Conservation, Thompson Steelhead Style - By Bob Hooton

Do steelhead sportfishers really expect to shut down all FN and commercial fishing just so you can go trophy hunting for a steelhead?
Apparently DFO can shut down all sport and commercial fishing so a few chinook can feed whales and or head to the Fraser. Who knows what happens once they make it to the Fraser though.
 
Well it’s nation to nation negotiations when you start to talk about First Nation fisheries.

Tbh the commercial and rec sector are not even in the room for that despite what
Anyone on here has lead you to believe.

The 42 day rolling closure and 27 day first nation closure was signed off by the fisheries minister. My understanding is First Nations didn't even want a 27 day closure.

The current liberal government is going to listen to First Nation advice in nation to nation negotiations. That’s just the reality of the politics.

Before the closure windows were put in, and before the emergency listing process I was at a meeting where recreational reps were literally at the table screaming at DFO reps. “ these fish are going to be extinct and that blood is going to be on your hands if you do nothing” one guy got up and screamed. Some of these guys have been trying to get some kind of move to from DFO on the IFS for 20’years or more,

Going down the same parth inp ort alberni or the skeena will undoubtedly lead to recreational fishermen sitting on the sidelines watching first
Nations fish. So you can see why our sector is not screaming shut down fishing.

I think most people agree with what BOB has to say but not everyone agrees with bobs solutions.


It appears to me that the argument for IFS SARA listing would be completely consistent with the language of the REVISED Fisheries Act:

24C70F34-2B1D-46F3-87B6-8CD1E5A7CC18.jpeg

160E5BC3-6218-4AD6-A32B-5B4E4845190A.jpeg


Protection for ALL fish and fish habitat....if there was zero intention of using this language to steer resource conservation guidelines, why even bother to publish it with all the fanfare it received?
 
Are you implying Fraser chinook stocks are not in trouble?


I'm saying that not all of them are and I don't understand what Chinook have to do with steelhead.

You cannot compare the 2 species.
 
I'm saying that not all of them are and I don't understand what Chinook have to do with steelhead.

You cannot compare the 2 species.
Thirty years ago the same thing could be said for steelhead stocks on the Fraser, "not all of them were in trouble". Now they are all facing extinction. Regarding comparing the two species. They are both part of the Fraser River watershed, they are both impacted by all the same survival factors, they are both on the decline, why wouldn't you compare them to each other?
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that not all of them are and I don't understand what Chinook have to do with steelhead.

You cannot compare the 2 species.
OMG, 21 stocks out of 28 are in trouble and some equal to the Thompson Steelhead.

So at what point do we care?
 
I think this internal debate of this topic of "conservation" has been going on for a very long time on so many forum discussions is almost to the point where it gets overwhelming and frustrating to say the least.

Without getting into a debate about comparing different finfish species to steelhead ( because that's not what this thread was titled ), I think we can all agree that our management is not an example of how to manage a fishery.

I don't believe that this specific run of steelhead is on its decline solely because of FN food fishing. Or GN fishing as a whole. Which the commercial guy is extinct anyway. I'm sure it has a bit of an impact, however I don't see how your going to stop FN from doing what they wanna do. I would say habitat loss would be the biggest reason IMO but I'm sure there's more to it than just one place to point a finger
 
Sounds so simple ... So then how does one get all levels of concerned folks at one table and work together...At this time this hasnt happen ..not sure you if can
Well it certainly is not simple nor is it something "you" is able to achieve. Mind you as individuals we can certainly tone down the rhetoric. All the stakeholders need to work towards common goals that will help protect and improve the numbers of fish on the spawning beds. This will require leadership from all governments ( currently lacking) and working with all stakeholders which would includes angling groups, engo's, FN etc....note that FN is of course included in governments above but is also a stakeholder. I should add that $$'s are most certainly needed to transition FN/Commerical fisheries to selective methods and third party monitoring. Not simple at all but we do at least have the solutions available today it is the implementation that is the challenge.
 

Openings in the Fraser canyon for Chum wtf. The amount of Chum that spawn above Hope is tiny, how you even justify a fishery for them is even more disgusting. The only species migrating above Hope right now would be wild coho and Steelhead. These openings are basically targetting Steelhead. With the height of the Fraser all the IFS and IFC are easy picking for any set net in a back eddy or choke point.

https://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/PDFs/SteelheadKeptCatch.pdf guess they haven't got any steelhead in their nets yet .


There is nothing in DFOs agenda that has anything to do with conservation.
 
Last edited:
Any steelhead or salmon caught in a gillnet if not released within a minute or two of entanglement is dead, damage done to the gills is irrepairable.
Throw in a set net that doesnt get checked for hours at best.

Maybe 60% with a live release tank on board if taken from net quickly. However one of the other killers is the damage it causes to the flesh which in turn creates mold and fungus in the head. A large number of steelhead we encountered on the Thompson as well as other rivers would be covered in fungus from the nets, zero chance of these fish making it to the spring spawn.


Been around way too many nets to even entertain the idea of 60% for our in-river fisheries......
 
Any steelhead or salmon caught in a gillnet if not released within a minute or two of entanglement is dead, damage done to the gills is irrepairable.
Throw in a set net that doesnt get checked for hours at best.

Maybe 60% with a live release tank on board if taken from net quickly. However one of the other killers is the damage it causes to the flesh which in turn creates mold and fungus in the head. A large number of steelhead we encountered on the Thompson as well as other rivers would be covered in fungus from the nets, zero chance of these fish making it to the spring spawn.


Been around way too many nets to even entertain the idea of 60% for our in-river fisheries......
That I believe is the number that DFO has used in the past, and is based on best practices so I am in absolute agreement with you that the mortality is actually much higher in reality.
 
Well it certainly is not simple nor is it something "you" is able to achieve. Mind you as individuals we can certainly tone down the rhetoric. All the stakeholders need to work towards common goals that will help protect and improve the numbers of fish on the spawning beds. This will require leadership from all governments ( currently lacking) and working with all stakeholders which would includes angling groups, engo's, FN etc....note that FN is of course included in governments above but is also a stakeholder. I should add that $$'s are most certainly needed to transition FN/Commerical fisheries to selective methods and third party monitoring. Not simple at all but we do at least have the solutions available today it is the implementation that is the challenge.
Finally, something I can agree with. Stop the bun tossing - find the common ground solutions the majority can support - sit down together (in meetings where there is skin in the game) and work collaboratively to move forward the recovery strategies all interests can get behind. Way more gets done by getting involved, than will ever be accomplished sitting on internet forums.
 
Back
Top