Conservation Measures for Northern and Southern BC Chinook Salmon and Southern Resident Killer Whale

I'm happy to report from Pender Bluffs that DFO is right on top of monitoring the "quiet foraging zone" in Area 18 this morning. Three young people in a zodiac went drifting by a while ago with rods out and ten minutes ago a sea plane appeared and landed beside them to inform them that they were breaking the law and interfering with the survival of the SRKW. Of course we haven't actually seen a killer whale for about a week but that's not the point... Gotta love this farce.
 
ericl said:
Here is the link for providing comments referenced to searun's last post:

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/forms/sara-lep/killerwhales-epaulards/workbook-cahier-eng.aspx
Click to expand...

This was my response to the DFO link above.
1) Do you have any additional information relevant to the identification of critical habitat for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales, including features, functions and attributes
"What you are doing with forging areas is useless, as it will not contribute in a significant way to the recovery of the Southern Residents AND it is discriminatory as you are closing the forging areas for sport fishers only"

2) Do you anticipate being directly affected by the identification and subsequent protection of the additional critical habitat and/or clarification of features, functions and attributes of critical habitat for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales?

"yes...you have closed the area's I fish for salmon and halibut...can you tell me how being anchored in the honey hole off Jordon River or off Sheringham will interfere with Orca's feeding?

3) Do you have any additional feedback regarding section 7 of the draft Amended Recovery Strategy for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales?

" "Amended" needs a lot more amending and you can start by closing down the herring fishery, removing the open net pet Fish Farms and culling seals and sea lions. I will not give you my contact information as I rather doubt you will want to talk to me"
 
I have been following this and all the other threads surrounding the SRKW situation and the poor state of Fraser Chinook returns since what many think was the first hints that this crap might come down. As Wolf has pointed out along with other comments from some who are involved, it is plain to see that this has been in motion for years. The fact that many have only just started talking about it is not a testament to it only coming out now. It is however a sad testament to the fact that despite being plainly written on the wall for years , it is only getting the attention because worst case situations are now being realized

As many of you , I have been fishing since I was barely old enough to tolerate a couple hours on the boat with my Dad. A few things have remained consistent through out that almost 5 decades.

Fish numbers and size always SEEM to be dwindling.

Conversations at docks , on boats,and among sport fishers everywhere have always included shared stories of "how good it used to be."

Finger pointing and blame always directed at some other predator group ( commercial fishing, habitat abuse by other big business resource extractors, first nations,unaccountable rec fishing, increase in natural
predators, fish farms, the list goes on. )

The one commonality in all of it is that "there is not enough fish"

Many of you have pointed out that it very much appears DFO did little more than make politically driven decisions in the hopes of providing the optics needed to take some heat off. As I read all this, I see lots of stuff on how screwed we are getting . How we are loosing the ability to generate income from killing fish. Suggestions designed to allow us to continue killing or at least provide the expectation of killing fish at the same or similar rate, while at the same time provide data collection regarding the effectiveness of various restrictions and modified behaviors of user groups. I guess what I am seeing the most in all of these threads is a very reel struggle to find ways of maintaining the ability to provide an economy forged in having access and opportunity to kill fish.


I strongly feel our effort needs to be on fixing what is broken, not on creating pain killers to allow us to keep riding a broken horse.
It is my opinion that if we are to have any chance at getting government to commit to addressing those issues that are causing salmon returns to be at such low percentages, we first need to gain support of a large portion of the voting public. I would suggest that it needs to start with educating the masses. NOT with facts of what we have lost or stand to loose. Instead with visual, factual examples of all the positive work sport fishers do on a daily bases. Show video, pics, simple stats of successful habitat restoration projects. Kids and parents volunteering at hatcheries on fin clipping days. All and any examples of privately funded and volunteer projects aimed at giving back to the resource that we utilize. All of the fund raising and volunteer hours put in by rec fishers and those who depend on our sector. Flood the masses with visual examples of the social value recreational fishing provides. put up pics, videos and stories of families,seniors,children, multiple generations enjoying the positive,wholesome, healthy affects that spending the day with family and friends fishing provides.

