Stocking will never replace natural reproduction. But when certain populations collapse, refusing even to study this tool is not a conservation policy either. Above all, however, we must begin by properly protecting the salmon that are already managing to return naturally to our rivers. We're going to have to stop talking about stocking as if simply uttering the word will transform our rivers into fish farms. Every time we dare to ask if it isn't time to use incubation, conservation stocking, or some form of temporary assistance for certain struggling populations, we're immediately told that it won't solve the problem at sea. Of course it won't solve the problem at sea. No one in their right mind claims that. But since when do we have to solve 100% of a problem before we have the right to act on the part we can control? While we debate doctrine, management philosophy, and whether human intervention is sufficiently "natural," some of our rivers are counting their salmon by the dozens or even a few hundred. At that level, every spawner counts. Every female counts. Every cohort counts. And every lost year counts even more. I'm not asking that all the rivers in Quebec be stocked like trout ponds. I'm asking that we finally have enough judgment to recognize that between doing nothing and completely artificializing everything, there's a vast area where science, caution, and targeted intervention can work together. Before sowing seeds, let's begin by protecting those who return. But before we even talk about stocking, we need to start by addressing the problems we can solve here, right now, in our own rivers . Because we can build all the hatcheries we want, produce all the fry we want, and pour millions into restoration programs: if we can't even properly protect the adult salmon that are already managing to return naturally, we're doing everything wrong. We'll never do better than nature. Our first responsibility should therefore be to ensure that as many returning salmon as possible can spawn naturally and in the best possible conditions . That starts with a proper temperature protocol, not one that waits until the fish are already in distress. I've long been calling for intervention starting at 20°C , with real monitoring of temperatures, flow rates, and the state of the populations. When the water warms up, when flow rates drop, and when salmon concentrate in a few cold areas, we have to know when to stop. Not tomorrow. Not after three days. When conditions become dangerous. Because at that point, continuing to fish simply because the river is still legally open is no longer management: it's the status quo . We also need to conduct a proper inventory of thermal refuges . We must identify them, map them, protect them, and above all, prevent them from becoming areas where fishing pressure is concentrated precisely because salmon congregate there. When a salmon is seeking a few degrees cooler to survive a warm spell, it's not the time to dangle a fly in front of its nose hundreds of times a day and then claim to be practicing conservation because it's released. A thermal refuge must be a refuge. Period. We must also protect cold-water inlets, tributaries, shaded areas, and riparian zones. Yes, planting trees and restoring riparian zones can help in the long term. Yes, it must be done. But let's be realistic: we won't cool down an entire river next summer by planting a few thousand trees this spring. The major benefits of some interventions will take years, sometimes decades. In the meantime, there are decisions we can make now , without waiting twenty years. The harvest should also be part of the conversation I also want us to have the courage to talk about harvesting. When populations are at such low levels, the priority must be to maximize the number of spawners that reach the spawning grounds . This means being able to suspend harvesting, including food, ritual, and social harvesting, when the biological status of a population warrants it, while respecting applicable rights and legal frameworks. Biological conservation, however, doesn't change depending on who's holding the net or the rod. A dead spawning salmon won't spawn. If we truly want to put salmon first, we must be able to sit down together and reduce all preventable mortalities when a population approaches a critical level. And if we continue fishing certain populations, then let's do it with the most protective rules possible: single barbless hooks, short fights, keeping the fish in the water, minimal handling, no photo shoots, no videos of salmon being tossed in the air to feed social media. At some