The DFO isn't only driving the seals toward extinction, they're working on many other species, too...

Note: This is a work in progress. There is simply too much DFO incompetence to present all the evidence here at once...besides, the DFO hasn't given up on ruining the ocean ecosystem yet.

Irresponsible, Short-sighted Management of Caplin
(Also called Capelin and Ocean Smelt)

Caplin roll again in revived fishery
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 | 11:03 AM NT
CBC News

Caplin are a delicacy in the Japanese marketplace, and were the basis of a fishery that flourished until the late 1980s. (CBC)

Fishing vessels have returned to waters off Newfoundland for the first time in years for a commercial harvest of caplin, despite warnings that the health of the stock may be fleeting.

"Basically, right now, there's more caplin than we've seen I'd say in 20 years," said Kevin Slaney, owner of one of a handful of boats chasing the small fish in Conception Bay.

One owner told CBC News that on Tuesday, vessels would harvest about one million pounds — or about 450 tonnes — of caplin in Conception Bay alone.

Caplin, a delicacy in the Japanese marketplace, were once part of a vibrant fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, although catches fell as cod stocks began collapsing in the late 1980s.

Kevin Slaney says this year's caplin harvest has been the busiest in two decades. (CBC)

Indeed, scientists are still trying to figure out why caplin — a key source of food for cod — disappeared in the first place, and what's bringing them back again. Scientists are limited, though, because old research programs fell by the wayside.

"[The recovery is] a combination of things, but certainly we've not done the offshore acoustic surveys that we used to do in the 1980s," said biologist Brian Nakashima, a research scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

There have been commercial catches of caplin in subsequent years, but nothing compared to this year's activity.

Biologist Brian Nakashima notes that Fisheries and Oceans has not done the field research on caplin that it managed in the 1980s. (CBC)

Richard Haedrich, a Memorial University scientist who is a world expert on threatened fish stocks, said he is concerned that short-term commercial interests are eclipsing understanding of the big picture.

"Planning takes place on an annual basis, and none of these things function annually," Haedrich told CBC News.

"They function on a time frame of five, 10, 15, 20 years."

Wiping out the North American lobster

Trying to keep lobster in every pot, or at least in some pots

RALPH SURETTE | 7/7/07 4:42 AM

WE’VE BECOME blasé about scary headlines with regard to the ecology, especially the marine one which is underwater where we don’t see it. But let’s linger a moment over some that appeared this week: "Will lobster go the way of cod?" "Atlantic lobster industry unsustainable without new plan: report." And so on.

The report in question is from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which advises the federal government and which heard from more than 800 people in the fishing industry over the past year and a half. At issue is an industry that lands $600 million worth of lobsters a year in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, with the lion’s share in Nova Scotia, and that is the mainstay of the economy of many areas, including the Yarmouth/Shelburne/ Digby strip where I now live.

But lobsters have been declining in recent years. The word "collapse" is being applied here and there, notably in parts of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The report’s main point is that this decline, because of overfishing, has been foreseen for years but neither the industry nor the government had the will to do anything about it.

On the contrary, it merely got worse. More expensive boats with more fishing capacity were bought in the usual error of downward cycles: The fishing pressure increased as the resource declined in order to pay for the more expensive equipment. The council’s message is that unless serious change occurs, like shortening seasons or reducing trap limits, the fishery is unsustainable. And indeed, the drift to Alberta among fishermen is already on.

But here’s a more complicated twist. Difficult as it is to break the cycle of overfishing, if it’s only overfishing then we’ll be lucky.

In the cases of cod and most other groundfish, remember, even when the fishing stopped completely, they didn’t rebound. This suggests that although overfishing might have caused the collapse, there’s something else involved preventing a recovery.

In fact, recent research out of Cornell University in the U.S. suggests just that, arguing that ecosystems along the continental shelf from Labrador to North Carolina are undergoing "large, rapid changes." Some of these changes are indeed due to overfishing, and particularly the cod collapse which upset the food chain; but most are due to more fresh water from melting Arctic ice and changing ocean currents, both the result of global warming. These changes, in which the fresher water lingers at the surface longer than it used to, are not all inimical to ocean life. More plankton is being produced in the fall in this lingering surface layer, the researchers say, and they suspect that it was a factor in the rebound of herring stocks in the 1990s.