Understanding that the economics of our sport makes it a valuable revenue producing industry can not be ignored I know.
Would we not be better to focus on the positive that comes from having access to healthy and sustainable fish populations. I feel it would be less effective in gaining support and understanding of the positive benefits to recreational access if we instead focused on the negative. I do not think we will get much out of focusing on the fact that money will be lost in the name of saving salmon runs and SRKW's. Whether true or not , that is what the perception of these restrictions is intended to display. Putting most effort toward re gaining lost access, will not go far if all it equates to is us killing fish, rivers still void of significant numbers of salmon, and the continued decline in the health and numbers of SRKW.

I guess what I am trying to say is that to me, as I see it, this has been coming for many years. It did not happen over night and it will not be fixed in any short amount of time either. Although I understand the importance of putting effort into not loosing more and more in the years to come, any long term stability for predators and prey alike will come from short term sacrifice and long term commitment to identify and correct those things that are causing the declines in salmon. So go ahead and try to establish regulations that allow for accurate data collection to measure the affects of those efforts. Continue to do the job DFO should have been doing all along. It is all part of the puzzle. I just hope we be wherry that this does not turn into year after year of doing whatever can be done to maintain business as usual for that year while years are lost in focusing on the long term solutions at the level that is required.

This post is the opinion of one guy who has only enough knowledge and ability to do little more than write a few letters, post some stuff on social media and provide minimal support to those of you who carry the load. My intention behind it is to hopefully spark some conversation focused more about positive solutions and less about loss,blame and bandage fixes. I could go on with my thoughts on what needs doing, but I think the key things have been identified many times over. Habitat restoration, harvesting of keystone species, influx of predators have all been talked about. I suspect that if financial and boots on the ground support is to be realized from the feds it will be up to those with the knowledge and ability to provide detailed directives and costs/benefits. The rest of us can do what we can to educate and hopefully sway public opinion toward the actual facts regarding efforts and benefits that come from recreational fishers.

As I sit looking at old pictures and remembering times my dad took me fishing, time I spent taking my nephews fishing and then my daughters, I find myself feeling all has been lost. I hope it has not. Sadly I will likely feel one day that I wish I did more. That said it is becoming increasingly harder to find the energy to do so. I believe some of that comes from the constant negativity, focus on what has been lost and lack of effort to provide long term solutions by DFO and the feds. Anyway!! Like I said , just my thoughts on what might be a more positive way to gain the support needed.

Cheers: Ray
 
Last edited:
Deleted the one paragraph that talked about where my concerns stem from. was not helpful to the post.
 
Jencourt very well thought out post thanks for sharing with everyone.

People this time around are pissed because DFO changed the game, Total finfish closures and not taken any of the SFAB recommendations into consideration. The SRKW total finfish closures and expanding the area 20 closure also they ignored the SFAB recommendations about how the reductions in the SOG should be implemented. Also the allocation policy is going to be changed not in our favor.

Social media and the fisheries minister seem to have been the deciding factor.

Were in for a major paradigm shift probably not seen since 1999 and sports fishermen seem to be out of favor and ENGO's and First Nations seem to be the favorites.
 
searun said:
Back on track - this thread is all about conservation measures for SRKW. Potentially coming to an area you fish soon...Fin Fish Closures from Long Beach, South Bank, Big Bank, Rats Nose all the way to Swiftsure.

As everyone will recall, there was an extensive consultation process prior to the Recreational Fishery closures long called for by the Green ENGO groups. Despite a lot of good proposals to create win/win solutions, the Minister moved ahead with closures even more restrictive than was put up for discussion in the public consultation process. Politically motivated!

Now we are being "consulted" again, same process same outcome. They are now talking about designating the area from Long Beach all the way to Swiftsure. So as you can expect, the token consultation process will churn out the predictable end result - expanded area closures. This will include Big Bank, Long Beach, South Bank, Rats Nose, all the way to Swiftsure.

The science they are using to justify the expansion is they have some passive acoustic monitoring data for Swiftsure showing whales are present 43% of the time they were monitoring this area. As for LaPerouse - no monitoring...just an assumption that because these areas are good salmon areas for commercial and recreational anglers they must therefore be of critical importance to whales...the only problem is the scientists can't find much observation data to show whales are there....that is because they are not using this area. I fish there extensively and have only on very rare occasion seen killer whales - they simply do not use this habitat, and yet DFO science takes the "don't confuse me with facts" approach and adopts "assumption based science."