point, we have to choose what we truly want to protect: the salmon or the culture of salmon photography. I've been fishing long enough to know that you can love fishing and still recognize that there's a time to stop. When the water is too warm, when the fish are concentrated, when the river is low and each fight adds unnecessary stress, a responsible angler should understand that their day is over. It should be obvious. Yet, even today, we too often continue as if everything is fine as long as a regulation doesn't officially prohibit us from casting a fly. That's the free-for-all I'm denouncing. That's it, the status quo I refuse to get used to. Table 1 — What we can do immediately Otherwise, what's the point of sowing seeds? This is precisely where the issue of stocking becomes serious. Because if we don't clean up our act here, what's the point of stocking? What's the point of spending money to produce young salmon if, a few years later, those that manage the miracle of returning to our rivers are still exposed to the same avoidable pressures? We must start by maximizing natural reproduction. Then, if some populations remain so weak that they need a temporary boost, then yes, incubation and conservation stocking can become additional tools. But not tools that allow us to continue exactly as before. Stocking should never become the price we pay to maintain our bad habits. It must come after a genuine reassessment of our management practices. The Trinity shows us how serious the problem is. The Trinity River offers a stark lesson that we should face head-on instead of turning a blind eye. It is one of our best monitoring rivers because we can estimate the number of smolts that leave for the sea and then measure how many return as adults. The figures are stark. For smolts that left for the sea in 2020 , the total return rate was 2.55% . For the 2021 cohort, it fell to 0.78% . And for the 2022 smolts, we arrive at a catastrophic 0.16% , the lowest return rate observed in the Trinity monitoring series. [1] Table 2 — Trinity River: Recent marine survival Important: The years correspond to the year the smolts leave the river. The provisional rate of 0.43% for the 2024 cohort currently only includes Magdalen smolts returning in 2025. The Dibermarines of this cohort return in 2026. Figure 1 — Smolt → adult return rate, Trinity River. The 2022 cohort reached only 0.16% , compared to a historical average of approximately 2.02% . Source: MELCCFP. [1] Think about it carefully: in 2020, 100,000 smolts would have produced approximately 2,550 adults if the same rate had been applied. Two cohorts later, the same 100,000 smolts would have produced only about 160. That's a drop of roughly 94% between the 2020 and 2022 cohorts. This isn't a minor statistical variation that can be glossed over in a report. It's a warning sign. And when you consider that the historical average for Trinidad is around 2.02%, the 0.16% recorded in 2022 demonstrates just how drastically survival after leaving for the sea can plummet. Table 3 — Theoretically, what 100,000 smolts yield Figure 2 — Theoretical adults produced per 100,000 smolts based on return rates observed in Trinidad. This graph illustrates the enormous impact of marine survival on the final result. It is not a prediction of a future cohort. Even 16 adults can count So yes, we absolutely must understand what's happening at sea. But while we're searching for the answer, what do we do with the populations that are already on their knees? Saying that marine survival is poor doesn't mean that increasing smolt production is necessarily pointless. It means we need to understand the true value of each additional smolt. At the catastrophic rate of 0.16%, 10,000 additional smolts would theoretically represent about 16 additional adults . Does 16 salmon represent a lot on a river where 5,000 return? Perhaps not. But on a population where only 50, 75, or 100 return, sixteen additional adults suddenly take on a whole new significance. This is what some refuse to see when they talk about stocking as an ideological debate. Conservation isn't achieved with universal slogans. It happens river by river, population by population, cohort by cohort . But be warned: 10,000 fry do not produce 10,000 smolts. This is a crucial distinction. The 0.16% of the Trinity refers to survival from the smolt stage to adulthood. Before that, the fish must survive from egg to fry, from fry to parr, and from parr to smolt. This is why a serious program cannot simply report how many eggs were incubated or how many fry were released. I want to know how many actually become smolts and how many return as adults. Putting 200,000 eggs in a facility is not a success in itself. Neither is producing 150,000 fry. Success is the number of additional breeders that the intervention ultimately adds to the river. 