|
December
2002 Workshop Notes
::: Haida
Gwaii/QCI Marine Strategy Workshop :::
Cacilia’s Bed & Breakfast, Tlell
December 2, 2002
10 am - 3 pm
(Sponsored by WWF Canada)
Disclaimer: Please
note that this is a paraphrased record of events. Any misrepresentation
in participants’ comments, questions, and/or responses is
unintentional.
Contents
INTRODUCTION
& WELCOME:
- Prayer and welcome by John Williams.
- Explanation of why the meeting is a necessary
step in moving towards a marine strategy for the Islands.
- Why? There are clear problems with marine
management. Decisions are not meeting local needs regarding
environmental and economic concerns. There is a need to act now while
there are resources worth managing and protecting. There are problems
with the current fragmented management of our marine
area—agencies with poor communication, and many processes
currently underway (eg. Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area,
the Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands Land Use Planning Process).
- Where? The waters of Haida Gwaii.
- Who? Local people with expertise must be
involved in marine planning. Effective planning will require local
knowledge, researchers, and fishermen working together.
- When? In May 2002 we had our first meeting at
which there was consensus regarding the need for an Islands’
marine strategy. We are now at the point where we need to set
priorities and requirements for the planning process. Estimated
timeline that much of the information collection becompleted by spring
2003to start defining a strategy. By the end of 2003, we should aim to
have completed a draft strategy.
- The key to the success of an Islands’
marine plan is going to be defining our values, working to find
creative solutions, and leaving blame at the door (there should be no
finger-pointing in the process).
^
top
IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND THEMES:
The intent of this meeting is to discuss the
content of our ‘blueprint’ for an
Islands’ marine strategy. The issues and themes to be
discussed were identified in the last workshop, and from meetings
conducted with individuals in the community. There is now a need to
clarify the issues as stated and brainstorm additional concerns.
- It was suggested that these issues and themes
could be divided into three areas: (1) resources, (2) harvesting
methods, and (3) legislation.
^
top
1. Abalone:
- Lack of abundance and threatened populations.
Abalone is listed as ‘threatened’ by the Committee
on Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC).
- Poaching/Black Market.
- Problems associated with monitoring and
‘watchdogging’
- Return of the sea otters. Concern about sea
otter impacts on abalone populations and recovery.
^
top
2. Aquaculture:
a. salmon farming
- Salmon farming risks are too great (general
consensus). [Note: there was discussion over the proposal to remove the
word ‘too’ in the aforementioned statement. The
group felt that a strong tone was necessary in order to send a clear
message that the risks are considered too great on the Islands].
- Land-based sites are preferable to open-net
caging (eg. Norway, where they are moving from open-net to land-based
in the next six years). Suggestion that we proceed with caution (eg.
first we segregate from the marine environment using land-based pens
before proceeding with broader aquaculture operations). In this sense
we might be able to use an ‘inland fishery’ (closed
system) as a pilot project.
- Reality of the false economic accounting of
aquaculture operators. Salmon farming is not necessarily the economic
generator it pretends to be. Mom and pop operations generally do not
make money due to the need to increase efficiency and subsequent
reductions in the value of the fish. Farmed fish should not be assumed
to be profitable. Big business manipulates data to gain an advantage
globally.
- Overcrowding concern and the problem of
disease. Concern over the use of pharmaceuticals to combat disease and
the additional issue of the dumping of diseased fish by operators.
- Use of halogen lights to attract resident fish
(eg. fry and invertebrates) to reduce food bills for farmed species.
- Concern about not learning from our mistakes.
There was a proposal to gather baseline data from problem areas in
British Columbia and internationally. Suggestion that we consider the
concepts of the “Precautionary Approach” and
“Adaptive Management” (learning-by-doing) in the
discussion of aquaculture development. Additional comment that fish
farming was introduced in the province according to a
‘precautionary approach’ and was a total failure
(eg. on Vancouver Island spawning Atlantic salmon have been recorded in
six or nine river systems, and commercial fishermen are catching
Atlantic salmon at sea). Suggestion that the promises of precautionary
management are empty and that the lessons are already there:
“we have a unique opportunity to shut down aquaculture at
this stage, before it begins.”
