Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chris gadsden]

Seriously? Encouraging people to fast forward in a non-source news report to the part you want them to see? C'mon! I expected better of you!

I've managed to make my way through about 200 pages so far. A few on this thread (Nog, StillAqua) have made good points. Hopefully the rest of you aren't so myopic that you remain fixated on the one and only thing you had already made your mind up on ages ago.

The most obvious thing to me to come out of the recommendations is that Fraser sockeye are dealing with MANY issues. Keeping all the focus on just one of them is doing a disservice to the conservation of these fish (my point for months on here).

I like the approach Cohen took with the fish farms. Gather the data that will be required to make informed assessments, and go from there. Employ the precautionary approach (not the irrational anti-everything approach), and gather the data to make informed, conservative decisions. I think my Diet Dr Pepper came out my nose when he recommended DFO relinquish its role as the regulatory authority for aquaculture. Remind me who it was that brought the court case about that had that file transferred from the Province to the Feds?

Cohen's take on the co-management structure that DFO has employed was an eye-opener. Speaking as someone who has seen the warts of the current system from the inside, I agree 100% with his take on that (trying to satisfy everyone, and satisfying no one) although it will be a difficult pill to swallow when it comes to public perception on that one.

I found several of his recommendations and assessments to be quite flawed and inaccurate, or at least out of date. Much of the evidence he heard that did not pertain directly to Fraser sockeye seemed to steer his recommendations in areas where it was not applicable. His comments regarding enhanced sockeye creating direct harvest risks for wild fish was puzzling to me. Yes, for many years harvest of Weaver Creek sockeye decimated other co-migrating runs (like Cultus), but this hasn't happened for years .This is definitely an issue with many other salmon species; Fraser sockeye, it's a non-issue (in my opinion).

Hopefully a fraction of the $26M will be made available to actually implement some of the recommendations. Many of the things he recommends are already occurring and have been for a while, albeit slowly (WSP implementation, fish health monitoring etc).

I'll dive back into it this weekend. I'd like to actually read it first hand instead of formulating my opinion based on a short sound byte from a partisan blog.

Everyone has a right to their opinion of course as do you. Anyone that has followed Cohen closely will of course, be reading the 3 volumes from start to finish as will I and it will will take some time, some people may have more time than others to do so. It took 2 years for Cohen to complete the report so we have some time to digest it all properly.

The complete sound bite is a good start and I mentioned the FF part as this is the main topic on this section of FWR. Of course Nog gave an excellent recap as many will not read the full report like you and I.
Sorry I upset you.

[Novabonker]

http://www.vancouversun.com/Sockeye+report+balanced+salmon+farmers/7488176/story.html

Spinning bullbisquits into a blanket.....

[alwaysfishn]

Everyone has a right to their opinion of course as do you. Anyone that has followed Cohen closely will of course, be reading the 3 volumes from start to finish as will I and it will will take some time, some people may have more time than others to do so. It took 2 years for Cohen to complete the report so we have some time to digest it all properly.

The complete sound bite is a good start and I mentioned the FF part as this is the main topic on this section of FWR. Of course Nog gave an excellent recap as many will not read the full report like you and I.
Sorry I upset you.

I wouldn't worry about comments like dnibbles made......   If there was anything positive about the feedlots we would have had the proponents pointing them all out by now.

The point is there are known and unknown risks with the feedlots and Cohen recommends the precautionary principle be applied until there is research available that proves the feedlots are not causing harm. As we all know this is exactly the opposite of the approach the feedlots proponents have been pushing.......

[dnibbles]

No offence intended Chris. As this thread started off as a Cohen thread I would have liked to see it stay away from turning into a fish farming thread, since the report has so much more info in it. I expect the comments like af's, who has the Vic Toews mentality when it comes to this issue, but was very happy to read's Nog's post, which I saw as balanced and fair.

Go catch some coho 

[alwaysfishn]

No offence intended Chris. As this thread started off as a Cohen thread I would have liked to see it stay away from turning into a fish farming thread......