However, this research suggests that when it comes to the ups and downs of overfished species, it’s a crapshoot as to whether they recover or not even if you stop fishing them.

EDITORIAL

Last updated at 11:40 AM on 13/07/07

It's not too late - yet

The Amherst Citizen

Unless lobster fishermen in the Atlantic region are willing to take some pretty austere conservation measures it’s very likely the popular seafood could head the way of the codfish. That would be bad news for an industry that pours millions into the Atlantic region and employs thousands either directly on the boats or indirectly in processing plants.

In a report released earlier this week, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council said there are “high risks” associated with current strategies for fishing lobster in many areas of Eastern Canada.

While stocks are generally in good shape, there are areas where numbers are dwindling while at the same time fishing pressure is intensifying. One of those areas has to be the Northumberland Strait where catches have been dropping for close to a decade.

It has yet to be determined why lobster stocks are down. Some say it’s a result of silt stirred up by construction of the Confederation Bridge a decade ago, others say it’s a changing climate resulting in cooler waters while others – on this side of the Strait – say it’s a difference in the carapace size between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

While all of these are factors in the fishery’s decline, no one seems willing to consider over fishing as a possible cause. There are hundreds of fishermen along the Strait in both provinces and as much as government tries to control the number of new lobstermen, there appears to be more people fishing than there are lobsters to catch.

The time may have come to take a serious look at the future of the Northumberland lobster fishery and take some tough, if not unpopular, conservation measures to ensure there are lobster there to catch for future generations. We must learn from the mistakes of the Newfoundland cod fishery or risk repeating them.

Unknown to the Canadian public, there is a fierce and largely secret battle going on to undermine government policy and radically restructure the At

lantic Canada fishery. It is a guerrilla war that pits a group of strange bedfellows – a few wealthy fishermen, some fish processors and a number of bureaucrats inside the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans – against the DFO minister and the existing fisheries licensing system.So far, the strange bedfellows seem to be winning in their stealth campaign to overthrow the foundation of Atlantic fishery policy. They are succeeding by doing everything in their power to make the existing licensing policies meaningless and unenforceable.The Atlantic fishery employs over 30,000 people directly and, despite a major stock collapse and a rising Canadian dollar, it is still – at a value of $2.5 billion – the third biggest export earner in the Atlantic region after energy and forest products.The current structure of the fishery has been shaped by two fundamental policy decisions made more than 25 years ago. First, the DFO’s owner-operator policy established that on fishing vessels under 65 feet in length, the holder of the licence has to fish it personally. This means that a non-fisherman can’t hold a lobster licence and have someone else fish it, and similarly an active fisherman can’t officially buy a second lobster licence and have someone else fish it for him. The fleet separation policy established that companies that process fish cannot own licences and operate fishing vessels under 65 feet. Because of these policies, the greater portion of the wealth of the Atlantic fishery today goes not to big fish companies or absentee investors, but to thousands of owner-operator fishermen based in hundreds of coastal communities.And that’s what the war is about – gaining control over these small owner-operator businesses in Atlantic Canada. For years, fish companies and other investors have been quietly getting around the owner-operator and fleet separation policies by means of secret "trust agreements" – legal fictions that give control over fishing licences to people other than those entitled to them. For a long time, these deals were thought to be of marginal significance.Recently, however, industry and community leaders have awakened to the reality that in some very lucrative fisheries, like lobster in southwest Nova Scotia and snow crab in Newfoundland, the under-the-table trust agreements are threatening the foundations of their local fisheries. Not only do companies now control more and more licences, but the underground market means most young people in fishing communities can never hope to become owner-operators.Every time this conflict has come out into the open, the owner-operator and fleet separation policies have been widely supported. In extensive public consultations for DFO’s recent Atlantic fisheries policy review, the overwhelming majority of individual fishermen and fishermen’s organizations forcefully called on the government to maintain and strengthen the policies. They were supported by the governments of the four Atlantic Provinces and Québec and by numerous municipal governments and community organizations. Only a few individuals representing fish companies spoke against the policies.In response to the strong support for the existing policies, successive ministers of DFO made clear commitments to maintain and strengthen the owner-operator and fleet separation policies. The new minister, Loyola Hearn from Newfoundland, is the latest to do so. Last June, in his first appearance before the Senate fisheries committee, Mr. Hearn said: "Our firm belief is that the person who owns the licence, the fisherman who has a licence, should be the one who fishes the resource. He should be the one benefiting from the resource. The skipper should be in the boat and not down in Florida phoning home orders to several people who operate boats which he owns."… The department is ready for a fight with the people who benefit from the trust agreements, if that’s what it takes to stop the practice … We let this thing get out of hand." Despite the clear message from the minister, nothing has been done to stop the practice. The changes needed to prevent trust agreements from undermining government policy still haven’t been made and there is no indication from DFO of when they will be. Worse, the undermining of government policy has become more blatant and open. In Nova Scotia, companies and individuals are buying newspaper ads offering to buy and lease lobster licences, all in open contravention of DFO licensing policies, and yet regional DFO officials are doing nothing to stop it. Like a cancer on the fisheries management system, this situation is undermining the overall credibility of DFO. In recent meetings in Nova Scotia, for example, fishermen challenged the DFO to explain why they should be following the regulations if the department does not enforce its own rules and allows a few companies and rich fishermen to buy up control of the resource. That is a very good question. The secret war against the owner-operator and fleet separation policies has successfully forestalled the promises and commitments of three DFO ministers for over four years. Mr. Hearn is right. The situation is out of hand. It’s time for him to take control, bring his managers into line with departmental policies, and introduce the changes needed to make the policies meaningful again.