- Sea lice and impact on wild salmon populations.
- Focus on wild salmon and that with which we are
familiar. Recognition that we have a long history with wild harvesting
and are familiar with the issues surrounding wild salmon management. We
are best to stick with what we know. Aquaculture and mariculture are
entirely new to us and we are delving into an area that we have no
history in. Suggestion that this might be considered a
‘legacy of knowledge,’ and that we are more likely
not to repeat mistakes of the past.
^
top
b.
Mariculture and other aquaculture
- Any farming that requires the addition of food
is a concern (eg. Shrimp and salmon farming)—farming that
‘feeds itself’ (eg. some mariculture) may be
acceptable. Reminder that we are ‘feeding
carnivores’ and that there are negative impacts on other
species (eg. herring and pilchard). Observation that Japanese shellfish
farming also has an impact on habitat and plankton, so mariculture is
not without impact either.
- Issue of introduced species (eg. Atlantic
salmon and certain oysters)
- Issue of access and competition among users. In
particular, the concern that once a farm is in place, aquaculture might
render the area single-use (eg. Alaska—no anchoring or
tying-up).
- Ownership, land tenure, and local benefits.
Generally there are low wages, and when mom & pop business
expand into a larger operation there is reduced local benefit. Small
businesses are gradually swallowed by large corporations with
practically guaranteed land tenure in the form of 5-year renewable
licenses. Policy of owner-operated business is a good idea (eg. Alaska)
or using a cooperative model. This, however, would involve changes in
government policy. Additional concern about economies of scale (why are
we doing this? who are we feeding? local people?). Comment that local
people also need jobs and that “to close the doors to
employment is to close doors to reality.”
- Concern about the scale of operations.
Observation that there are different types of farming (mom and pop vs.
large corporations). Economics must first be locally accountable, and
then global.
- Displacement of natural species. In particular,
there is a habitat risk in basing operations on the foreshore.
- Concern about the accountability of bureaucracy.
- Concern about the privatization of marine
resources. There is a huge impact on coastal communities once a license
is issued.
^
top
3. Geoduck:
- Fishing methods may damage sea bottom habitat.
Suggestion that sand blowing brings cysts into the water column, and
that there is a negative link to other species and paralytic shellfish
poisoning. Concern also on the impact of high-pressure hoses on the
seafloor.
- The life history of the geoduck is poorly
understood. Management of long-lived species is more difficult.
Observation that geoducks do have specific habitat and that identifying
habitat for species such as geoducks is important in marine planning.
- Unclear link with other species, especially
bottom feeders. Geoduck is a prey species (eg. halibut eat necks of
clams).
- No local benefit. There are no local geoduck
fishermen. Suggestion that we need a local versus global analysis to
understand where we sit in the broader geoduck industry (why have
geoducks become important here? Are they depleted elsewhere?)
- Concern that the fishery is wasteful.
Suggestion that for every 10 lbs harvested, they may sell one lb on the
market because there is a specific demand for ‘pure
whites.’ Question as to whether or not we want to support
this kind of fishery, and the ‘philosophy of
extraction.’
- Difficulty of monitoring. Comment that the
Islands are isolated.
- Issue of the relationship between the black
market for abalone and geoducks.
- Potential for species displacement due to
overharvesting. If we take all the geoducks, then another species will
move in and fill that niche.
^
top
4. Halibut:
- Bycatch issue in halibut fishery largely
addressed by present quota system. Noted that the halibut stock itself
is generally healthy; it has been fished for 100 years and is a
migratory species. There are also important spawning areas around Haida
Gwaii that provide critical habitat as juvenile rearing areas (eg.
