Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[IronNoggin]

Yes, just a head's up for now, but likely a call to arms for support to follow soon.

This week, the local SFAB will meet with DFO to discuss the proposed new rockfish conservation areas (RCA's) off the west coast of Vancouver Island. The topic has become somewhat more than controversial of late.

Those that know me are completely aware that I am in full support of scientifically-based conservation regimes, and that I always place my concern for the resource above and beyond all other considerations. In this particular case, I cannot see my way to condone what is being proposed, as it is indeed NOT based on science, rather a nefarious back-door attack on the very areas I frequent for a lot of my saltwater forays (and likely many here as well).

Parks Canada has determined that the RCA's are an effective mechanism to shut down ALL fin-fish fisheries in some areas adjacent to the Pacific Rim National Park. THEY have proposed MAJOR expansions to the current closure in the Broken Island Group (see: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co...abitat/WC_1.htm and for a list of allowable activities within RCA's: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co..._fishing_e.htm)
These proposed closures, if adopted, will spell an end to fishing in a fair amount of Barkely Sound, and specifically the areas of Swale & Sail Rocks, Meare's Bluff, Cree/Austin Islands, etc. The current existing boundaries were developed in consultation with fishers, guides, and lodge operators cooperatively with DFO, and afford the area's rockfish a reasonably large sanctuary from exploitation, something that I, amongst many, fully support. Given that the vast majority of sportsfishing in the proposed enlargement area is focused on salmon fishing (very few focus at all on bottom fish in these areas) a simple rockfish retention closure in the expansion area appears to be a much more realistic way to go. Parks Canada, in their wisdom, have to date refused to meet with the SFAB in conjunction with the Department, and at this point it looks like they'll not be attending this week's meeting on the matter yet again. They have become entrenched in their position of lofty conservation ideology, and many suspect the very real possibility that the end intent is to close ALL fin-fish fishing adjacent to their onshore holdings, a reach that runs from Port Renfrew through Tofino! (Something Parks does NOT deny) This would indeed spell the death knell to many of the small communities, a host of folks who rely directly on the sports industry for a living, and of course an end to the wonderfull experiences that WCVI fishing offers.

The back-door approach I am not suprised at, having dealt with this Ministry on several controversial issues in the North. It seems that when THEY want something, it simply doesn't matter who they knock over on their way towards realizing their target. In this case, the application of regulation is being misrepresented (MHO) and misapplied in a directed and focused drive to further Park's protectionist agenda. Note that Parks has NOT asked for any meaningful consultation on this matter, and basically slid it under the door with no announcements, no requests for input, and are now standing firm on their position in this regard.

As stated above, I am in FULL support of conservation regimes when they adhere to the principles of science. When not, and they are simply to further a body's ideological protectionist agenda, I take offense.

Also as noted, this post is simply a head's up for now. There is a comments section on the above noted link, and the proposed changes for coast as a whole can be found here: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co...l_2004/home.htm (Sorry for the looong links - dunno how to do that shorter version). I would encourage anyone who fishes (or wants to) the West Coast of Vancouver Island to take a hard look, and consider sending in a comment in this regard. Please note that the Department is NOT the proponent in this case, and comments should be kept to a polite and focused nature, rather than a vent.

Stay tuned. I'll be reporting back on this following this week's meeting (IF they let me in the door that is). Likely with more advice on just who to send any related concerns towards.

Concerned,
Nog

[Koho]

Thanks for the heads up. 
I've fished Barkely Sound before, around Diplock (sp?) Island.  I'm not sure if this area would be affected but would like to fish the area again in the future. 

[Rodney]

Interesting... Thanks Iron for the update. I wonder what's the logic behind having a total closure to protect groundfish stock when they can easily be avoided by targeting salmon. Would SFAB be pushing to allow catch and release of groundfish by restricted methods (ie. flyfishing near kelp beds)? How is Parks Canada justifying their decisions and what are their plans for the small communities that depend on the sport? Transforming into ecotourism? Are there many opportunities in that?

[IronNoggin]

The Logic as you term it is not really centered on protecting groundfish stocks, but rather an overt attempt by Parks Canada to increase their protectionist sphere of influence. It is a sneaky and underhanded way to avoid the mandatory extensive and meaningful public consultation process that any other relevent legislation that would allow them to do so requires. Parks is simply operating under the GUISE of concern for fragile stocks in order to increase their influence on the salt, and damned be anyone who gets in the way or is negatively effected! A shamefull act, but not that suprising from that particular ministry.

I'm unsure of exactly what the SFAB is pushing for, but realistically, a rockfish non-retention regulation for the area in question would address the matter sufficiently IF that was the real motive in this case. I will try to attend the related meeting later this week, and let you know what I can learn.

Parks is doing nothing to justify their actions in this case, and it strongly appears they simply do not care what happens as a consequence thereof. The ecotourism market certainly is limited, and entirely incapable of providing the level of economic support the sportsfishing industry does.

All in all, a worrisome affair!
Nog

[Rodney]

Thanks. Decisions such as this without public consultation, especially when the livelihood of small communities is at stake, is not right. Conservation should definitely be top priority but social and economical impacts need to be added into the equation as well.

I had a brief chat with one of the FOC employee in Port Renfrew the other night and she had no knowledge of this. She thanked me for passing the information on and she has forwarded to the local guides and others who may be impacted by these decisions.

Keep us informed.

