Holiday Inn North Vancouver

November 7, 2009

Notes taken during discussion by ZoAnn Morten and Tracy Bond

• Concern of introducing pinks where no history of them in the past – ie: Sidney

• Ogden Point fie is inactive

• Noted as enhancement project comment should be set apart as project to support sports fishing. Not typical SEP to support life in streams

• Overall plan /WSP being considered?

• Like the other projects - CA process for production planning, more planning will occur as time goes forward

• Product of the commons*, not ocean ranching

• Oversight of full operations, where will resources come from?

• Concern – not to supplement wild stocks

• Ownership issue, must be common property

• Fish for streams (where they had been lost) has been past and (watershed planning) future

• How does this fit in – who is doing check ups that this doesn’t detract from current watershed works?

• Rec fishing as a secondary role

• Will fisheries be prepared to close even this fishing during times of closed fishing for commercial

• When would this end? Huge #’s of pinks returned this year on their own.

• How long held / fed (3 wks to a month)

• If natural returns really high will they stop?

• Is this going to stop at pinks? *chinook talks?

• Currently there are net pens being used as part of SEP, but for stream enhancement or terminal?

• Risk of swamping native pinks

• Pinks stray

• Check out WSP CU’s

• Wild west mentality – kill fishery

• Use other stocks too like Chilliwack

• Chilliwack / Quinsum same populations will be treated as such

• Transplants will consider disease zones and CU zones

• Enforcement of fishery needed

• Province funding – seed $’s and LGL biorisk paid for by MoE

• Concern over CA workload & skill sets

• ca is key

• If DFO wants this to work like the rest of SEP – must come through SEP

• Permission/approvals have come through other doors in the past

• Production planning will help

• (get) need skill sets for CA’s

• Seemed to come out of the blue by province – assimilation looks like its happening – but still concern that it doesn’t fit with what “we” do

• Are there more then two CA’s involved in the planning (no)

• SEP budget from ~38mil to 26+ mil this will eat more SEP budget – people time and $’s

• MoE SFAB seed money

• DFO now 1500.00 in-kind and food

• To be cost neutral – sports fishing group will pay for food * noted SEP volunteers will not be asked to pay for food for DFO enhancement facilities

• Comment that a group in R BI’s area pays for their own food for net pen at this time

• SEP took it on because others were tasking our people and giving permission / permits outside of DFO process

• Seems like move away

• 70’s – fish production

• 90’s streamkeepers watershed planning

• Now back to fish production

• genetics – where they “belong”

• “mop up” of fish

• Even year fish kept to even only

• Directed fishery – impacts other fish on the streams

• Many do not know (or care) about the difference between a coho and a pink when out fishing

• Impacts of straying

• WSP – crossing even / odd years is really important (not) to do

• CU’s important as well

• Guidelines for this but not others, so expect more guidelines

• LGL – 2 week assessment cost $10K

• In one area the local 1st nation’s not supporting project but sports fishing community wants it – this is causing huge strain on community and on the relationships that are so hard to build

• Driven by RHQ – area-based

• Be careful of how things are approved

• Community includes sports groups we as department will not say here’s a great site (initial request comes from community)

• If CA says not a good site it should stop (SEP model) but this doesn’t seem to be happening

• Disconnect between SFAB and us

• Buck stops “here” with CA? is this to be the case

• historical runs, go back in records to before the times of logging, large impact to watershed

• release timing – release when the plankton #’s are high

• is releasing same timing as “wild/enhanced” non fed fry or ate these already gone from area before larger net pen fed fry come out of pens?

• Lens to view this should be through WSP

• Seal recruitment as more fish in estuary and beyond

• Stock assessment – 6 mil returned this year, can we count on this # in order to know how many eggs we take ie do we really know how many fish return – this will become even more important when considering chinook

• Even food for all – net pen / wild / PIP/s / CEDP

• User pay – fish production – to be paid for by community, could this become the norm for SEP?

