DFO Draft Policy on Bycatch

There is a Draft Policy on Bycatch coming from DFO. It can be seen here.
Our response is copied below.
Feedback is accepted until Feb.29 at Consultations@DFO-MPO.GC.CA


DFO Discussions
Fisheries & Oceans Canada
13th Floor North
200 Kent Street, Mail Station 13N159
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0E6

RE: Draft Policy Framework on Managing Bycatch and Discards

The North Coast Steelhead Alliance is a group committed to securing the escapement of wild steelhead in sufficient numbers to sustain healthy wild steelhead stocks and a robust sport fishery in northwestern British Columbia. The NCSA is dedicated to working with all levels of government, industry, community and stakeholder groups to preserve Skeena steelhead.

Our submission today will focus on the issue of interception of Skeena steelhead by commercial fisheries and how it relates to the Draft Policy on Managing Bycatch and Discards.

By far the biggest problem we have this document is the overarching consideration that commercial fisheries that inflict these bycatch/discard damages take precedence over and above everything else. This document is on fishery bycatch and discards, written by the Department of Fisheries, whose role is to facilitate commercial fishing activity. It seems zero consideration has been given to not sanctioning the fisheries in the first place if impacts are too negative or the impacts outweigh the benefits. It appears commercial activity clearly dominates and actually skews the Department's consideration of what is the best use of fisheries resources for Canadian society, when in many cases this is just not true anymore, such as with Skeena steelhead.

Moreover, while Conservation is supposed to be the prime management directive, the Department completely misinterprets one key definition of conservation: that being 'not to waste'. In the Skeena example, this equates to the Department allowing and even facilitating the killing of large percentages of the yearly returns of very valuable Skeena summer run steelhead in order to allow barely viable gillnet fisheries to occur. This is a form of social welfare, not fishery management, carried out on the backs of both Skeena steelhead themselves and the upriver sportfishery tourism industry that relies on them.

Skeena steelhead are worth literally thousands of dollar each to the in-river sportfishing tourism industry that has grown over the last 30 years to out-contribute the commercial fishery in gross income to the overall economy of the region. (* Blewitt; 2008 Economic Dimensions of the Skeena Watershed Salmonid Fisheries).

Why are we as a society allowing completely non-selective gillnet fisheries, those that have no hope of minimising or ameliorating their impacts on bycatch, to continue to inflict such negative impacts on a species and a successful, green industry that relies on them?

How does your Draft Policy answer those types of questions and concerns? The following passage from the 'Guiding Principles' section is one of few to mention socio-economic benefits and relative contributions the resource makes to Canadian society, yet we submit this is sheer lip service to any other use other than commercial fishing exploitation. We come to this belief from decades of seeing and experiencing the results of commercial fishing bycatch on our valuable steelhead. Consistently, Skeena steelhead come out on the bottom of management decisions regarding commercial fisheries and we see no reason for any of that to change within this new Draft Policy.

The fishery is a common property resource to be managed for the benefit of all Canadians, consistent with conservation objectives, the constitutional protection afforded Aboriginal and treaty rights, and the relative contributions that various uses of the resource make to Canadian society, including socio-economic benefits to communities.

Year after year, we see the Department make the value judgement that allowing non-selective gillnet fisheries, which kill thousands of valuable Skeena steelhead, is an acceptable trade-off. Even when confronted with hard economic data from truly independent sources which clearly state the economic disparity between the two activities, the Department blatantly ignores the information, the impacts, and allows the bycatch killing to continue. Where in this Draft Policy is any verbiage to suggest this attitude from the Department will change?

Where in your Draft Policy is there verbiage which allows a fulsome discussion of the cost-benefit considerations of allowing various fisheries? Where is the Policy to guide Managers on reaching socio-economic decisions where commercial fishing is not the best use of the public's fishery resources?

