Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: IronNoggin on August 11, 2019, 02:20:56 PM
-
Demanding that all Recreational & Commercial (Area G) Chinook Fishing be IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED on the West Coast of Vancouver Island:
"The recreational sector on the WCVI has had the greatest opportunity on the entire south coast to harvest chinook this year. In other areas of the south coast, non-retention has been imposed for most of the season. If the recreational sector on the WCVI not must have a lower bag limit or non-retention for the remainder of the 2019 summer fishing season, they will not suffer harm"
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:f49fdefe-192f-4ea8-a895-0fe6b7311b85
DFO's Initial Response:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:b99a3cc7-3b21-45d8-bfc7-d9657f4ea66f
Getting it yet?? :o
Nog
-
Itll happen one day. The whole thing will belong to them.
-
I read these in full last night - thanks for posting Nog. Do you by chance have the exhibits referenced in the DFO's response?
Overall I am actually impressed with DFO's response. They very clearly break down each aspect of what the petitioning tribes are asking for and explain why their arguments are defective. I like how they point out how disingenuous for the tribes to be asking for more of a quota when the tribes started by asking part of their quota to be transferred to the commercial fishery at the beginning of the season. Also, although their total quota may be shrinking, their percentage of the total TAC has increased, it's just that the TAC has shrunk considerably for the last 2 years.
At the same time, Nog, I see why you and other commercial trollers are worried. If DFO plans to eliminate 26 commercial licenses, it should be done in a fair way that doesn't leave trollers unable to cash out their investments in a reasonable manner. It isn't enough to just buy someone out at current value if the actions of DFO have driven that current value down considerably.
I hope the BCCA (and whatever higher courts ultimately decide these issues) adopt the DFO's interpretation of what the FN commercial fisheries should be, and that DFO gets the court's backing to do real enforcement of FN commercial fishing violations, like the ones documented in the response (fishing outside of the prescribed area). Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't non-tribal commercial fishers face confiscation of catch and major fines for similar violations?
-
I read these in full last night - thanks for posting Nog. Do you by chance have the exhibits referenced in the DFO's response?
I do not, but have requested them and will post when they show.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't non-tribal commercial fishers face confiscation of catch and major fines for similar violations?
If we (regular Licensed Trollers) were to operate in an area that was closed, we would be escorted to the dock, catch & gear seized, and face down very heavy fines and perhaps a refusal of License renewal. DFO ran fast and far from any action when this group did exactly that. And, although subject to the 80 cm rule, they blatantly ignored that (as in completely). Good on the plant that refused to take them, and sent them packing to seek out another market for the oversized fish - all 18,000+ pounds of them (which of course were not counted against their quota).
Complete BullChit all round.
Nog
-
I hope all that stupidity comes to light in court.
-
If we (regular Licensed Trollers) were to operate in an area that was closed, we would be escorted to the dock, catch & gear seized, and face down very heavy fines and perhaps a refusal of License renewal. DFO ran fast and far from any action when this group did exactly that. And, although subject to the 80 cm rule, they blatantly ignored that (as in completely). Good on the plant that refused to take them, and sent them packing to seek out another market for the oversized fish - all 18,000+ pounds of them (which of course were not counted against their quota).
Complete BullChit all round.
Nog
I hope all that stupidity comes to light in court.
So is something potentially positive being done? There is a West Coast Trollers Association (http://westcoasttrollers.com/association/ ) are you a member? Why not see if they are moving to get intervener status in this case rather than pointless bitching on sport fishing boards where some % of people don't give a dam about your sense of injustice and at best the rest take smug satisfaction that other people feel the same they do. That's unlikely to make a difference.
Failing support from some industry association perhaps you could rally some like minded individuals to fund court representation. Maybe even WMY would poney up $10,000 or some like amount.
-
Yes Ralphie Old Boy, I am indeed a Member of Area G's Association.
And of course we have filed for Intervener status.