Maybe you should provide Rodney with a resume, so he can consider you for a moderator position........   

[absolon]

There appear to be a few here who have failed to notice that Cohen made 64 other recommendations pertaining to issues other than salmon farms that are equally relevant to the state of affairs surrounding sockeye. Any discussion of the report that doesn't also address those other recommendations is, as a consequence of that failure, nothing more than partisan posturing that ignores both the intent and the outcome of the Commission.

Cohen didn't say farms were responsible; he recommended that the research be done in order to determine if they are responsible along with a number of other recommendations for further research in other areas with the same goal in mind. Any attempt to represent his findings as anything other than that is just more of the same old nonsense that ignores facts in favour of personal opinions and as such isn't worth arguing.

The bigger and more important question is how Harper's government is going to respond, especially in light of his gutting of both the DFO and environmental legislation. Unless action is taken, and the likelihood of that happening doesn't appear very good, the whole exercise will have been nothing more than a colossal waste of time and money.

[alwaysfishn]

The bigger and more important question is how Harper's government is going to respond, especially in light of his gutting of both the DFO and environmental legislation. Unless action is taken, and the likelihood of that happening doesn't appear very good, the whole exercise will have been nothing more than a colossal waste of time and money.

That's always been a problem with DFO's conflict of interest in promoting feedlots while supposedly protecting wild salmon. That needs to change. There needs to be a different Federal dept responsible for feedlot promotion. However DFO would need to have the authority to overrule any decisions made by the new department that are a risk to wild salmon.

You're still singing the same song that "there is no science to prove the feedlots are harming salmon". The feedlots need to  accept responsibility for their share of the harm the feedlots are causing, as Cohen was quite specific on the risks.

It has been quite clear from the beginning that the feedlot proponents have attempted to redirect the responsibility from the feedlots to the other issues, and they continue to do so.

[absolon]

As we have discussed a number of times in the past, there is but one single reason why DFO was given the mandate to regulate farms and we all know what that reason is. For Morton and yourself and others to be moaning about that know is entirely disingenuous; it was Morton that put it in the DFO's hands and you in your comments here have supported her actions completely. To pretend otherwise is completely dishonest.

You, as usual, are completely misrepresenting what I said in yet another partisan effort to put your message out. Cohen was specific on the potential harm that might be caused but also specific on the fact that there is no proof of that harm. His recommendation was aimed at getting the necessary research done so that the answer was plain for all to see just as his other recommendations dealt with clearing up other unknowns. To represent it as anything else is entirely meaningless with respect to his report though certainly not out of character for you.

And I'll add one more thing: Anyone who participates in the Fraser sockeye snag fishery has no moral authority to be commenting on the decline of the sockeye stocks or the role of anyone or anything in that decline. Anyone who attempts to publicly justify that participation has less.

[chris gadsden]

Go catch some coho 

I did.

[ynot]

did cohen mention the fraser snag fishery ?

[silver ghost]

did cohen mention the fraser snag fishery ?

It is not mentioned in any of his reccomendations, but perhaps it is mentioned somewhere in volume 1 explaining the fisheyr itself.

Nevertheless, the 'snag fishery' as you call it is irrelevant because (most) people would only be harvesting sockeye when DFO has the river open for sockeye retention. The report is looking into who so many fewer sockeye returned than expected during a year where no commercial or recreational fisheries were opened; 2009 was the kicker year which initiated the inquiry, the third year of no commercial openings, with only 15% of the expected return showing up. (1.4 out of the expected 10 million).

[ynot]

i only asked because absolon said anybody who takes part in the sport flossing fishery has no moral right to comment on the decline of the sockeye. i do take part in this fishery
and enjoy it.

[alwaysfishn]

As we have discussed a number of times in the past, there is but one single reason why DFO was given the mandate to regulate farms and we all know what that reason is. For Morton and yourself and others to be moaning about that know is entirely disingenuous; it was Morton that put it in the DFO's hands and you in your comments here have supported her actions completely. To pretend otherwise is completely dishonest.

