|
The following was submitted on behalf of the
President by Bryan Allen:
TIDAL WATER FISHERIES COMMITTEE
ANNUAL REPORT - 2010
Contents
-Summary
-Your
“Right to Fish” is Big Business in Canada
-Halibut Allocation
-Habitat Protection
-Vision
Document
-Crab Reform
-Prawn
-Pacific Salmon commission
-Fraser River Habitat Destruction
-South Coast Ling Cod
-Yale Treaty
-North Coast
Recreational Fishing Outlook
-PNCIMA
Summary
Last year we reported to you on a number of
issues that directly impact your tidal water fishing activities.
This year we will up- date you on the status of those issues and any
new issues that have come to the forefront. We will explain to you
in detail the economic value of Recreational Fishing.
The failure in both the Federal and Provincial Governments ability
to protect fish habitat and the travesty of gravel removal from the
Fraser River. We will explain the continued attacks on the public’s
right to access to crab and halibut and ask you to direct the
Federation to head for the courtroom over the Privatization of our
Fisheries. We will explain the “Inquiry into the decline of sockeye
salmon in the Fraser River” and what our role will be.
We will touch on the Pacific Salmon Commission, North Coast
Recreational Fishing expectations for 2010, South Coast Ling Cod,
The vision document, Impacts of Treaty’s and explain “Pacific North
Coast Integrated Management Area” (PNCIMA)
(top)
Your
“Right to Fish” is Big Business in Canada
Your committee feels that in dealing with our fisheries there are
two key things we all must keep in mind and bring forward whenever
we are talking to the public and the politicians.
One is that this is a “public fishery”, it belongs to all Canadians
and every Canadian has a Common Law “Right” to fish. This right can
only be changed or eliminated by legislation designating such a
course. No such competent legislation has ever been approved by our
Federal Government who have the authority over fisheries.
The second is that aside from providing Canadians an opportunity to
exercise their “right” to fish, the recreational fisheries in B.C.
and Canada are big business. These fisheries are major contributors
to our economy and also to the government coffers.
The National Recreational Fisheries Survey carried out every 5 years
and last done in 2005 show that the recreational fishery in B.C.
generates annually economic activity to the tune of $1.5 billion.
That is 50% more than the film industry, which our government
extensively. subsidizes.
In the same year the total economic benefits generated by the
commercial fishery for all of Canada was $2.8 billion but guess
what, the Canadian expenditures for recreational fishing were $7.5
billion.
In B.C., anglers spend more each year on their equipment, 16 times
more, than is spent by those involved in the skiing industry.
In B.C., anglers generate more economic activity, over 4 times more,
than is generated by the cruise ship industry..
Our tidal waters fisheries generate over $800 million in economic
benefits to B.C.
The recreational fishery in British Columbia means jobs! Lots of
jobs! 17,400 jobs!
Freshwater sport fishing generates 7,500 British Columbia jobs and
tidal water fishing generates almost 10,000 jobs.
Not only is sport fishing good business for British Columbia, it is
a very profitable cash cow for both our Federal and Provincial
governments: a $ 285 million cash cow, each and every year.
Freshwater angling in British Columbia generates $57.4 million
annually in revenues to our provincial government and another $80
million goes to our federal government coffers.
The tidal waters fishery provides our provincial government with
another $58.2 million each year and the federal government gets
another $95.4 million.
This works out to an annual income to the Provincial Government of
$115 million and a further $170 million to the Federal Government,
directly attributable to our B.C. recreational fishery.
Collectively, that’s right, collectively, these same governments
invest less than $30 million into the management of our fisheries
each year.
It is critical that our members, the public in general and our
politicians are made aware of these facts and we urge members to
make them known to all and sundry at every opportunity.
(top)
Halibut
This long and somewhat sad story is continuing much as it began; the
public fishery with 12% of the Canadian total allowable catch (TAC),
and the commercial fleet with 88%. This affront to the public right
to fish and misuse of a common property resource is compounded by
the fact that only 123 of the original quota holders actually fish
halibut. The other 320 simply lease “their” quota (which was gifted
to them in perpetuity by the Minister of Fisheries some years ago),
to other commercial harvesters for a windfall profit..
Our Canadian side was in Seattle at the International Pacific
Halibut Commission ( IPHC) hearings where they determine the TAC we
will be allowed to fish for this coming year. The good news in all
of this is that the senior DFO staff and Ottawa HQ have taken a
stronger interest in how this process takes place. By direction and
some involvement from Ottawa the Canadian delegation has created
more of a team Canada approach, to secure an improved share of the
total coast wide TAC for Canada.
