Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: protest fishery  (Read 38236 times)

Steelhawk

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1384
  • Fish In Peace !
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2005, 03:01:49 AM »

Yes, why can't the natives eat pink? Didn't their ancestors eat pinks through out history? They may have a pink opening for them, but at home they probably eat sockeyes much more between the two. Why DFO gives 100% of their food quota on sockeyes, and give us, the tax payers, the license payers, the ones contributing to the building of this nation, zero sockeyes?  And now, DFO are telling you all second-class citizens to catch second-class fish, while they allow the natives to catch more of the so called remaining % of sockeyes? 

So  natives eat top-quality food fish & we eat fish that they spit out. So our government is saying it is ok for you tax payers to eat pinks but not the natives. It is their heritage to eat pricey & tasty salmon, and ours to eat spit-outs. Some may say Pinks are good.  Of course they are.  If so, why can't natives fill half of their so called 'food & ceremonial quota' with pinks, so that other user groups can share some harvest of sockeyes? 

By the way, the native claiming on CKNW that he kills 50,000 socs should have an income topping half a million for working a few weeks.  What on earth is happening to this country? Is 'white-guilt' so overwhelming in our society that this kind of racist crap is allowed to happen? You & I sweat all days for years & years to make a fraction of that.  No wonder we see some pricey crafts used in their so called 'food fishery'.

Can't you guys see the wrongs in our government?  Bantam, you ought to be ashamed of yourself that you don't even see such inequality in the treatment of us average Canadians by our elected government in fishery management, and elect to insult fellow members at this kind of times, as if you are over-joyed at others hard feelings.  Most people, me included, are upset not just because of non-retention of sockeyes, but because it is tough to swallow the inequality being dealt to us by our elected government as 2nd-class citizens.If you are so in line with SCR & their cause & get upset with posters on this site about BB, why not just stay there.  Every one of your posts is aimed at bashing and insulting to our posting members, including Rod & FWR itself.  I appeal to the mods to censor this member's posts or to delete posts that are obviously trying to stir up trouble instead of providing useful information.  I see the same mentality as Riverwatcher & gangs doing to the posts that Rod & Chris made in FishBC.  Some people's are so biased that they don't see any merits except to bash & trash at every opportunity.
Logged

Gooey

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2005, 07:26:41 AM »

twice something has been said here that I think needs addressing and frankly one of the younger guys on the board (Biffchan) was the only guy to show some thoughtfulness here regarding his comment on FN and their social issues.

I dont know how many of you have actually spent time in a FN community that depends on the resources to survive.  I had a buddy run the police station/program on flores island, off the cost from tofino.  The settlement is called Ahousat (sorry bad spelling) and if you don't log you fish or you do both.  I have spent time there on 4 occasions.  Every time a one of their boats would come in from a fish, a message would go out on over the CB's/shortwave radios that everyone uses (opposed to the telephone) and everyone would pack down to the docks and take (not buy) what ever they needed from the catch.

Funfish and others have referred to a guy that "killed 50,000 socs"... should have an income topping half a million for working a few week.  I imagine he did sell some of that catch, but I am also sure that that catch benefitted far more than he and his immediate family...those fish I think would have been caught at the benefit of the extended community.  So lets keep it in perspective.

When DFO is so concerned about socks, why not spread the pressure to pinks and chums (ie FN food fishing pressure)...I just don't get it either.

This is a hugely complex issue which must be very tricky to manage.  I agree DFO is doing a horrible job.  DFO is run by poticial agendas and frankly that is its biggest problem.
Logged

Spoonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
  • Chehalis Canyon Vigilante
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2005, 08:48:02 AM »

Hi guys,I'm a long time lurker but had to sign up to post at least this one question.


FYI, for a rec opening to happen:

  • If the run size stays at 4.5M - no changes status quo
[li]If run size is upgraded to 5.0M - Cdn TAC for com and rec is approx. 165k (rec share  approx 8k. Comm share approx 157)[/li]
[li]If run size is upgraded to 5.5M - Cdn TAC for com and rec is approx. 375k (rec share  approx 19k Comm share approx 356)[/li]
[/list]
Is this writen in stone...will dfo give us the opening if by tomorrow the run is estiomated at 5+ mil.  where did these numbers come from?