Whaleback) that must be considered in marine planning. Suggestion that
the stocks are managed by an international commission and this may
account for their health and success.
- Concern about age classes. Concern that there
is an impact on biomass because of the harvesting of larger and older
fish that tend to be the egg producers. Comment that the only way to
tell the age of a halibut is to get the otolith. Generally speaking,
fish over 50 lbs are female, but determining age classes is difficult.
- Concern about benefits for local coastal
communities and aboriginal people. Comment on the specific issue of
privatization and the lack of local ownership. Sense that licenses are
bought up by corporations and access to quota by local people is
restricted. Suggestion to look into the Alaska CDQ (Community
Development Quota) program in northwest Alaska (pollock fishery) to
address concerns about increasing local benefits. Comment that the
pollock fishery in Alaska is impacting the food chain and that the
introduction of an additional stakeholder (communities) into the
process can increase pressure on the stock and make management even
more complicated.
- Issue of size restrictions for the sport versus
commercial fishery. Comment that there should be a larger catch size
limit for the recreational fishery because a lot of smaller halibut
(‘chickens’) are brought into the docks by sport
fishermen.
- Concern about the impact of the recreational
fishery on stocks. The recreational fishery is generally situated
closer to shore so it may have a larger impact on the juvenile stocks.
- Concern about the impact of the commercial
fishery on stocks. Following a commercial opening in Rennell Sound, it
takes up to three weeks for fish to return for the recreational
fishery. Suggestion that there is potential for a protected area for
stock rebuilding (where no one can fish).
- Concern about whether marine protected areas
are useful for migratory fish. Because halibut are migratory, the
effectiveness of a protected area may be limited. Comment that there
used to be a protected area off Tow Hill (dropped by government) and
now there are draggers out there and there is a critical need for some
protection status.
- Concern about sectoral management allocation
and access. This is a particular concern regarding MPAs (eg. making
Rennell Sound only open to the sport fishery is unacceptable, as well
as the fact that Langara is closed to the commercial salmon fishery). A
no-catch zone must be for everyone. Comment that a no-catch zone is
different than an MPA.
^
top
5. Herring:
- Lack of abundance. Herring stocks in some
inlets have not recovered from past fisheries. Suggestion that radical
conservation measures in the herring fishery are necessary due to the
stock condition. Recommendation that there be a shift in herring
management from managing based on biomass to managing based on
population age structure.
- K’aaw fishery (roe-on-kelp) first
priority. K’aaw fishery doesn’t kill fish (you do
take some eggs but you leave the fish). The k’aaw fishery 10%
mortality versus 100% mortality in the roe fishery. Comment that
k’aaw is a sustainable fishery for herring (one of the most
sustainable fisheries locally) and that this should be highlighted.
- The unsustainability of the roe fishery.
Comment that the roe fishery kills off the whole spawning stock.
Concern that DFO has not listened to the warnings of commercial
fishermen and the Haidas, and continues to insist there be a roe
fishery by gill-netters and seiners. Suggestion that 80% of all other
sea creatures depend on the herring (a critical food source), and that
there is a level beyond which you cannot go. Additional concern about
the fact that waste products from the roe fishery generally go to
aquaculture (cheap food for fish farms), or are used as fertilizer.
- Low stock levels of herring impact higher
trophic levels. Herring abundance has impacts on other species (eg.
Chinook) because they are feed.
- Relationship between herring and jellyfish.
Herring eat phytoplankton and when they are gone the jellyfish
populations fill this niche. They have had jellyfish problems in the
Bering Sea due to an increase in populations with removal of filter
feeders such as herring. This may also be linked to red tide.
- Concern that we know very little about the life
history of herring. This is particularly the case for juvenile herring,
especially regarding distribution. There is environmental variability
in addition to fishing pressure. Spawning habitat is critical for
herring and there is some good data available for marine planning and
conservation.