Get ready for area fin fish closures all the way from Long Beach down to Swiftsure.

You can go online and use the feedback form - write anything. It takes no time at all...3 basic questions. Please note - deadline for feedback is JULY 11

Here's some speaking points to consider:


· “B.C.’s tidal water recreational fishery, combined with the freshwater fishery, is the largest and most valuable in Canada, valued at $18 billion annually. DFO issues over 350,000 tidal licences per year collecting $7.3 million in fees and the fishery employs around 8,400 British Columbian’s (as of 2012).”

· Area SRKW Refuge Recreational Fin Fish Closures will cause significant socio-economic harm destroying jobs and economic spin off activities in small coastal communities like Ucluelet, Port Alberni, Bamfield, Port Renfrew, Sooke and Victoria.

· Killer whales are only very rarely present on LaPerouse Bank, and there is no documented evidence from passive acoustic monitoring to clearly demonstrate this is actually critical habitat. DFO science is making an assumption that because areas of LaPerouse Bank are important areas for commercial and recreational Chinook fishing that they area similarly important to killer whales.

· According to Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM), killer whales are only present on Swiftsure Bank 43% of monitored days between May to September – broad Area Refuge closures impact recreational fishing opportunity during significant periods where the whales are not present.

· There is no comparative analysis that demonstrates the effectiveness of Area Closure vs a mobile “bubble” strategy

· More effort is required to scientifically determine if indeed there is any less benefit to be achieved using a “bubble” strategy which is less impactful – striking a balance between protection and economic activity

· In the past ______ years, I have fished areas of LaPerouse Bank, and observed killer whales only ____ times. (your observations are very important)

· In the past ______years, I have fished areas of Swiftsure Bank, and observed killer whales only ____times. (your observations are very important)

· Given these observations, there is little scientific data to support expanding the critical habitat areas, especially on LaPerouse Bank where killer whales are very rarely encountered and there is no scientific evidence to support DFO Science claims.




External review of the critical habitat section of the draft Amended Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales in Canada
Current status: Open
Public consultation opened on June 12 2018 and will be closed to new input on July 11 2018.


Why we are seeking input?
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Parks Canada Agency (PCA) would like your feedback on the revised critical habitat section (section 7) of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) draft Amended Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada.

Who we are seeking input from?
Indigenous peoples, stakeholders, ENGOs, other government agencies, researchers, and interested individuals are invited to provide feedback on the critical habitat section (section 7) of the draft Amended Recovery Strategy.

Key points for discussion
  • The draft Amended Recovery Strategy updates the critical habitat for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales based on new science advice
  • It identifies two additional areas of special importance as proposed critical habitat for Resident Killer Whales. These include:
    • waters on the continental shelf off southwestern Vancouver Island, including Swiftsure and La Pérouse Banks (important for both Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales)
    • waters of west Dixon Entrance, along the north coast of Graham Island from Langara to Rose Spit (important for Northern Resident Killer Whales)
  • The amendment also provides clarification of the functions, features and attributes for all critical habitat identified for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales
How to provide input
The deadline for submitting comments on section 7 (critical habitat) of the draft Amended Recovery Strategy is July 11, 2018. Please note, feedback is only being sought on section 7 (pages 55 to 68); feedback on other sections will not be considered at this time. If you choose to submit comments, please use the online comment form.

After we have received your feedback and finalized the draft Amended Recovery Strategy, a proposed document will be posted to the SARA Public Registry for a 60-day public comment period. The Government of Canada will then have 30 days to incorporate comments before posting the final document on the Species at Risk Public Registry.

Related material
Click to expand...

Hello Pat

I got the WCFGA e-mail on this topic and have since filled out the online form and sent a detailed e-mail to both Rebbeca Reid and Minister LeBlanc. After the latest SFAB and IFMP recommendations were put fwd to DFO earlier in the spring and were basically ignored, I have little confidence that my letters will change anything but I suppose it is better than doing nothing .....or spending my time complaining on here.

