Skeena Frustrations Continued by Bob Hooton

Skeena Frustrations Continued

Until the sun rose on November 26, I thought I knew about as much as needed to be somewhat in the loop in terms of who’s who in the Non-Government Organization (NGO) line up engaged in that Skeena pound trap project described here recently. A wake-up call in the form of two independent newsletters that arrived almost co-incidentally from prominent US based organizations emphasized how naïve I have been. I’ll try and explain.

I’ve already spoken to the Washington State based Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) and its partnership with the Lax Kw’alaams Band to spend $2.21M Canadian taxpayer dollars via the BC Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund (BCSRIF). What I didn’t appreciate was the connection between the WFC and yet another US based group, Oregon’s Native Fish Society (NFS). Their newsletter that arrived on November 26 included a section with the heading “Check out our accomplishments, goals, and vision for the future below to learn more:” Included in the list of accomplishments was: “Skeena River Selective Gear. With the Lax Kw’alaams Band and the Wild Fish Conservancy a fish trap was used on the Skeena River to collect steelhead data and create a selective fishing solution for the First Nations food fishery.” That prompted me to contact the NFS distributor of their newsletter to ask what the relationship was between them and the WFC? Nothing has come back thus far but it’s only fair to give them some time. Their newsletter remark was very similar to what came back from the spokesperson for the BCSRIF when I questioned him about the status of the pound trap project. If a functional trap had ever been in operation in 2024, how did that happen if the proposed 41 or 51 large steel pilings the trap was supposed to be strung from were never driven? The BCSRIF director has never responded to my request for verification of what he said, nor has the WFC.

The next newsletter originated with Terrace based Skeena Wild Conservation Trust (SW). Given all that had been going on with respect to the Skeena in recent weeks it was unusual for that organization to be MIA. In fact, their newsletter opened with “Welcome back to our monthly updates! We missed last month as our team was rather busy!” The newsletter covered a broad range of material but one item was an attention grabber. It was highlighted by a photo with a link that followed. The newsletter itself won’t copy as a link here but anyone wishing to see what it says can Google Skeena Wild and find it readily.

The link consisted of an article dated September 17, 2024, authored by Ramona DeNies who is listed on the Wild Salmon Center web site as its Senior Writer. Recall I mentioned in my last post that the WSC was in the process of recruiting a new position, British Columbia Program Director. That would bring the WSC’s permanent staff complement to 42. (Imagine the budget required to sustain such a large organization.) On wading through the DeNies piece I noted a few more items worth mentioning in the context of just how much has been going on behind the scenes for so long. Another picture copied from her message gives some clues.

Two things – the date indicates this was taken more than two years ago. Second, with all due respect to Dr. Mantua’s credentials and expertise, I think it would have been slightly more appropriate to have a picture of the “board meeting” rather than one of its prominent members out there fishing. The WSC lists 17 Board members. I wonder how many others accompanied Dr. Mantua and what the purpose of that board meeting was?

There is another link in the DeNies article that just adds to my ongoing frustration with what goes on with these organizations and their marketing messages. It extolls the virtues of the Koeye project the WSC has been involved with for several years. Offering up (again) a four-year-old video of the fish fence on that obscure central BC coast river as some sort of example of what could be employed on the Skeena is offensive. DeNies goes on to include a picture of a fishwheel on the Bella Coola River, another project the WSC claims to be party to. Finally there is mention of the Kitselas fish wheel project that was highlighted in a widely advertised YouTube clip that included endorsements from Skeena Wild, the BC Federation of Fly Fishers and the Steelhead Society of BC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9m4_C_wf_g The video illustrates and parrots all the right stuff. No one who saw it would contest any of that, although some of the background references were less than accurate. Ironically, only days after the video appeared, the fish wheel was nowhere to be seen. In its place was a gill net stretched across three-quarters of the Skeena. The net was fishing continuously, unattended, for many days afterward. When brought to the attention of the three endorsers appearing in the YouTube clip, only one responded with the message he would look into it. Nothing more has been heard.

An aerial shot of the location of the Kitselas fish wheel site on September 11, 2024. The red line indicates the precise location and length of the net. Photo credit undisclosed for fear of repercussions.

The conspicuous absence from the Skeena Wild newsletter, including the WSC link, was any mention of the lower Skeena pound trap. All these people and their collective knowledge and experience with the Skeena and its steelhead and they don’t even mention the single largest steelhead related project ever? They talk about a weir on an obscure central coast river and a fish wheel on another, both with zero applicability to Skeena circumstances, but they don’t know of the Native Fish Society’s claim to be connected to the Wild Fish Conservancy/Lax Kw’alaams partnership on that project?