Marc Allain is an independent fisheries policy analyst.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans recently released a report entitled, "Impacts of Trawl Gears and Scallop Dredges on Benthic Habitats, Populations and Communities". This report clearly shows the horrific impact of bottom dragging on fish habitats.

In the report it is identified that, "...measures to reduce impacts of mobile bottom-contacting gears requires case specific analysis and planning. There are no universally appropriate fixes...".

Sorry folks, but you are wrong again as usual. There is indeed a universally appropriate fix. Legislate a complete ban on all bottom dragging gear .

It really is that simple. Dragging destroys fish habitat completely and utterly. According to your own report, "...Recovery time from perturbation by mobile bottom-contacting gears can take from days to centuries, and for physical features and some specialized biogenic features recovery may not be possible"

For those who have doubts about how critical this issue is read on. Here are a few more extremely disturbing excerpts from the DFO report.

"...gears can damage or reduce habitat complexity."

"...can decrease the abundance of long lived species."

"...affect populations of structurally fragile species more often..."

"When areas are impacted repeatedly over several years, the increased presence of scavengers in the community can become a persistent feature..."

Hell, what more do you need to know. How long will it take for the government of Canada to do what needs to be done about bottom dragging? What will it take before they step up and start protecting our oceans as well as the livelihoods of those who depend it for a living?

Once the bottom has been destroyed and the habitat is no longer able to sustain life, what happens to those who work in the fisheries and worse yet, what happens to the ecological balance on this small planet we all live on? You only have to ask a Newfoundland fishermen how he has been impacted by low cod stocks to understand the former, the impact of the latter remains to be seen.

For anyone who has ever seen video of dragger gear moving across the ocean floor there is no question that this complete and utter destruction must be stopped at once. It is amazing to note that in areas like the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador, an area where cod fish have become an almost endangered species, bottom trawling is still allowed by the Canadian government and is done regularly and often illegally by foreign fishing vessels.

As a part of the report produced by DFO to address the issue there is an examination of potential ways to mediate impacts. This should not even be open for discussion as no mediation is required. The only action that will work is a complete ban on what amounts to an attack on all ocean life.