2025: Better, perhaps. Recovered? Certainly not. The first returns from the cohort that went to sea in 2024 show why we must remain rigorous. Approximately 22,042 smolts left Trinidad in 2024, and 94 grilse were counted upon their return in 2025, representing an initial rate of about 0.43% . [1][2] This is better than the 0.08% observed in the grilse of the 2022 cohort, but it is not yet the final rate. The fish from this cohort that spent two winters at sea will return in 2026. So we wait before declaring a recovery. The same applies to 2023: if the data needed to accurately calculate the rate are not available, we don't fabricate a figure to fill a box. When the data exists, we use it. When it is provisional, we say so. When it is missing, we acknowledge it. That's the kind of rigor I expect from those who speak on behalf of salmon conservation. That's why I reject both extremes. I reject those who would solve the problem by stocking millions of fish everywhere without considering the consequences. But I equally reject those who answer "no" before even examining the specific situation of the river. Stocking isn't a religion. Nor is it a sin. It's a tool. A tool that can be harmful when used haphazardly and potentially invaluable when used in the right place, at the right time, with the right breeders, and with rigorous scientific monitoring. If a population naturally reaches its conservation thresholds, let's protect its habitat and let it do its work. If a population declines for several years, loses several cohorts, and approaches the point where its reproductive capacity is compromised, then I want us to be able to consider all options. Not in twenty years. Not once the river is practically empty. Before. Because we can plant trees, restore riverbanks, improve culverts, and repair habitats, and we must do so. But some of these measures take time. A lot of time. What we can do immediately, however, is stop putting unnecessary pressure on the remaining fish. A serious thermal protocol. Closures when conditions demand it. Real protection of thermal refuges. Single barbless hooks. Fish in the water. Minimal handling. Reducing catches when the population can no longer sustain them. And a simple idea that sometimes seems revolutionary: accepting not to fish when we know it's no longer good for the salmon. This isn't killing salmon fishing. It's exactly the opposite. It's trying to ensure that there will still be something to fish in twenty years. My position is simple: salmon before doctrines. Salmon before habits. Salmon before our need for another photo, video, or catch. We can never do better than nature. So let's start by giving every returning wild salmon the best possible chance to spawn naturally. Then, if some populations still need help, let's use incubation, stocking, or other restoration tools intelligently. But let's do things in the right order. It would be completely absurd to try to create more salmon while we still refuse to properly protect those that nature is already managing to bring back. While we debate, the salmon doesn't wait. Salmon above all. Sources [1] MELCCFP — Monitoring of Atlantic salmon reference populations in Quebec, 2024 scientific report. Data from the Rivière de la Trinité on smolts and marine return rates. Smolt cohorts: 2020, total return rate of 2.55%; 2021, 0.78%; 2022, 0.16%; historical average, 2.02%. The report identifies the 2022 cohort as having the lowest return rate observed in this series. [2] MELCCFP — Salmon Exploitation in Quebec — 2025 Report. Government of Quebec, 2026. For the Trinité River: 151 salmon at the run in 2023, 65 in 2024 and 109 in 2025; the 2025 run includes 94 grilse and 15 red eel. [3] Government of Quebec — Atlantic Salmon Management Plan 2016-2026. Quebec framework for the management of spawning stocks, conservation thresholds and restoration interventions. [4] North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) — Guidelines for Stocking Atlantic Salmon , CNL(24)61, 2024. Recommendations concerning genetic and ecological risks, the use of local broodstock, the temporary nature of interventions and the importance of measurable monitoring. [5] Gray, RW & Cameron, JD — A Deep-Substrate Streamside Incubation Box for Atlantic Salmon Eggs , The Progressive Fish-Culturist, 49(2), 1987, p. 124-129. Work on the incubation of Atlantic salmon eggs on the riverbank.