The Department's history of trying to manage the bycatch/discard issue of non-selective gillnetting by dressing up gillnets in short length forms, short set lengths, mesh size configurations, and on and on ad nuaseum are truly pathetic attempts to keep an outdated and outmoded method of fish capture alive at the great expense of valuable steelhead and sportfishery businesses that rely on them.

We dont beleive new policy papers like this one will deal with the core issues of Skeena steelhead bycatch. The root causes are the systemic, built-in bias of a bureaucratic department whose sole function it seems is to facilitate commercial fishing at any cost. Add to that industry bias, a geographic bias of basing the Department's office in the chronically depressed town that relies heavily on commercial fishing and shoreworker jobs and you have a recipe that no new Policy will overcome with regard to fairly managing the Skeena steelhead issue.

We have just learned this Draft Policy available on-line, with feedback and comments invited until the end of February, has actually already been re-written and accepted. This just typifies the Department's approach to new Policy; first, the Policy itself is completely lacking, and second, your Department had already written the real final document without considering any public input.

And finally, we would sum up this Draft Policy as just one more in a long line of Departmental verbiage that will be ignored by Managers on the north coast as they continue to do whatever they want in terms of allowing non-selective fisheries to continue. This Bycatch Policy will join the Wild Salmon Policy; the Selective Fishing Policy, and dozens of other DFO policies that sit on shelves completely ignored by north coast fishery managers. We wonder how much public funding was wasted in this paper process exercise when very little, if any, benefit to Skeena steelhead will reach the water?

Yours

Keith Douglas
Chairperson
North Coast Steelhead Alliance
Smithers, BC
http://www.ncsteelheadalliance.ca

Read More...

News release on Alaskan fisheries and MSC

Interesting news release here regarding the MSC Certification of Alaskan fisheries.

We know southeastern Alaskan fisheries are responsible for intercepting large numbers of BC bound salmon and steelhead every year.  This is good work by these groups in questioning the blanket Certification of their fisheries as sustainable by MSC without even doing any follow-up work.

Seems to be more proof that the whole fishery 'certification' process is just a consumer marketing ploy rather than a process to achieve truly sustainable fisheries.

Canadian Conservationists Challenge “Unsustainable” Alaskan Salmon Fisheries

Posted by Trish Hall on January 11, 2012

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – Jan. 11, 2012) - Three British Columbian conservation groups are taking aim at Alaskan salmon fisheries that are damaging BC fish stocks and violating conditions of the Marine Stewardship Council’s eco-certification.
Raincoast Conservation Foundation, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, and Watershed Watch Salmon Society today said they would challenge the current recertification of these fisheries by the MSC – the world’s foremost eco-certification label for sustainable fisheries. The groups cite interception of Canadian-bound salmon and steelhead from at-risk populations as a key concern, along with “reckless” ocean-ranching practices – a form of fish farming not practiced in BC.
Eleven years ago, BC marine conservationists objected strongly to Alaskan salmon fisheries being given blanket eco-certification by the MSC.
“It was highly irresponsible,” said Aaron Hill, a biologist with Watershed Watch. “We were told that it would be okay because the fishery would have to meet several conditions for improvement in order to retain the certification, but now a recent surveillance audit by the MSC concedes that as many as 19 conditions of the certification have not yet been met. The Alaskans have had a over a decade to get their act together.”
“Some Alaskan fisheries, like Bristol Bay, are among the best-managed salmon fisheries in the world,” said Greg Knox, Executive Director of the SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, “But Alaskan fishery managers are not being nearly cautious enough with their harvest of Canadian wild salmon populations, including sockeye and chum from the Nass and Skeena Rivers in northwest BC, and Vancouver Island chinook salmon.”
The conservation concerns were announced prior to Pacific Salmon Treaty meetings between Canada and the United States this week in Portland, Oregon. The Treaty is meant to ensure that neither country over-fishes the other’s salmon stocks, but the conservation groups claim the Canadian federal government is not doing enough to protect at-risk salmon stocks from being overfished as they migrate through Alaskan waters to their natal streams in BC and the Yukon.
The groups also say Ottawa is turning a blind eye to Alaskan ocean-ranching operations that every year flood the North Pacific ocean with billions of farm-raised salmon which compete with wild Canadian salmon for limited food supplies.
“Consumers should reasonably expect the MSC to enforce their own eco-certification, and Canadians should expect their government to protect their salmon from foreign over-harvest,” stated Mr. Hill. “We hope that some public attention to this problem will prod our government, and the MSC will step up and help us push for some much-needed reforms in Alaskan fisheries management.”

