Fisheries and where blame lies is like the Climate change debate. Everybody is an expert and they all have their rock solid basis of information In the end, we will accomplish nothing except for the demise of the fish themselves, as we choose to not be honest with ourselves and others, and there is enough PR experts on all sides of the equation to avoid analysis of their role in the equation and deflect scrutiny on the issue towards others in order to protect their own self interests.
To see this process in action, just follow the Thompson River Steelhead debates from 10 to 15 years ago. How quickly we forget. Was there Steelhead in the Thompson at one time? As someone who visits the Chilcotin River each year, and not necessarily to fish, I have some interesting perspectives on this, and my own "learned biases". Maybe my biases are correct? We are probably coming close to a time where we could look to debate if there were Thompson Steelhead, or just really big rainbow trout that people imagined were Steelhead. Yes. Deploying bitter sarcasm here, but hoping we get the idea. And while people may talk about Thompson Steelhead and various aspects about them, I have seen Chilcotin Steelhead in my time and day.
https://vancouversun.com/news/chilcotin-river-steelhead-run-near-extinctionI have read the Narwhal before and find some of their articles to be informative. But, reading this thread, and then reading the Narwhal would have you question what is really the truth of the issue. Within this article, I see some, what I would call, "special interest" red herring, while some key parts of the equation are glassed over and left out completely.
https://thenarwhal.ca/low-fraser-river-sockeye-salmon-bc/My point is the PR teams from all sides of the debate will have us wound up so much that we lose site of the big picture. The fish!!! They are so busy on the PR campaign and winning supporters that at the end of the day, Fraser River salmon will become another Thompson River trout, or something like that.
Be careful what "camp" you decide to fall in and give credit for the truth when it comes to the crux of the issue. I have not payed much hommage to a lot I read, watch, or hear in the last while, for I am always looking for bias and self interest. But, I must admit, this video really has got me and intrigued and thinking a lot about the perspective and message;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_paQMwBWvoStill looking for the bias or the PR component in this video, but have not found it.
Maybe the message is self interest in that if we practice extreme, no holds bar conservation for 20 years, a 65 year old Captain Quinn and his 25 year old son with his 4 year old grandchild may be able to go out and fish and capture fish once again.
I guess the way I see it is if DFO mandate was the fish were priority #1, and all other groups were placed 100th, we may not have this issue. Watching the exchange between the DFO official and Fred really illustrated this. I felt bad, as the DFO guy was put on the spot and using words to defend a "mandate", but even in listening to his politically orchestrated speech, you could find faults and things that were contradictory, if you hung on his every statement word for word.
Just my perspective...
Dano
(who spent 55 days this summer fishing various lakes of BC and was blown away by what I caught and the success I had. Well, a bit of a lie. I have had great success with this fishery since 1995 and been overwhelmingly excited ever since, at some point, choosing to give up fishing July for Lower Mainland springs. Well, nearly).
Have I given up on salmon? Hopefully not. Wishing this journey to be continued at some point in the future, thus creating my own biased view.
Author
Topic: Demo Update Fraser River (Read 4116 times)