Salmon First… Even When It Gets Uncomfortable By Jocelyn LeBlanc Let’s speak frankly. It’s easy to stand up for salmon when it costs nothing, changes no habits and disrupts no bookings. The real test begins when protecting salmon means giving something up. That’s when we find out where our priorities actually lie. In its November 2, 2026 letter, Fisheries and Oceans Canada announced a consultation on listing Atlantic salmon populations under the Species at Risk Act. On Quebec’s North Shore and in the Saguenay, salmon from rivers such as Aux Rochers, Pentecôte, Trinité, Moisie and Sainte-Marguerite belong to populations assessed as threatened by COSEWIC. That scientific assessment must be distinguished from a legal listing. The letter does not order any closures, but it puts an unavoidable question before us: how much protection are we actually prepared to give these fish? In its December 2025 assessment summaries, COSEWIC reports estimated or inferred declines in mature individuals of 36% for Quebec’s Western North Shore population and 43% for the Inner St. Lawrence population, over three generations. The latter unit includes the Saguenay rivers, but the 43% figure does not describe the Saguenay alone or each individual river. That distinction matters. When we demand accuracy, we have to apply the same standard to our own arguments. An improvement is not a recovery. An impressive percentage can make people forget a very poor starting point. When returns improve after a disastrous year, that improvement deserves recognition. But calling it a recovery requires more: sustained results, meaningful historical comparisons and indicators showing that reproduction and population renewal are sufficient. Reporting an annual increase without showing the starting point or the long-term trend can create a misleading impression. Even when the calculation is correct. And when a river’s future is at stake, we owe the public more than an encouraging percentage. Caution is warranted in the Gaspé Peninsula as well. Its salmon population is assessed as being of special concern. The assessment summary does not identify a significant decline across the entire unit over three generations, but it does report declines since 2013. Both findings need to be presented together. That same scrutiny must extend to our own fishing habits. I am an angler, and I own a business selling fly-tying materials. I understand the economic interests involved. That is precisely why I refuse to let them become an excuse for avoiding difficult questions. Our love of fishing does not excuse us from examining what it demands of the fish. Releasing a salmon means it is not retained, but it does not eliminate all risk of mortality. DFO notes that a fish can die several hours after being caught and that mortality risks increase significantly when water temperatures exceed 20°C. That does not mean every capture below that temperature is risk-free. Watching a salmon swim away is not enough to establish its subsequent survival. When conditions become unfavourable, we need to be willing to put down the rod. To accept a restriction. To give up a photograph. I support keeping fish in the water, shortening fights and minimizing handling. If our commitment to conservation ends the moment it interferes with our day, we need to ask what that commitment is worth. A potential listing as threatened could also affect catch-and-release fishing. Section 32 of the Species at Risk Act prohibits, among other things, capturing, harming and harassing individuals of listed species in the categories it covers. Authorizations and exemptions exist, but their applicability must be established. Catch and release, on its own, is therefore no legal guarantee that fishing can continue. That standard must reach well beyond anglers. I want the same scrutiny applied to habitats, cold-water refuges, migration barriers, river flows and projects that could affect our rivers. I want pressures in freshwater and at sea examined, along with their cumulative effects. Identifying one pressure does not excuse us from examining the others. And problems elsewhere do not justify neglecting those we can address. From governments, I want commitments we can verify. What funding? Which actions? Who is responsible? What results are expected? A consultation must lead to explained decisions and the resources to implement them. It cannot become an exercise measured mainly by the number of meetings held. From organizations and river managers, I want complete information, even when it is less reassuring. A justified closure can be a responsible decision. An open river does not, by itself, demonstrate that its salmon population has recovered. Local teams also need support. If restrictions reduce their revenues, counting, monitoring, enforcement and restoration work must be able to continue. We cannot seriously protect salmon while leaving the people working on the ground without the resources to do it. I want our rivers to remain alive and fishing to have a future. That means accepting measures proportionate to the risk, checking their results and adjusting them when the evidence warrants it. Putting salmon first comes with obligations. If we are willing to protect salmon only on the condition that nothing changes, what we are protecting first is our own habits. Sources The links below lead to the French-language documents used to verify the original editorial. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Consultation letter dated November 2, 2026. Potential listing of Atlantic salmon populations under the Species at Risk Act; appendices 1 and 3 identify assessment statuses and rivers. COSEWIC. Assessment and Status Report on Multiple Atlantic Salmon Populations, 2025. Assessment summaries for designatable units 08, 10 and 12. Documentary clarification: the 36% figure comes from the DU 08 assessment summary; the “Applicability of Criteria” section gives 38%. That internal discrepancy is not resolved here. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Gulf Region. How to Practise Catch and Release Safely for Salmon. Delayed mortality, water temperature and handling practices. Justice Canada. Species at Risk Act, section 32. General prohibitions applying to individuals of listed species in the specified categories. Justice Canada. Species at Risk Act, section 73 and section 83. Requirements for agreements and permits, exceptions and exemptions.

