huntwriter
08-27-2009, 08:05 AM
Leave it to Bill Otway to say it the way it is. Long read but very educational
Note: Paul Ryall is the head of the Salmon Team
Resource Management
Fisheries Management Branch
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region
August 25, 2009
Memo To – Paul Ryall
From – Bill Otway
Subject- Closure of Fraser River Sport Fishery, your e mail to me of August 21 on behalf
of Paul Sprout in response to my e mail to him of August 15th.
I must begin by recalling to you that in all the years that I worked with Paul Sprout, in
every issue that came forward and we developed a response, action or words, Paul
without fail, could be counted upon to always ask the question if the action or response
would “pass the red faced test”. I will tell you that your response to me of August 21 on
behalf of Paul Sprout, fails this test miserably.
First and foremost, at you note, prior to the closure I was an active participant in the
Fraser River Sockeye Working Group of the SFAB. We, as you noted were intimately
involved in the background and information on the Sockeye returns and the situation as it
developed. The only meeting I missed is that of the 11th of August and of course
following your precipitous action in closing the river, without consultation I no longer
participate in this flawed process.
You begin your response by saying that “We make every effort to ensure that when
making these difficult decisions they occur after there has been dialogue with the affected
parties. I understand that did happen in this case.”
You make a major error when you confuse “dialogue” with proper “consultation”. There
was no “dialogue” on this issue with the people involved in what we in the recreational
sector all thought was in fact the consultation process. You claim that contact was made
with key individuals, outside the process to “ … inform them of the department’s notice
and its intentions.” For your further information, the simple act of calling people and
telling them of your intentions cannot in any way shape or form be considered,
“consultation” on a proposed action.
Of greater importance however is the question of why your department and staff chose to
contact people outside the process and completely ignored the people inside the process?
People who actually were giving of their time and expertise in an effort to work with
DFO to manage through this difficult time.
To these people, you said not one single word about the closure prior to it coming into
place. I, as you note, was part of that process, yet no one called or talked to me. Tom Bird
was the co-chair of the process and no one said a word to him or asked for any advice.
Frank Kwak is the chair of the Upper Fraser Valley Sport Fishing Advisory Committee,
(SFAC), of the SFAB. He was not approached, spoken to, nor asked for any advice prior
to the closure. Ed George is the chair of the Lower Fraser Valley SFAC, and he was not
consulted either.
You make mention of the August 11th conference call. I have reviewed the published
minutes of that meeting; minutes produced by your staff, and can find no reference
whatsoever. As noted I was not able to participate in that call but I have contacted those
who did participate and to a man they state that DFO made effort to bring up the subject
of the proposed closure. DFO did not indicate that the closure was immanent, nor did
they bring up their concerns over the fishery and ask for any input from those in the
recreational community as to possible alternatives. Nor, in fact did DFO present any data
to support their decision to close the fishery. I submit, this is not consultation and the
courts have told you this in past decisions.
Subsequent to the closure your department issued a document purporting to support your
decision to close the fishery. This was the August 18th report “Preliminary in-season
estimates of total effort and catch for the periods Aug.01-15 and Aug 01-16”.
This document is being used to support your contention that the angling community was
putting the Sockeye stocks at risk. In order to assess the validity of this one must first
assess the validity of the data itself and how the conclusions were reached.
To begin with the data presented is at best, suspect. The survey covers over 40 miles of
river and yet information on catch and encounter is made at only two points in this 40
some miles. One survey point used is in fact the most effective location for catch on the
river and in a place where both Chinook and Sockeye are jammed together because of the
configuration of the river. Because of this of course Sockeye encounters are bound to be
higher than in other areas, but you use this aberration and expand it to cover 25 miles or
more of angling effort. Moreover, two flights over 40 miles of angling effort being used
to estimate the total angling effort for this area is not statistically defensible in any venue.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the anglers are fishing for Chinook and
these, in most parts of the river are not located in the same place as the Sockeye. The
encounter rate you claim is not even substantiated in the fishing taking place in the
release mortality study. It is to be noted that the anglers in this study are in fact targeting
on Sockeye not trying to avoid them.
Your department makes the claim that 90 plus per cent of the anglers were in fact
“bottom bouncing”. And that the impact on the Sockeye stocks increased to such a level
that by the 14th of August you were forced to close the fishery.
The data produced by your report makes it clear that in their overflights, a total of 2,
between August 1 and August 9th, in fact 70% of the anglers were observed “bottom
bouncing”.
In addition this same report makes the point that after August 9th, through to the date of
your closure, angler effort actually decreased by 35%. By even the wildest stretch of the
imagination could this fishery be considered, out of control and a threat to the resource.
Further, your characterization of “bottom bouncing” not being selective, flies in the face
of the many Public Notices that I have received from DFO. Those notices have described
drift gillnets hung 3 to 1 as meeting the requirements for selective fishing! Your own
studies done in the Fraser River show clearly that gillnet mesh size only becomes
selective when the net is hung tight or 1 to 1. However you continue to use a hang ratio of
3 to 1 as the standard for a “selective” gillnet fishery.