Contact Information

Watershed Watch Salmon Society
Aaron Hill
1-250-818-0054
hillfish@telus.net
SkeenaWild Conservation Trust
Greg Knox
1-250-615-1990
gregk@skeenawild.org
Raincoast Conservation Foundation
Chris Genovali
1-250-655-1229 ext. 225
chris@raincoast.org

Read More...

Editorial on Fraser Salmon and DFO

Here is an example synopsis of the current situation down on the Fraser system regarding sockeye salmon management and DFO by Dr craig Orr of Watershed watch.

Just substitute Skeena for Fraser and all the same criticism applies. Again, the call...actually the public DEMAND for the federal government to reform DFO is loud and clear.

Read More...

Salmongate....? DFO caught in a mess

Check out The Salmon Guy blog for interesting posts on the information coming out of the Cohen Commission right now. It is becoming more apparent DFO was not completely truthful in dealing with this salmon virus issue.

Also a story on the Globe & Mail about DFO intimidating scientists.

For anyone with experience dealing DFO on Skeena issue this wont come as any surprise at all. DFO is the ultimate example of: "...were not lying...were just not telling you the whole truth..."

And after reading Bob Hooton's Skeena Steelhead book, we could have our own SteelheadGate. As Hooton presents numerous examples of DFO blatant disregard for steelhead.

Read More...

Editorial on DFO by the Courier-Islander

Interesting editorial from the Courier-Islander regarding DFO:http://www.canada.com/shores+malfeasance/5869518/story.html
We tend to agree with the writer, this is a good time to shake up DFO completely. This line is classic: The ministry has become nothing but a laughing stock, a stand up comedian on the world stage of fisheries management.

The shores of malfeasance

Editorial, Courier-Islander

Published: Friday, December 16, 2011

One would wonder how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could hand out layoff notices to 200 scientists at such a critical time. But, then again, it only seems natural. Natural in that DFO has long since been changed from a protector and nurturer of things oceanic, to a simply oligarchic political poison.
It has been run by the few at the top who know more about boot licking than fisheries. The chosen few have made decisions not on common sense, but on puerile and punitive whims. The ministry has become nothing but a laughing stock, a stand up comedian on the world stage of fisheries management.
One of the most vital commissions in the history of west coast fisheries is going to be wrapping up soon and thereafter produce a report that won't say everything is fine. Everyone knows it will be harsh, it will point fingers and, hopefully, give some direction to solve this sorry saga. And a DFO with 200 fewer scientists won't be able to handle it. Maybe, this will be DFO's escape clause.

But there is a solution, even without waiting to consider the Cohen commission's findings. Take the bottom 80 per cent of the employees of DFO and let them manage the place. Or better yet, give complete and total control of our west coast fisheries to the province.

Cutting 200 jobs for fisheries scientists is an easy thing to do if you live in Ottawa. Managing it properly isn't.
We need to follow the state of Alaska and take back decisions on our fisheries, the jobs it creates, the natural wealth it hands us and the better world it makes.
Alaskans don't listen to Washington when it comes to cleaning their fish. So why should we listen to Ottawa, a bureaucracy that is only interested in cutting out the heart and letting the carcass rot on the shores of malfeasance.
© Campbell River Courier-Islander 2011

Read More...