To put it in perspective, the process of bottom dragging on the ocean floor it is reminiscent of a back alley abortion using a wire coat hanger. The activity is totally indiscriminant and after the dragger moves through the area there is nothing left behind but debris and total destruction.

All of which is permitted by the Canadian government.

Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn says a recreational cod fishery held off the coast of Newfoundland this summer showed little evidence of abuse.

The recreational fishery — also known as the food fishery — closed Monday, after five weeks in which ordinary residents could take to bays and coves to catch their own cod.

Hearn said few violations were reported during the course of the fishery, and added that he is leaning towards reopening a similar fishery next summer.

"From the light in the eye of the 82-year-old who says, 'You know, b'y, you delivered for us,' to the young kids who went out with their granddad, for instance, to experience what we experienced as kids, yes, if all things being equal, if the stock is there to do it … I would certainly continue," said Hearn, who represents St. John's South-Mount Pearl.

Against recommendations from many scientists, Hearn approved a limited recreational fishery this summer around the coasts of the island.

Individuals were allowed to catch as many as five cod per day, with a daily boat limit of 15 fish.

Hearn said all aspects of the fishery will be reviewed before a decision is made on next year's fishery.

Safety was a recurring issue during the fishery. A father and son fishing from Petty Harbour drowned after their small vessel overturned on Aug. 1, the day the fishery opened.

Search crews also rescued at least two sets of fishermen who ran into trouble at sea.

Grey seal hunt "epitome of inappropriate management’

Tuesday August 22, 2006
By BRIAN MEDEL Yarmouth Bureau

YARMOUTH — A group incorporated little more than two years ago calling itself the Grey Seal Conservation Society was founded in opposition to a proposed grey seal hunt in Nova Scotia.

"The purpose was to help draw attention to the changes in the ecosystem overall," said Debbie MacKenzie, one of the group’s members. She’s not a biologist but has studied the grey seal question extensively.

Grey seals are large and seemingly everywhere. They’re inshore and offshore, and they’re around Nova Scotia 12 months of the year.

Fishermen from Cape North to Cape Sable Island this summer have been reporting grey seals taking their groundfish and their bait. They’ve said grey seals have been damaging their gear and following lobster boats to snap up undersized lobsters that are thrown back.

The grey seal population has grown too large, probably because shark populations have diminished, say fishery groups. Many fishermen remember their fathers talking about seal bounties. All that was needed to collect a little cash reward was a jawbone. Those times are gone.

A fishing industry group calling itself the Grey Seal Research and Development Society asked Ottawa for permission to hunt some grey seals.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans allocated a quota of 10,000 of the animals, said DFO marine mammal specialist Jerry Conway. Most of that quota remains intact and industry now has until the end of 2006 to use it.

Asian markets are being tested for grey seal meat sales, said Denny Morrow of the Nova Scotia Fish Packers Association.

But the cull is opposed by the Grey Seal Conservation Society. Top predators like grey seals are important to have around to manage the ocean ecosystem in the way it was meant to be managed, says the group.

"The approval of a grey seal hunt is the epitome of inappropriate management," said Ms. MacKenzie.

Federal government scientists have said groundfish stocks will have a hard time recovering because the food web has changed and not enough large, healthy and robust groundfish remain, she said.

Large cod or halibut used to be found, as well as skates the size of a barn door, she said.

The presence of natural predators helps by eliminating young, old and injured fish. Normally these fish are the first to be eaten, said Ms. MacKenzie. The big healthy fish escape and live to reproduce.

The fact that many groundfish are now undersized is a sign of a lack of predation, she said.

Many fishermen would scratch their heads at this because they’ve reported just the opposite — an increase in predation from grey seals.

The fishing industry should take an ecosystem approach, putting the health of the ecosystem first and leaving the seals alone, said Ms. MacKenzie. That may involve avoiding longlining, she said.

