Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: alwaysfishn on August 26, 2009, 10:22:35 PM

Title: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 26, 2009, 10:22:35 PM
Note: Paul Ryall is the head of the Salmon Team
Resource Management
Fisheries Management Branch
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region

Long read but very educational

August 25, 2009
Memo To – Paul Ryall
From – Bill Otway

Subject- Closure of Fraser River Sport Fishery, your e mail to me of August 21 on behalf
of Paul Sprout in response to my e mail to him of August 15th.

I must begin by recalling to you that in all the years that I worked with Paul Sprout, in
every issue that came forward and we developed a response, action or words, Paul
without fail, could be counted upon to always ask the question if the action or response
would “pass the red faced test”. I will tell you that your response to me of August 21 on
behalf of Paul Sprout, fails this test miserably.

First and foremost, at you note, prior to the closure I was an active participant in the
Fraser River Sockeye Working Group of the SFAB. We, as you noted were intimately
involved in the background and information on the Sockeye returns and the situation as it
developed. The only meeting I missed is that of the 11th of August and of course
following your precipitous action in closing the river, without consultation I no longer
participate in this flawed process.

You begin your response by saying that “We make every effort to ensure that when
making these difficult decisions they occur after there has been dialogue with the affected
parties. I understand that did happen in this case.”

You make a major error when you confuse “dialogue” with proper “consultation”. There
was no “dialogue” on this issue with the people involved in what we in the recreational
sector all thought was in fact the consultation process. You claim that contact was made
with key individuals, outside the process to “ … inform them of the department’s notice
and its intentions.” For your further information, the simple act of calling people and
telling them of your intentions cannot in any way shape or form be considered,
“consultation” on a proposed action.

Of greater importance however is the question of why your department and staff chose to
contact people outside the process and completely ignored the people inside the process?
People who actually were giving of their time and expertise in an effort to work with
DFO to manage through this difficult time.

To these people, you said not one single word about the closure prior to it coming into
place. I, as you note, was part of that process, yet no one called or talked to me. Tom Bird
was the co-chair of the process and no one said a word to him or asked for any advice.
Frank Kwak is the chair of the Upper Fraser Valley Sport Fishing Advisory Committee,
(SFAC), of the SFAB. He was not approached, spoken to, nor asked for any advice prior
to the closure. Ed George is the chair of the Lower Fraser Valley SFAC, and he was not
consulted either.

You make mention of the August 11th conference call. I have reviewed the published
minutes of that meeting; minutes produced by your staff, and can find no reference
whatsoever. As noted I was not able to participate in that call but I have contacted those
who did participate and to a man they state that DFO made effort to bring up the subject
of the proposed closure. DFO did not indicate that the closure was immanent, nor did
they bring up their concerns over the fishery and ask for any input from those in the
recreational community as to possible alternatives. Nor, in fact did DFO present any data
to support their decision to close the fishery. I submit, this is not consultation and the
courts have told you this in past decisions.

Subsequent to the closure your department issued a document purporting to support your
decision to close the fishery. This was the August 18th report “Preliminary in-season
estimates of total effort and catch for the periods Aug.01-15 and Aug 01-16”.
This document is being used to support your contention that the angling community was
putting the Sockeye stocks at risk. In order to assess the validity of this one must first
assess the validity of the data itself and how the conclusions were reached.

To begin with the data presented is at best, suspect. The survey covers over 40 miles of
river and yet information on catch and encounter is made at only two points in this 40
some miles. One survey point used is in fact the most effective location for catch on the
river and in a place where both Chinook and Sockeye are jammed together because of the
configuration of the river. Because of this of course Sockeye encounters are bound to be
higher than in other areas, but you use this aberration and expand it to cover 25 miles or
more of angling effort. Moreover, two flights over 40 miles of angling effort being used
to estimate the total angling effort for this area is not statistically defensible in any venue.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the anglers are fishing for Chinook and
these, in most parts of the river are not located in the same place as the Sockeye. The
encounter rate you claim is not even substantiated in the fishing taking place in the
release mortality study. It is to be noted that the anglers in this study are in fact targeting
on Sockeye not trying to avoid them.

