Cowichan Chinook

scott craven

Well-Known Member
Endangered status, ecosystem study demanded for Cowichan chinook



By Peter Rusland - Cowichan News Leader Pictorial
Published: November 25, 2010 6:00 PM
Updated: November 25, 2010 8:44 PM
Naturalists and sports fishermen are through talking about dwindling Cowichan Chinook stocks.
They want the breed immediately listed endangered to underline its potential extinction.
After last week’s Stewardship Roundtable in Duncan, the Cowichan Valley Naturalists and sports fishermen applied for Cowichan chinook’s emergency listing through the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
COSEWIC spokesman Alan Sinclair was unavailable for comment by press time Thursday.
Further, the two groups want huge reductions in the West Coast salmon fishery, plus a massive community- and ecosystem-based plan to rebuild stocks in the Cowichan-Koksilah Chinook Conservation Unit.
“The time for chatting is long since past — we want a community-involved, ecosystem- based rebuilding plan,” said sports fisherman Paul Rickard.
“Even the lesser label of ‘threatened’ (versus endangered) requires the rebuilding plan, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has to control the chinook harvest,” he said.
Susan Farlinger, DFO’s regional director general, who failed to return calls by press time yesterday, could order Cowichan’s chinook rebuilding plan.
Failing the plan being ordered, shut down the West Coast salmon fishery — and patrol federal waters — to let stocks recover from overfishing and habitat loss, group members tell the DFO.
“Cowichan chinook are going to be toast,” said the Naturalists president Eric Marshall.
“We’re really aiming to make sure the government realizes the chinook population here is at risk.”
His group wants to prod the federal DFO into action to save wild chinook stocks after years of basically fruitless studies and meetings.
“We’d like DFO to come up with a strategy,” Marshall told the News Leader Pictorial.
The Naturalists, Cowichan Tribes and others have supported salmon restoration work in recent years, he noted.
“There needs to be a reduction of the fishery off the West Coast to allow salmon to get back to rivers where they spawn.”
About 1,000 fall-run chinook have been returning during the past five years, Naturalists numbers show.
But this is a steep decline from recent averages of around 5,000 spawners of the previous 20 years. Historic levels were 25,000, the group states in a press release.
Marshall doesn’t want a West Coat repeat of eastern Canada’s fishery collapse.
“The DFO did not much on the East Coast cod fishery and it’s toast. “Scientists make (conservation) recommendations but politicians say those will mess up fishery jobs — and industry has big pull lobbying the government.
“In the end, it finishes with nothing for anyone.”
Right, said Rickard.
He too cited the Tribes’ salmon-saving support in recent years.
“Out of that, we got support to get a Cowichan chinook rebuilding plan, but that was five years ago.
“Since then, all that’s happened is DFO put together a steering committee for the rebuilding plan but the committee only met twice.”
Fisheries also formed a technical support committee to rebuild the plan “but it’s only met three times,” he said.
And like Marshall, Rickard’s sick of federal foot dragging while local chinook stocks shrink.
“What we want is a comprehensive ecosystem-based management plan that will rebuild the Cowichan chinook,” Rickard said, urging big community input.
However, Rickard applauded federal action in the coast’s Area G where the troll limit was halved due to the Salmon Commission Treaty, and in concern for island stocks.
At least 40 per cent of Cowichan chinook are harvested in the ocean by sports and commercial fishermen, and in the U.S. by-catch, he said.
Rickard and Marshall saw this year’s spike in coastal salmon returns as likely a blip on the recovery radar.
“This year’s upswing is one reason we didn’t get the endangered ranking,” Rickard said.
“One strong return does not make a trend.”
And despite what sports and commercial fishermen do, Rickard noted Natives have the legal right to harvest food, social and ceremonial fish.
“Cowichan Tribes said this year ‘You can fish seven days a week.’
“In the past they voluntarily reduced their catch, but their fisheries committee seems to work independently.”
DFO cannot ask Tribes to limit their harvest, he said, unless the feds stopped all marine harvest or reduce it to minimal levels.
“The only way Cowichan chinook would be further helped would be a shut down of salmon fishing on the West Coast, which no one wants — it’s a huge economic contributor,” said Rickard.
One option is to say ‘No harvest of wild fish, only fin-tagged hatchery fish’, like in the U.S., he said.
“Keep the hatchery fish and let the wild ones go.”
 
