Here's the new version of the Tyee Gadget, courtesy of Northern Rivers Conservation Trust.
As of Sept.09, 2011; Index @ 131.69
Last year to this date: 220.20
To Date Averages:
All Years: 99.13
2000's: 133.48
1990's: 99.23
1980's: 117.96
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Tyee Gadget
Thursday, November 24, 2011
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 
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
Monday, November 21, 2011
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.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
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.”
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
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.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
New book on Skeena Steelhead
Here is an announcement of a new book on the history and management of Skeena Steelhead by Robert S Hooton.
This should be an interesting read.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Lake Babine sockeye fishery
Is this the start of the demise of the gillnet??? If a greater percentage of the sockeye catch can occur up at Babine it would sure limit damage to our steelhead and other depressed species and stocks.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/lake-babine-natives-celebrate-revived-sockeye-fishery/article2166433/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
