Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Draconian Fisheries Closures  (Read 22892 times)

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13594
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #150 on: June 09, 2019, 12:15:47 PM »

The personal attacks are unnecessary just because Ralph and StillAqua have different POVs to the situation. That's not how you get people to understand and appreciate your side of the story.

rln

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #151 on: June 09, 2019, 07:44:41 PM »

Not really sure if it matters or not but has anyone ever done the math of fish allocated per First Nations person?
Seems to me that less than 100,000 people are allocated multiple millions of fish depending on the year.
Maybe the numbers should be reviewed to see if they should increase or decrease to take into account the number of hungry people like Victor out there barely getting by.
Logged

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13594
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #152 on: June 09, 2019, 08:31:26 PM »

Awhile ago, I actually did that calculation based on last year's catch data and population data gathered from the Census. The allocated number for each individual is actually not as high as what most people think.

What I'm more interested in, and have been trying to find this out for a long time and could never get a straight answer, is whether the allocated quota is a fixed number that does not change from year to year, or relative to the run size. Are we expecting a fixed number of fish being allocated to First Nations' FSC fisheries first, regardless whether it is 10k, 100k, or 1 million after spawning escapement is met. Or, are we looking at a % of the run being allocated, then the rest can be distributed to the other sectors?

If it is fixed and based on the number of people, and as the population of First Nations continues to increase, how is that sustainable? Even if you take away harvest pressure from the other two sectors, it can't possibly last forever.

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #153 on: June 10, 2019, 09:16:21 AM »

It varies based on species, sockeye, pink and chum I believe they get allocated a % of the returns. That % changes based on run size. For specific individual ceremonial gatherings I know at one time were were allocated 1 sockeye per 6 people attending.  I also know areas like the Skeena, they are allocated for chinook a hard number of 15,000 pieces, that does not change based on run size. IMO that's a bit silly

Most things tho however are negotiated in season on a nation to nation basis.

A new change this year because they are keeping first nations fishing to a minimum right now later in the season they will get more quota. To free up more quota they are keeping recs out of the river to august 23. So that more is simply a reallocation, nothing to do with conservation.

"In addition, new restrictions
in commercial and recreational fisheries are intended to support increased availability of not at risk
Summer 41 Chinook for First Nations fisheries harvest opportunities during August and September."

As Rod points out publicly its a pretty big black hole of information and I think all it does by not proving that information is cause animosity. For example are the nets out of the river allocated 3 chinook or are they allocated 1000? no one knows.  Now I read on FB that for there First Fish of the year ceremonies this year each FN band is being allocated 3 Chinook.

Not sure if you could even get that information though an FOI request.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 09:20:33 AM by wildmanyeah »
Logged

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2714
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #154 on: June 10, 2019, 10:58:52 AM »

the Fraser Chinook catch statistics to date (2019) certainly don't back up the sky is falling rhetoric tossed around so frequently.

Per the Stats Canada 2016 survey BC's FN population is around 300,000 and overall people who indicated they were FN increased by 3.8% over 2006. One of the biggest factors in that growth is the number of people who identify themselves as FNs, so it is not 'pure' population growth.

Overall FN fertility rates among women have declined rapidly since the 1970s though it is still above the national average at about 2.7 for women with Status vs 1.5 for the general population. Under current population trends the FN female population for the entire country will increase by about 170,000 by 2036 to 801,000.

As First Nations communities gain access to improved education and health care the same trends that have been seen among women world wide will in all probability take effect; as women gain control of their lives and bodies fertility rates drop and will will likely come in line with the national average.
Logged
...even the hero gets a bullet in the chest...

Hike_and_fish

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 560
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #155 on: June 10, 2019, 01:15:11 PM »

Not really sure if it matters or not but has anyone ever done the math of fish allocated per First Nations person?
Seems to me that less than 100,000 people are allocated multiple millions of fish depending on the year.
Maybe the numbers should be reviewed to see if they should increase or decrease to take into account the number of hungry people like Victor out there barely getting by.

