Bent Rod said:
... Iron Noggin, clearly not much protection is being given to Fraser salmon that I can see. We have some west coast closures on commercials and what else??. Is there a proposed reduction in sport anglers ocean limits??.
Have the Alaskans and many lodges along the coast been made to play ball.
The closures on the WC Commercial sector have been building for many years. Area G was simply an example. Most commercial fleets have been quite seriously cut back in the numbers of vessels, as well as their related quotas. This year most will face amongst the hardest hit in recent years, and this easily represents the hardest hit to any Canadian sector. Will that be enough? Any-one's guess, but it is the type of steps you appear to desire.
The reduction amongst the recreational sector was one that was discussed
ad nauseum between DFO and the SFAB of late. There will be terminal restrictions, and a coast-long "
corridor" which is presumed to afford escalated protection for Fraser origin fish. So, yes, concessions have been made.
Alaska, much to a great many's bewilderment, has cut their all sector quota for springs by 48%. Many of us are left to wonder just why the
Renegade State would cave in to pressure from the Treaty process, but it very much appears they have:
http://www.seafa.org/?p=280
Hopefully this will afford some relief to not only the Fraser, but many of the other southern-origin stocks facing problems of late!
We have over harvested salmon for far too long and we are about to pay the piper.
Absolutely.
Had there been a reasonable reduction in ocean intercepted fish by all sectors perhaps we could experience that. Most importantly ample numbers could make the redds and we could all benefit.
And therein is the thrust of this year's planning. Sincerely hope it works!!
As for the decision by the judges, this is great that it allows DFO to still manage fisheries and have a "sport" opening, what you are clearly missing is the fact that FN have serious quotas of food/ceremonial fish and these are the ones that I am speaking to when I speak of the sport closure helping DFO curtail these fisheries.
Nope, not missing a thing here actually. The Douglas case was based directly upon a FN Band claiming FSC rights to a diminished stock, and pressing the point due to the fact DFO allowed a recreational opening. Exactly the matter you refer to. Legal opinions now suggest that "management" cannot be held prisoner by FN groups as to force openings for FSC fish, despite active recreational openings, and this may be expanded upon to include commercial.
I am very much aware of the removal rate that occurs as a consequence of FN activity, but chose to align with the originator of this thread, and not turn this into yet another FN bash.
While FN are entitled to these fish, managers are hoping that FN will forgo the quotas for the sake of saving the runs.
Not too likely IMHO.
I have a couple of good Buddies currently fishing the bounty on the Columbia, and the situation is very much as you've noted. Some possible reason for optimism.
Yes, these are sad and dire times for the salmon. Many face the edge of the precipice as to survival. Time for all of us to band together and do what is right for the sake of these precious stocks. And by saying that, I do mean all of us. Hopefully including FN groups.
Will these steps be enough? Only time will tell. And although I very much feel for those amongst the hardest hit, reducing impact is, at this time, right up there amongst the only viable options.
Cheers,
Nog