Atlantic Salmon Article of interest

Excellent article by Orri Vigfusson of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund outlinging the need to manage fish stocks for abundance not basic minimum spawning requirements. Obviously something we need to continue pushing here in BC as commercial industry and DFO always try to defer to the bare minimums required for any stock.

Northern Ireland forced to change salmon policy

Font size:

Orri 23/06/2010 11:48:00

A Milestone for the Foyle; Entering a New Era where salmon abundance is the target, not minimum levels
On 14th June 2010 The Loughs Agency, Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, announced that due to a collapse in the salmon stock of the River Finn, all netting in the greater Foyle river system area would be stopped for a minimum of four years to promote stock recovery. Angling would be permitted, but only on a catch and release basis, as a result of a previously agreed protocol requested by anglers to help guard against poaching and pollution, and agreed by The Loughs Agency.

This represents a milestone in the development of salmon fisheries policy in the North West of Ireland; the Foyle system is a cross-border river system administered on a joint basis by two sovereign Governments, The Republic of Ireland, and The United Kingdom.

This change in policy has come about to protect stocks, but also because a failure to act by the Loughs Agency would have rendered The Republic of Ireland and The United Kingdom liable to infraction proceedings from the EU for breach of the Habitats Directive.

The history of salmon policy in the North of Ireland is not an advertisement for good Government. It has been characterised in the early years by a bureaucratic neglect to the extent that when NASF asked the responsible senior Civil Servant to outline Government policy on salmon, he was unable to do so, simply because no policy existed.

In the face of falling stocks, through pressure from anglers led by NASF and others, Government in time were forced to set out their policy on salmon - which amounted to neglect of duty. Instead of looking at the problem, Government simply allowed mixed stock interceptory netting to continue largely unhindered.

It is an interesting commentary on salmon policy in the North of Ireland that Governments always end up doing what NASF and anglers tell them they must do, but there is a lethal time lag while they do what they can to hide the fact that their previous policies were in error. Saving face, it seems, is more important than saving the salmon.

When NASF told Governments in the early 1990s that we needed to stop netting and conserve the freshwater habitats, we were literally laughed at; we were told in fact that the Foyle salmon netting effort may need to be increased, “to make sure we don’t allow too many salmon to reach the spawning grounds”. This is typical of the wilful refusal to look to the future that NASF has faced down through the years.

Time and again when NASF submitted plans to reduce or buy out netting, we were told it was not necessary, Government had everything in hand; all would be well, the bureaucrats knew much more about salmon than mere anglers in NASF. In fact, all was not well, and it now turns out that the anglers and NASF were right all along.

The collapse in the salmon stock of the River Finn must now mark a complete break from the misguided policies of the past as promoted by the Loughs Agency and supported by the two sovereign Governments, The Republic of Ireland, and The United Kingdom.

The Lough Agency has used models based upon minimum spawning escapement levels instead of listening to the NASF call for a return to abundance and the creation of a stronger population base through greater numbers. We at NASF criticize the narrow focus on egg deposition targets because rivers need far more spawning fish than are necessary to satisfy meagre theoretical minimum levels.

The practice of calculating backwards from juvenile habitat surveys to an estimation of required egg deposits is insufficient on its own, because it ignores the salmon's need for the diversity and protection against threats that abundant numbers provide. It also takes no account of the normal but highly variable occurrence of lethal weather, pollution, and other events that inflict high egg and fry mortality. There is good reason why salmon populations are prodigious when it comes to spawning. The fish deposit large numbers of eggs because so few of their ova survive and every season is different in terms of the unpredictability of weather, damaging events, and water levels.

It is not reasonable ignore these diverse factors and assume that a one-fits-all scenario can be safely constructed on a computer which does not recognise what mother nature has been very successfully doing for the last ten thousand years. Given the current abysmally low number of adult salmon in many rivers, the only rational strategy is to maximize egg deposition from the current runs and to work simultaneously to re-establish the environmental qualities of the rivers.

In the Loughs Agency area, this milestone presents an opportunity which must not be squandered.