I say give them a day and see what they and the numbers say tomorrow.

The information was copied and pasted from an email I received from the Fraser River Panel/DFO.

If the run size reaches what were listed in the criteria, yes an opening would be granted. Do you think the run size will spike up by 0.5 million overnight? ;)
                    The Fraser Panel met on August 24, 2005 to receive an update on the progress of
the return of Fraser sockeye and pink salmon.  As indicated in FN0613 issued
August 24, 2005, the Fraser Panel adopted an Early Summer run size of 400,000
and a Summer Run size of 5.0M.
         Am I mistaken or was the run size not upgraded to what they told Rod was needed for an opening BEFORE they said no opening??!!??
« Last Edit: August 26, 2005, 09:21:19 AM by Spoonman »
Logged
member; Jack Daniels Pro-Staff / member;Team Hardcore Old Fart

Gooey

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2005, 09:02:40 AM »

I was just about to post the same question!

My personal view/hope is that they announce an opening this weekend....as it seems DFO's own numbers ALL READY SUPPORT A SPORTS OPENING!!!!! (and those numbers are now 2 days old)
Logged

allwaysfishin

  • Guest
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2005, 09:38:30 AM »

i may be wrong but as far as nutritional value as a food fish, pound for pound pink salmon is higher in essential "pure" protiens. I watched a show recently that listed pink salmon as belonging to a group of foods that have extremely high food /nutrition value as a "staple" protien source.
however it is well known that pink is not prefered table fare for most who have tasted (or sold :D ) sockeye salmon. It boils down to market value and the FN's on the Fraser know this well, why catch pinks to line the belly when sox and springs can line both the belly and the pocket book.
Logged

Gooey

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2005, 09:59:12 AM »

We all hold people and groups to certain levels of accountablilty.  Sometime we are justified, sometimes we are not.  I believe that right now most of us are holding dfo accountable for what we feel should be something different....ie we feel there should have been a sports opening or we feel FN has had too high an allocation etc.  This is problematic in that WE don't set the mandates and truely we cant expect much more from them than what they are mandated to do.

Does anyone know what DFO's mandate/goals/mission is on the fraser or in the pacific region?

I spent the last 1.5 hours trying to understand what DFO is MEANT to be doing...this is where we can truly hold their feet to the flames and hold them accountable.

This is really all I found regarding their mission/goals:

Principles  (for the Aboriginal Fishing Treaty - AFT: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/tapd/afs_e.htm )
*   Provide for the effective management of the Aboriginal fishery;
*   Improve the conservation, management and enhancement of the resource;
*   Enable Aboriginal people to participate in the management of their fisheries; and,
*   Provide a stable, predictable, profitable fishery for the benefit of all Canadians. 

One other HUGE driving force in their management scheme is the Sparrow decision and how the courst said FN must get priority access to resource for food fish (food, social, and cerimonial use).

These are the DFO's drivers in the management scheme for the fraser river (maybe other fisheries too).

A protest fishery...whether sport or comercial needs be well organized otherwise you will be charge and have no leg to stand on.  The comercail protest that took place in 2003 (i think) was successful because the commercial boys being shut out during FN commercial fishing was deemed:" inconsistent with the equality provisions of the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

If DFO doesnt do its job are each one of you willing to put your name and $200 on the line if you get charged?

I think DFO is doing horribly...but lets evaluate them based on their own "Principles" (as taken fro the their web site):
*   Provide for the effective management of the Aboriginal fishery;
*   Improve the conservation, management and enhancement of the resource;
*   Provide a stable, predictable, profitable fishery for the benefit of all Canadians.
-DFO does not have any control the native fishermen of this province
-DFO has not eliminated poaching from the fraser, its still at an unmanageble level
-DFO has not designed a system to count FN food fish effectively (as Rod vidoetaped FN fish unloading fish away from the counters and DFO counting sites)
-DFO mismanagement caused a disaster last year, their solutin this year...totaly (so far shut out 2 sectors)
-DFO has not provide a stable, predictable , profitable fishery for "all Canadians"

based on this I think that if we could show a sports fishery that doesnt impact the stock or has marginal impact and that this fishery didnt interfer with DFO's #1 mandate (providing FN with priority access to food fish) then a protest could be beneficial.