Bit surprising to me (us) actually is the lack of representation by the Recreational Sector (who will be directly affected as we are).
Pointless Bitching? I guess you are entitled to your own opinion.
Main reason of posting was and is to get the message out regarding just what is happening, and just who is driving these antics. Fine for you to wish to remain blissful with your head firmly planted in the ground. Methinks there are others who prefer to know...
Have a grand day...
Nog
-
--Any court decision in one area will likely affect us all, we all need to keep informed if we wish to fish in the future. I like the concept of smaller scale wider participation of quota in some areas, but what most often happens (in the past) once the quota is allocated participants try every excuse in the book to take the quota by other means than intended. That is after a few years they have the bright idea that maybe we should net the quota in a couple of days and distribute it, rather than go to all the work of individuals in small boats working for several days. I recall the inefficient days of small scale clinker-built line trollers with limited daily and seasonal quota. Many people supplemented their income and put food on their own tables or those of their neighbors in the local area in a legal fishery. As it is local...the quota was small, and it took some work to actually catch the fish.
--They even got the NGO enviro guys slagging the local fishery, claiming the high use of fuel per lb of salmon was an environmental concern. Many other great excuses to get rid of the fishery...like someone might keep 7 fish instead of 6 and there wasn't enough enforcement available. etc.
--In hindsight, I think the main reason was to get less "voices" from knowledgeable fisher people.
--I don't have an issue with quota...allocated to other commercial fisheries or methods, but I believe we would be better served by more, rather than less participation by area residents.
--Just to add, I wish we could find a term or quota category other than Recreational fishery. It has become a derogatory term for those less deserving. Yes, I enjoy fishing but I also like to provide, as much as is realistic some portion of my own food from local area sources. I'm not Catholic, so I don't need 52 fish...but a few would be nice.
-
The issue is the five nations have piss poor fish fisheries management. They let are their commercial vessels go out and catch all their tac inside and out of the CDA. Then the small boats fishing in the CDA had no tac left and we’re pissed off.
So instead of managing their own members, they have decided to sue DFO for more fish.
Its all summed up by DFO in that report.
-
Yes Ralphie Old Boy, I am indeed a Member of Area G's Association.
And of course we have filed for Intervener status.
Bit surprising to me (us) actually is the lack of representation by the Recreational Sector (who will be directly affected as we are).
Pointless Bitching? I guess you are entitled to your own opinion.
Main reason of posting was and is to get the message out regarding just what is happening, and just who is driving these antics. Fine for you to wish to remain blissful with your head firmly planted in the ground. Methinks there are others who prefer to know...
Have a grand day...
Nog
Nog
it's good that you post this on boards like this. many either don't know where to look or have the time to look for these fsort of fishing issues.
Keep posting away I say
-
Bit surprising to me (us) actually is the lack of representation by the Recreational Sector (who will be directly affected as we are).
The recreation sector is poorly organized to launch and fund legal challenges. In the past the two main organizations that have participated is SFI and BCWF. Also I believe as long as C&R remains open in the ocean likelihood of the recreational sector participating in one remains low. Even tho C&R regs according to DFO own creel reports resulted in a 90% reduction in recreational fishing effort.
-
Hey folks I didn't suggest anything close to people can't post information on such things or which side you support. Nor did I say no one else was interested.
The "Pointless Bitching" remark refers to comments like "Get the Picture?" or references the Five Nations Fisheries practices ("that stupidity") or lack there of.
But the court case isn't about those things in any event,evidence to support that claim may not even get heard in this case.
I am actually happy that Iron Noggin posts the document links because when I read them they highlight the disconnect between his opinions and the facts.
Facts being the Rec sector allocation for AABM chinook is 40,000 fish. the commercial troll sector is about 25,000 and the Five Nations get less than 9,000. So the rec sector gets over half, the commercial sector 35% and the Five Nations about 12%.
That is quite a differential between the 3 sectors and a long way from inflammatory assertions that the entire fishery is on the verge of being handed over to the FNs.