- Issue of local economic development
opportunities. Comment that we should consider the contemporary and
historical context with respect to herring. There are opportunities for
local small-scale production (eg. pickled herring) for targeted
economies and markets. Noted that there are ten licenses held locally
(16,000 lbs/license) but only one is processed locally. Opportunities
for value-added enterprises need to be explored.
- Concern that use of herring bait is
unsustainable. Suggestion that herring bait use should be
‘outlawed’ and that sport fishers should just use
lures.
^
top
6. Krill:
- Risks too great to utilize because they are at
the base of the food chain. Suggestion that there be an immediate
moratorium on any krill fishery on the Islands and internationally.
This is an issue of priorities—by eliminating the bottom of
the food chain we eliminate everything else above. Comment that sand
lance is another important forage species to which the same issues
apply.
- Concern about initiating any new fishery
without knowing the potential implications. This particularly applies
to all filter fish including: krill, sand lance, pilchard (sardine),
and capelin.
^
top
7. Lingcod:
- Abundance unknown. Suggestion that lingcod
populations have increased in the last three years (there are a lot of
lingcod around and they have been building up). Recommendation that a
tagging program for lingcod be initiated.
- Concern regarding the impact of the
sportsfishery.
- Concern about lingcod bycatch in commercial
fisheries. Suggestion that longlining for lingcod should require a ZN
license because bycatch of rockfish is so great. Schedule 2 on A
licenses results in a lot of halibut and rockfish bycatch which cannot
be kept. Comment that under an ‘A’ salmon license
you can keep up to 15,000 lbs/calendar month until the TAC is reached.
Any ZN license requirement may concentrate power and access in the
fishery (and will affect smaller fishermen). The important issue is
bycatch, and licensing restrictions are only one way to address it.
- Issue of local economic opportunities for
lingcod fishery. Suggestion that value-added opportunities be explored
(eg. smoked ling?)
- Concern that lingcod are easy to overharvest.
They are a long-lived and territorial species (it is easy to
overharvest a habitat). Stocks have been depleted elsewhere (eg. Strait
of Georgia). Suggestion that there have been changes in patterns of
fishing effort that may impact stocks (eg. relationship to inshore
halibut fishery).
- Concern that lingcod is an important food fish.
^
top
8. Local Economy:
- Issue regarding local benefits. More local
processing needed to create jobs from fish harvested around the
Islands. Suggestion to bring back small boat fleet of day fishers.
Recommendation of a community-based terminal fishery (eg. weir in the
Yakoun) for island-wide economic benefit and resource escapement
control. Question as to whether the provincial government holds any
responsibility to local communities for economic development
opportunities.
- Issue regarding local control. Suggestion that
communal license should be held by an entity like Gwaii Trust (as
already exists for the Haida under the CHN communal licenses).
Organization of a support group for local fisheries management would
also be useful. Comment that there needs to be resistance to
international access and licensing.
- Issue of access to local seafood by
communities. Question as to why local restaurants cannot access local
seafood through small mom and pop fishing and processing operations.
- Concern about the data gap regarding First
Nations and their constitutional rights. Reference to research stemming
from the ‘Back to the Future’ conference at UBC.
Comment that Haida constitutional rights to access take precedent over
all but conservation concerns.
- Issue of marine tourism development.
- Opportunities for locally-sponsored research
activities and opportunities. Question as to whether there is
information on what stocks around Haida Gwaii have been negatively
impacted (at present there is an incomplete list).
- Uncertainty surrounding how much of the local
economy and population relies on marine resources. Comment that there
is very little information about how much of our marine resources
leaves the Islands.
^
top
9. MPAs:
- Issue of the potential effects on fisheries and
the biological effectiveness of MPAs. Question as to what species are
likely to benefit and whether or not there is spillover for rockfish
and other species. Recommendation that MPAs be used as research areas.
- Issue of access, including uncertainty
surrounding First Nations food fisheries. Concern that once an area is
closed, it may not be fished again. Question as to whether or not First
Nations food fisheries will be permitted in protected areas.