We are running out of time to save the salmon, we can no longer afford the lethal time lag while Government Agencies try to save face. We need a complete break from a sterile dependence solely on minimum Conservation Limit targets; while these may form a useful contribution to a management regime, we must no longer rely on the concept of minimum numbers as targets for spawning.

We must firstly negotiate with the remaining netsmen to bring a permanent end to all netting in the entire Foyle area, with suitable safeguards on angling exploitation. Then we must embark on a long term programme of habitat conservation, protection, and enhancement, to maximise freshwater productivity. We must strive to achieve the NASF objective of abundance of salmon in our rivers, and to aim to achieve this every year. Only by doing this can we protect our salmon runs for the future.

Orri Vigfusson. NASF

Read More...

DFO is willing to buyout licenses...just on the wrong coast

Yet another article on east coast lobster license buyouts. This is relevant because DFO on the west coast has steadfastedly refused to buyout the non-selective, aging, uneconomic gillnet fleet.

The article here describes DFO paying $18 million to retire some lobster licenses. Why the discrepancy on different coasts?
The gillnetters on the north coast of BC have 650 or so licenses with the marktet price of a license being advertised at around $60,000. Probably most license holders would accept less just to get some dollars out of a mostly useless investment.
So 650 x 60k= $39 million. Small price to pay to ensure truly sustainable fishery management on our coast.

Read More...

DFO Minister quote

In this St John's newspaper article, DFO Minister keith Ashfield is quoted as saying the 'fishery is probably broken'. He is referring to the east coast fishery but the basic approach seems to be the same on our west coast.
And if he thinks making 20-30 thousand dollars is unacceptable to young people how about west coast fishers, especially gillnetters, who make 1/4 of that...??  We wonder what Minister Ashfield thinks is acceptable to the Canadian public when commercial fishermen contribute so little to the economy yet inflict such onerous impacts on fish stocks in addition to bycatch impacts on much more valuable fish such as steelhead.
The budget cuts Ashfield hinted at wont make DFO more efficient in our opinion. Only a major restructuring or even a completely new organisation will change the negative feelings towards this dysfunctional bureaucracy.

The Weekend Telegram, St John's, NFLD
It’s not just Newfoundland and Labrador’s fishery that needs fixing, according to federal Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield.

Speaking to The Telegram Friday afternoon, Ashfield conceded the fishing industry is “probably broken” and major steps need to be taken if a younger generation of harvesters is going to get into the business.

“It’s not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery in general could be considered broken, to some degree,” Ashfield said.

“We’re worried about that and we’re not going to have new people come into the fishery unless they can make a living at it. People aren’t happy to make $20,000-$30,000, especially the younger people.”

But while Ashfield acknowledged the government may need to do more to restructure the fishery, he gave no indication that Ottawa is prepared to put up money to do so.

Instead, he said, the answer lies in making the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as efficient as possible.

“There’s things that we can do, when we look at the layers of rules and regulations and all of the red tape that are tied to the fisheries department that have just grown year after year after year,” Ashfield said. “It doesn’t make for a good business model, and it makes it very difficult for people to earn a sustainable living.”

Liberal MP Gerry Byrne questioned what exactly that would mean.

“What red tape is he talking about? Is he talking about less enforcement officers? Is he talking about the red tape of those pesky scientists? Is he talking about the red tape of consultation on fisheries management plans? Or is he talking about the red tape of the fleet-separation policy and not allowing processors to also be the harvesters of fish?” Byrne said.

Ashfield’s notion of making DFO “more efficient” left a bad taste in NDP MP Ryan Cleary’s mouth, too.

“That’s the code word for cuts,” he said.

Cleary has been sounding the alarm about impending cuts to DFO’s science program, as the federal Conservative government tries to bring the budget deficit back into balance.

“The guts have been cut out of science going back not just with this Conservative government, going right back to 1995 under the Paul Martin regime,” Cleary said. “I don’t see any move by the federal Conservative government to put more emphasis back on science.”