I used to fish the West Coast a fair bit a few years ago but mostly stick to the inside now. I hope that all on here write letters/emails for the survival of recreational fishing as a whole - for ALL areas. I know enough to feel this will gradually effect ALL recreational fishers and fishing areas and while individual letters may be thought to not help things, in large numbers, it might.
 
Last edited:
Jencourt said:
the rest of us can do what we can to educate and hopefully sway public opinion toward the actual facts regarding efforts and benefits that come from recreational fishers.
Click to expand...

I quoted that sentence of Jencourt's here because it somes it up well ....so thought I'd pull it out here on its own
 
Peahead said:
Hello Pat

I got the WCFGA e-mail on this topic and have since filled out the online form and sent a detailed e-mail to both Rebbeca Reid and Minister LeBlanc. After the latest SFAB and IFMP recommendations were put fwd to DFO earlier in the spring and were basically ignored, I have little confidence that my letters will change anything but I suppose it is better than doing nothing .....or spending my time complaining on here.

I used to fish the West Coast a fair bit a few years ago but mostly stick to the inside now. I hope that all on here write letters/emails for the survival of recreational fishing as a whole - for ALL areas. I know enough to feel this will gradually effect ALL recreational fishers and fishing areas and while individual letters may be thought to not help things, in large numbers, it might.
Click to expand...

Thank you! First step is mobilizing our membership to please take action and complete the feedback form - thank you so so much for taking the time to complete your input. DFO needs to hear from every single rec angler, and more importantly also needs to hear our on the water observations. The DFO science they are using to expand critical habitat areas and bring about potentially more Area Closures is nothing short of criminal - they are making assumptions, not science based data supported conclusions. We (the citizen scientists) need to call BS and need to challenge DFO to look at alternatives that are equally effective in providing protection for SRKW.

We do appreciate that probably nothing will come from the "consultation process" because like the last one, its a formality they have to go through to say they consulted, and then move ahead with the larger political agenda to close recreational fishing on the coast of BC per the Minister's promise to the green ENGO's. That's right, he promised to close the fishery...they are accomplishing that one chunk at a time. If you don't believe that, try researching what the ENGO groups are putting out there!! Wake up.

The deadline is June 11th - it only takes a few minutes to log in and provide your input.

So when people say nothing is happening and no organization is doing anything...we are. First thing first - focus on the so called "consultation." Next steps are under development and will cost a lot of $$. In case you haven't noticed, rec anglers are a cheap lot...they don't join organizations and contribute cold hard cash. How else do things get done! Really a **** off to hear those comments about no organizations stepping up!! We (WCFGA) have even gone to the point of providing some suggested response points here on this forum for everyone here to consider, and directly asked our members via newsletters and phone calls to do the same, posted up some posters in impacted communities ....guess that is nothing, and all you lazy bums just want someone else to do it all for you! Get off your asses and do something.
 
I know one organization that is doing something, very big as far as the dumbed down public thinks. Noticed on TV the big commercial vessels have a big add saying what they are doing to HELP the resident whales. Not sure how many $$$$$ that is costing them and who is paying. Its all about OPTICS.

HM
 
Hurts when Governmemt and people make rules that effect your livelihood and your communities doesn't it. When they listen to the uninformed but popular agenda. Buying votes through your pocket book, sucks hey.

How yah all like your left wing progressive leaders now,, all that science being put to good work isn't it ??
 
From the amended document everyone one read this line:

The Northern Resident community was likely increasing in size during the early 1960s, but was cropped by the live capture fishery of 1964- 1973, during which at least 14 individuals were
removed.

Twelve of those are known to have been from one pod (A5, Bigg et al. 1990).When first censused in 1974, the Northern
Resident community was estimated to contain approximately 120 whales

We have over 300 Northern killer whales right now. That means these NGO groups are saying there is a problem with whales that have nearly tripled in size. 3 times there historical number and increasing.
 
I hope admin doesn't mind but I'd like to bump this thread up to top. I will do so by re-posting what Searun posted in post#372 on page 19 of this thread. I think it is important (despite another thread with this same information/request has been added and has been made a 'sticky' )


Potentially coming to an area you fish soon...

Fin Fish Closures from Long Beach, South Bank, Big Bank, Rats Nose all the way to Swiftsure.