Your department makes the claim that 90 plus per cent of the anglers were in fact
“bottom bouncing”. And that the impact on the Sockeye stocks increased to such a level
that by the 14th of August you were forced to close the fishery.
The data produced by your report makes it clear that in their overflights, a total of 2,
between August 1 and August 9th, in fact 70% of the anglers were observed “bottom
bouncing”.

In addition this same report makes the point that after August 9th, through to the date of
your closure, angler effort actually decreased by 35%. By even the wildest stretch of the
imagination could this fishery be considered, out of control and a threat to the resource.

Further, your characterization of “bottom bouncing” not being selective, flies in the face
of the many Public Notices that I have received from DFO. Those notices have described
drift gillnets hung 3 to 1 as meeting the requirements for selective fishing! Your own
studies done in the Fraser River show clearly that gillnet mesh size only becomes
selective when the net is hung tight or 1 to 1. However you continue to use a hang ratio of
3 to 1 as the standard for a “selective” gillnet fishery.

Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 26, 2009, 10:23:39 PM
Letter - continued....

I and others remain astounded that you consider a gillnet fishery as described with a
release mortality rate of between 20 and 35 % as selective. At the same time you view an
angling method that has a release mortality rate of 1.4% as “non selective”. Your
rationale boggles the mind.

Moreover, however, the general definition of selectivity, as defined by the many studies
DFO carried out, is not based solely on the type of gear used but more particularly what
impact the use of that gear has on the stock of concern. In short, how big an impact on the
stocks does a particular fishery have?

Your report on the catch, flawed though it is, shows a total Sockeye release of 12,800
Sockeye in the recreational fishery in the time period of August 1 to August 16th. Even
with this indefensible over estimation of the catch of this fishery using the clearly viable
release mortality rate of 1.4%, we come up with a total mortality impact of 179.2 fish.
The PSC advises that during the period in question there were a total of 500,000 plus
Sockeye that passed Mission. Taking that figure into account and even DFOs’ overblown
catch assessment we come up with a total impact from this fishery of 0.000358 on the
stocks of concern.

The actions of your management team, being directed I am sure from Regional
Headquarters have been most biased in your announcement of concern for the fishery. In
every case you have pointed to the recreational fishery, but at no time has there ever been
a mention of the illegal poaching, night and day drift net fishing during closed times.
Given that on one incident alone, enforcement staff confiscated in excess of 500 Sockeye
one has to question your objectivity in focusing on the recreational fishery which by your
own data has, for the whole time frame caught less than half of what one poacher took on
one night. Where is DFO’s public concern over this issue? Simply put, it does not exist.

I would bring to your attention the statement from the Chief of C&P to an August 19th
meeting of Native and recreational and DFO representatives discussing the impacts and
concerns re the Fraser River Fishery.He said that during all the checks of recreational anglers on the Fraser, his fisheries
officers had observed sockeye being released, but had not seen a single sockeye being
kept. This statement to me clearly indicates a very high degree, in fact 100%, compliance
with the fisheries regulations and shows a clear understanding of the plight of the
Sockeye and a desire to minimize any negative impacts.

The Chief of C& P. then went on to talk about the illegal drift nets that are being
encountered on a nightly basis. Again I would point out that DFO has taken no public
position on this matter while at the same time being very public in their criticism of the
recreational angler, whose impacts, as noted are lower than any other on the river.

To summarize:
DFO did not in any way shape or form “consult” with the recreational advisors over this
issue.

DFO is using very flawed and indefensible data for the recreational fishery. They used
this flawed base to make their decisions.

Even if one uses the flawed DFO data, we have an almost non measurable impact on the
stocks of concern. Numbers that are certainly lower than any other fishery on the river.