We all know you are not so naive as to believe that Morton was responsible for changing responsibility for fish farms from the Province to a Federal responsibility. The Province's management of the feedlots was illegal under the Canadian constitution and the courts corrected that....

You, as usual, are completely misrepresenting what I said in yet another partisan effort to put your message out. Cohen was specific on the potential harm that might be caused but also specific on the fact that there is no proof of that harm. His recommendation was aimed at getting the necessary research done so that the answer was plain for all to see just as his other recommendations dealt with clearing up other unknowns. To represent it as anything else is entirely meaningless with respect to his report though certainly not out of character for you.

Spend some time rereading the report.....   make sure you read the parts about the risk, harm and recommendations regarding minimizing the feedlots impact on wild salmon.

And I'll add one more thing: Anyone who participates in the Fraser sockeye snag fishery has no moral authority to be commenting on the decline of the sockeye stocks or the role of anyone or anything in that decline. Anyone who attempts to publicly justify that participation has less.

I didn't realize that you were competing with dnibbles for the position of moderator.   However, apparently you need to be reminded that this is a public forum, so even feedlot proponents are allowed to post. The survival of the wild salmon, including sockeye is important to all fishermen. Unfortunately if the feedlots are allowed to continue their practices, all fishermen will be limited in their opportunities to catch these fish.

[dnibbles]

And I'll add one more thing: Anyone who participates in the Fraser sockeye snag fishery has no moral authority to be commenting on the decline of the sockeye stocks or the role of anyone or anything in that decline. Anyone who attempts to publicly justify that participation has less.

I haven't been a part of the snaggery for 10+ years, and as much as I detest it and all that it has brought upon our fisheries, it has NOTHING to do with the decline in sockeye stocks. It represents such a small fraction of the total harvest that it is irrelevant in the big picture. Cohen didn't tai about it because it's a non-issue in terms of impact on sockeye popn's.

I did.

Good man, I'm jealous. I'm gonna have to deal with some of the weekend warriors tomorrow unfortunately (guess I am one now )

We all know you are not so naive as to believe that Morton was responsible for changing responsibility for fish farms from the Province to a Federal responsibility. The Province's management of the feedlots was illegal under the Canadian constitution and the courts corrected that....

Wow, incredible to see that statement  The standard af post that begins with "we all know....". Morton was not responsible?? http://deptwildsalmon.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/judge-hinkson-re-morton-v-british-columbia-agriculture-and-lands01-26.pdf   
BC may have done a shitty job of regulating the industry, but to claim that Morton was not responsible for the shift of jurisdiction to DFO??? yikes. I agree that getting it away from DFO is a great idea. DFO didn't want it, it was forced upon them by some unknown individual. So now who does it go to?

Keywords to scan Cohen for: FRSSI, contaminants, climate change, 2011Science, Beamish, Neville and Sweeting, and Discovery Islands. In this person's opinion, upon first scan and personal knowledge these are likely any of the key factors that may have cumulatively had impacts that have resulted in Fraser sockeye decline.

Just this one simple man's opinion. Read more tomorrow.

[norton]

So are the natives allowed to comment on the decline of the sockeye? Seems to me , they are responsible for the most destructive type of fishing method . Netting. Do we know how many fish each year they take? There should be no netting of any fish in the Fraser, including commercially.if we want to save our salmon . There are a lot of  things that effect our salmon as you all know, fish farms , warm water temperatures ,overfishing  in the ocean and our rivers, habitat destruction, and water pollution which I personally think is the worst  of all. All the community's up and down the Fraser dumping sewage into the river. Hope for instance just has aeration ponds which  force air into and then every so often drain the ponds and remove the solids. But all the liquids go directly into the Fraser. Can you imagine being a salmon trying to navigate, sometimes hundreds of miles, through a pot pouri of chemicals and then have enough energy to reproduce? I don't know how they do it. We have a lot of work to do.