But in his interview with The Telegram, Ashfield said science is part of the department’s core mandate, and it remains a priority.

“Absolutely. Science is very much important, now more so than ever,” Ashfield said. “The science around fisheries is pretty interesting, to say the least.

“But if we don’t use a science-based approach, we won’t have a fishery.”

Read More...

New salmon plant in Terrace

Interesting article here on a new salmon processing plant in Terrace using only sustainably caught fish.
Good work by Patagonia, Skeena Wild, and the business people involved.

Read More...

News story on Kwinageese river blockage

Interesting story on a natural blockage on the Kwinageese river, a tributary of the Nass.

Read More...

Joint News Release

We are pleased to announce our participation in a joint news release with the Steelhead Society of BC and the BC Federation of Fly Fishers.
In the release the groups are critical of DFO for poor management with regard to steelhead bycatch and discards in the commercial fisheries of BC.
Here is a link from the BCFFF page:

Read More...

Editorial in discards/bycatch in Terrace Standard

Here is an interesting editorial from Skeena Angler Rob Brown in the Terrace Standard.

The discard issue is finally making some headway and getting more known about. Imagine any other industry wasting so much of a resource just as collateral damage? The commercial fishing industry gets away with it because DFO turns a blind eye and the actual activity takes place out of sight.

How many years has DFO been labelling north coast chum salmon as a 'stock of concern'...maybe 10 years now..and all the while DFO quietly allows the kind of waste we are just now hearing about. It is an appalling situation when DFO continues to allow these ancillary negative impacts from commercial fishing activities.

Read More...

Our C.E.C Submission update

From earlier in August: we were informed by the Secretariat that they were not recommending proceeding with the preparation of a factual record.
For more information on our Submission and this process here is the C.E.C page.

This process came out of the 2006 season and the lack of Fishery Officers patrolling the commercial fishery on the north coast. Interestingly enough, here we are in 2011 and a similar lax enforcement situation has occured with regard to the chum bycatch/discard issue. Some things never change....

Read More...

Allocation Policy Roadblock

Copied below is a Table from the North Coast Update to August 24th. It shows the sockeye catch and Allocation split between gear types for Areas 3,4,5. In the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) the formal Allocation split of sockeye is 75% gillnet to 25% seine.

We have approached DFO with this inquiry in the past but have received no replies worthy of mentioning but this Allocation split seems to be the crux of the issue over selective fishing. How is it that the Department can talk about selective fishing to the public or the Marine Stewardship Council when there is a formal agreement in place that guarantees 75% of the Skeena sockeye available to non-selective gillnetters?

Fisheries types call the Allocation process the 'third rail' of fishery topics....touch it and you die type stuff. But, this situation is really at the heart of the matter. We will not see any forward progress on selective fishing, as promised by DFO to the MSC, until this small but overwhelmingly important Allocation agreement is changed. And until DFO does formally change this split, anything they say about selective fishing will be pure rhetoric...

DFO: When will you come clean and change this policy??

Allocation for Areas 3,4,5:

                           Gill Net             Seine        Totals

Area 3                   70,148               61,428       131,576

Area 4&5             250,055              65,186        315,241

Skeena Inland      33,230              14,450        47,680

Totals                  353,433            141,064        494,497

Gear Allocation      71%                 29%

Overage/underage -17,440 17,440

Read More...

More info on Oregon Gillnet Ban Initiative

More info on the Oregon Gillnet Ban Initiative:
http://www.cbbulletin.com/410979.aspx

Read More...

DFO reply to our email

Let's quickly examine the RDG's reply to NCSA:
1.Page 67 NC IFMP:
The pre-season estimate for 2011 is predicted to be between 800,000 and 3,500,000 sockeye, with a point estimate of 1,700,000; therefore, only a small fishery is expected. This run size will allow for an estimated four (4) days for gillnet fishing based on recent average fleet sizes, distribution and catch rates

This gives both the forecast and estimated amount of gillnet fishing. It clearly states 4 days gillnetting not 5 as you infer.