It's a good point. I know a few people in two bands in the area ( family lives on rez in North Van ) that dont eat Salmon at all. Trust me when I say that there are MANY bands along the Fraser that are from from broke and starving. It's a front for those bands. Salmon is just an extra  source of income.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2019, 09:02:13 PM by Hike_and_fish »
Logged

StillAqua

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #156 on: June 11, 2019, 02:44:51 PM »

What I'm more interested in, and have been trying to find this out for a long time and could never get a straight answer, is whether the allocated quota is a fixed number that does not change from year to year, or relative to the run size. Are we expecting a fixed number of fish being allocated to First Nations' FSC fisheries first, regardless whether it is 10k, 100k, or 1 million after spawning escapement is met. Or, are we looking at a % of the run being allocated, then the rest can be distributed to the other sectors?

Don't feel badly Rod. Even the Cohen Commission couldn't get that info. Here's a section of the Cohen Report that describes the process. It's for all salmon, not just Chinook or sockeye.

"Allocation to Aboriginal fisheries

DFO manages allocations in the Aboriginal fishery by providing a given Aboriginal organization access to a certain number of fish, whether presented as an absolute number or calculated as a percentage of the TAC. According to Kaarina McGivney, former regional director, Treaty and Aboriginal Policy and Governance Directorate, having allocations is important because they facilitate fisheries management. She said that having an agreed amount of access provides some stability and understanding for fisheries management.

DFO states that Aboriginal fishing allocations are reached by negotiation with Aboriginal organizations. In these negotiations, DFO staff are provided with “mandates” setting out the maximum number of fish and funding that may be agreed to at a given negotiation. Since 2007, the mandates associated with the FSC fisheries of individual British Columbia Aboriginal groups have been determined by the regional director general. Before that, they were set in Ottawa. Mandates associated with the economic opportunity fisheries continue to require approval from the minister. According to Barry Huber, Aboriginal affairs advisor, BC Interior, DFO, mandates are reviewed annually and can be adjusted if necessary.

Mr. Huber also told me that mandates are not disclosed to Aboriginal groups, as doing so would detract from the negotiations under way. He said that each negotiator needs flexibility, and laying all the “chips on the table” at the start is not a good way to negotiate because it “forces you to be positional right off the bat.” At the end of the negotiations, the agreement reached may include fewer FSC fish or less funding than is stipulated in the mandate, though most are at the top of mandate levels.

The Aboriginal Fisheries Framework contains an articulation of the overall percentage of the available salmon harvest that is to be allocated to First Nations. The actual percentage was not disclosed to the Commission. When I ordered that this percentage allocation be disclosed, I was provided a certificate from the clerk of the privy council certifying that the information and related documentation was a cabinet confidence.

Despite not knowing the percentage of salmon allocated to First Nations in the Aboriginal Fisheries Framework, I did hear evidence on  how this percentage is used. According to  Ms. McGivney, the percentage allocation covers both FSC fishing and Aboriginal communal fishing for economic purposes. The percentage is to be achieved on average, over a number of years, recognizing that, in years of low salmon returns, the Aboriginal FSC fishery may form a higher percentage of the catch.

According to DFO’s Aboriginal Fisheries Framework, on a year-to-year average, Aboriginal FSC and economic opportunity fisheries are allocated approximately 30 percent of the total salmon harvested in British Columbia. In contrast, the First Nations Panel on Fisheries recommended in its 2004 report, Our Place at the Table: First Nations in the B.C. Fishery, that the government immediately transfer a minimum of 50 percent of all fisheries to First Nations, with the potential that the total may reach 100 percent in some fisheries."
Logged

redside1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #157 on: June 11, 2019, 03:01:30 PM »


According to DFO’s Aboriginal Fisheries Framework, on a year-to-year average, Aboriginal FSC and economic opportunity fisheries are allocated approximately 30 percent of the total salmon harvested in British Columbia. In contrast, the First Nations Panel on Fisheries recommended in its 2004 report, Our Place at the Table: First Nations in the B.C. Fishery, that the government immediately transfer a minimum of 50 percent of all fisheries to First Nations, with the potential that the total may reach 100 percent in some fisheries."
[/quote]
`
depending on the volume of fish available, 30%-100% is a pretty decent number.
Logged

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #158 on: June 11, 2019, 03:36:24 PM »

Don't feel badly Rod. Even the Cohen Commission couldn't get that info. Here's a section of the Cohen Report that describes the process. It's for all salmon, not just Chinook or sockeye.