Returning to the water and using warm water: survival does not guarantee unaltered reproductive success In Atlantic salmon, the 97% figure only tells part of the story. A salmon swims off after being unhooked. For the fisherman, it's a relief. But this single departure doesn't, in itself, guarantee that the fish will fully recover, continue its migration, and contribute to the next generation. The distinction is essential: surviving a release and maintaining intact reproductive success are two different things. Science helps us better understand this difference. It also shows why capture conditions, particularly water temperature, must play a central role in our fishing decisions. What the 97% really means In a study conducted on the Alta River in Norway, Thorstad and colleagues reported that 97% of the 30 radio-tagged salmon survived release and were present in known spawning areas during the reproductive period . The captures took place in water temperatures of 10–14.5 °C . [1] This is a favorable result for releasing the fish back into the water. But it is not a measure of the offspring produced. The presence of a fish in a spawning area does not tell us how many offspring it will be attributed, nor whether its contribution will be comparable to that of an uncaught fish. The study also noted adverse effects associated with factors such as fight duration, injuries, bleeding, handling, and exposure to air and temperature. These effects affected the fish's condition, stress levels, and behavior. [1] The Alta results therefore demonstrate high survival rates under the studied conditions. However, they do not demonstrate a 97% reproductive success rate. Releasing the animal back into the water has conservation value. Recognizing these limitations does not mean condemning the practice of releasing the fish back into the water. A salmon kept before spawning will not participate in the next spawning season. A released salmon can still contribute. Releasing them thus helps preserve breeding stock that would otherwise be harvested. But its value as a management tool does not mean that every catch is without consequence. Rather, it compels us to examine the conditions under which we choose to fish. The question then becomes: how to reduce the effects of capture on a fish that still has to complete its migration and reproduce? When the water warms up, the risk increases. In 2020, Van Leeuwen and his colleagues combined data from several studies to model post-release mortality as a function of temperature. [2] Their analysis indicates generally low mortality in fresh water, less than about 5% below 12°C. For the 18-20°C range, the model provides an average estimate of about 16% , with a reported range of 7-33% taking uncertainty into account . [2] These figures do not constitute a universal rate. The authors note significant variability between studies at high temperatures and recommend caution in interpreting the predictions. [2] It would therefore be excessive to claim that, in each river, exactly 16 out of 100 salmon will die after being released back into the water between 18 and 20 °C. But if such a rate were applied to a group of 100 fish caught before spawning, it would represent 16 fish that would not participate in that reproduction. Survival thus remains a prerequisite for any future reproductive contribution. The temperature at the time of capture matters An analysis published in 2024 by Van Leeuwen and colleagues sheds further light on the issue. It re-examines data collected in Newfoundland between 2018 and 2020 and focuses on mortality within five days of release . [3] Among salmon caught at 20°C or above , 4 out of 18 died , or about 22%. In a subgroup of fish caught at 20°C or below, but subsequently exposed to an average temperature of at least 20°C, 1 out of 13 died . [3] These small sample sizes do not allow the percentages to be transformed into general rules. The authors nevertheless conclude that, under the conditions examined, the temperature at the time of capture remains the best indicator of survival after release. [3] This does not make subsequent temperatures unimportant. It underscores the significance of the conditions present when the fish is subjected to the fight and handling. Reproduction requires a different approach. To go beyond simply observing survival, researchers have used genetics to link fry to their parents. Richard, Dionne, Wang, and Bernatchez did so in a study published in 2013. Their results suggest a size-dependent effect of release, with larger individuals being more affected in their reproductive contribution. [4] They also detected an interaction between temperature and air exposure. However, the observed relationships were complex: they should not be reduced to a universal formula for calculating reproductive loss for each additional degree or each second out of the water. [4] This study concerned one population and one year. It measured the contribution