It looks like the recreational domestic TAC finally determined, will
be 901,440 lbs., smaller than in 2009 which will mean a reduced
season, or most of the year at 1 per day, one total in possession.
Last year the recreational community had some money in a special
trust account, left over from the two years when it was determined
that we did not harvest all the halibut, and the commercial folk
leased it from us. We used most of that money last year to lease
additional halibut quota (from the 88% gifted to private interests)
to add to our 12%, which enabled us to fish with a possession limit
of 2, and a daily bag limit of 2 for the last part of the season.
There is $ 482,000.00 left in this fund. This coming season will
likely see one of the strongest restrictions on halibut catch we
have ever had, and is a direct reflection of being allocated only
12% of Canada’s TAC.
A small, flickering light is the fact that the Deputy Minister
appears to have taken our concerns seriously and has spent some time
talking to harvest groups to understand all the issues. She was in
B.C. in January to meet with a representative from the commercial
fishermen, and Gerry Kristianson, our SFAB Chair. She has also
appointed a potential facilitator, Roger Stanyer, who will meet with
both representatives to see if there is any point in convening
discussions about possible resolutions. However, even if talks
began, it would not be possible to change anything for 2010.
What lies ahead? There has been some talk of the possibility the
Minister may start the process of the User Fee Act, which would
result in either a general increase in Tidal Water license fees, or
a number of specific stamps for various species. There is also
continued talk of “Harvest Sharing” of crab and other species on
some, as yet, unspecified basis, so, what happens with crab may set
a precedent for other species.
This is watershed allocation issue; worth all the effort we have put
into it to date and will have to put into it in the near future.
(top)
HABITAT PROTECTION
Your committee is saddened to report that to date we have seen no
improvement in either the commitment or actual effort on behalf of
our Federal or Provincial Governments to protect and, where possible
restore fish habitat.
As an example of how bad the situation is we provide the following
background and quotes from the 2009 Auditor General’s report on the
situation with regard fish habitat protection by DFO.
“Fish are an important renewable marine and freshwater resource for
Canada. For First Nations, fish are a central part of their culture
and a vital food source. For other communities throughout Canada,
fish have an economic significance for both commercial and
recreational purposes. For example, in 2005 the total value of
commercial fish landed was $2.1 billion; 52,805 people were employed
in fishing and 29,342 in fish processing; and more than 3.2 million
adult anglers participated in recreational fishing, which
contributed $7.5 billion to the Canadian economy.”
“Fish habitat represents assets that are important not only for
fish, but also for human health and recreational use. Healthy
habitat—places where fish can spawn, feed, grow, and live—is a
fundamental requirement for sustaining fish, providing food and
shelter for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, and contributing to
water quality for human consumption and other uses”
“The federal government is responsible for sea-coast and inland
fisheries under the Constitution Act, 1867. The Fisheries Act
contains provisions directed at protecting fish and fish habitat
from certain human activity. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Fisheries
Act.”
“The 1986 Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat (Habitat Policy)
remains the current policy for the protection of fish habitat. The
Policy established a long-term objective of a net gain of habitat
for Canada’s fisheries resources. It also set out policy goals and
strategies for the management of fish habitat supporting freshwater
and marine fisheries.”
The auditors reviewed some 30 projects dealing with habitat threats
and found; “that required steps were not followed consistently.
“None of the project files we reviewed contained all of the
information that the Department requires to assess a project.
Auditor Recommendation: “In order to make consistent decisions on
project referrals, in accordance with departmental expectations,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada should ensure that an appropriate
risk-based quality assurance system is in place for the review of
these decisions.”
Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s response. “… by 31 March 2010,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada will implement a risk-based quality
assurance system to verify that documentation standards are being
applied consistently by staff.”
N.B. Given the past record of DFO in responding to this type of
advice your committee will be following this situation closely and
will advise members of our findings. Other than more “smoke and
mirrors”, we do not expect to find anything substantive that has
taken place.
DFO also responded to habitat concerns by stating that;
“Modernization of the Habitat Management Program is progressing”
We suggest that our members should interpret that statement as
meaning: “We are continuing to turn over responsibility for habitat
protection to the developers.”