As everyone will recall, there was an extensive consultation process prior to the Recreational Fishery closures long called for by the Green ENGO groups. Despite a lot of good proposals to create win/win solutions, the Minister moved ahead with closures even more restrictive than was put up for discussion in the public consultation process. Politically motivated!

Now we are being "consulted" again, same process same outcome. They are now talking about designating the area from Long Beach all the way to Swiftsure. So as you can expect, the token consultation process will churn out the predictable end result - expanded area closures. This will include Big Bank, Long Beach, South Bank, Rats Nose, all the way to Swiftsure.

The science they are using to justify the expansion is they have some passive acoustic monitoring data for Swiftsure showing whales are present 43% of the time they were monitoring this area. As for LaPerouse - no monitoring...just an assumption that because these areas are good salmon areas for commercial and recreational anglers they must therefore be of critical importance to whales...the only problem is the scientists can't find much observation data to show whales are there....that is because they are not using this area. I fish there extensively and have only on very rare occasion seen killer whales - they simply do not use this habitat, and yet DFO science takes the "don't confuse me with facts" approach and adopts "assumption based science."

Get ready for area fin fish closures all the way from Long Beach down to Swiftsure.

You can go online and use the feedback form - write anything. It takes no time at all...3 basic questions. Please note - deadline for feedback is JULY 11

Here's some speaking points to consider:


· “B.C.’s tidal water recreational fishery, combined with the freshwater fishery, is the largest and most valuable in Canada, valued at $18 billion annually. DFO issues over 350,000 tidal licences per year collecting $7.3 million in fees and the fishery employs around 8,400 British Columbian’s (as of 2012).”

· Area SRKW Refuge Recreational Fin Fish Closures will cause significant socio-economic harm destroying jobs and economic spin off activities in small coastal communities like Ucluelet, Port Alberni, Bamfield, Port Renfrew, Sooke and Victoria.

· Killer whales are only very rarely present on LaPerouse Bank, and there is no documented evidence from passive acoustic monitoring to clearly demonstrate this is actually critical habitat. DFO science is making an assumption that because areas of LaPerouse Bank are important areas for commercial and recreational Chinook fishing that they area similarly important to killer whales.

· According to Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM), killer whales are only present on Swiftsure Bank 43% of monitored days between May to September – broad Area Refuge closures impact recreational fishing opportunity during significant periods where the whales are not present.

· There is no comparative analysis that demonstrates the effectiveness of Area Closure vs a mobile “bubble” strategy

· More effort is required to scientifically determine if indeed there is any less benefit to be achieved using a “bubble” strategy which is less impactful – striking a balance between protection and economic activity

· In the past ______ years, I have fished areas of LaPerouse Bank, and observed killer whales only ____ times. (your observations are very important)

· In the past ______years, I have fished areas of Swiftsure Bank, and observed killer whales only ____times. (your observations are very important)

· Given these observations, there is little scientific data to support expanding the critical habitat areas, especially on LaPerouse Bank where killer whales are very rarely encountered and there is no scientific evidence to support DFO Science claims.




External review of the critical habitat section of the draft Amended Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales in Canada
Current status: Open
Public consultation opened on June 12 2018 and will be closed to new input on July 11 2018.


Why we are seeking input?
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Parks Canada Agency (PCA) would like your feedback on the revised critical habitat section (section 7) of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) draft Amended Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada.

Who we are seeking input from?
Indigenous peoples, stakeholders, ENGOs, other government agencies, researchers, and interested individuals are invited to provide feedback on the critical habitat section (section 7) of the draft Amended Recovery Strategy.

Key points for discussion
  • The draft Amended Recovery Strategy updates the critical habitat for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales based on new science advice
  • It identifies two additional areas of special importance as proposed critical habitat for Resident Killer Whales. These include:
    • waters on the continental shelf off southwestern Vancouver Island, including Swiftsure and La Pérouse Banks (important for both Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales)
    • waters of west Dixon Entrance, along the north coast of Graham Island from Langara to Rose Spit (important for Northern Resident Killer Whales)
  • The amendment also provides clarification of the functions, features and attributes for all critical habitat identified for Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales
How to provide input
The deadline for submitting comments on section 7 (critical habitat) of the draft Amended Recovery Strategy is July 11, 2018. Please note, feedback is only being sought on section 7 (pages 55 to 68); feedback on other sections will not be considered at this time. If you choose to submit comments, please use the online comment form.