Ms. MacKenzie said fish that are hooked by longline may have been able to escape from seals otherwise, she said. If seals are ripping the bellies out of cod and halibut that have been hooked by longliners then longline fishermen should avoid the areas where seals are found, she said.

That’s ridiculous, say fishermen who note that the seals are everywhere from six to 160 metres of water.

Longlining is also touted by other conservationists as good fishing practice because it does not scoop up large amounts of fish or damage the seabed like dragging does. Longlining keeps people working and catches fewer fish, good all around, say many.

But Ms. MacKenzie insists killing grey seals won’t help the situation.

"They shouldn’t shoot for any predator reduction.

"Unfortunately it’s the fishery that should back off," she said.

( bmedel@herald.ca)

Small cod fishery reopens off Newfoundland, but conservation concerns linger

TARA BRAUTIGAM
June 8, 2006 - 17:32

PETTY HARBOUR, N.L. (CP) - Fishermen in eastern and northern Newfoundland will be allowed to reel in their most coveted catch for the first time in three years, despite concerns that the decision to reopen the northern cod fishery is based on faulty science.

A small-scale, inshore commercial fishery for northern cod, as well as a limited recreational fishery, will resume this year, federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn announced Thursday.
"That is what most people have asked for, that is what we can deliver," Hearn told a news conference in Petty Harbour, a cozy fishing village just south of St. John's.

Up to 2,300 commercial fishermen will each be allowed to catch 1,350 kilograms of northern cod within Canada's 12-mile inshore zone. The one-year pilot project will be reviewed after a season scheduled to last three weeks.

"That should give us a lot of information we don't have today about the health of stocks in every area of this province," Hearn said.

The 2,300-tonne limit will appease some commercial fishermen, but it's a small step toward re-establishing an industry that was pulling in an average of 260,000 tonnes per season in the 1980s.

Newfoundland's cod fishery has been a source of contention in the province since Ottawa closed the northern fishery in 1992 to restore depleted stocks. A year later, the province's south coast fishery was closed along with most of the cod fisheries in the rest of Atlantic Canada.

More than 30,000 people lost their jobs - the single-largest mass layoff in Canada's history.

Commercial cod fishing was allowed to resume years ago off Newfoundland's south coast, but the once mighty northern fishery was shut down in 2003 after a four-year stint amid numerous reports that stocks had not recovered enough to sustain commercial or recreational fishing.

While some scientists insist the northern fishery should be kept closed, fishermen say there's plenty of cod in the sea and they welcomed the small quota.

"It's good news, not great news," said Doug Howlett, a 44-year-old commercial fisherman in Petty Harbour. He said the federal government could have tripled the quotas it announced and still maintain healthy stock levels.

"It'll put a few dollars in (fishermen's pockets), not very much."

Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said the ban on fishing northern cod should never have been lifted.

"If you fish a population when they're down, you'll inhibit recovery, so if you ever want to get cod back, you have to stop fishing it," Myers said. "This goes in the face of all scientific advice."

The federal Fisheries Department will largely rely on the honour system to ensure fishermen are abiding by the rules, Hearn said.

"If conservation isn't the bottom line for any of us, this will be a one-shot deal and a one-shot deal only," Hearn said

He warned that abuse of the measures would result in an early shutdown.

"This is always the problem, boys," he told several dozen fishermen at the wharf.

"If people can't live by the rules that you've asked for and help set, and we set, then we'll close her down. Other than that, we'll have a hell of a summer on the water."

Myers said Newfoundland will be hard-pressed to ensure fishermen are obeying the regulations.

As for the recreational fishery, it is expected to open in August and will last five weeks.

Those taking part in the so-called food fishery will be allowed to land five fish each, and 15 fish per boat under 45 feet in length. Recreational fishermen will no longer need licences nor tags to catch cod under requirements already in place for other Atlantic provinces.

The reopening of commercial and recreational fishing for northern cod was welcomed by NDP fisheries critic Peter Stoffer.

"If he keeps it tightly controlled and everything is monitored well and that information is shared with the scientists, I think this would be a good thing," Stoffer said from his home riding of Sackville-Eastern Shore in Nova Scotia.