to the sampled fry, and not the number of offspring that would one day return to reproduce. [4] However, it shows why it is necessary to examine the possible consequences of capture beyond immediate survival . What the Rimouski study shows Bouchard and his colleagues published a study in 2022 on the reproductive success of salmon released back into the Rimouski River. [5] At least 83% of the fish released back into the water that reached the upstream side of the dam reproduced , including some released at temperatures above 20°C. [5] However, the relative reproductive success of released females reached approximately 73% of that of uncaptured females . This is a difference in reproductive contribution, not a survival rate or a proportion of females that became unable to spawn. [5] This 27% difference should also not be attributed directly to heat. In trapped fish, researchers did not detect a decrease in reproductive success with increased temperature at the time of release. [5] In contrast, fish caught in warmer water were less likely to become trapped. Therefore, the reproductive outcomes observed in fish that migrated upstream do not necessarily predict the fate of all released fish. [5] Fish not found in the trap: an uncertainty to be respected We need to be rigorous in both directions. A salmon absent from the trap cannot automatically be considered dead or as having failed to reproduce. Another publication from the same team specifies that spawning also occurs downstream of the dam , in an area excluded from their upstream reproductive monitoring. Fish that reach upstream are, in fact, trapped and then transported over the obstacle. [6] The question of what will happen to the missing fish therefore remains open. This limitation prevents us from stating that they have all recovered fully, or from concluding that they have all been lost to reproduction. 18°C is not an absolute limit The studies cited do not allow us to conclude that at exactly 18°C , each salmon would experience a specific reduction in its reproductive success. [2, 4, 5] Nor do they allow us to consider any lower temperature as a guarantee of no effect. The risk described by the analyses varies with the conditions; it is not simply a matter of switching on and off. [1, 2, 4] For me, 18°C is a benchmark for caution, not a proven biological boundary. As the water warms, particularly around 20°C and above, mortality data provide further reasons to limit avoidable stresses. [2, 3] This position stems from a precautionary choice informed by research. It does not claim to replace local regulations or establish a threshold valid for all rivers. Adapting our decisions to the state of the population The abundance of a population must also be taken into account. But a river that hosts many salmon does not, in itself, allow us to conclude that the losses would be negligible. The challenge is to decide what risk we are willing to accept, given the state of the stock, environmental conditions, and uncertainties. We don't have to wait for a statistically significant effect to be detected in every river before choosing to reduce avoidable pressure. The absence of a significant result is not a guarantee of the absence of consequences. The salmon before the first cast Releasing a boat back into the water deserves more than just a number used as a guarantee. It deserves careful practice and an honest assessment of the available knowledge. Studies show that many released salmon survive and reproduce. They also show that results vary, that warm water increases survival concerns, and that reproductive contribution may be affected. [1–5] Seeing a fish swim away is always an important moment. But what we want to protect goes further: its ability to reach a breeding habitat and contribute to the next generation. That's why my decision to fish shouldn't begin with the question: "Can I still successfully catch and release?" She should start with this question: "Under the current conditions, is it reasonable to subject this fish to this fight?" Giving up a few casts when conditions become difficult is also a fisherman's gesture. Salmon first and foremost. And especially before the first cast. Sources [1] Thorstad, EB, Næsje, TF, Fiske, P. and Finstad, B. (2003). Effects of hook and release on Atlantic salmon in the River Alta, northern Norway. Fisheries Research, 60(2–3), 293–307. Consult the study [2] Van Leeuwen, TE et al. (2020). Mortality of Atlantic salmon after catch and release angle: assessment of a recreational Atlantic salmon fishery in a changing climate. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 77(9), 1518–1528. Consult the study [3] Van Leeuwen, T.E., Keefe, D., Young, M. and Adams, B. (2024). Water temperature at the time of the catch-and-release event is a better predictor of survival in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) than acute water temperature changes before and after. Journal of Fish Biology, 104(5), 1623–1627. Consult the study [4] Richard, A., Dionne, M., Wang, J. and Bernatchez, L. (2013). Does catch and release affect the mating system and individual reproductive success of wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.)