After we have received your feedback and finalized the draft Amended Recovery Strategy, a proposed document will be posted to the SARA Public Registry for a 60-day public comment period. The Government of Canada will then have 30 days to incorporate comments before posting the final document on the Species at Risk Public Registry.

Related material
 
Last edited:
cohochinook said:
As good friend pointed out to me that "Food abundance isn’t an issue for the resident Orcas at all. #1 problem by a wide margin is toxins in their bodies, next noise pollution, 3rd...the expanding range and frequency of the Transients in lower Georgia St drives out the residents."

Really points to DFO picking us off as the easy targets!
Click to expand...
A bonk on the head is more effective than a slow death by poison
 
The ‘Balance of Nature’ Myth
SPOTLIGHT: There’s no such thing as a ‘balance of nature.’

BIG PICTURE: A prominent theme of ecologist Daniel Botkin’s latest book, 25 Myths That Are Destroying the Environment, is that the natural world is more sophisticated than we imagine.

Everything is fluid. Numerous interactions are taking place at any given time. On multiple levels and in multiple directions. Between species and within species.

The belief that whales and other animals would be peachy keen if only humans weren’t around informs many conservation measures. We’re the skunk at the picnic. We disturb. We perturb. We upset a natural, intrinsic balance.



The irony of such ‘environmental’ thinking, says Botkin, is that it ignores the environment:

There is no change in the weather – no storms, hurricanes, or volcanic eruptions. The population has no diseases and no predators. Its food can’t vary in abundance because the amount of food just isn’t represented in the equation…

This school of thought is bankrupt. In Botkin’s words:

Scientists have tried very hard to see if the [balance of nature] logistic could work for real populations out in the wild; after searching the scientific literature at great length, I’ve found that they have always failed…it has never worked in the real world outside of a laboratory. In physics, when an equation completely fails to make accurate forecasts of real events, it is abandoned…ecologists have done just the opposite of physicists: They have continued to use an equation that has never matched real-world observations.

Why do the WWF, the Sierra Club, and the Canadian Wildlife Federationcontinue to talk about the ‘balance of nature’? Perhaps because it inflates humanity’s importance. It places us at the center of the drama. It casts us as directors of the play, and stars of the show.

How bizarre that professional environmentalists are in the business of dismissing and diminishing highly potent, natural forces.

TOP TAKEAWAY: The ‘balance of nature’ idea is folklore – a persuasive idea for which there is no evidence.

LINKS:

 
“Why do the WWF, the Sierra Club, and the Canadian Wildlife Federationcontinue to talk about the ‘balance of nature’? Perhaps because it inflates humanity’s importance. It places us at the center of the drama. It casts us as directors of the play, and stars of the show.”

It not only inflates humanities importance , more importantly it inflates the importance of the fund raising organizations. All these organizations rely on donations. The only way to keep the donations rolling in is identify a problem, real or imagined and promote their organization as the only one capable of solving said problem. A lot of organizations make payroll by working the guilt complex of donors and it provides them a pretty darn good living.
 
ziggy said:
All these organizations rely on donations. The only way to keep the donations rolling in is identify a problem, real or imagined and promote their organization as the only one capable of solving said problem. A lot of organizations make payroll by working the guilt complex of donors and it provides them a pretty darn good living.
Click to expand...
Some of them also charge an admin fee on projects. "theres money to be made off the backs of wild salmon". 15-29% is charged on projects funded by tax dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Eden Island
Chinook Management Measures - Areas 11 to 20, 111, and Subareas 29-1 to 29-5 - Effective April 1, 2024
Replies
35
Views
6K
CalCom
CalCom
Eden Island
FN0665 and 0663 - Recreational - Salmon - Chinook Management Measures - July 15 -->
Replies
16
Views
1K
Eden Island
Eden Island
Eden Island
2024 Coho reg - FN 457
Replies
9
Views
2K
wolf
wolf
SpringVelocity
Prawn Closure
Replies
3
Views
3K
seachicken
seachicken
Hot-Streak
Hali opens tomorrow 3 Feb 2024
Replies
2
Views
964
Tsquared
Tsquared
Back
Top