[blueback]

Thanks for the info Nog. Those links weren't working but I went to the DFO site and all they list is what rec and commercials can do within these 'zones' and can you believe it; commercials can net salmon but us sporties can't so much as troll a single line!! Outrageous!! As everyone knows, commercial impact can be (and almost always is) far greater than sporties!! What gives??

[IronNoggin]

This is a follow-up to the post I made just the other day regarding Parks Canada's attempted shutdown of some West Coast Vancouver Island fisheries. I just this moment returned from the meeting between the SFAB and the Department.

The DFO representatives were candid, genuine in their presentation in this regard. They are concerned, for a myriad of reasons. It seems Parks dropped this bombshell on them, basically unannounced. The SFAB (which I just rejoined BTW) voiced numerous concerns, these I will present here:
- The current Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCA's) were developed in implicit and meaningfull consultation with stakeholders, designed to provide sanctuary from human interference with a slow maturing and fragile stock. The IMPOSITION of expanded no fishing areas without related consultation will dramatically increase public resistance to the process as a whole, as stakeholders will get the perception of being dictated to, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the RCA program as a whole. DFO would be viewed once again as having been given an inch, only to wrest out a mile.
- The current RCA's in the area in question are large in size, providing local protection in excess of overall WCVI targets of twenty percent.
- The expansion areas include some of the most heavily utilized areas for salmon fishing on the entire West Caost, and would have serious negaitive effects on the fishery and local economics as a consequence.
- The move by Parks is viewed as an underhanded way to introduce an eventual ecological reserve within which harvest of any marine organisms would be strictly forbidden (admitted to by Parks to DFO).
- Further, this first step is viewed as just that, the initial stage establishing the trend for further and expanding such area closures, including Cape Beale, points south to Renfrew (off all of the West Coast Trail), and eventually all waters off the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (again admitted, albiet under reported duress, by Parks). If realized this would spell an end to nearly all inshore fisheries from Port Renfrew through to Tofino.
- That Parks is blatently misusing the RCA program in order to further their own protectionist agenda without having to conduct meaningfull public consultations, as will likely eventually be forthcoming under the Parks Act (should we be successfull in aborting this initial attempt).

For these reasons, the SFAB voted unaminously to reject the current Parks proposal, and provided DFO with a resolution to that effect. It should further be noted that Parks Canada was conspicuosly absent from this meeting.

Now is where YOU can help. Even if you personally never plan to fish the west coast, the arrogant behaviour by Parks is an affront. It takes away what is currently yours, and completely ignores any thoughts or concerns you might have in that regard. If you do fish the west coast, or plan on doing so, the need for your help is even more pressing, as the option of doing so hangs in the balance!

I provided a link in the initial post in this regard, and now do so again: http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/co...abitat/WC_1.htm That page incorporates a comments section for you to voice your concerns. Although weight will be given to those with appropriate affiliates (local SFAB's, Regional Districts, City Councils, mayors, etc) each and every comment helps. The numbers DO make a difference. In my original post, I noted it was just a heads up, and suggested this might be worthy of your time to comment. This time, I implore each and every one of you to let Parks Canada know we are not in agreement with their underhanded dictation of what we are allowed to do on OUR coastal waters. Rest assured, this matter will come up again, round two will see them attempting the same thing, but under the terms of their own Act, they will be forced to ask for public concern. Again, we will take the fight to them, a LOT is at stake. For now, PLEASE take a moment of your time to let them know their actions are WRONG! For those who've already commented and feel strongly in this matter, I further suggest you might want to consider contacting your MLA and the Fisheries Minister. Again, lets keep the comments civil here, rants will of course be hastily discarded.

To those that previously commented and noted that I thank you. It is sincerely appreciated!!!

Now more than concerned, downright PO'd!
Nog

[IronNoggin]

Just a bit more background on this issue. For those that might perceive I'm crying wolf here, i suggest a hard look at Parks site: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/plan/pac5_E.asp
And particular attention to the final passge:

"The boundaries of Pacific Rim extend to the 20 m line offshore the Long Beach and West Coast Trail units of the park, while another portion surrounds the Broken Islands Group. Studies have indicated that the park's marine component could serve as the "nucleus" of an outstanding national marine conservation area at some future date, although boundary modifications would be necessary to improve its overall representativeness."

Parks is beginning their move to close off all fishing along an extensive area of the West Coast, this time by underhandedly sneaking the initiative through the back door of DFO's RCA program, thus circumventing the consultations that would be required under their own and related Acts. Nefarious, calculating, uncaring, imperialistic, and downright obnoxious arrogance are the terms I chose to describe this type of action!

Folks, this is extremely important. You that know me also know that I am extremely slow to become motivated politically, and give long and hard thought before doing so. I understand exactly what Parks is up to in this instance, and have become ANGERED at thier most obnoxious misuse of the system in order to try and circumvent stakeholder input and IMPOSE their protectionist ideology upon all of us, without any remorse for the consequences. Please, if you have not already, consider this most serious matter, and let DFO know you're not willing to stand for it!!!

Nog: although relunctant, angered enough to Act

[salty]

Thanks for the heads up Ironnoggin,

I fish on the WCVI every summer  and also have a lot in Port Renfrew.
I have  tried the links but to no avail. I think the link has been shortend  where the "... " exists. I am also very concerned about the DFO attempts. Send me your email and I will offer what I can.
 
Thanks
Salty

[HappyHooker]

Is the article on the Fish Farm on page B8 of the Vancouver Sun today objective reporting  by Peter O'Neil or just a press release from Minister Geoff Regan ?  The brief mention of the missing Fraser sockeye sheds a great deal of light on the real problem?  What are your comments ?