- Issue regarding flexibility and adaptive
management of MPAs. Suggestion for the need for flexibility in
boundaries and regulations depending on whether the objectives of an
MPA have been met. Comment that MPAs should be a living strategy to
address needs as necessary.
- Importance of using local knowledge to define
where an MPA might be located. There is a need for clear objectives in
MPAs. Concern about local control of management and the importance of
bringing this issue to the attention of local communities (eg. lost
control of sport fishing industry). Comment that there is historical
information available on what areas are ‘used.’
- Issue of the additional benefits of MPAs. MPAs
may be beneficial for tourism.
- Unclear policy context and concern about the
role/interaction between province, federal, and local levels in
designation and management of potential MPAs. Comment that the federal
government intends to develop a network of MPAs by 2010 (this process
has already been initiated). Unclear as to what regulatory body
will/should take leadership (eg. DFO? Parks?). Need for clarity on
agency direction, authority and mechanisms for designation.
- Confusion regarding MPAs versus
‘no-take’ zones. There is a need for clear
definition of what an MPA is; comment that an MPA cannot simply be
“an incubation site for community fisheries around
it.” Suggestion that the approach should be to protect large
areas and then zone for use (versus protecting small areas and
‘using’ the rest). This effectively reverses the
idea of creating MPAs to starting with an MPA and then identifying
areas where resource extraction is sustainable.
- Issue of enforcement of MPAs. This issue
extends beyond the marine environment into freshwater concerns (eg. the
impact of the Forest Practices Code).
- Concern about concentration of impact in areas
outside of protected areas. Potential for neglect in other areas if
attention is focused on protected areas.
- Concern about lack of baseline data. The
importance of collecting baseline data before designation.
^
top
10. Oil and Gas:
- Risks are too great to support offshore oil
and gas. Comment that there needs to be a better analysis of risks (eg.
earthquakes- we might look to California for lessons). Suggestion that
we look at the 93 recommendations presented by the ‘Offshore
Oil & Gas Panel’ which addressed issues of seasonal
drilling, migratory species, and seismic concerns.
- Issue surrounding long-term sustainable energy
alternatives. Comment that oil and gas are a ‘thing of the
past’ and that to invest is a waste of money. Suggestion that
communities consider bigger questions of long-term economic
sustainability and trends in energy use in addition to technological
and engineering concerns surrounding oil and gas development. Comment
regarding the ‘fallacy of economic thinking’ and
addressing fossil fuel consumption at a moral level.
- Uncertainty around Hecate Strait ecosystem.
Comment that there are very few long-term, detailed data sets (eg.
habitat and species) for the Hecate Strait area which means we cannot
make informed decisions.
- Local benefits of oil and gas development
limited. Comment that local communities will make very little money
from oil and gas development; rather large corporations with dominate
and profit.
- Concern about potential impacts of oil and gas
on food fisheries. Comment that the Haida culture is tied to marine
resources for food and potential loss is unacceptable.
^
top
11. Red Sea Urchins:
- Overabundance of red urchins is leading to a
decline in kelp forest habitat. Comment that green urchins may also
have an impact (in Masset Inlet especially). Response that red urchins
tend to have a larger impact (they are the
‘lawnmowers’), although we also have purple and
green urchins around the islands. Comment that the changes in kelp
habitat occurred approximately 100 years ago when the otters were
removed—this raises the issue as to whether we are going to
manage the urchins and kelp, or accept the new relationship (which may
now be in balance). Additional comment that there should be further
study into the importance of kelp to the inshore fishery (and natural
system).
- Concern about link between sea otters and
urchins. Comment that in order to get rid of urchins we may need to
reintroduce sea otters. This is considered a better alternative to
using chemicals (eg. bluestone) and there is a need to restore a
natural balance (including addressing the impact of the commercial
urchin harvest).
- Concern about local extirpation. Comment that
sea urchins are shifting species composition in certain areas.