"Allocation to Aboriginal fisheries

DFO manages allocations in the Aboriginal fishery by providing a given Aboriginal organization access to a certain number of fish, whether presented as an absolute number or calculated as a percentage of the TAC. According to Kaarina McGivney, former regional director, Treaty and Aboriginal Policy and Governance Directorate, having allocations is important because they facilitate fisheries management. She said that having an agreed amount of access provides some stability and understanding for fisheries management.

DFO states that Aboriginal fishing allocations are reached by negotiation with Aboriginal organizations. In these negotiations, DFO staff are provided with “mandates” setting out the maximum number of fish and funding that may be agreed to at a given negotiation. Since 2007, the mandates associated with the FSC fisheries of individual British Columbia Aboriginal groups have been determined by the regional director general. Before that, they were set in Ottawa. Mandates associated with the economic opportunity fisheries continue to require approval from the minister. According to Barry Huber, Aboriginal affairs advisor, BC Interior, DFO, mandates are reviewed annually and can be adjusted if necessary.

Mr. Huber also told me that mandates are not disclosed to Aboriginal groups, as doing so would detract from the negotiations under way. He said that each negotiator needs flexibility, and laying all the “chips on the table” at the start is not a good way to negotiate because it “forces you to be positional right off the bat.” At the end of the negotiations, the agreement reached may include fewer FSC fish or less funding than is stipulated in the mandate, though most are at the top of mandate levels.

The Aboriginal Fisheries Framework contains an articulation of the overall percentage of the available salmon harvest that is to be allocated to First Nations. The actual percentage was not disclosed to the Commission. When I ordered that this percentage allocation be disclosed, I was provided a certificate from the clerk of the privy council certifying that the information and related documentation was a cabinet confidence.

Despite not knowing the percentage of salmon allocated to First Nations in the Aboriginal Fisheries Framework, I did hear evidence on  how this percentage is used. According to  Ms. McGivney, the percentage allocation covers both FSC fishing and Aboriginal communal fishing for economic purposes. The percentage is to be achieved on average, over a number of years, recognizing that, in years of low salmon returns, the Aboriginal FSC fishery may form a higher percentage of the catch.

According to DFO’s Aboriginal Fisheries Framework, on a year-to-year average, Aboriginal FSC and economic opportunity fisheries are allocated approximately 30 percent of the total salmon harvested in British Columbia. In contrast, the First Nations Panel on Fisheries recommended in its 2004 report, Our Place at the Table: First Nations in the B.C. Fishery, that the government immediately transfer a minimum of 50 percent of all fisheries to First Nations, with the potential that the total may reach 100 percent in some fisheries."

Wow the government invoked cabinet privilege, I had no idea. Thanks for the info 
Logged

CohoJake

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 542
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #159 on: June 11, 2019, 03:45:13 PM »

Wow, the process is muddy everywhere.  In Washington we have a lawsuit ongoing over whether the North of Falcon meetings (the name given to the annual meetings to determine salmon quotas) were subject to our state's Open Public Meetings act.  The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has responded that they can't open the meetings to the public because they are negotiating with essentially a foreign government (the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission).  Sounds a whole lot like "cabinet privilege".
Logged

StillAqua

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #160 on: June 11, 2019, 06:25:48 PM »

According to DFO’s Aboriginal Fisheries Framework, on a year-to-year average, Aboriginal FSC and economic opportunity fisheries are allocated approximately 30 percent of the total salmon harvested in British Columbia. In contrast, the First Nations Panel on Fisheries recommended in its 2004 report, Our Place at the Table: First Nations in the B.C. Fishery, that the government immediately transfer a minimum of 50 percent of all fisheries to First Nations, with the potential that the total may reach 100 percent in some fisheries."

`
depending on the volume of fish available, 30%-100% is a pretty decent number.