You end your dissertation by claiming that DFO “… takes very seriously the advice
provided by the SFAB…”. I say when your actions support your words then I and the
other people involved in this Fraser process will believe you. In the main, it has been my
experience that in working with the field staff in all areas we find good cooperation and
understanding. It is when Regional Headquarters and above become involved that things
tend to go off the track.

You also express the thought that I should reconsider my participation in the SFAB
advisory process. For your information, I have not withdrawn from the total SFAB
process, just the Fraser Sockeye process, a process which DFO’s actions to date has been
made a farce.
Yours in conservation.
Bill Otway
P.O. Box 326 Merritt, B.C.
V1K 1B8
Phone 250 3784489
Cc – SFAB
Cc – Dan Cody
Cc – BCWF members
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: Fish Assassin on August 27, 2009, 12:17:16 AM
Excellent letter.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: huntwriter on August 27, 2009, 07:50:31 AM
I have the pleasure of knowing Bill Otway personally and also sit with him on the board of Directors of our local Fish & Game Club. The things I appreciate most about him is how hard he works at his age for the good for all of us, his immense knowledge about the fishery and last but not least the fact that he does not mince words.

This is a great letter that hits the proverbial nail squarely on the head.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: Riverman on August 27, 2009, 08:10:14 AM
Excellant is the word!In the past I have heard much criticism of Bill's efforts to get us fair treatment on the river.We all owe him a debt of gratitude for those efforts.It is very obvious that those whose wages we pay are working overtime to keep us off the river.In any fair situation we could haul them before a court and make them do the just thing.
  I have asked this time and again.Who now speaks for the fish now that DFO is just a security force for harvesters with political clout?
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 27, 2009, 08:38:55 AM
This puts things into perspective and makes one wonder......  why do so many on this board still believe BB'ing is the "big evil"?

 Even with this indefensible over estimation of the catch of this fishery using the clearly viable
release mortality rate of 1.4%, we come up with a total mortality impact of 179.2 fish.


The actions of your management team, being directed I am sure from Regional
Headquarters have been most biased in your announcement of concern for the fishery. In
every case you have pointed to the recreational fishery, but at no time has there ever been
a mention of the illegal poaching, night and day drift net fishing during closed times.
Given that on one incident alone, enforcement staff confiscated in excess of 500 Sockeye
one has to question your objectivity in focusing on the recreational fishery which by your
own data has, for the whole time frame caught less than half of what one poacher took on
one night.
Where is DFO’s public concern over this issue? Simply put, it does not exist.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: jimmywits on August 27, 2009, 08:58:12 AM
Bill Otway for Prime Minister!
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: dereke on August 27, 2009, 09:41:07 AM
  Yes it boggles the mind doesn't it..... >:(
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: Iris on August 27, 2009, 11:57:52 AM
Has the media published this letter?
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 27, 2009, 12:25:34 PM
Has the media published this letter?

Not that I'm aware of.....
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: Sir Snag-A-Lot on August 27, 2009, 02:38:55 PM
This is an excellent letter.  A step in the right direction!

I do take issue with the portion of the letter below though.  Otway letter criticizes the accuracy and reliability of the DFO's data, and then defends bottom bouncing citing this catch and release mortality statistic.  I am assuming that this number comes from last year's C&R study at grassy bar.  If it is not, I apologize and you can all disregard this post.

This study observed C&R caught sockeye for a 24 hour period.  It did not in any way assess the pre-spawn mortality of these fish.  They could have been, and likely were, significantly weakened by the fight and beaching and therefore more prone to disease before reaching their spawning beds.  Also this study was conducted on fish which were caught very likely for the first time, as Grassy is one of the lowest bars where they can be caught.  One a fish has made it through the gauntlet of fishing bars and driftnets between Grassy and Hope it could have quite easily been intercepted several times, which must have an impact on their pre-spawn mortality.

If we are going to critique statistics on the other side of this battle we better damn well be sure that the statistics that we use to counter them are reliable.   

This puts things into perspective and makes one wonder......  why do so many on this board still believe BB'ing is the "big evil"?

 Even with this indefensible over estimation of the catch of this fishery using the clearly viable
release mortality rate of 1.4%, we come up with a total mortality impact of 179.2 fish.

Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 27, 2009, 02:54:14 PM

 Even with this indefensible over estimation of the catch of this fishery using the clearly viable
release mortality rate of 1.4%, we come up with a total mortality impact of 179.2 fish.


This is the one portion of the letter that is a bit hard to take.  Otway letter criticizes the accuracy and reliability of the DFO's data, and then defends bottom bouncing citing this catch and release mortality statistic.  I am assuming that this number comes from last year's C&R study at grassy bar.  If it is not, I apologize and you can all disregard this post.

This study observed C&R caught sockeye for a 24 hour period.  It did not in any way assess the pre-spawn mortality of these fish.  They could have been, and likely were, significantly weakened by the fight and beaching and therefore more prone to disease before reaching their spawning beds.  Also this study was conducted on fish which were caught very likely for the first time, as Grassy is one of the lowest bars where they can be caught.  One a fish has made it through the gauntlet of fishing bars and driftnets between Grassy and Hope it could have quite easily been intercepted several times, which must have an impact on their pre-spawn mortality.


You are missing the point....   Even with DFO's possibly skewed statistics, one FN poacher catches more sockeye in a night of fishing than the entire sports fishing industry "kills" unintentionally in an entire season of fishing. This goes on every night all season long, fill in your own numbers...  Yet with those glaring numbers who gets lambasted in the papers and gets booted off the river?

Have you read any FN poaching stories in the papers lately?? Has the river been closed for them??

???
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: DragonSpeed on August 27, 2009, 03:01:28 PM
You are missing the point....   Even with DFO's possibly skewed statistics, one FN poacher catches more sockeye in a night of fishing than the entire sports fishing industry "kills" unintentionally in an entire season of fishing. This goes on every night all season long, fill in your own numbers...  Yet with those glaring numbers who gets lambasted in the papers and gets booted off the river?

Have you read any FN poaching stories in the papers lately?? Has the river been closed for them??

???
There - fixed that for ya.

It would be silly to think that poaching is "race based"  I'm sure every ethnic group has a sub group of efficient poachers. :(
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: Sir Snag-A-Lot on August 27, 2009, 04:00:20 PM
 I support and agree completely with the main point of the letter and what you are saying Alwaysfishin, with respect to poaching.  My point is that we do not have any reliable data on how many sockeye are killed by recreational bottom bouncers fishing for springs.  I think that we just need to be careful if we are saying that bottom bouncing does not have a negative impact on sockeye.  The data that we have do not reliably support or contradict this.  We need a more complete study that tracks C&R fish to their spawning grounds to reliably measure our impact.

DragonSpeed, there is a "race-based" aspect to the poaching issue, in that our courts are hesitant to prosecute FN for anything.  This is largely due to the disproportionate number of FN serving prison sentences in Canada, unsettled treaty and land claims issues, and a fear of appearing racist.  Also, I have never heard of organized and systematic poaching happening among non-native groups on the river.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: huntwriter on August 27, 2009, 04:13:03 PM
  ...why do so many on this board still believe BB'ing is the "big evil"?

I cannot speak for Bill but assume that it is for similar reasons that many regard me as "evil" in hunting. Bill sticks up for the guys that just want to have a good time and catch fish. Just like I want hunters to have a good time and kill a deer by whatever means are legal. I have heard Bill many times say something like, "Never mind catch and release. Give the anglers enough fish to catch and keep. We have plenty fish in the hatcheries." That does not always go down well with the angler "establishment". Just as I get a lot of flack from the hunting "establishment" and the "ethical finger pointers" for sticking up for the crossbow hunters .

But by far the "worst offense" is when people like Bill and me argue with hard facts rather then with opinions,  emotions and agendas.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 27, 2009, 04:16:22 PM
There - fixed that for ya.