(top)
A vision for recreational fisheries in B.C. – 2009 – 2013
One of the more positive results of SFAB activities in recent years
is this long-awaited document approved by the Minister of Fisheries
in January, 2010 that lays the groundwork for the future of the
public fishery. Minister Shea deserves our thanks for her support of
a vibrant public fishery on the Pacific coast as do members of the
SFAB who participated in the development of the document. This
vision document is dedicated to the late John Brockley whose
knowledge of, dedication to, and tenacity in defense of, the public
fishery is largely reflected in the text. The document spells out
roles and responsibilities, historical perspective, principles,
strategic goals, and much more. It will be the primary reference
with which we pursue the interests of recreational anglers in
future.
(top)
Crabs
This past summer and Fall saw a number of Crab Working Group
meetings with members of the newly formed Pacific Crab Management
Assoc. and DFO shellfish staff to review, discuss, and come up with
recommendations around a Draft Dungeness Crab Reform paper put out
by DFO. These discussions were not always pleasant as the commercial
folk there were quite assertive about “their crabs” and the fact
that in their minds any reduction in their current harvest level
would be “Reallocation”. Unless they were compensated for any
change, they were not prepared to discuss the issue. We never did
reach a consensus on what would, or should happen to change current
commercial fishing patterns or places to enable recreational catch
to improve to what it was before the huge increase in catch by the
commercial sector. What we said very definitely was that there is no
formal allocation of crabs to anyone at the moment (yes, it may
happen) so we do not understand how anyone can talk about
re-allocation. The next battle, coming soon, will be the actual
creation of an allocation, perhaps based on square meters of crab
fishing area.
In the fall of 2009, DFO presented a draft proposal for 2010 which
had some suggestions around commercial changes which included: no
hanging bait, limits or reductions on numbers of commercial traps in
some areas, and pilot study areas for set numbers of trap hauls. The
draft also had some language around a few areas for seasonal
commercial closures in popular recreational areas, as well as an
outline for an application process to discuss and possibly implement
some permanent non-commercial areas in the future. After we met with
DFO over this draft, it was changed to include 3 non-commercial
closed areas and 4 seasonal closures to commercial fishing. In
addition, the language and process for implementing new non
commercial areas was changed to clarify who would collect and
provide appropriate data on these areas ( DFO ) and a time line for
decision making.
This revised draft was supposed to be signed off by the Pacific
Region of DFO and implemented for 2010, but in the end Regional
staff and the RDG decided it had to be signed off by Ottawa. If this
does go ahead as proposed, it is giant step forward from when we
started in that DFO now will officially recognize non commercial
areas set aside for FSC and Recreational crab fishing to provide us
with better access to the (our) crab resource.
(top)
Prawn
The situation with prawns is not unlike that of crab; not surprising
considering the two groups are represented by the same lobbyist.
Whenever we propose a differential in the management index, they cry
RE-ALLOCATION and refuse to discuss the matter. They have also
insisted that their fishery be left open until they are fishing
right down to the management index (10% above the conservation
index). Obviously, if both the commercial and recreational
harvesters are managed to the same index level in every management
area (and we are!) then, there is no possibility of keeping the
public fishery open past the commercial fishery closure date for
fear of fishing below the conservation index level at which point
sustainability of the resource may be in jeopardy. To their credit,
prawn managers have announced to the Prawn Working Group that, for
reasons of conservation, they intend to apply a 15% differential
(i.e. commercial closes at 25% above the conservation index and we
close at 10% above this index) but this would only apply in those
high use areas where the public fishery is facing winter closures
now. It maybe a case of too little, too late in some high use areas,
particularly where there is a defacto commercial FSC fishery
operating year round with no accountability for catch. Even with
this minor change, the re-allocation cry was heard again. The dumb
part of all this is that if the commercial management index was
increased coast-wide, commercial harvesters will, if a report out of
DFO Science Branch is accurate, catch more prawns in future. It will
be interesting to see if the intended differential is included in
the prawn IFMP or if the commercial boys have successfully lobbied
the Minister to agree with their position.
(top)
Pacific Salmon Commission
There was nothing really contentious nor outstanding from the
Commission meetings this January. Most time was spent reviewing both
countries’ Post Season Reports, which give details of catch in each
salmon species covered by the Treaty. There was a lot of discussion
on the lack of Sockeye opportunity, in fact the members of the
upcoming Judicial Inquiry in to the Fraser Sockeye were at the
Fraser Panel meetings and general Commission meetings to see how the
system works.
It turns out the PSC Endowment Fund Investments have regained some
of the lost ground, and this coming year approx. 11 million dollars
will be dispersed to programs that had begun but had to stop when
the economy and stock market lost ground last year. If your group
uses these funds, or would like to, it would be worthwhile to begin
applying again.