Can this protest be used to prove DFO's incapacity to the courts and this country...I think so but I am not exactly sure how and I am not sure if us proving DFO's incapacity justifies us breaking the law (unlike the  “R. v. Kapp et al.” where the commercial guys proved a conflict in management and our Constitution.

This leaves us on some very shaky ground.
 




« Last Edit: August 26, 2005, 10:01:32 AM by Gooey »
Logged

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14809
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #36 on: August 26, 2005, 10:48:17 AM »

Spoonman, that info came a couple of days before this other one I posted yesterday:

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=7673.msg69801#msg69801

Basically the late summers have arrived, and are overlapping with the summers.

Good info in the last post Gooey.

Matuka Jack

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 268
  • It's time to fish!
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2005, 11:15:05 AM »

I guess people just do not see the big picture.  Nothing can change until First Nations (FN) gets declared as a conquered nation.  The DFO can charge them of illegal fishing if they want, the Canadian court can convict them if they want.  At the end of it all, FN just has to appeal the rulings in the International Court and it will be over turned.  This is why all the charges were being dropped.  This saves the Canadian Government from international embarrassment.

So what is happening now is just that the DFO and the Canadian Government is pretending to be in control of the fishery.  All that they are in control of are the people that are subject to Canadian Law (every one in this country except the FN).

What is the purpose of membership to various Conservation organizations? ???
All that you will be doing is throwing your money away on something that you will never ever going to have any rights to.
Logged
"Of the things we think, say or do:
1.  Is it the TRUTH?
2.  Is it FAIR to all concerned?
3.  Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4.  Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?"

                                     By Herbert J. Taylor

Gooey

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2005, 11:27:49 AM »

DFO sets "food fish" quotas on what basis? Historical harvest rates or actual need?  It could be that with historical rates down, they need to move to a new model.  Do you have any info on how the set the quotas?

I'll ask my friend who set sockeye quotas in previous years...maybe he has some insight.  What he did say is that when he was on the pannel, 800,000 fish was around the number they used too (that was several years back).

You talked of a ROE fishery...I know they do it for herring to ship to japan.  Who fishes for salmon roe, what market doe it go to, how much money does it generate (I assume its not a "sustanence fishery"), what species do they target...any detailes there ?
Logged

BwiBwi

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2005, 11:39:22 AM »

DFO currently grants FN fishing opening by time not by number of fish.
Logged

Gooey

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2005, 12:54:20 PM »

"DFO currently grants FN fishing opening by time not by number of fish."  no thats incorrect BWI.

DFO set quotas based on escapment to the spawning grounds ie conservation as the number #1 priority...that is done by run size estimates and managing the surplus there of. 

Once a surplus is determined, it is then allocated out (in pieces - not time on the water) to #1 aboriginal food fisheries and then somewhere behind that (way behind that this year) comes Sports and the Comercial sectors.

My question to Rod is what measure are used when determining what the FN food fishery is?
Logged

blaydRnr

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1551
  • nothing like the first bite of the season
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #41 on: August 26, 2005, 01:16:02 PM »

the term FN food fishery and ceremonial fishery is just a smoke screen to justify the number of fish, allocated to FN.

it is what it is, under any category.
Logged

BwiBwi

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2005, 01:18:34 PM »

I know you are right about FN is allocated a percentage of estimated returning stock, and counting stations are suppose to be there
to make sure over harvest does not occur for the fishing time granted.
But we all know salmon comes through Fraser River in different number at different time.
The inability to monitor number of fish caught, can lead to a vast miscalculation. (fishes end up 'missing')

But look at how many FN fishing boats been unloaded at non-designated areas and there is no CO, DFO, RCMP... to prosecute them?
Such as the boat launch Rodney and Chris photographed at Ladner, that park is less than 10 minutes away from RCMP office.

Unless officials can effectively monitor number of fish caught, they are granting FN fisheries by time not by number of fish.
Logged

DionJL

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2251
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #43 on: August 26, 2005, 01:19:17 PM »

havent read the whole thread but all i can say is that killing more fish will only worsen teh run in years to come. there are other ways to protest that would get just as much attention and public interest without killing fish.
Logged

BwiBwi

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
Re: protest fishery
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2005, 01:20:35 PM »

Sit-in, and fasting?
Logged