The most recent return estimate for the sockeye run is approx 1.6 million. This is very close to but not more than the IFMP estimate of 1.7m. How has this "more fish" idea been arrived at? If you were going to allow 4 days gillnetting at 1.7m how did we get to 6 openings (as of Aug7th) for less fish??

2.Short set/short net:

Weak stocks and non-target species cannot be 'protected' via any gillnet, however dressed up it is. Avoiding having fish come in contact with a gillnet in the first place would be a form of 'protection'. Remember what the ISRP Report stated: 'avoidance' is the best selective tool. Squeezing 250-300 gillnetters into the Skeena rivermouth and approaches does not equal 'avoidance'.

Furthermore, the compliance rate of the gillnetters with selective measures is always under question. The Department's well known lax enforcement translates into skeptical results for fleet compliance. Checking 3 boats out of 250-300 and extrapolating the results is not adequate enforcement coverage, nor is it especially useful information on which to base further openings on.

Moreover, it doesnt appear your Department actually has any visible policy on what constitutes 'good compliance'? How is 'good compliance' derived and quantified? Can you see the fishing grounds from the north coast office because if no one is out on the water checking how is this fleet compliance derived?

3.Reminding 'industry' about conservation measures when there is little to no enforcement seems wasted effort. If there is little chance of getting caught then why should fishers bother complying with rules that get in the way of their fishing? Has anyone in C&P ever actually timed 'short sets'? How many sets were timed on August 4th that showed 'good compliance' thus allowing further openings? Has there ever been a charge for exceeding soak time?

4.Weekly conference calls:

Is this where we get to hear the predetermined plans that industry and your Department has worked out about how much commercial fishing will take place? How is it industry and fishers know about openings far in advance of the public?

I participated in these conference calls a couple of years ago and not once to my knowledge were my views or perspective ever able to change,delay, or stop a commercial opening....And your north coast office knows our views and perspectives probably by verbatim now and still steelhead conservation seems a secondary consideration in their management decisions. If steelhead really were a consideration for your Department, why wasnt the so-called selective gillnet techniques implemented all season? Tyee Index numbers for steelhead were low right from the start of the Test Fishery but your Department didnt seem to care at all.

5. I encourage you to take advantage of these calls and bring your views and perspectives to the North Coast Fisheries Management staff directly.

Hopefully this isnt a nice way to say "talk to them, not me"...because we are sick and tired of talking to all of you when there is no change forthcoming from the extensive discussions. Whether it is SFAB,SWI,MSC,IHPC,IFMP...or the plethora of other consultative processes you bog the public down in, your talk is nothing but diversionary and aimed at maintaining the status quo.

Read More...

DFO reply to NCSA

Earlier this week we wrote to the DFO Regional Director general Susan Farlinger (post here)
Yesterday afternoon we received this reply:

Dear Mr. Douglas,

Thank-you for your email of August 4th regarding commercial fishing and Skeena steelhead. The conservation of Skeena steelhead is one of the priorities that the Department takes very seriously in the management of Skeena River fish stocks. The Integrated Fisheries Management Plan estimated 5 gill net openings for the Skeena River, however the run size for Sockeye appear to be coming in stronger than forecast and therefore additional openings have been executed. Commercial gill net fishers have been limited to "short net, short set" as a condition of licence, with the sole purpose to protect weak stocks and non-target species. The fishery is managed on a daily basis and there are regular calls with the industry to remind them of the mandatory conservation measures that need to be taken aboard each vessel. I also understand that there are weekly calls with environmental non-government organizations, such as yourself, to hear your views and discuss some of the in-season management decisions being contemplated. I encourage you to take advantage of these calls and bring your views and perspectives to the North Coast Fisheries Management staff directly.

Thank-you again for bringing your views to my attention.

