form Flickr_alinnigan
Two fitting articles this week by Mark Hume in the Globe and Mail — reporting from the Cohen Commission:
_ _ _ _ _
The first article published on May 31 suggests:
A unique population of sockeye salmon identified in 2004 as facing “a high probability of extinction” wasn’t given protection under the Species At Risk Act because the federal government was worried about the cost of shutting down fisheries…
… Documents filed with the Cohen Commission of inquiry this week show DFO officials knew in 2004 that the Cultus population, which has declined 92 per cent over the past 15 years, could go extinct if commercial, native and recreational fisheries weren’t curtailed.
The sockeye spawn in Cultus Lake, near Chilliwack, about 100 kilometres east of Vancouver. When adult fish return to spawn, they co-migrate in the ocean and Lower Fraser River with larger runs of sockeye that are headed to other watersheds. [sound familiar — read posts most recent posts on this site]. Cultus fish, which look identical to other sockeye, are often killed in nets set for other runs of salmon.
A government assessment in 2004 concluded the Cultus population, which has unique genetic and biological characteristics, collapsed largely due to overfishing.
Despite such efforts, the Cultus sockeye population, which historically averaged about 20,000 a year, has fallen to a four-year average of just 1,000 spawners.
_ _ _ _ _
This is called mixed-stock fisheries — and it has to stop.
Not only have largely gill-net fisheries, and also seine-net fisheries, focusing on the larger, appearing healthy runs of sockeye captured other endangered stocks like steelhead or coho — they also captured and continue to (when open) capture sockeye from endangered smaller sockeye stocks from other rivers within the Fraser.
I can’t say this enough times… DFO (along with the Pacific Salmon Commission) only have enough information for NINETEEN Fraser sockeye stocks. Rough estimates suggest there was once over TWO HUNDRED distinct and unique Fraser sockeye stocks.
That is in other words… DFO and Pacific Salmon Commission are “MANAGING” Fraser sockeye with information on less than 10% of all the stocks.
How would you feel if you’re pension fund was MANAGED by fund managers that only had enough information to track 10% of the stocks held within their mutual funds or pension plans?
How would you feel getting on a plane and flying to a destination that the pilot only had 10% of the information required to land?
_ _ _ _ _
Let’s follow this logic further…
The article states:
…John Davis, who retired in 2008 as DFO’s associate deputy minister of science, said in testimony at the Cohen Commission, Monday and Tuesday, that the socio-economic impact of shutting down fisheries, just to protect the small Cultus run, was considered too great.
He said listing under SARA would have led to widespread fishery closings costing $126-million in lost revenue over four years.
hmmmm… yes…let’s follow the logic…
The “socio-economic impact of shutting down fisheries, just to protect the small Cultus run was considered too great…”
One might assume that “socio” suggests ‘social’ — well, in fact it does. A dictionary definition suggests: “socio: denoting social or society.”
So what we’re talking about here is the social and economic impacts of closing the fishery would be too great? (because when you say “socio-economic”… you’re just lazily saying “social and economic” in a nice bumpfy, academic way).
The article continues:
At the inquiry, Mr. Davis said the government tried to balance the potential environmental losses against the financial gains associated with keeping fisheries open.
“Clearly the department wanted to do the right thing,” he said.
But under cross-examination by Brenda Gaertner, a lawyer representing the First Nations Coalition, Mr. Davis acknowledged that at the time the government did not assess the “social value” of the Cultus fish to aboriginal communities. The coalition represents 12 bands that have standing at the Cohen Commission.
“I don’t think there’s a way of putting value [on the social importance of salmon] … I wouldn’t know how to value that,” he said.
Ohhh, ok… so DFO didn’t really look at all the “socio”-economic considerations… or any for that fact…
It took a cursory look, and just as this department always has… and should have learned already in the North Atlantic Cod collapse of the 1990s… that not listening to scientists that shout: “stop industrial-scale fishing damn it!”
… and…
… not considering the long-term economic costs of collapsed fish stocks… is actually far more expensive in the long-run.
And not just in economic terms — in those pesky, un-measurable “social” terms as well.
And who bears the burden… well… the young folks of today in every community — along with all of the potentially devastating ecological consequences of losing what ecologists like to call a “keystone”… a key part of the puzzle… a key food source for all sorts of organisms… including the next generations of wild salmon.
BUT NO…
As stated in great DFO wisdom…
…listing under SARA would have led to widespread fishery closings costing $126-million in lost revenue over four years.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Potential lost revenues of $126 million… Based on what?
Some computer model in Ottawa that utilizes tiddlywinks and Yahtzee scorecards for economic equations?
Looking at DFO’s own information on their the landed value of the Fraser sockeye commercial fishery in 2004 — combining Fraser River commercial catches with all of the South Coast (not all Fraser sockeye) was approximately $14 million.
In 2005: $1.7 million
In 2006: $24 million
In 2007: $135,000 (yes that’s “one hundred thirty five thousand”)
In 2008: $158,000
My math ain’t great… but that’s what… less than $30 million landed value for Fraser sockeye… over 4 years… after the 2004 decision to not list Cultus sockeye…
Where the hell did the potential losses of $126 million come from
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
See that’s the problem with this broken federal ministry…
from Flickr_MarxFoods.com
…many numbers seem to come from some la-la never-never land equation dreamed up in the creative suites in the depths of some Ottawa hallway, where the only salmon people see is on their bureaucratic convention lunch menu hosted across the street from Rideau Hall…
“wild Pacific Salmon flambe in sundried tomato cream sauce”
(i don’t actually know what’s across the street from Rideau Hall, it just popped out)
_ _ _ _ _ _
And the absolute sad, pathetic irony of all this is that DFO did have to end out curtailing sockeye fisheries to protect smaller, weaker stocks — in 2009 with a near full shut down of every sockeye fishery and even in 2010 the “miracle” year… the apparent “record-breaking” year… commercial fisheries still had to be shut down to protect weak stocks.
