This is a weird yet interesting thread. I have a suggestion. Perhaps someone should ask DFO why they chose to increase the bag limit from 2 to 4? To the best of my knowledge, neither the SFAB nor any other angling group asked for this. Its odd I'll admit, and possibly precedent setting, but I really fail to see how the few additional fish that may be retained by those who choose to retain them will even make a small dent in what's out there this year. I feel blessed that I'm fortunate enough to own a boat and therefore can choose to be fussy. IMO that doesn't give me the right to judge others based on what they consider to be quality protein that is accessible to them. I really appreciate California's point about trying to achieve a balance between escapement and utilization. IMO that is the real tricky part of what DFO has to do. Getting it right is what sustainable fisheries are all about. I'm no expert, but I have a sneaky suspicion that this move to 4 per day would pass any sustainability red face test you choose to throw at it.
I really think some folks on this thread are barking up the wrong tree by attempting to vilify a small percentage of anglers for bonking a few chum in a huge return year. IMO there are WAY bigger fish to fry if you really care about salmon. I look at it this way - if no one ate salmon (including and especially First Nations) , we wouldn't have a massive gov't department "managing" them at significant taxpayers cost, would we? In fact, I really doubt many people would ever even care about them at all. Its how we work as a species. Also, when I last checked, it was recreational anglers that contributed the vast majority of the sector based funding to the PSF for its stewardship and enhancement work through the salmon stamp on our licenses. Over $1.5 million last year by a conservative estimate. I wonder how much "fish advocates" contribute to the future of salmon? Just curious.
CP