Susan Farlinger

Regional Director General

Read More...

Time to hit the brakes DFO!!

So we've now clearly seen the intentions of DFO the last few days: they intend to maximise the sockeye catch over all other considerations.
It is time to start voicing our concern over the continuing commercial openings, as once the damage is done it is too late. We need to act now in order to prevent another 2006 episode.

Listed below are the contact emails of DFO staff, it is time to remind them of their obligations to users and sectors other than commercial fishermen. If you value Skeena steelhead now is a good time to voice your concern...they need your support to protect them from overzealous commercial fishing.

In 2006, it took a couple thousand letters, emails, and faxes from concerned steelhead supporters to make a dent in DFO....Wonder how many we'll need this year? Let's find out...start writing...please

Keith Ashfield, DFO Minister, Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Susan Farlinger, Regional Director general, Pacific, susan.farlinger@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Mel Kotyk, Area Director, North Coast, mel.kotyk@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Dale Gueret,  Area Chief, Resource Management, North Coast, dale.gueret@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, pm@pm.gc.ca
Christy Clark, Premier of BC, premier@gov.bc.ca
Steve Thomson, Natural Resource Operations Minister, FLNR.Minister@gov.bc.ca


Things to highlight in your letters and emails:

The basics:
-Skeena steelhead are unique and highly valuable
-steelhead support a vibrant upriver sportfishing tourism economy in the region
-commercial fishing however described as 'selective' has negative impacts on these valuable fish
-the further into August commercial fishing goes, the more harm done to the steelhead run

This year:
-the steelhead return is not above average as in the previous few seasons
-this years return is below both the 2000's decade average and the 'All years' average as quantified at the Tyee Index
-there has already been a large amount of commercial fishing activity, alot more than in recent years

The request:
-please stop further commercial fishing in August as it negatively impacts the valuable steelhead return
-upriver communities depend highly upon vibrant steelhead returns for the fall sportfishng tourism season
-our steelhead are too valuable a sportfish to be killed unnecessarily as bycatch in commercial sockeye fishing...an extremely wasteful practise

Good to keep it short and simple. There are numerous other aspects such as MSC Certification, but focussing on the basics is good: the more commercial fishing there is...the more harm done to our steelhead returns.

Read More...

More proof DFO's priorities ly with Industry

The recent 'retroactive' Fishery Notice...announcing a gillnet opening that had already taken place...really provides more proof just exactly where DFO's priorities lie.
It has come out that DFO informed the processors on Sunday of the planned opening on Monday....But DFO had failed to inform the public via the online Fishery Notice system or even more incredibly, the independant fishers who dont work for the processors.

We're sure DFO will use some lame excuse involving the 'long weekend' or some such BS...but if someone was around to make the decision to open a fishery, then you'd think someone would be around to send out the official notice to the Public (which also includes independant fishermen).

Just really more proof, as if we needed any, that DFO is continuing to maintain its primary role as the facilitator of the commercial fishing industry....everything else appears secondary.

Read More...

Tyee Sockeye numbers build again

It seems a bit late for a pulse of sockeye but again the Tyee sockeye index has risen the last few days:
July 29-70.76
July30-98.41
July31-99.60
Aug.1-73.58
Aug.2-73.64

You know this means the pressure will be on DFO Fishery Managers to open up Area 4 Skeena again to the commercial fishermen. Does DFO roll the dice?  The overall Sockeye Index at 1508, equating to 995,280 sockeye some 54,720 short of the escapement/FSC requirement of 1,050,000. (Edit Aug.3: Well, of course DFO opened up for the gillnetters again...but at least made them use the short set/short net technique....How many more openings can we see....depends on sockeye numbers)

Given the way DFO has operated this year you would have to presume they will green light another opening for the gillnetters.
And since DFO North Coast doesnt think there is a steelhead conservation concern this year you can bet no selective measures will be implemented on the gillnetters...eventhough we will be into August.

Read More...