- Concern about relationship between red sea
urchins and larval abalone. Comment that there is a need to better
understand the abalone-urchin-kelp forest relationship (especially when
considering the impact of urchin harvesting on abalone populations).
Suggestion to look into the Sam Simpson abalone study in the 1950s that
considers population and abundance, and the viability of a commercial
fishery. Comment that this information has somewhat changed since the
use of SCUBA divers to collect data.
^
top
12. Rockfish:
- Rockfish need to be dealt with species by
species. There are different concerns for different species and areas.
- Concern about local depletion. Areas of concern
include Skidegate Inlet, Langara, and Rennell Sound.
- There is a lack of information about movement
and abundance. Comment that rockfish are local and not highly migratory.
- Concern about the uncertain impacts of the
sportsfishing industry. Concern about the high mortality rate for catch
and release. Suggestion that it is possible to puncture the swim
bladder to increase chances for survival and that you may be able to
train people to do this. Concern that experience puncturing swim
bladders is largely for live market fish, not fish that will be
returning to great depths. Suggestion that there be a policy that
‘you take home what you catch’ because there is
always some kind of damage (this may be the best way to go for all
species, not just rockfish). Additional comment that the catch and
release of rockfish does not happen as much in the north as the south
of the province.
- Concern about bycatch in commercial fisheries.
Concern about halibut fishery bycatch, and ZN licenses (directed
fisheries). Comment that puncturing swim bladders in the commercial
fishery is unlikely to work.
- There is a lack of information on age classes.
Comment that rockfish are very long-lived and the impact of harvesting
on specific age classes is unknown. Comment that there is some good
information on age classes around the islands collected by Lynne
Yamanaka at the Pacific Biological Station.
- Issue of local knowledge of rockfish. Comment
that Haida elders have knowledge of rockfish.
^
top
13. Wild Salmon:
- Concern about local stocks. Many local stocks
are depleted due to logging and fishing (eg. chum in Skidegate Inlet
declined in recent years, terminal seine fisheries in 1970s and 80s
impacted pink and chum stocks on east South Moresby). Small hatcheries
may help to restore very low stocks. Question as to what would happen
“if we just left it for 100 years?” Comment that
this may be market-determined and an issue of economic viability.
- Concern about salmon fisheries targeting
migratory stocks. Concerns about West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI)
salmon have restricted opportunities, even where very few of the WCVI
stocks have been caught. Suggestion that there be a better tagging
program to determine which stocks we fish and associated impacts
(especially on local stocks).
- Concern regarding two sets of rules for
commercial and recreational fisheries. There are inconsistent rules for
both fisheries (eg. commercial troll fishery is closed to fishing
springs when the sportsfishery is opened).
- Concern about restrictions on opening periods
and areas. A year-round fishery would provide more information about
when different stocks are migrating. Comment that wild salmon are a
sustainable resource if managed properly.
- Relationship between Fisheries Act and habitat
concerns. A 1985 study (Gester?) suggested that we are losing four
systems/year. Comment that we need to take responsibility for fish
habitat and forestry concerns. Suggestion that there needs to be a
change in legislation to address provincial and federal
responsibilities, accountability and communication. Comment that
commercial fishery doesn’t have a huge impact, but habitat is
a concern (eg. less than 20,000 chum returned to Skidegate Inlet
following a greater than 90,000 brood year). In the Park (Gwaii Haanas)
runs haven’t returned which suggests the problem
isn’t commercial fishing but something else (eg. herring?
habitat loss?). Observation that gravel removal may impact fry.
- Concern about fisheries management data
analysis and decision-making. Suggestion that there be changes in
federal legislation to refocus exploitation rate (and associated
mortality numbers) for WCVI chinook salmon. Comment that politics is
playing into decision-making.
- Issue of value-added processing opportunities
on-island. There is a need for more market information to determine
whether people are willing to (or should) pay more for wild salmon.