• As people pay they will expect the ownership or higher consideration over the results – won’t know who’s fish is who’s

• $’s from fishing licenses watch that there is no redirect to this PSF stamp funds for community

• Fear of over enhancement- how many eggs needed for # of expected fishermen

• Out of towners may not know the difference between fish species *California coho

• SEP groups get 1st crack at their regular supply of eggs – SEP DFO has priorities within these as well

• (new question) where will these fish be raised? Existing facilities – displacing works being done in streams now?

• DFO has guidelines – lead

• Policy lead as well – fisheries management mentioned and one other (missed it)

• Is process solid enough top work with WSP and production planning

• Is being taken into consideration at all levels

• Trying to be as structured and coherent as possible with right people at the right stage

• where natural opportunity to fish pinks why would we have this project?

• Legitimization is well underway – senior management putting this forward

• feel pushed into this, short sighted, doesn’t fit into what “we’ve” been trying to accomplish

• can’t tell sea pen fish from wild when they return

• real concern over taking wrong stock – limited enforcement

• annual costs per project

• where does equipment go in the end

• Nanaimo lends their equipment to others

• -When does one stop? – unsuccessful – too successful- what do either of these look like?

• How will this fit into existing community planning – have worked on stream for 21years have a plan that we are working towards as to fish production, habitat protection – work will be compromised if another group parachutes in to add pinks and net pen

• Suite of areas that lend themselves to this

• not all community groups come together for same reason – some are ecosystem based some new ones are more business model based

• See need for a larger paragraph in preamble describing the  fish - whichever salmon species it is - are a common property resource

• Community needs to be described – can all of the lodges form – stewardship groups- and have end of dock net pens

• FN do not work through CAs

• CAs working at capacity now

Questions

• Are all FN, with and without the current right to sell sea products are likely proponents- how to control numbers as they have invested $ already in exploring coast wide ocean ranching

• How can DFO provide biological oversight at the project level they don’t have the resources – time staff and $ -  to keep abreast of existing challenges, this has been made the responsibility of aquaculture industry, SEP community does not have the resources to do this, in the short or long term- disease outbreaks can spread to the  wild instantly

• Changing the predator prey sequencing and abundance of predators, in no return years the predators will eat other salmon – ie decreasing pop of coho...chinook

• Where are the resources to do stock assessment of pink and to monitor the impacts to other salmon or other species, don’t have the resources now, you need this info to inform production planning, fish management and science branch, not to mention policy branch and funders

• Predictive tool to determine ocean survival so you don’t have public crisis of confidence as you do now with sockeye and to inform project level activities- how many eggs to take- if lots of fish returning- should mean reduced egg takes... no?

• Pending changes in production planning  of coho and chinook and chum in Georgia Strait_ , being reduced as science is indicating Georgia strait at maximum capacity, why turn down coho recovery plans because of reduced early marine productivity and turn up pink production to same waters- discrepancies between science, policy, planning and this program

• User pay- if you pay –humans think they own or can certainly influence- common law supports this

• No funds for pink spawning channels that allow for some natural selection and self determination of individual fish- and put fish into the ecosystem in “biologically more sound” manner than pinks for the pier; pinks for the pier is purely human centric program – economic and recreation- not ecosystem based- DFO is finding resources to help pier program and to maintain current existing infrastructure

• There is a cost to DFO for this, the in-kind knowledge transfer from 30 year investment in SEP  and necessary initiative oversight is not captured well in the guidelines

• Can DFO or someone – turn up the other elements of the SEP program- education, resources restoration to match the increased investment in fish production to keep the thee legs of SEP stool equal, so that we can recruit the new anglers and the tin boat fishery into the holistic ecosystem recovery that supports all salmon for all people and the environment.

I am concerned about net pen pinks going into rivers and creeks of opportunity.  There is a risk of these strays swamping native pinks.  However, this straying is not a concern if pinks were not present historically or are no longer present--the strays may start new populations and their carcasses will be fertilizer.

Fisheries for congregating pinks attract sport fishermen and women but also can attract people who only want to kill fish any way they can--snaggers.  Enforcement of the fisheries is required; in the summer, fishery officers should not be required to spend all their time on the Fraser.