? Molecular Ecology, 22(1), 187–200. Consult the study [5] Bouchard, R., Wellband, K., Lecomte, L., Bernatchez, L. and April, J. (2022). Effect of catch-and-release and temperature at release on reproductive success of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) in the Rimouski River, Quebec, Canada. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 29(6), 888–896. Consult the study [6] Bouchard, R., Wellband, K., Lecomte, L., Bernatchez, L. and April, J. (2022). Effects of stocking at the parr stage on the reproductive fitness and genetic diversity of a wild population of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Evolutionary Applications, 15(5), 838–852. Consult the study

Discover our Online Store's Politique de confidentialité, outlining how we protect your data. Learn about our commitment to privacy and security. Deep in Backing -All posts (101) 101 posts Before the first cast (0) 0 posts Fly Tying by Jocelyn LeBlanc (0) 0 posts Privacy Policy Article 1 – Renseignements personnels recueillis Lorsque vous effectuez un achat sur notre boutique, dans le cadre de notre processus d’achat et de vente, nous recueillons les renseignements personnels que vous nous fournissez, tels que votre nom, votre adresse et votre adresse e-mail. Lorsque vous naviguez sur notre boutique, nous recevons également automatiquement l’adresse de protocole Internet (adresse IP) de votre ordinateur, qui nous permet d’obtenir plus de détails au sujet du navigateur et du système d’exploitation que vous utilisez. Marketing par e-mail (le cas échéant): Avec votre permission, nous pourrions vous envoyer des e-mails au sujet de notre boutique, de nouveaux produits et d’autres mises à jour. Article 2 - Consentement Comment obtenez vous mon consentement? Lorsque vous nous fournissez vos renseignements personnels pour conclure une transaction, vérifier votre carte de crédit, passer une commande, planifier une livraison ou retourner un achat, nous présumons que vous consentez à ce que nous recueillions vos renseignements et à ce que nous les utilisions à cette fin uniquement. Si nous vous demandons de nous fournir vos renseignements personnels pour une autre raison, à des fins de marketing par exemple, nous vous demanderons directement votre consentement explicite, ou nous vous donnerons la possibilité de refuser. Comment puis-je retirer mon consentement? Si après nous avoir donné votre consentement, vous changez d’avis et ne consentez plus à ce que nous puissions vous contacter, recueillir vos renseignements ou les divulguer, vous pouvez nous en aviser en nous contactant à shedaplumes@gmail.com ou par courrier à: La Shed à Plumes 5395 des Pionniers, Rivière Pentecôte, QC, G0H 1R0, Canada Article 3 – Divulgation Nous pouvons divulguer vos renseignements personnels si la loi nous oblige à le faire ou si vous violez nos Conditions Générales de Vente et d’Utilisation. Article 4 – Boutique Notre boutique est conçue par la Shed à Plumes et est hébergée sur Hébergement Web WIX. Vos données sont stockées dans le système de stockage de données et les bases de données d'Hébergement WIX. Vos données sont conservées sur un serveur sécurisé protégé par un pare-feu. La Shed à Plumes ne conserve aucune donnée sur les paiements effectués via sa boutique en ligne. La Shed à Plumes utilise WIX comme fournisseur de paiement. Article 5 – Services fournis par des tiers De manière générale, les fournisseurs tiers que nous utilisons vont uniquement recueillir, utiliser et divulguer vos renseignements dans la mesure du nécessaire pour pouvoir réaliser les services qu’ils nous fournissent. Cependant, certains tiers fournisseurs de services, comme les passerelles de paiement et autres processeurs de transactions de paiement, possèdent leurs propres politiques de confidentialité quant aux renseignements que nous sommes tenus de leur fournir pour vos transactions d’achat. En ce qui concerne ces fournisseurs, nous vous recommandons de lire attentivement leurs politiques de confidentialité pour que vous puissiez comprendre la manière dont ils traiteront vos renseignements personnels. Il ne faut pas oublier que certains fournisseurs peuvent être situés ou avoir des installations situées dans une juridiction différente de la vôtre ou de la nôtre. Donc si vous décidez de poursuivre une transaction qui requiert les services d’un fournisseur tiers, vos renseignements pourraient alors être régis par les lois de la juridiction dans laquelle ce fournisseur se situe ou celles de la juridiction dans laquelle ses installations sont situées. À titre d’exemple, si vous êtes situé au Canada et que votre transaction est traitée par une passerelle de paiement située aux États-Unis, les renseignements vous appartenant