roe being sold for $25/lb should also be of interest to C&P.
Lastly, I leave you with one more example of DFO hypocrisy. Consider the following quote from another of the plethora of DFO web sites:
“The Government of Canada is committed to open government, which is being pursued along three streams: open data, open information and open dialogue.
In support of these open government principles, we are providing open access to information about how taxpayer dollars are spent so that you are better able to hold Parliament, the government and public sector officials accountable.”
I am particularly interested in how that applies to DFO stonewalling every attempt to see just one example of the multitude of communal licenses and conditions therein that apply to the management of fisheries directly impacting the endangered public resource known as IFS.
Bob Hooton
Thank you for your response Mr. Thompson. I don’t wish to be unreasonable here but I have to ask, do you actually believe you have addressed any of my questions reasonably or adequately?
The hallmark of DFO in recent times has been to do exactly what you have done here – delay, deny, deflect and make up some new excuse(s) for the issues and failures brought to your attention. By now you should understand the reason steelhead advocates and conservationists still bother to write letters to your RDG and Minister is not because they expect credible answers or any measurable change to the way DFO conducts business on their behalf (remember, you are public servants). Rather, it is to expose the hypocrisy and willful blindness of DFO in the prosecution of anything to do with steelhead. Your response just adds to the evidence.
By DFO’s own published statements and your own response to me you clearly admit there is a conservation concern for chum salmon, so much so that all commercial fisheries were curtailed. Prior to that DFO took numerous measures to conserve chinook and sockeye that also exhibited serious conservation problems. I submit those measures were not referenced in your infamous IFMP but were developed, in-season, as the seriousness of the conservation concern emerged. But, is the same standard ever applied to steelhead? Here you have the worst ever return of ENDANGERED Interior Fraser Steelhead and all you can come up with is to regurgitate your IFMP that you have somehow deluded yourselves into believing was endorsed by your “clients”. You obviously believe the SFAB and the IFMP cover the consultation commitments of DFO relative to IFS. I know of no one in the steelhead conservation community who shares that view. Forgive me for suggesting I know a few more of those people than all of you in DFO put together. And, please, the chum conservation driven measures in Johnstone Strait or Nitinat had nothing to do with IFS and wouldn't ever have done anything other than serve up a few more IFS to in-river First Nations gill nets anyway.
It is beyond all of us who have been involved in IFS conservation how you can put in writing that you sought widespread consultation and advice on approaches to address IFS conservation and that there was considerable consultation on the potential listing of IFS that informed the management actions announced by your Minister. Failure to list IFS under Canada’s Species At Risk Act was bad enough but are you trying to tell us you were unaware that DFO staff had manipulated the science community recommendations regarding the most appropriate conservation measures? Shame on you.
I note you have, once again, ignored the question of gill net mortality for incidentally caught steelhead. The IFMP seems to be silent in that regard as well. Please enlighten all privy to this correspondence how gill net fishing results in conservation of IFS. It is unconscionable that DFO continues to support gill nets operating in the confined migration corridors for IFS when those fish exhibit the most critical and widely publicized fisheries steelhead conservation issue in the history of British Columbia. Economic opportunity fisheries for pink salmon right on top of IFS run timing are not much better. Show me the evidence of any public consultation on those fisheries or any reference to them in your IFMP. Need I forward you more of my collection of photos of lower Fraser beach seining operations?
I note also you advised you had forwarded my concern about fish sales to C&P staff. Perhaps you can share with us what steps they took to address the Craig’s List ad that I provided to RDG Reid on Oct 25. Persistent rumors of chum roe being sold for $25/lb should also be of interest to C&P.
Lastly, I leave you with one more example of DFO hypocrisy. Consider the following quote from another of the plethora of DFO web sites:
“The Government of Canada is committed to open government, which is being pursued along three streams: open data, open information and open dialogue.
In support of these open government principles, we are providing open access to information about how taxpayer dollars are spent so that you are better able to hold Parliament, the government and public sector officials accountable.”
I am particularly interested in how that applies to DFO stonewalling every attempt to see just one example of the multitude of communal licenses and conditions therein that apply to the management of fisheries directly impacting the endangered public resource known as IFS.
Bob Hooton
littlechucky
Crew Member
That is a phenomenal response.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
The question should be is why isnt the FSC window the same as everyone else?
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Here you have the worst ever return of ENDANGERED Interior Fraser Steelhead and all you can come up with is to regurgitate your IFMPthat you have somehow deluded yourselves into believing was endorsed by your “clients”. You obviously believe the SFAB and the IFMP cover theconsultation commitments of DFO relative to IFS. I know of no one in the steelhead conservation community who shares that view.
Let’s be very clear here, DFO in fact did not want to discuss Steehead at any SFAB meetings as they stated it was a provincial responsibility and the Province never sent representatives to the SFAB meetings to discuss their responsibilities.
The reason they said they did not want to is it cost money and time and eventually repliés to questions.
The Steelhead Conservation groups that Bob is talking about had a seat at the SFAB table, but left when the Province never showed up or had any interest.
By the way Bob was in the government at that time, but sat for a number of years on the North Coast SFAB.
Here you have the worst ever return of ENDANGERED Interior Fraser Steelhead and all you can come up with is to regurgitate your IFMPthat you have somehow deluded yourselves into believing was endorsed by your “clients”. You obviously believe the SFAB and the IFMP cover theconsultation commitments of DFO relative to IFS. I know of no one in the steelhead conservation community who shares that view.
Let’s be very clear here, DFO in fact did not want to discuss Steehead at any SFAB meetings as they stated it was a provincial responsibility and the Province never sent representatives to the SFAB meetings to discuss their responsibilities.
The reason they said they did not want to is it cost money and time and eventually repliés to questions.
The Steelhead Conservation groups that Bob is talking about had a seat at the SFAB table, but left when the Province never showed up or had any interest.
By the way Bob was in the government at that time, but sat for a number of years on the North Coast SFAB.
Last edited:
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Never voted on anything having to do with steelhead, so dont no what DFO is trying to say.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Derby
Crew Member
the current provincial government has made the funding available..liberal government never did... yes steel head have been in the ******* for over 20 years... the ministry seems to currently be just happy to sit back & do nothing but monitor the steelheads total demise .. Seems there are fishing groups that support that philosophy until it has come apparent that there is no turning back now from that path... I do find it ironic how those same folks are screaming now... some have put the there time in and some have not.... stuck in the same philosophy unwilling to try different options to save the last of a once a great fish & even a more so a greater place were many of us recharge our souls and reconnected to the river....
Last edited:
searun
Well-Known Member
Well, DFO has their own version of Thompson Steelhead....its Interior Fraser Chinook. I predict this stock will, if DFO follows the same path as the Province did with Steelhead, take us all down the long winding road of extirpation. The story line goes something like....sprinkle of SARA, panic of a recovery plan, realization there is no inexpensive fix, quick lets do something to look like we are doing something...enter - more fishing closures for the public fishery. Then, after a decade of fishing closures that effectively kill the public fishery, the realization that none of the fishing closures actually worked, and then....OMG, the social and economic impacts of these closures are staggering....we need to find a way to re-build the Public Fishery.....ergo, full circle. Hoping wiser minds can see the obvious and stop history from being written.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
We know the story already it’s called Interior Fraser coho.
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
I had reached out to Jill about having Bob on the show. Great that she's giving coverage to this important issue!
Similar threads