- Concern about the impact of aquaculture on wild
salmon. Comment that we need to protect wild salmon and there are
issues associated with introduced Atlantic salmon in fish farming.
- Issue of access to wild salmon stocks in future
MPAs. Comment that salmon are a migratory species and that access
should not be restricted by an MPA.
- Issue of relationship between bears, salmon,
and forest ecosystems. Comment regarding the importance of salmon
transport by bears and associated nitrogen fertilization of forest
ecosystems. Suggestion that this might be an educational opportunity
(eg. tourism) with respect to wild salmon and the biotic link between
marine and terrestrial ecosystems.
- Issue of natural variability of salmon stocks.
Comment that fishing activities are not the only problem and that runs
may be as high as they ever were (eg. sockeye in the Fraser River). We
need to recognize that fish populations go up and down, that they will
come back, and not always be so negative.
- Concern about the impact of future
‘unknowns’ such as climate change. Comment that El
Niño and sea temperature change may dramatically affect
marine ecosystems.
- Concern about the impacts of potential changes
in salmon populations on other marine mammals. There is little
information about the impacts on species that rely on salmon (eg.
Killer whales) as prey. We need to look at predator mortality issues as
well (including seals and sea lions). Comment that there has been a
phenomenal increase in whales in the last few years from WCVI to Alaska
(eg. humpbacks, sperms, grey and blue whales). Suggestion that the
increased number of dead whales may be because there are more whales in
general. Possibility that the increase in whales is due to changes in
southern water temperatures.
- Issue regarding establishing a time when
salmon are not fished. Suggestion that a ‘replenishment
time’ be established.
^
top
14. Sportsfishery:
- Concern regarding local benefit. Small vessel
charters and personal recreational fishing is different than lodge
enterprises (in terms of local benefit and impacts) and should be
treated differently.
- Concern regarding mortality associated with
catch and release. Concern that catch and release leads to predation
due to the exhaustion of fish.
- Concern about impacts on salmon stocks and high
catch limits. Comment that 30 spring/year is too high and unsustainable.
- Issue of accountability and monitoring.
Suggestion that all fish be tagged and that a fish tax be implemented
(eg. $500/tag)?. Information on total catch by all sectors and species
(food/commercial/sport) is needed (including data on catch and release).
- Concern about impacts of sport fishing lodges.
There is a lack of information on the levels of extraction by lodges
and individual recreational fishermen. Comment that according to DFO
numbers, 46,000 spring were taken from the Langara area (all of North
Coast, from Cape Caution north)?. Suggestion that there be a
stipulation for lodges to register the numbers of fish taken. Comment
that there should be a moratorium on lodges (eg. concern about location
of Langara I. lodges, where all fish move through Dixon Entrance).
Concern about floating lodges and their ability to get around
regulations (eg. Jimmy Pattison is renovating two large seine boats for
Langara and Rennell Sound). Lodges need to be addressed differently if
they are land-based versus mobile.
- Concern about the high mortality associated
with the double (tandem)-hook setup.
- Concern about the use of bait. Suggestion that
bait be outlawed to reduce bycatch and encourage selective fishing.
- Concern about two sets of rules for commercial
and recreational fisheries. Comment that there should be the
elimination of ‘ribbon boundaries’ (eg. Langara)
that give exclusive access to sports fishermen. There are also
additional proposed ‘ribbon boundary’ areas
including Tow Hill, Rennell Sound and Tian.
- Issue regarding the moral ethic of the
sportsfishery. Comment that we need to set priorities (eg. food vs.
commercial vs. sport).
- Concern about increased number of small boats
used. Comment that there needs to be a cap on effort due to the
potential impact on fish and pollution concerns.
^
top
15. Trawlers/Draggers:
- Concerns regarding negative impacts on habitat.
- Concerns regarding volume and scope of catch.
- Concerns regarding bycatch.