When will this ministry learn?
When will the culture change?
When will the name change from “Fisheries” and Oceans to “Fish & Oceans”?
Or… The Department of Fish in Oceans… has a nice ring to it.
Cultus has a long, protracted entry overlapping Early Summers, Summers and other Lates so fisheries (commercial, sporties and First Nations) would have to be curtailed big time. I am not a big fan of mixed stock fisheries either, but I think more than just government culture needs to change. Stakeholders and First Nations have a role to play in this also…..because there is the other side of the coin…..These groups demand that the government provide fisheries for them. One side you have conservationists such as yourself and on the other side you have people that want to fish and equally complain to government. I agree you raise some good points Dave, but I feel people as a whole need to changes as well as their expectations.
With fisheries management you are dealing with all these groups – not just one. You have commercial guys wanting more openings and feel like the First Nations are getting special treatment; sporties who hate commercial nets in the river and feel that First Nations are illegally fishing; and First Nations who blame commercial guys for declining stocks, think sporties are racists and blame the government for not providing enough fish for their needs. All user groups feel like they are getting ripped off and are not willing to see around the corner. As we heard from the inquiry, climate conditions including rising water temperatures in the Fraser will mean that we all will likely have less opportunity to fish for Pacific Salmon in the future.
thanks for the comment Brian.
The overarching statutory responsibility for all of this — though — lies with DFO. Not since Anderson’s brave coho closure of 1998 has any minister or folks within the ministry really stepped up and made brave decisions.
You are right, yes, First Nations and stakeholders need to make some shifts — however, some of those have already more than shared their burden over the last 100 years or so.
And, just like you mention, with all of the imminent changes, there will be less and less opportunity. (that’s kind of already been the case for the last couple decades for the commercial industry, and folks seem to lose track of that and kick and scrape for the last few dregs, which just puts the recovery further and further away…).
But still, DFO could stop all the squabbling by just implementing brave measures — well before the utter collapse. They are largely the only folks with the power to do so — it’s that or the continued costly, costly measures of groups going through the courts to get DFO to implement conservation measures that they already have the power, and authority to implement (e.g. the SARA listed Orcas, etc.).
Dave, part of that est $126m was the impact of the closure of the sport fishery on the Vedder River from Sweltzer Creek downstream, for 4 years. This is arguably the most heavily fished river in BC, attracting hoards of people during salmon season. The economic cost and more importantly, the political repercussions of closing this system to angling from mid July to January was just too much for any politician to support. And in hindsite, rightfully so IMO.
Wild sockeye recruitment at Cultus Lake is now at an all time low – the only thing keeping the stock from extinction is the state of the art hatchery augmentation program now in place. Last I heard that was costing app. $250k annually; one wonders how long that funding will be in place.
North Coast commercial salmon fishermen have discarded almost 22% of their total catch so far this year, including 1.2 million pounds of chum salmon, many coming from stocks DFO has described as being of “special conservation concern”. One-half of these chum discards came from areas in and around the Great Bear Rainforest.
Unlike most other BC fisheries there are no independent observers to confirm the accuracy of the discard information provided by fishermen. At least two DFO science papers and a recent J.O.Thomas Report have expressed concerns about fishermen “underhailing” their discards. Hence, the number of fish reported by DFO as having been discarded should be considered a “minimum” estimate.
In addition, the absence of independent observers means that fisheries are not monitored to ensure fishermen abide by their “Terms of Licence” and return the discarded salmon back into the water “with the least possible harm”. There are no scientifically defensible estimates of the proportion of discarded chum that survive to spawn, but it is believed to be relatively low.
DFO requires that chums be discarded as a “conservation measure”. Yet, DFO cannot provide scientifically defensible estimates of how many chum salmon are discarded, the proportion that survive to spawn, the consequences of killing so many salmon from depressed populations, or the associated ecological costs.
Why is this allowed to occur?
1. Chums are of no commercial value on the North Coast. In fact, they are a cost to fishermen. Discarding chums slows the fishing process. The objective is to discard the unwanted salmon as fast as possible rather doing all that can be done to ensure they survive the encounter.
2. The recreational sector has little interest in north and central coast chums and therefore places little value on them.
3. Most of the impacted chum stocks are located in wild and remote areas of BC like the Great Bear Rainforest, isolated from the majority of BC’s population, and therefore “out of sight, out of mind”.
In contrast, management of chum fisheries on the South Coast reflects the economic and social value people living on the south coast place in their salmon. Commercial fisheries targeting chum salmon are managed to a maximum 15% commercial harvest rate. There are significant and growing recreational fisheries for chums in both salt and fresh water. Eco-businesses have flourished taking people to gaze in wonder and awe at grizzly bears feasting on salmon. And watching chum spawn in local streams is a major event in many communities.
In order to save North Coast chum salmon DFO needs to be told that the value of these fish should be measured not just in dollars. That as British Columbians we value our wild places, our bears, our steams, and our forests. And what binds it all together is our salmon.
They are too important to be discarded. North Coast chum salmon stocks need to be rebuilt and protected.
Greg Taylor
SkeenaWild Conservation Trust
August 5, 2011