(top)
JUDICIAL INQUIRY
This past winter Prime Minister Harper announced a Judicial Inquiry
into the Decline of Fraser River Sockeye. Judge Cohen will preside
over this Inquiry.
Apparently the fate of our other, more economically viable salmon
stocks has little interest to him or his government. That stated,
the B.C. Wildlife Federation has applied for standing in this
Inquiry and your committee has been active in preparing, background
and submissions. At the time of writing of this report we had not
yet received word of the acceptance or rejection of our application
and we will present an update at the convention. ( The Federation
has been granted status at the inquiry now..ed)
It is our intention, given the wide scope of the Terms of Reference
of this Inquiry, to bring to the attention of the Commissioner, the
government and the public, the fact that the decline in Fraser River
Sockeye is but a symptom of the overall malaise within DFO that is
resulting in the mismanagement of the vast majority of our salmon
and other fish stocks.
We intend to point out that Sockeye are no longer the money fish
they once were and that the returns to Canada from Coho and Chinook
and other species bring far more in economic benefits that do
Sockeye. That being said, we do not downgrade the importance of the
Sockeye but it is time someone spent a little effort assessing how
much time, energy and money is being spent on Fraser River Sockeye
and their management as compared to all the other real money stocks.
It is our contention that the Fraser River Sockeye situation is not
a simple one and there are no easy answers. First and foremost we
need to see DFO getting out in front of the problem and attempting
to get answers to some of the key questions. Questions such as,
after the fish leave their natal streams, how many actually make it
to the mouth of the Fraser River. And then how many of them make it
through the Strait of Georgia into the open ocean. Once you have
some answers to these questions you have the beginning of a chance
to focus your energy on just where and what the problem is. Sadly,
we must report that we see no effort on the part of DFO or our
Federal Government to make any moves to find the answers to these
basic questions.
We need to also make the point that with an over 50% cut in
operating budgets for stock assessment, our managers are basically
working blind, and not just with Sockeye but with all fish stocks in
both the salt and freshwater environments.
Science is making all sorts of sounds about concerns over the
impacts of climate change on our salmonid stocks but we see no work
at all being done or contemplated on possible options for the
future. Do we write our fish and fisheries off or are there
alternatives in either species or management that we should be
looking at to provide fishing for the future?
(top)
FIRST NATIONS TREATY
IMPACTS
Both our Provincial and Federal Governments, and of course the First
Nations are all celebrating the signing of the final agreement with
the Yale Band on the Fraser River. This is one of the smallest Bands
on the Fraser River and under the terms of their Treaty they have
been given an allocation of over 2% of the total allowable catch of
Fraser River Sockeye returns. These conditions are similar to those
received by another Fraser River Band, the Tsawwassen in their
Treaty agreement. So we now have two of the smallest Bands on the
Fraser each receiving 2% of the Sockeye return. Your committee notes
there are a further 96 Bands on the Fraser who will also be
negotiating a share of the Sockeye returns and the vast majority of
these are larger in numbers than either Yale or Tsawwassen.
The math is simple, if the current scenario is carried on throughout
the Fraser we end up with an allocation to First Nations of 196% of
the total allowable Fraser Sockeye catch. Even if the politicians
and their negotiators, (they certainly are not negotiating on our
behalf) wake up and finally get the numbers; and decide that hey, we
are going to have to cut back the allocation of these bigger bands
and give them only 1% of the Sockeye. Now even if we could accept
that these other larger Bands are foolish enough to accept this type
of deal, and our experience tells us they are not, then we would
only end up with 100% of the Fraser Sockeye catch being allocated to
First Nations.
Oh but wait, there are still all the Bands in the Strait of Georgia,
Johnston Strait, Juan de Fuca Strait all who are historically
entitled to a percentage of the Fraser River Sockeye. And oh yes, we
did already allocate a portion of the Fraser Sockeye in previous
Treaty Agreements we had with the Nuu-chah-nulth on the West Coast
of Vancouver Island. Given these simple figures, it is easy to
understand that if the current government policies are continued, we
will see the beginning of the end of the tidal recreational fishery
and our in-river fisheries.
Members should also be aware that the past practice of government in
turning over management authority for fish and wildlife species not
specifically identified with quotas in the Treaty has continued with
the Yale agreement. In short, other than Sockeye, Pink, Chum, Coho
and Chinook salmon, the Yale Band is free to set their own harvest
limits on every other species of fish within their territory and the
same goes for wildlife. Government can only intervene if there is a
“conservation” problem or a threat to public health or safety.
