Robbie has got it right, however. The non-elected mandarines REALLY are the ones that slow the pace of change. After that Chek hatchery fiasco where the bios made the Minister look like a fool, they should have all been demoted or removed--- didnt happen. That shows who REALLY runs the show. 
Ok...I have been reading this with great interest, and although I know very little about the politics of all this, I do feel strongly about the issues, and would like to educate myself on some of this...Can someone please elaborate on Schenley's Statement above? Non-elected mandarines? How did the bios make the minister look like a fool? What exactly was the fiasco? I attended the conference on cheakamus steelhead at ubc, I heard some of the debates concerning what could be done, from fisheries scientists and the rest...but as far as who REALLY runs the show, could someone shed some light on this?
I guess not many remember a number of years ago when the NDP under good old Moe was going to scrap the hatchery steelhead program. The FVSS launched a very large writing campaign sending in a few hundred letters, each in an individual envelope with a stamp on each. I know there was hundred's as my boys and I did all the licking of them. Also we took the letters to several sporting good outlets for those interested in signing and we ran up a few k's on the vehicle. We believe it helped as the changed there mind on it. This method is better than a petion I think. Of course if every one concern ed would write there own letter that is better but only a few will do this.
I would suggest if OBD and others have things they would like to see changed put together a form letter listing the shortfalls and soulutions as you see them. Circulate them to sporting good shops across the Province pick them up and send them in. If you wish to do this project I will deliver them to Barry personally if you wish.
Nothing better than taking some action instead of just taking about it on fishing forums or in the coffee shop. 
There are many different factions trying to solve a problem here. I understand from a "bio's" perspective many of the difficulties scientists face when presenting their findings to the powers that be...often their recommendations play second fiddle to personal agenda's, economic issues, red tape, etc, etc, etc...It is clear to me that even if there were someone in power that were able to weild said "hammer", getting half of those involved in the resource to agree on what needs to be done would be a task in itself. I am interested in seeing if even we can agree on what changes need to be made...there is this fine balance between what is good for the fish, and what allows the economy generated from them exist. I certainly agree it's all #$@$#$# up, however I don't see it as anywhere close to a solution. I like the idea of this letter Chris has mentioned, I think that the words in such letters can get into a person's head, might even influence how they think about the issue, and bring to light concerns that might otherwise have been overlooked...however, what would someone put in a letter such as this?
OBD, you make some interesting points, as do many of the others here, but I think perhaps tackling the problem amongst ourselves a bit first, might shed some light on how difficult it is to come to a solution. I wonder if we could start our own list of things we don't like, and then try to solve each item on that list considering the economic side of the issue and the conservation and enhancement side. It could be the start of a rough draft for a letter that many of us could write and send out. I know I would be willing to do so.
Having said that, if we can't agree on what the issues are, or come to solutions that we feel will be effective, even in the least bit, then how can we expect to be anything other than caught up in the same stagnant ineffective management dilemna that got us here in the first place?
I would like to try and list many of the issues at stake, if anyone is willing to oblige, as I think myself and others could learn quite a bit from hashing it all out here plain as day....
1) The fraser chum fishery...interference with steelhead returns to interior fraser tributaries. I agree this is a problem, but how do you solve it? First of all, it is not as simple as closing it down. The economic losses to commercial and native fleets cause such a powerful uproar that the ministry would never have the balls to do anything about it...but, I wonder, what nets do they use to harvest this fishery? Is there an alternative that has a less severe impact on Thompson steelhead, but still allows for the chum harvest? Might the government agree to some changes if such changes allow them to be proactive but don't hurt too much?
There, that's one issue, there are many others, and I am interested in trying to put a finger, or ten, on the issues at stake here...
thx,
rib
Author
Topic: Minister Penner, what has he done for fish and fishing so far? (Read 12731 times)