Print

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

[chris gadsden]

http://www.theprogress.com/news/380308881.html?mobile=true

[Tangles]

From what I gather this is not about protection of the species but rather allocating slots of catches from one user group to another e.g. from sporties to FN groups. With not much sockeye projected to return they want to make up catches focusing on the springs. Also commercial and FN catches outnumber sports catch by a huge margin so putting the strain on sporties first is not exactly the definition of fairness.
Same thing already happened in the States with the first ever full salmon closure in Pudget Sound halting a $100 million industry of shops, guides, lodges, etc. This is causing quite the uproar already, just google "Pudget sound salmon closure" and you'll get a notion of it. DFO is mimicking their policies so far so it's not too hard to foresee what awaits us behind the corner.
 Again I might just be misinformed so don't quote me on all that.

[glog]

The solution is very easy to what has and is becoming a race based fishery. The excess fish are allocated on a percentage that is fixed to the three groups recreation ,native and commercial.  The actual number of fish therefore changes based on the returns.  That's fair are reasonable to all groups. Unfortunately certain groups involved aren't interested in being reasonable and until someone takes charge it will go on and on year after year. 

[TheLostSockeye]

Ahh.. I didn't know commercial had openings too.. that native Americans are one thing.. are there really commercial openings for springs/early summer???

I'm not sure about commercial but I know that the First Nations hit the chinook runs in the Fraser pretty hard. I myself have a lot of FN friends and they fish when they don't have openings all the time. Its so easy for them to set nets and catch any kind of fish thats in the fraser. Of course there are the good and bad of the bunch. I know some guys that only keep certain species (eg. sockeye, chinook, pinks, chums) While others just keep everything including wild coho + steelhead.

[bbronswyk2000]

Its BS giving our allocation ( us sporties ) to the natives. We take so little of what is actually taken. Why should we be the ones to give up our opportunities? The opening used to be in May now its going to be August? If we are lucky?

I wish I had more time on my hands to be able to give to help with this fight. This is so wrong in so many ways. Think of it like this. The average person works Monday-Friday. He/She is lucky if they can get one day on the weekend to get out to fish. So they go out on Saturday get one fish and go home. How much is that impacting the resource? Now you give that all to the native fishery. Yup lets just give it all to them. The hatcheries that we are paying for to produce many of those fish that are coming back should not at all be given to us. Makes allot of sense to me.

[typhoon]

Natives get first crack at the stocks, by law. If you don't like it lobby your MP to have the law changed (it won't happen).
The only option is to enforce the existing anti-poaching laws. This group should be lobbying government to give DFO some teeth.

[dobrolub]

From what I am seeing on the rivers recreational anglers take very little, almost always below the  limit.

Now, rec. anglers are paying about 75 for a year's freshwater license and about the same for salt. On top of that we are regularly buying gear which keeps a  number of businesses afloat and brings tax dollars. If they keep cutting as they do, anglers will start dropping out of sport. We already see stores going belly up, and there'll be fewer anglers every year  if trend continues.

Retirees are paying less, and that's fair if the fishing opportunities remain. But when opportunities are short, I am starting to think do I get enough value back for my money? And if that's what others are thinking the money for hatcheries will start drying up. When that happens, there won't be any fish no matter if you are native or not. (this whole native issue is discrimination anyways, so that has to change. You can't have first sort people and others).

Given that restrictions make no sense and don't seem fair I come to the conclusion that the restrictions are put in place for a different reason.

[dobrolub]

Remember we are all natives to this planet. Giving  preference to one group of people might have made sense in the past, but no longer makes any sense. Instead, it may create a false sense of entitlement, etc. count in here all the negative things that stem from a group of people feeling special about themselves.

If the restrictions don't make, don't seem fair, and are put in place for a different reason, what would that reason be?

If you see where the trend takes our society you can reason about the reason. Imagine a society that can not fish, hunt, grow their own food, collect their own water, produce their own energy, shelter, etc. That's where we are all collectively going. Implementing progressive restrictions on fishing and hunting is one of the parallel streams where change takes place. If the change is slow enough the population will give up their habits without noticing it.

I am not saying that there is a master plan, but I would have one if I was in position of power / money / capabilities.