Just so you know, when the First Nations Panel talks about transferring a percentage of fisheries to FNs, they aren't referring to fish but to buyouts of commercial fishing licences and quotas. Basically, they want to take a larger share or completely take over some commercial fisheries.
Logged

TNAngler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 367
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #161 on: June 12, 2019, 08:24:47 AM »

So, if there is insufficient fish one year, then their "quota" can carry over to future years.  So, if there are many years with very few fish they just rack up huge IOUs and so then if there is a bigger year....  Yeah, we all see where this is going.
Logged

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2714
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #162 on: June 12, 2019, 10:50:13 AM »

So, if there is insufficient fish one year, then their "quota" can carry over to future years.  So, if there are many years with very few fish they just rack up huge IOUs and so then if there is a bigger year....  Yeah, we all see where this is going.

no the quota system recognizes that since FNs have 1st priority after conservation needs there will be years were FNs take the bulk or even all the fish harvested.  in years of higher abundance when the other 2 sectors get to take fish the FN % will drop to a much lower level. On average the FN allocation will run 30% or more though keep in mind they take fewer fish in years they take a high %.
Logged
...even the hero gets a bullet in the chest...

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 1143
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #163 on: June 12, 2019, 11:15:31 AM »

So, if there is insufficient fish one year, then their "quota" can carry over to future years.  So, if there are many years with very few fish they just rack up huge IOUs and so then if there is a bigger year....  Yeah, we all see where this is going.

That indeed does seem to be the case because they are not getting enough quota (despite it being 100%) from early chinook stocks they have restricted other sectors other to avoid later returning chinook so they can harvest more.  Not sure about year to year but in season that certainly seems to be the case.

"Conservation measures will constrain First Nations Chinook harvest
opportunities while at risk Fraser Chinook or other stocks of concern (e.g. Early Stuart Sockeye) migrate
through fishing areas. Prior to July 15th, the Department is permitting very limited Fraser River FSC fishery
opportunities to harvest small numbers of Chinook for ceremonial purposes which is consistent with the
overall management objective for fishery mortalities near 5% for these stocks. In addition, new restrictions
in commercial and recreational fisheries are intended to support increased availability of not at risk
Summer 41 Chinook for First Nations fisheries harvest opportunities during August and September. These
restrictions include an extended closure of the commercial troll fishery in Northern BC until August 20
which is intended to pass through not at risk Summer 41 (South Thompson) Chinook that typically comprise
20-30% of troll harvests to the Fraser River. The Kamloops Lake commercial demonstration fishery targeting
South Thompson (Summer 41) Chinook will also be closed. Recreational salmon fisheries in southern BC will
remain at reduced limits of 1 Chinook per day after the Chinook non-retention period ends (i.e. after July 14
or July 31 depending on area) and recreational fisheries in the Fraser River will remain closed until at least
August 23."
Logged

Robert_G

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 459
  • I don't even own a fishing rod. I'm just a troll.
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #164 on: June 12, 2019, 04:48:26 PM »

I read these posts and from the years involved with the situation....I really want to see some good news....something positive....
Unfortunately, the obvious forgone conclusion in the same no matter how you look at it. There is no good news.
The days of the middle class Caucasian male like myself who actually pays taxes, who wants to take his kid out to harvest a salmon for a Sunday barbeque is pretty much over. Its so freaking sad and pathetic that things have come to this.

The fact that we are run by a government and leaders who cater to special interest groups instead of sharing the remaining opportunities (no matter how small they may be) with all user groups....it really shows what type of country we live in....a country that our government says is one of the best in the world (sadly there is still quite a bit of truth to that)...but instead governs with discrimination and racism (you have to be a certain race or special interest group to enjoy certain things our country has to offer)....and can be bought by the highest bidder.....etc, etc.
Canada may be one of the safest and wealthiest countries in the world, but what we have in strengths, we cancel out by severely lacking in ethics, morals, honestly, fairness, justice, etc, etc.

If someone can find one ounce of positive news for the family guy described in my first paragraph.....please share it....thanks in advance.


Logged