Actually on the face of it, it looks unfair. One the face of it, it looks like DFO is continuing the century plus history of discriminatory actions in how many fish it allows FNs to take relative to other sectors and contrary to decades of court decisions. On the face of it history and legal precedence may support the Five Nations motion for an injunction.
But how things look on the face of it vs how they look examined by an independent tribunal or court can be different.
-
Hey folks I didn't suggest anything close to people can't post information on such things or which side you support. Nor did I say no one else was interested.
The "Pointless Bitching" remark refers to comments like "Get the Picture?" or references the Five Nations Fisheries practices ("that stupidity") or lack there of.
But the court case isn't about those things in any event,evidence to support that claim may not even get heard in this case.
IF you read the DFO response you would see that DFO provided the evidence to support that claim ("Exhibit O").
(https://i.imgur.com/PsyqPCF.png)
Facts being the Rec sector allocation for AABM chinook is 40,000 fish. the commercial troll sector is about 25,000 and the Five Nations get less than 9,000. So the rec sector gets over half, the commercial sector 35% and the Five Nations about 12%.
These numbers don't include FSC but you knew that
-
so what? The court hasn't ruled on any of the submission.That was my point.
These numbers don't include FSC but you knew that
I think if you read para 19 you may see you are incorrect.
-
so what? The court hasn't ruled on any of the submission.That was my point.
I think if you read para 19 you may see you are incorrect.
Nope the 12% is the Commercial CDA tac that is allocated after FSC. The 12% is part of the Canadian Tac and the Canadian tac is determine after FSC and treaty obligations.
-
so what? Are you saying that they are no longer be entitled to the FSC? What's the point of irrelevant nit picking?
Par 19 states the allocation includes both and was subsequently adjusted as described in Para 20. The actual difference in the allocation spread is minimal at best and still massively favors the Rec sector and the commercial sector to a somewhat lesser extent.
-
so what? Are you saying that they are no longer be entitled to the FSC? What's the point of irrelevant nit picking?
When did I ever say that??? I was stating that FN allocation is more then 12%, Whereas you conveniently left out that they also have a separate allocation from their commercial one. Their FSC allocation is not insignificant. So if we are going to compare how much pie we all get to eat we should include all numbers in that pie. Yes the Rec sector for coho and chinook do to the allocation regime have enjoyed the most pie. I don't expect that to be the case in the next 10 years.
-
When did I ever say that??? I was stating that FN allocation is more then 12%, Whereas you conveniently left out that they also have a separate allocation from their commercial one. Their FSC allocation is not insignificant. So if we are going to compare how much pie we all get to eat we should include all numbers in that pie. Yes the Rec sector for coho and chinook do to the allocation regime have enjoyed the most pie. I don't expect that to be the case in the next 10 years.
Love the way you say let's share all the numbers then you don't share the one in dispute...just like none of the numbers have been 'shared' throughout. The 2019 ruling on the Five Nations Case argues against your prediction.
-
The 2019 ruling on the Five Nations Case argues against your prediction.
MY prediction is a result of the 2019 ruling and DFO being told to rewrite the allocation policy.
-
evidently you don't know what the Five Nations FSC number is after all.
-
evidently you don't know what the Five Nations FSC number is after all.
Acquiring FSC data from DFO is next to impossible just ask Bob Hooton.
-
I am actually happy that Iron Noggin posts the document links because when I read them they highlight the disconnect between his opinions and the facts.
And I rather like it when a judge points out YOUR disconnect from reality:
Injunction Denied:
The boats of five Nuu-chah-nulth nations won’t be able to catch many more of the suuhaa (Chinook Salmon) currently passing through their territorial waters, after Federal Court dismissed an application to reverse a decision made earlier this summer by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
https://hashilthsa.com/news/2019-08-16/federal-court-dismisses-injunction-five-nations-stuck-allocation-after-commercial