- Issue of local benefit. Concern regarding
license concentration and control by large corporations. Suggestion
that there be a historical re-examination of local fisheries.
- Concern regarding monitoring and accountability.
- Issue of recognizing variable impacts of
different dragging fisheries. Comment that there are distinct dragging
fisheries, and a need to distinguish between mid-water and bottom
draggers. The hake fishery may be an example of a generally good
dragging fishery.
^
top
16. General Management:
- Inadequate monitoring and enforcement. Comment
that there is a lack of confidence in stock assessment numbers.
Suggestion that more money be invested in monitoring and research.
Comment that existing programs need better coordination (eg.
relationship between Haida Fisheries Guardians and Fisheries Officers
and associated roles/duties regarding stock assessment and
enforcement). Suggestion that local management be the focus, over local
enforcement.
- Problems associated with current licensing
systems. Suggestion that there be an owner-operator clause or
provision. Concern that quota system plus transferable licenses is
concentrating ownership of the resource (eg. Jimmy Pattison).
- Concern about the treatment of First Nations.
Concern about use of weapons and attitude toward First Nations
fishermen.
- Concern about vertical integration of
fisheries. Suggestion that processors should be restricted to
processing to avoid vertical integration (processors owning licenses
and fishing vessels as well as processing plants).
- Concern that monitoring of fleets be flexible
and reflect capacity and scale. Comment that the small fleet is being
over-monitored and cannot afford the cost of cameras and observers
(whereas larger operators can afford it). Also any money spent on
monitoring must be effective and have definitive results.
- Issue of multiple laws for one species.
Suggestion that laws need to be synthesized.
- Issue of accountability. Concern about the fact
that the responsibility for fisheries management keeps getting passed
on.
- Issue of ecosystem management. Comment that we
need to manage the whole, not parts.
^
top
17. Crab:
- Concerns regarding the impact of the dip net
(recreational) fishery on mating crab. Comment regarding impact of
recreational fishery on disrupting mating crabs.
- Concern regarding the impact of the commercial
crab fishery. Need for information on the number of crab pots in Hecate
Strait, and the catch over the last five to ten years.
- Concern that undersize, female, and soft shell
crabs are illegally being harvested. Comment that undersize crabs are
‘juiced’ and then discarded.
- Concern about deformed crab. Comment that some
deformed crabs have been observed.
^
top
18. Sea Otter:
- Concern that sea otters are a missing element
in the ecosystem. Comment that they may need to be reintroduced,
although they are slowly coming back naturally (spotted in south-end of
the island and some in north-end including in crab traps). Comment that
sea otters are predators (‘the top of the heap’).
Suggestion that any potential reintroduction would need to be carefully
controlled.
- Concern about First Nations food fishery and
relationship between sea otters, urchins and abalone.
^
top
19. Razor Clams:
- Concern regarding impact of recreational
fishery. Issue of tourists being untrained harvesters.
- Concern about commercial harvest. Comment that
the commercial razor clam harvest is co-managed by DFO and Haida
Fisheries (CHN).
- Issue of local abundance and population health.
Comment that in the US, harvesting by First Nations had to be
restricted because of low clam populations.
- Concern regarding biotoxins and monitoring.
Comment that monitoring does occur here regularly which is why a
commercial fishery is permitted.
- Concern about vehicle traffic on North Beach.
- Concern about use of clams for bait. Comment
that we are “taking gold and selling it for
peanuts.”
^
top
CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY:
- Following this identification of issues and
information needs, there will be an effort to collect information that
is available. There will also be an effort to talk to local people
regarding values, landings and local uses—to create a picture
of what is going on around the islands. There is a need to clarify
information that is correct, and identify what is still needed.
- The CHN will integrate this information into
land and marine use planning. Recognition that this information belongs
to the Islands—it is public information and is part of the
common domain.
- Between now and the next meeting perhaps in
late spring, there will be an effort to gather as much information as
possible.
Meeting adjourned at 3pm.
^
top
|