Pink stocks other than Quinsam and Nanaimo should be used; e.g., Chilliwack.

My second round of comments dealt with the local waters--Indian Arm, Burrard Inlet and Howe Sound.  I briefly mentioned pink fisheries which occur now--Cates Park, Cypress Creek mouth - Stearman Beach, Capilano mouth and Furry Creek, and queried any need for pink net pen operations in the local waters.  I also pointed out that some years, the fish do not cooperate and a productive area for pinks one year can be a dud two years later.  This year was a perfect example - Indian River pinks did not hold at Cates Park, and only a few pinks showed off Cypress Creek mouth - Stearman Beach.

• Concerns of being pushed into these actions for short sighted fishing opportunities

• Does not support long term objectives of all stakeholders

• Fisheries groups will go after same funding as other N.G.O.s and will be in competition for the funding

• Where does the equipment go, when does the enhancement end

• Is there a limited area for enforcement for Long Term Sustainability

• There are “volunteer” groups that are funded by fishing lodges that have a mandate for fish production. There should be a distinction between community groups ecosystem mandates as opposed to business interests.

Comments

• It is not the Department’s mandate to create artificial angling opportunities for Canadians; its mandate is to protect and enhance existing fish populations and habitat. It is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not the Department of Fishing Opportunities.

• Significant community partners have not been included in decision-making processes.

• Ecological risks/benefits not made clear to community groups, FN’s. (Example of an unconsidered risk – timing of returning pinks could increase predation on returning native species whose numbers are already dangerously low.)

• Given Department’s evolution into an approach that respects ecological imperatives (Oceans Act), why would it push for an initiative to put a species into an area where it has no history?

• Pressure/interference from Area Management and RHQ for CA’s to implement projects is antithetical to community involvement design, and has threatened future projects in South Coast Area.

• Why is this money not being spent on existing and threatened coho and chinook populations?

• Recommendations

• If these projects are to be supported by SEP, then the community involvement model needs to be respected. For example:

• • The project’s existence is driven by the community, not Area Management or RHQ. The buck stops at the CA’s desk.

  • Community partners must be clear on risks and benefits to fish habitat and community, and must be otherwise involved in decision-making.

• The Department needs to focus on initiatives that are in line with its mandate.

• Thank you for consulting SEHAB

• Could use more communications between stewards and sports fisheries agencies

• Request dates for meetings with Sports Fish Advisory Board

• Guidelines need to be appropriate within the Salmon Enhancement Program

• Comments are all incorporated into others comments

• IN SOME CASES. where pinks are not currently present it MAY BE a good idea to introduce or re-introduce them to a system for the nutrients their carcasses provide.

• I'm sure I'm missing the point of this issue, but I just need to ramble on about some of my misgivings about net pen pink projects. It seems like it's the "flavour of the month". Even some of the Qualicum Beach Streamkeepers are starting to question if we should have a pink salmon hatchery program (first step) even tho we've never had a pink run here that I know of. I can understand their frustration because we don't get a lot of coho into our streams any more in spite of our big efforts at habitat restoration. I also realize that lodges have been engaged in the net pen thing for several years. Well, I guess it keeps them in business. Should stewardship groups be doing it too?
  
  I was lucky enough to get to go to the State of the Salmon conference last Feb. Over and over again we heard passionate appeals for protecting wild salmon and their habitat and allowing them to adapt to climate change. I don't see where net pens fit into this. Can we call this ecosystem based management? Do we know enough about our nearshores to be putting these net pens into what may be important early marine life habitat for juvenile salmon? Is there enough monitoring to know that these fish are not taking food from wild fish, or perhaps breeding with wild fish and diminishing their capability to adapt to climate change? Are we seeing the baby steps of ocean ranching here now? Are we supposed to give up on our wild stocks? No doubt, we have major problems, especially in the southern ranges of the Pacific. We often heard at the conference "We have to manage people, not the fish". Let's not give up on that yet. And most of all, let's not give up on wild salmon. Can we keep that in mind when discussing net pen guidelines and the possible expansion of net pens? Thanks,