B.C. anglers plead with Ottawa for more salmon openings –

From the article referenced in the above article:

“Though mark selective fisheries are meant to allow harvest of relatively [abundant] hatchery fish, all selective fisheries have an associated mortality on unmarked (wild) fish and in cases where a mark selective fishery is not properly designed, implemented and monitored, this mortality can exceed that of a non-selective fishery,” Jordan said.

Looks to me like DFO is thinking a MSF should look very similar to what we have in WA; heavy emphasis on "properly designed, implemented and monitored".

Plenty info about the gory details on the web if one cares to look. You can start from the ground-up by reading the sections on MM & MSF in the latest PST. Our most recent MSF in Puget Sound got closed 18 days into what was supposed to be 90 days due to too many unmarked/undersized fish being caught. We went from over 20 MSF's in 2019-2020 to 5 for 2020-2021 because the wild populations are too small to support any fishery - FYI down here it is a total fishing closure versus non-retention as in BC.

IMO statements like MSF's have limited/minimal/less than 1%/zero impact on wild runs does not help our cause.
 
Works for me.

IMO what you & I think doesn't mean ****. It is what those that make the rules think that matters most.

Yep that is why at higher level it isn't accepted what you are implying. Statistics and real life are two different things.
 
So what does the data show wrt catch and release unmarked chinook mortality?
Between 15 and 20 percent. Stocks of concern can be avoided quite effectively when the time of year is taken into consideration as well as geographic location. A number of areas in South Coast responsibly meet objectives that some areas and times should have opportunity in the spring and summer that are currently closed. The DFO knows this, just comes down to whether or not this slippery government will challenge the demands/requests/opinions of the First Nations or ENGOs. The ENGOs made some absolute BS catch mortality statistics from FRIM and catch last year.. They walked some of their statements back and admitted they were for a lack of better terms. Lying.
 
Between 15 and 20 percent
I accept that number & I believe that those who will decide the issue accept that as well. Accepted release mortality is 10% for legal fish, 20% for sub-legal using barblesss hooks. A 5% for what is called "drop-off" mortality (fish that are hooked but get-off before being landed) is also added to the above figures. The 10% & 20% numbers have been verified by holding Salmon in net pens for several or more days after being caught & held in shipboard holding tanks until transfer to the net pens.

Statistics and real life are two different things.
I respect your right to that OPINION.

The ENGOs made some absolute BS catch mortality statistics from FRIM and catch last year.
Yes, I believe they did. Looks like they took their BS back - how about the "limited/minimal/less than 1%/zero impact on wild runs" BS? Once you lie, everything you say is a lie until proven otherwise, so I do not expect that either the ENGO's or SFAB's numbers will be used to make this decision.

WA uses the 15% & 20 & numbers & still went from 20 to 5 MSF's in the last year because the wild runs are too weak.
 
I guess this is my question .. what unmarked chinook stock can withstand a sportsfisher induced mortality of 20%, after pinniped predation, FN catch, climate change, and landslides?
 
I guess this is my question .. what unmarked chinook stock can withstand a sportsfisher induced mortality of 20%, after pinniped predation, FN catch, climate change, and landslides?
The vast majority of the chinook caught in the spring months in the Salish Sea are from Hatchery Systems. The issue is since Canada only clips 10 percent of their hatchery chinook, no one can tell. Sifting through DNA shows the stock composition. There is close to 30000 chinook samples from the Avid Angler program that paints a clear picture where stocks are where and when. There are areas that should be open for responsible retention opportunities. The SFAB has done a great job outlining some. Further, the data, specifically in April and May shows miniscule #s of early Fraser Fish in the approach areas to the Fraser that wide spread opportunities could be warranted early on in quite a few areas.
 
The reality is if all BC's hatchery chinook were marked we would see just how few wild fish there are, and more restrictions will be put in place.
 
I found it ironic that river anglers are preaching to marine anglers about catch and release. I am just saying I find it very strange. Look at the movement on this in a few years, and where it predominantly started from.

I am just saying it seems hypocritical from fisheries that are catch and release systems.
 
I guess this is my question .. what unmarked chinook stock can withstand a sportsfisher induced mortality of 20%, after pinniped predation, FN catch, climate change, and landslides?
Depends on how you define "withstand". Down here in WA state the MSF's are based on lot's of studies/data, and in Tribal Treaty waters there is a 50/50 split of "harvestable" fish beyond ceremonial/etc Tribal catches, so somebody is deciding that harvestable amount (mortality). Also, for the endangered Puget Sound, Chinook, the government says habit is the primary population bottleneck so in some cases the wild returns will be larger than the available spawning habitat will support. Dunno the truth, but it seems somebody in government has decided that as long as the fish don't go extinct in the short-term (probably while they are in office or have their job), a certain amount of mortality is OK. Science versus economics versus the happiness of involved parties.
In the most recent years with publicly available data, the mark rate in most of our MSF's is 70%-80%.

From what I learned in the seminars last fall on BC MSF's there seems to be a wide difference between SFAB & DFO on the viability of MSF for Chinook; DFO seemed to be focused on mark rate of Chinook while SFAB seems focused on DNA data. Most of our Chinook MSF's are based on the allowable number of unmarked fish mortality established prior to the fishery & in-season catch results/predictions all based on mark rate. Reports/emergency closure decisions are done by weekly in-season reports/predictions. Our most recent MSF was shutdown 18 days into what was supposed to be a 90 day season; both unmarked mortality & undersized fish thresholds were exceeded. AK does something similar in some of the South East Alaska (SEAK) chinook fishery; anything missing the adipose fin is a "treaty" fish & once that quota is reached (actually exceeded by a fair amount as AK seems to always overmatch their quotas) they get shutdown.
I have not heard of DFO refuting the SFAB's DNA data, so they may be thinking that without more marking of Chinook a MSF cannot be properly managed, which IMO seems a reasonable point.
 
Currently there are a few areas and time that could support a MSF that have well over 50% mark rate (basically all american marked hatchery fish). There are other areas that have been identified through DNA and otolith marking that If we did mark all our hatchery fish there would be well over 80% of the fish marked. So since those areas are 3-4 years away if we marked all this fall it is important that it gets under way.

The two main roadblocks are how much would a MSF have on the stocks of concern and does a MSF circumvent the allocation policy. The are other process concerns but i don't see them as major issues.
 
Back
Top