Fisheries Minister Hearn denies endangered species protections on the basis of economic concerns

From the DFO:

Northern Bottlenose Whale (Scotian Shelf) and Channel Darter protected under the Species at Risk Act

OTTAWA -- The Honourable Loyola Hearn, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, today announced that two aquatic species will be added to the list of species protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA).

The Northern bottlenose whale (Scotian Shelf) and the channel darter will be listed under SARA, bringing the total number of species protected under the Act to 347.

"The government looked at each species very carefully when deciding whether to list it under SARA," said Minister Hearn. "These decisions have real impacts on Canadians and it's critical that we consider all of the information, including scientific assessments, Aboriginal traditional knowledge, the feedback we received from thousands of Canadians, as well as the social and economic impacts of listing these species."

The Northern bottlenose whale (Scotian Shelf) and the channel darter were part of a larger group of 12 aquatic species which underwent an extended period of consultation while under consideration for addition to SARA.

Four species will not be listed under SARA, including three populations of Atlantic cod (Newfoundland & Labrador, Laurentian North and Maritimes). Comprehensive recovery plans for cod will be completed and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) will continue to pursue strong conservation measures with the provinces, fishers and key stakeholders.

Following the public posting of the recommendations, a decision was also made to not list Interior Fraser River coho salmon under SARA. Extensive protection measures are already in place and will be continued under the Fisheries Act. Although Interior Fraser River coho remains a concern, the department is confident that it has the tools to rebuild the species.

Six species' assessments will be returned to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) for further information or consideration, including Atlantic cod (Arctic population), cusk, bocaccio, harbour porpoise (NW Atlantic population), Lake Winnipeg physa, and shortjaw cisco.

More information regarding the Species at Risk Act is available on the SARA Public Registry at www.sararegistry.gc.ca. Information on aquatic species at risk is available at www.aquaticspeciesatrisk.gc.ca.

Info: Sophie Galarneau Manager, Media Relations Fisheries and Oceans Canada Ottawa (613) 990-7537 or Steve Outhouse, Office of the Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, (613) 992-3474

Sierra Club Canada Response:

Canada Abandons Endangered Species: Wild salmon, Northern Cod on the way to extinction

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

(Ottawa, Victoria) - Sierra Club of Canada expressed its outrage that the federal government has decided not to list Interior Fraser Coho in the west and Northern Cod on the east coast. Clear scientific advice from the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Canada (COSEWIC) has been ignored. Advice from scientists within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been rejected.

“Canada has clearly abandoned any pretence that we, as a country, care about the protection of endangered species,” said Sierra Club of Canada’s British Columbia Conservation Chair Vicky Husband. “This is the government’s message to the world. How can we ever urge the protection of endangered species in other countries, when we fail to protect them at home?”

The British Columbia Chapter of the Sierra Club of Canada particularly lamented the damage to the Wild Salmon Policy that is part and parcel of this decision. The federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) should operate to support the efforts to recover wild salmon. SARA must be a critical decision point which strengthens actions taken in the implementation of the Wild Salmon Policy (WSP). SCC argues that the Minister’s decision spells the end to SARA being a useful tool for the conservation of salmon, and it extracts the teeth from the WSP.

“Without an effective SARA, the Wild Salmon Policy is undermined,” said Vicky Husband of the BC Chapter’s fisheries programme. “It took us seven years to finally get a Wild Salmon Policy and now it appears as endangered as the salmon it seeks to protect. I am profoundly saddened by this decision and by the lack of leadership shown by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment, they are ultimately responsible if these species go extinct.”

“This decision has implications well beyond salmon and cod,” said Executive Director Elizabeth May, “If we can’t use federal law to protect Thompson coho and the Northern Cod, we can’t use the law to protect anything else. And if Canada, the ninth largest economy on earth, the only nation with balanced books in the OECD, cannot protect endangered species, then what country can?”