Your committee cannot overemphasize how important it is that you,
and every angler in this province speaks to their MLA and MP
regarding this ongoing effort to destroy our fishery and the
industry and jobs that go with it.
(top)
Lingcod
Not much to report on lingcod. The Strait of Georgia public fishery
on lingcod will be similar to last year but will be 2 weeks longer.
In 2009, the public fishery exceeded the total number of rockfish
by-catch slightly but the lingcod catch was less than the TAC.
The SFAB proposed lowering the minimum size to 60 cm. along the west
coast of Vancouver Island; in part, to reduce the catch of large
females and partly to standardize the regulations in both areas.
However, DFO Science Branch balked, arguing that another computer
model should be run first to determine if the first model was
accurate. (This proposal was rejected by DFO. The size limit has
been raised back to 65cm –ed)
Why we need another model is anyone’s guess. The first one said we
could take 25,000 lingcod annually and not affect the rebuilding of
the St. of G. stock. A conservative TAC of 5000 was imposed (which
the public fishery has not exceeded) and the smaller minimum size
limit of 60 cm reduced the impact on both incidentally-caught
rockfish and large lingcod spawners. It doesn’t take another
computer model to determine that the same positive benefits will
occur if the size limit on WCVI was also reduced. However, it would
appear there are elements in Science Branch that are not prepared to
“foster” (to quote from the vision document recently signed off by
the Minister) a public fishery on lingcod.
(top)
Recreational Fishing Outlook – North Coast
For those of you planning to holiday in the North this summer, here
is what you can expect. Halibut opened to 1 per day 2 possession on
Feb. 1. These limits are subject to change (See Halibut Report) Cod,
Crab and Prawn limits are expected to be the same as last year. For
Chinook, average returns are expected for the Skeena and no bag
limit changes are anticipated. While Coho returns are “Dependant on
the survival of juveniles to sea” a strong return is expected to
area 3 and no changes to bag limits are anticipated. Sockeye, Pink
and Chum returns are expected to be poor and another dismal year is
anticipated for the commercial net fleet. Ocean limits for the
recreational fishery are expected to remain the same. The enhanced
chum fishery in the Kitimat River is expected to be conducted but
pink and sockeye fisheries in the Skeena are undecided at this
point. The predicted run of sockeye to the Skeena River is 664,000
well below escapement requirements.
(top)
PNCIMA Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area
The Oceans Act affirms that DFO as the lead Federal Authority for
Oceans and empowers its Minister to lead the development and
implementation of integrated management plans for all activities in
or affecting estuaries, coastal waters and marine areas.
On Dec 11, 2008 The First Nations Represented by “Coastal First
Nations” and the “North Coast – Skeena First Nations Stewardship
Society” signed a PNCIMA collaborative Oceans Governance Memorandum
of understanding with DFO.
The PNCIMA is approximately 88,000 km2 in size. It covers the near
shore and offshore areas of the Pacific Coast from Alaska to
Campbell River on Vancouver Island. The process will look at marine
transportation and vessel safety, maritime defense and security,
F.S.C., commercial and recreational fisheries, marine recreation and
tourism, aquaculture, renewable and non, renewable ocean energy,
existing land and coastal plans, marine protection tools, cultural
resources, marine spills and pollution, climate change, invasive
species and species at risk.
While much of this is a worthwhile exercise there are some things to
be aware of. The BCWF to date has received no funding to
participate. We are likely the only ones at the table not being
paid.
Who represents our interests if the crown is to “Consult with and
reasonable accommodate Aboriginal interest”.
On February 9 in Prince Rupert we witness a vicious attack on the
Recreational Fishery by members of both the Commercial Fishery and
First Nations and the facilitator accepting false information as
legitimate input. It should be noted that the BCWF relationship with
the consortium “Coastal First Nations” is extremely strained over
there uncompromising anti-hunting position. Are these the people we
are to expect to embrace and promote our interests? Make no mistake;
all the environmental non-government organizations are at the table.
Their interest will be in forming a mosaic of marine protected
areas. These MPA’s can be very restrictive and negatively impact
your rights to access, fishing and hunting. There are numerous
PNCIMA workshops planned up and down the coast this year. When it
comes to your neighborhood, stand up and be counted. (We need to get
involved in this one as a club—ed)
Respectfully Submitted,
Tidal Water Fisheries Committee
Edited to reduce the impact on our webpages. The complete report is
available from our Sport Fish Director, Bryan Allen
(top)
|