qui ont été utilisés pour conclure la transaction pourraient être divulgués en vertu de la législation des États-Unis, y compris le Patriot Act. Une fois que vous quittez le site de notre boutique ou que vous êtes redirigé vers le site web ou l’application d’un tiers, vous n’êtes plus régi par la présente Politique de Confidentialité ni par les Conditions Générales de Vente et d’Utilisation de notre site web. Liens Vous pourriez être amené à quitter notre site web en cliquant sur certains liens présents sur notre site. Nous n’assumons aucune responsabilité quant aux pratiques de confidentialité exercées par ces autres sites et vous recommandons de lire attentivement leurs politiques de confidentialité. Article 6 – Sécurité Pour protéger vos données personnelles, nous prenons des précautions raisonnables et suivons les meilleures pratiques de l’industrie pour nous assurer qu’elles ne soient pas perdues, détournées, consultées, divulguées, modifiées ou détruites de manière inappropriée. Article 7 – Âge de consentement En utilisant ce site, vous déclarez que vous avez au moins l’âge de la majorité dans votre État ou province de résidence, et que vous nous avez donné votre consentement pour permettre à toute personne d’âge mineur à votre charge d’utiliser ce site web. Article 8 – Modifications apportées à la présente politique de confidentialité Nous nous réservons le droit de modifier la présente politique de confidentialité à tout moment, donc veuillez s’il vous plait la consulter fréquemment. Les changements et les clarifications prendront effet immédiatement après leur publication sur le site web. Si nous apportons des changements au contenu de cette politique, nous vous aviserons ici qu’elle a été mise à jour, pour que vous sachiez quels renseignements nous recueillons, la manière dont nous les utilisons, et dans quelles circonstances nous les divulguons, s’il y a lieu de le faire. Si notre boutique fait l’objet d’une acquisition par ou d’une fusion avec une autre entreprise, vos renseignements pourraient être transférés aux nouveaux propriétaires pour que nous puissions continuer à vous vendre des produits. Questions et coordonnées Si vous souhaitez: accéder à, corriger, modifier ou supprimer toute information personnelle que nous avons à votre sujet, déposer une plainte, ou si vous souhaitez simplement avoir plus d’informations, contactez notre agent responsable des normes de confidentialité à shedaplumes @gmail.com ou par courrier à La Shed à Plumes Re: Agent des Normes de Confidentialité [5395 des Pionniers, Rivière Pentecôte, QC, Canada]

Les marques graphiques, types de caractères, marques de commerce et logos figurant sur le site Web sont des marques de commerce ou des présentations de la Shed à Plumes. Toutes les autres marques de commerce figurant sur le site Web sont la propriété de leurs propriétaires respectifs. Nos marques de commerce et présentations ne doivent pas être utilisés de quelque manière et à quelque fin que ce soit sans le consentement écrit exprès de La Shed à Plumes. Legal Notice TRADEMARKS The graphic marks, types of characters, trademarks and logos appearing on the website are trademarks or trade dress of the Feather Shed. All other trademarks appearing on the Website are the property of their respective owners. Our trademarks and trade dress may not be used in any manner or for any purpose without the express written consent of the Feather Shed. APPLICABLE LAWS These terms of use are governed by the laws of the province of Quebec and the laws of Canada which apply there and they must be interpreted in accordance with these laws; Furthermore, any dispute must be submitted to a competent court in the judicial district of Quebec City, Quebec. If any provision of these Terms of Use shall be unlawful, void or for any reason unenforceable, then that provision may be severed from the remainder of these Terms of Use and shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the Terms of Use. other stipulations. These terms of use and any other legal notices or other declarations displayed on the website constitute the entire agreement between you and the Shed à Plumes with respect to the use of the website, in particular its content. NOTICE Notices may be sent to you by email or postal mail or, if changes are made to these Terms of Use or the services offered by the Website, by posting notices or creating links to such notices on the website itself.

Ce site web est exploité par La Shed à Plumes. Sur ce site, les termes "La Shed", "nous", "notre" et "nos" font référence à La Shed à Plumes. La Shed à Plumes vous propose ce site web, y compris toutes les informations, tous les outils et tous les services qui y sont disponibles pour vous, l’utilisateur, sous réserve de votre acceptation de l’ensemble des modalités, conditions, politiques et avis énoncés ici. Terms and conditions Jocelyn LeBlanc Click here for more detailed information on creating your terms and conditions.