SARA is the federal government’s primary instrument for endangered species protection. The listing of a species was intended by Parliament to be primarily a scientific exercise. Concerns about socio-economic implications can be considered later, throughout the recovery process.

“There is a widespread misunderstanding about the Act,” continued Elizabeth May. “It is anything but Draconian. There are many opportunities to exempt economic activity that incidentally kills a listed species and even to decide that it is not feasible to try to recover a species. These options are available after listing. Failure to list denies the species, and those who wish to protect it, access to additional funds for recovery as well as to a consultative process to develop the best way to protect species while continuing economic activity. Failure to list is the ultimate abdication of responsibility to species at risk of extinction.”

Info:
Vicky Husband, BC Chapter, Conservation Chair, 250 920-9355
Elizabeth May, Executive Director, 613-241-4611
Rachel Plotkin, Director of Forests and Biodiversity, 613-241-4611

Wiping out the crabs
It pays to be a corrupt DFO fisheries observer. $10,000 clams, to be exact

Dockside monitor claims she accepted bribes
BY JAMIE BAKER, The Telegram
jbaker@thetelegram.com
Wednesday, March 15, 2006

A dockside observer says she accepted bribes from a fish company as part of her role in an "elaborate scheme" to misreport some 115,000 pounds of crab in Black Tickle, Labrador over a three-year period. Brenda Dyson pleaded guilty to one charge in connection with the incident(s) and received a $7,000 fine; her agreed statement of facts was read in provincial court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay Tuesday.

Paid for false info

In that statement, Dyson said she had received $17,000 between 2001 and 2003 to "record and forward false information" to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and that she "received top employment stamps as a fisher and an employee of Labrador Sea Products during the three-year period."

The investigation revealed Dyson had received $4,000 over a five-week period in 2001; $8,000 cash in 2002; and another $5,000 cash in 2003 for her role in misreporting the crab catches.

"This is a very serious matter and this is a very important case for the fishing industry," said Morley Knight, DFO's director of conservation and protection for the Newfoundland and Labrador Region.

"When you look at this from an economic perspective, if someone is misreporting, what they are doing is stealing the resource - it's the same as stealing from other fishermen. It has to be an elaborate scheme because not just one person can undertake this on their own."

Two-year investigation

Dyson's case stemmed from an intensive two-year investigation conducted by DFO's special investigations unit, which began after a routine inspection at the Black Tickle plant in November 2003.

On June 14, 2004, investigators seized more than 25,000 documents and computer hard drives in simultaneous raids at the Labrador Sea Products plant in Black Tickle, and related offices on the island. In a taped interview that same day, Dyson also confessed to being involved in the misreporting of crab.

"We did the searches based on reasonable probable grounds that offences of misreporting of crab had been committed - we knew that from the preliminary inspection we did in the fall of 2003," Knight noted.

On June 30, 2005, following more than a year of investigation, some 80 charges were laid related to the misreporting of crab catches against seven people and three companies. Knight said several additional charges were laid in connection with the case in August and again in January.

The preliminary inquiry related to the remaining charges and individuals is expected to go ahead in May.

Knight could not say what role, if any, Dyson might play as the case proceeds.

'Before the courts'

"It's before the courts, and it remains to be seen how the other parties and other people charged will respond to the charges," he said.

Knight said misreporting of catches is considered a serious hindrance to proper conservation and management of crab, a lucrative species that has been in decline in recent years.

In cases where misreporting is suspected, Knight said DFO would "leave no stone unturned" in carrying out its investigations using all available high-tech methods at their disposal for everything from evidence recovery to forensic auditing.

"It is very important to let those in the industry know, while they may misreport, they can be caught."

DFO Officers Encourage Illegal Grey Seal Slaughter

reported by Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
02/26/2006

In the last posting on our website on this issue (2/24/06), we reported that the Canadian Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Officers turned a blind eye to the activities of nine Cape Breton fishermen who cruelly and illegally slaughtered 220 gray seals in a protected wilderness area of Nova Scotia.

It appears now that the DFO officers actually encouraged the illegal slaughter.