Note: Paul Ryall is the head of the Salmon Team
Resource Management
Fisheries Management Branch
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region
August 25, 2009
Memo To – Paul Ryall
From – Bill Otway
Subject- Closure of Fraser River Sport Fishery, your e mail to me of August 21 on behalf
of Paul Sprout in response to my e mail to him of August 15th.
I must begin by recalling to you that in all the years that I worked with Paul Sprout, in
every issue that came forward and we developed a response, action or words, Paul
without fail, could be counted upon to always ask the question if the action or response
would “pass the red faced test”. I will tell you that your response to me of August 21 on
behalf of Paul Sprout, fails this test miserably.
First and foremost, at you note, prior to the closure I was an active participant in the
Fraser River Sockeye Working Group of the SFAB. We, as you noted were intimately
involved in the background and information on the Sockeye returns and the situation as it
developed. The only meeting I missed is that of the 11th of August and of course
following your precipitous action in closing the river, without consultation I no longer
participate in this flawed process.
You begin your response by saying that “We make every effort to ensure that when
making these difficult decisions they occur after there has been dialogue with the affected
parties. I understand that did happen in this case.”
You make a major error when you confuse “dialogue” with proper “consultation”. There
was no “dialogue” on this issue with the people involved in what we in the recreational
sector all thought was in fact the consultation process. You claim that contact was made
with key individuals, outside the process to “ … inform them of the department’s notice
and its intentions.” For your further information, the simple act of calling people and
telling them of your intentions cannot in any way shape or form be considered,
“consultation” on a proposed action.
Of greater importance however is the question of why your department and staff chose to
contact people outside the process and completely ignored the people inside the process?
People who actually were giving of their time and expertise in an effort to work with
DFO to manage through this difficult time.
To these people, you said not one single word about the closure prior to it coming into
place. I, as you note, was part of that process, yet no one called or talked to me. Tom Bird
was the co-chair of the process and no one said a word to him or asked for any advice.
Frank Kwak is the chair of the Upper Fraser Valley Sport Fishing Advisory Committee,
(SFAC), of the SFAB. He was not approached, spoken to, nor asked for any advice prior
to the closure. Ed George is the chair of the Lower Fraser Valley SFAC, and he was not
consulted either.
You make mention of the August 11th conference call. I have reviewed the published
minutes of that meeting; minutes produced by your staff, and can find no reference
whatsoever. As noted I was not able to participate in that call but I have contacted those
who did participate and to a man they state that DFO made effort to bring up the subject
of the proposed closure. DFO did not indicate that the closure was immanent, nor did
they bring up their concerns over the fishery and ask for any input from those in the
recreational community as to possible alternatives. Nor, in fact did DFO present any data
to support their decision to close the fishery. I submit, this is not consultation and the
courts have told you this in past decisions.
Subsequent to the closure your department issued a document purporting to support your
decision to close the fishery. This was the August 18th report “Preliminary in-season
estimates of total effort and catch for the periods Aug.01-15 and Aug 01-16”.
This document is being used to support your contention that the angling community was
putting the Sockeye stocks at risk. In order to assess the validity of this one must first
assess the validity of the data itself and how the conclusions were reached.
To begin with the data presented is at best, suspect. The survey covers over 40 miles of
river and yet information on catch and encounter is made at only two points in this 40
some miles. One survey point used is in fact the most effective location for catch on the
river and in a place where both Chinook and Sockeye are jammed together because of the
configuration of the river. Because of this of course Sockeye encounters are bound to be
higher than in other areas, but you use this aberration and expand it to cover 25 miles or
more of angling effort. Moreover, two flights over 40 miles of angling effort being used
to estimate the total angling effort for this area is not statistically defensible in any venue.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the anglers are fishing for Chinook and
these, in most parts of the river are not located in the same place as the Sockeye. The
encounter rate you claim is not even substantiated in the fishing taking place in the
release mortality study. It is to be noted that the anglers in this study are in fact targeting
on Sockeye not trying to avoid them.
Your department makes the claim that 90 plus per cent of the anglers were in fact
“bottom bouncing”. And that the impact on the Sockeye stocks increased to such a level
that by the 14th of August you were forced to close the fishery.
The data produced by your report makes it clear that in their overflights, a total of 2,
between August 1 and August 9th, in fact 70% of the anglers were observed “bottom
bouncing”.
In addition this same report makes the point that after August 9th, through to the date of
your closure, angler effort actually decreased by 35%. By even the wildest stretch of the
imagination could this fishery be considered, out of control and a threat to the resource.
Further, your characterization of “bottom bouncing” not being selective, flies in the face
of the many Public Notices that I have received from DFO. Those notices have described
drift gillnets hung 3 to 1 as meeting the requirements for selective fishing! Your own
studies done in the Fraser River show clearly that gillnet mesh size only becomes
selective when the net is hung tight or 1 to 1. However you continue to use a hang ratio of
3 to 1 as the standard for a “selective” gillnet fishery.