In summary, we have three prominent US based fisheries conservation organizations – The Native Fish Society, The Wild Salmon Center and the Wild Fish Conservancy – engaged in Skeena steelhead management. Each gives the appearance of being a stand alone whose Skeena related activity is financed by some combination of Canadian taxpayer dollars (i.e., the BCSRIF) and donations from (wealthy) US based supporters. Many of those supporters are patrons of popular steelhead lodges in Skeena country. In fact the NFS’s Director of Wild Steelhead Funding has his own cabin at one of the Babine River lodges. Each of the three US organizations appears to be connected to Skeena Wild to some extent. The latter has also been heavily dependent on US funding since its inception.

Two other BC based conservation focused organizations also figure in the Skeena scenario – Watershed Watch and The Raincoast Conservation Foundation. The latter is a relatively recent edition to the anti-Alaska campaign. Collectively the three organizations have been relentless in their condemnation of the Southeast Alaska commercial fishery impacts on BC origin (principally Nass and Skeena) salmon and steelhead. The areas of concern are Noyes Island (District 104) and Cape Fox (District 101) with the former being the worst. Noyes is a long understood major point of landfall for Skeena and Nass bound salmon and steelhead. It is a very lucrative fishery for Alaskan seiners.

The favorite line of the anti-Alaska campaign led by the three BC conservation groups is “Alaska’s Dirty Secret”. The screen shot below of the YouTube piece prepared by the leaders of the campaign is essentially the same as other pictures that have inundated social media for the past two or three years. Call up YouTube if you want to view the full message. Alternately, look up https://www.alaskasdirtysecret.com/ken_bryant

So, what’s my point in cobbling together all of the above? Three foreign organizations all over the BC steelhead scene, for what? What will all the impressive talent and expertise they bring to bear through their undertakings do to improve the management of the fish of concern? Prove it. What are three more organizations from BC added to the mix accomplishing? (Full marks to all of them for the excellent work they do on the fish habitat and public education fronts.) No doubt relationship building with First Nations will be beneficial over some unknown longer term, but that can’t (shouldn’t) be allowed to take precedence over the fish in need today and in the foreseeable future. No one denies selective fishing isn’t a high priority but when will any of those initiatives result in replacement of gill nets instead of being in addition to them? Give us an example please. Even in some fairy tale world where a significant selective fishery was implemented on the lower Skeena, who is going to sort out the catch sharing between all the First Nations who traditionally harvest fish all the way from there to the Skeena and tributary headwaters? Who is going to deal with First Nations commercial fishers adamant they are never going to down tools in favor of traps? How? When? How are trap proponents going to deal with conservation of impoverished upper Skeena sockeye stocks (e.g. wild Babine, Kitwanga, Morice)? Isn’t a lower Skeena trap just one more mixed stock fishery? How is the dilemma of DFO buying back commercial fishing licenses from willing non-indigenous sellers and then re-issuing at least some of them to First Nations going to be addressed?

Millions of dollars are being spent every year on a steadily growing list of Skeena fishery undertakings. There is no perceptible connection between them and none between them and the two government agencies taxpayers finance to manage fish and fisheries. Cross hairs are on Alaska because that is an attractive story to peddle to financial contributors. For steelhead, at least, there is no credible data that is ever going to influence Alaska of any need to alter their District 104 fishery. Their no data, no problem card has been played very successfully for 30 years. Predictably, the campaign to de-certify Alaska fish products in the marketplace hasn’t worked. How about if the millions currently being wasted by the American organizations are re-directed to useful ends like documenting the size and composition of the Alaskan steelhead catch so Canada has something useful to take to the negotiations around the next edition of the Pacific Salmon Treaty due in 2028? How about if those large, influential conservation organizations take on their own countrymen in their own waters instead of utilizing Alaskan leftovers for fun and profit in ours? That won’t solve the issues surrounding allocation of the preferred species and sub-stocks in our tidal and non-tidal waters but isn’t it better to have more or our own fish to allocate?

And why not put some of those huge annual expenditures to work on those other two fisheries that are largely ignored? The only steelhead numbers anyone ever pays attention to are the results of DFO’s test fishery. That doesn’t represent spawner abundance when two other upstream fisheries have yet to be accounted for. When are we ever going to see credible numbers on steelhead removed by First Nations, whether targeted or caught incidental to their other fisheries (economic opportunity or EO, escapement surplus to spawning requirements or ESSR, food, social and ceremonial or FSC, not to mention all the unsanctioned fishing)? What about the thriving, ever more efficient recreational fishery? How much catching are we talking about today? What are the impacts of catch and release? How can managers manage in the absence of all these numbers? Do they care?

R.S. Hooton

November 29, 2024