"We were encouraging it," DFO spokesman Jerry Conway said on 2/23/06, a day after the men received summonses from provincial Natural Resources Department conservation officers as they stepped onto the dock Tuesday at Main-a-Dieu, Cape Breton County.

The pending charges are under the Wildlife Act, the Wilderness Protection Act, and the Environment Act. The nine men are to appear in Sydney provincial court on May 8.

The men killed the seals on Hay Island, a small outcropping off Scatarie Island, a provincially-designated wildlife management area. Because it lies within 1.6 kilometers off Scatarie, Hay Island is automatically included in the management area, a fact that at least two levels of government say they were unaware of.

"Not only wasn't this department (DFO) aware that Hay Island was not considered to be part of Scatarie, but the provincial Fisheries Department weren't aware, because both were encouraging the development of this fishery," Mr. Conway said, adding that when the seal hunt was established, sealers were informed they could harvest gray seals from Cape North through to the Bay of Fundy. No specific areas were closed to them."

So both the Federal and Provincial Fisheries Department were admittedly ignorant of the fact that this was a protected area.

"This is the kind of ignorance routinely displayed by the Canadian Department of Fisheries," said Captain Paul Watson. “Here they are in charge of protecting wildlife, and yet, they admit they don't know where the boundaries are."

A letter from the Natural Resources Department in 2003 alerted both government departments to this area being off limits, Mr. Conway admitted.

And as recently as three weeks ago, a group trying to develop a sealing industry in Nova Scotia was lobbying Provincial Environment Minister Kerry Morash to allow seals to be slaughtered specifically on Hay Island.

"The minister advised them that Hay Island is not open to hunting and they subsequently have been advised again and by DFO and DNR officers that there was to be no hunting on Hay Island and they chose to ignore that advice," Mr. Conway admitted.

Ewen MacIntyre, spokesman for the Natural Resources Department in Coxheath, said DFO regulates the seal fishery and that his department is involved simply due to the location of the hunt.

"As far as we are concerned, the onus is on the sealers to know where they can and cannot hunt," he said.

Victoria-The Lakes MLA Gerald Sampson says he was approached last month by a number of northern Victoria County seal hunters who want Hay Island excluded from the wildlife management designation.

"They told me that they had harvested seals there previously and wanted permission to harvest seals there again," he said, adding he directed them to Mr. Morash and Neil Bellefontaine, a senior DFO official.

"I don't know if they received permission or if that was the group that was charged," he said.

Jay Luger, spokesman for the Grey Seal Research and Development Society, which wants to develop a grey seal industry, has refused to comment on the illegal slaughter on Hay Island.

It is expected that the arrested sealers will use the fact that DFO encouraged them to kill seals as their defense on the charges. It is also expected that the courts will be lenient.

"It is not as if they did something serious like photograph a seal hunt," said Captain Paul Watson. "Eleven of my crew were sentenced to jail for 22 days or a fine of $1,000 for the "crime" of witnessing the slaughter of one seal. These bastards viciously slaughtered 220 seals illegally and I bet their sentence, if they in fact are even found guilty, will be significantly more lenient than those convicted of trying to stop the killing of the seals. Justice is not blind in Canada; it is applied with great clarity and prejudice."

Canada's Senate rips on the DFO

Proceedings found on website of the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia

Excerpt:

I read that DFO feels that 136 years of the Fisheries Act or a bunch of fisheries acts are out of date and must be modernized. It is not the fisheries policies that must be modernized; rather, DFO must be modernized. It is an anachronism and has been since the British North America Act was first developed.

When Canada emerged as a nation in 1867, the oceans indicated where our boundaries were and the oceans were the strength of Canada in our linkages to Britain and to the West Indies, for example, through the fish trade. The fish trade was the essence of our wealth.

It is a long time since that has been the case. Fisheries were brought under the federal government because they were so important for wealth creation for the new nation. But since that is no longer the case, we now have a department that is under the federal government and a long way from the communities with which it does most of its work. The problem is that the department has no accountability.

Full text here.