It would be silly to think that poaching is "race based"  I'm sure every ethnic group has a sub group of efficient poachers. :(


Thanks for fixing that!  :)

I keep forgetting it's only o.k. to point fingers at the sports fishermen regardless of their race.....   ::)
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 27, 2009, 04:29:26 PM
We need a more complete study that tracks C&R fish to their spawning grounds to reliably measure our impact.


Here's a more complete study for you......

Sports fishermen catch and release. FN poachers catch, kill and sell their catch.

Scientifically speaking.... at least the sports fishermen give the sockeye a chance to reach the spawning grounds..  :D

Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: DragonSpeed on August 27, 2009, 04:44:50 PM

Thanks for fixing that!  :)

I keep forgetting it's only o.k. to point fingers at the sports fishermen regardless of their race.....   ::)

You must have misread.  I'm pointing fingers at poachers. PERIOD.  regardless of race.

We sportsfishers for the most part aren't good enough at catching fish to be any SORT of threat to these populations (IMO), despite what's currently convenient for other fish resource using groups.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: Terry D on August 27, 2009, 05:17:21 PM
A great letter Bill.

Only clout at the highest levels will impart the 'facts' that recreational fishing has a negligible effect on the fishery resource.

What really does have an effect is illegal netting and this is where more enforcement is required. I really don't have a problem with legal netting.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: Sir Snag-A-Lot on August 27, 2009, 08:38:34 PM
Nuggy you're getting into the ethics part of angling ( I've tried to get this same point across for a few years now ) and its just falling on deaf ears.
d

That is for sure. 

Right now DFO has three divisions to watch over: commercial, native and recreation fishers.  Maybe there need to be four: commercial, native, meat harvesters who use a rod and reel but are allowed to floss, and sport fisherman who fish the way that Nuggy describes.  If there were separate licenses for each some closures could apply to the meat harvesters while the river stayed open to the sport fishermen.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: robj on August 27, 2009, 09:58:01 PM
Great letter Bill.

I personally do not do catch and release, if I can't put one in my cooler, I don't fish.  Rather just leave them alone to spawn, that has the lowest mortality rate.   But that is just me. 


It is wrong to point fingers at FN.  I have seen many sportfishers use questionable techniques.  And you are right poachers exist from all backgrounds.  All you need to do is go to the meat hole on the Vedder.  But that is now closed, probably due to the meat fisherman.

Have a great day

Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: Steelhawk on August 28, 2009, 01:06:44 AM
Great letter and my salute to Bill. What people are missing is the big picture. Sporties are not a factor by any means. Keeping on jumping on others by your narrow definition of ethics about fishing is not about stock conservation, but it only serves to split up the sport fishermen unity fighting the forces who will shut us down collectively.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: huntwriter on August 28, 2009, 06:38:43 AM
Great letter and my salute to Bill. What people are missing is the big picture. Sporties are not a factor by any means. Keeping on jumping on others by your narrow definition of ethics about fishing is not about stock conservation, but it only serves to split up the sport fishermen unity fighting the forces who will shut us down collectively.

Now that right there is a intelligent comment. You hit the nail on the head. It is very unfortunate that anglers, and hunters too, spend so much time and energy pointing fingers at each other when that same time and energy could be much better used to fight our common nemesis.

Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: Sir Snag-A-Lot on August 28, 2009, 03:41:52 PM
The point here is that sport fishermen are split up based on their ethical position on this issue!  Look at how many threads there have been on this forum about bottom bouncing.  There is no point in faking that we all share the point of view.  A lack of honesty and transparency on this issue is what of the main things that has caused so much bitterness and resentment.
Title: Re: Letter from Bill Otway to Paul Ryall
Post by: alwaysfishn on August 28, 2009, 07:01:15 PM
The point here is that sport fishermen are split up based on their ethical position on this issue!  Look at how many threads there have been on this forum about bottom bouncing.  There is no point in faking that we all share the point of view.  A lack of honesty and transparency on this issue is what of the main things that has caused so much bitterness and resentment.

Your opinions would likely get more respect if you expressed them in a thread whose topic had something to do with your opinion.

What you are doing here is hijacking a discussion about...... (read subject heading)  ::)