Another Interesting Performance...
Here are the Cole's Notes:
Beech, although noting he recognized the issues, was pretty much full of platitudes. It very much felt like he was reading from a script designed by their team to be all Motherhood and Apple Pie.
He presented himself rather well though, citing his involvement at many levels, his background, and the fact that he damn near landed a Tyee in Campbell River last year. Desperate and vain attempt at being One Of The Boys IMHO.
Paid basic lip service to stock rebuilding, while managing not to commit to anything whatsoever. Typical government gobbledygook speak.
In fact, beyond his acknowledging problems exist, I felt his presentation was largely a waste of time.
Did not participate in the Question period, and wandered off.
Andrew Thompson
First comment: Anyone who understands anything about body language / facial expressions immediately understood this man was being confrontational from the very outset. Bordering on angry at times.
Started off with the usual government issue platitudes, reading from the same script as Beech IMO.
He did note the relationship between the Department and the SFAB / SFI as a "highbar" noting "deep consideration of advice" from these entities where opportunity issues were concerned. Reading from a rather different script than anyone else involved from what I can determine.
When addressing the Salmon Allocation Policy under development, he bent over backwards to repeatedly cite the role of FN's in that process, and that the Department is quite focused on Reconciliation. In terms of non-FN organizations, he noted they are "trying to work with the SFAB", while "recognizing the need for change" in that relationship. He did manage to mutter something about new staff being brought online in order to further the latter...
Short lip service paid to actual stock rebuilding, with the saw-off that nothing "concrete" is apparently on the table just now in that regard.
He went on to defend yet another MSF study, but suggested that would be "mostly internal".
In the question period when braced on the closures of note wherein the impact rate on Fraser stocks of concern were recognized as 0.05% he countered with "we can spare very little". Then noted in follow up that FSC takes priority over all others...
Addressing my question regarding actual stock rebuilding programs and projects, he stated "we are not where I want to be", but we "are starting" after noting the reason they are starting is that they are being forced to via the SARA implications. Sawed off with "There is more work to be done".
In short, pretty much a confirmation of what we already understood, and therefore not a hell of a lot more than another waste of time.
David Didluck
As expected from one heading up the Department's new Reconciliation wing, he focused largely on UNDRIP, noted that new Federal Legislation will be coming shortly in that regard from the minority Trudeau government, and that the Department WILL "firmly align with that".
Citing "conservation" as the "highest priority" he went on to speak volumes regarding "building relationships" with an obvious focus & bias on FN's first and foremost.
He did note his wing's involvement with the Salmon Allocation Policy, stating "we are working on it". Did not define just who that "we" is...
In sawing off, he stated that the entire issue of Reconciliation is "hellishly complicated".
In the Question period he replied to the query just "who" represents us (rec anglers) at the table when the negotiations are between the Feds & FN's. He noted there would always be "conflicting interests", that the government was there to "represent all views" (yeah... Right) and sawed off with "We have to do a better job". No $hit Sherlock.
Addressing my concern that the term "Reconciliation" has been and is replacing that of Conservation, he immediately noted that the FN's were in full outcry over not getting "sufficient FSC fish for their needs". While he stammered to indicate just how conservation concerns are being met, he did note that this is an issue "not easily discussed with FN's" and there exists "no clear answer".
Didluck appeared to me to be a fellow obsessed with the sound of his own voice. He spoke great volumes, while managing to say but very little. Must be a government trait worthy of recognition and promotion to section heads or better it seems.
He culminated with the advice "You have to come and talk to us" and "there is always ways to find improvement". Right...
Dan Baxter did pretty much a bang up job of describing the social and economic importance of the BC public fishery. He was well organized, to the point, with no baffle-gab involved.
He noted that the "Protection of fishery and social values of the public fishery" had recently been written right into the mandate of the BC Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Baxter finished with a genuine offer of continuing support.
This fellow is obviously in our court.
Walt Judas focused chiefly upon the negative effects and impacts the pandemic has had on the Tourism Industry as a whole.
With regard to the public fishery, he noted that he had "attempted to initiate conversations at the federal level", but with nothing to follow on that one can assume he was ignored as this government is wont to do when the message isn't to their liking.
He did note and saw off with the message they understand, they are willing to help, and they are going to "pick up these issues again" in the next short while.
Another in our court.
So, I found the Conference to pretty much as I expected. Platitudes, condescension from government, the further "justification" of Reconciliation and why we matter obviously a bit further down the totem pole than they do.
Still worth taking in simply to understand the prevailing mindset.
I suspect the series will be available for review soon. When it is, I will post.
Cheers,
Nog
Author
Topic: Next SFI Webinar Recovery of Fish and Fisheries in an Era of Rebuilding (Read 4195 times)