... However, Rickard applauded federal action in the coast’s Area G where the troll limit was halved due to the Salmon Commission Treaty, and in concern for island stocks. At least 40 per cent of Cowichan chinook are harvested in the ocean by sports and commercial fishermen, and in the U.S. by-catch, he said.

Area G has been restricted re: Cowichan chinook for nearly ten years. An incidence of capture (harvest) of as little as one or two fish has induced an immediate closure of ALL areas of operations. Nice Finger-Point though...
4.gif

And btw, the halving of the quota was engineered to protect US-origin stocks (you know, those we have been riding the wave of bounty on the past few seasons...) and Canadian-origin stocks didn't even enter the picture.

And despite what sports and commercial fishermen do, Rickard noted Natives have the legal right to harvest food, social and ceremonial fish. “Cowichan Tribes said this year ‘You can fish seven days a week.’
“In the past they voluntarily reduced their catch, but their fisheries committee seems to work independently.” DFO cannot ask Tribes to limit their harvest, he said, unless the feds stopped all marine harvest or reduce it to minimal levels.

aYup, Spearing of any and all these they can locate 24/7 when they return couldn't possibly have any deleterious effects on the population as a whole?
2.gif

And yet they are first to jump on the band-wagon (pun intended) for widespread closures?
3.gif


Methinks Mr. Rickard et al should pull their collective heads out of you-know-where and DEAL with their own back-yard before throwing any more stones!

I firmly agree that this particular stock (amongst many) is in trouble. Leaving what little broodstock that does return to try and rebuild might be a good first step. Oh, and leave the BS spin out of it please and thanks! :mad:

Ticked,
Nog
 
I agree with Nog about the spearing. I've witnessed it and i almost had a panic attack at the lack of respect for these fish. Endangered designation will affect ocean fishing oppourtunities in the future as these fish range far and wide.
 
Yup, if they put an endangered tag on those fish, i think we'll all be shut down, east and west coast of the island.
 
The truth on the entire coast is very simple and this should be the message put out by the sporties to the media...the white man is definitely responsible for the initial steep decline in salmon stocks...but today the first nations fishers appear hell bent on finishing the job.
 
The truth on the entire coast is very simple and this should be the message put out by the sporties to the media...the white man is definitely responsible for the initial steep decline in salmon stocks...but today the first nations fishers appear hell bent on finishing the job.

yes, and i see how the 300,000 sports fishermen with a limit of 30 chinook fishing 12 months a year have little to no effect......no sense telling 1/2 the truth.
 
yes, and i see how the 300,000 sports fishermen with a limit of 30 chinook fishing 12 months a year have little to no effect......no sense telling 1/2 the truth.

Well, I certainly fully agree with Nog’s comments and Profisher’s have a lot of merit! I wouldn’t make that a blanket First Nations, but there does seem some “bands” do appear and seem hell bent on finishing the job. And you really don’t want to get me started on “Canada’s” Chinook conservation philosophies – THEY see no value in the Pacific salmon! THEY already have THEIR payment program in place and “Canada”, (not British Columbia) has been, and are being well compensated. Ever wonder where all that money is going? Sure doesn’t appear to be Pacific salmon conservation!

So, I am not sure what is meant by the “1/2 truth” comment? I don’t see any 1/2 truths, except maybe the 300,000, 30 Chinook, and fishing 12 months figures. Those certainly are not accurate.

There has been 204,367 Salmon Conservation Stamps issued currently to date in 2010. That is stamps, you might be a couple hundred thousand (or so) off if you are calculating using that 300,000 figure? The way I read it there was only 235,240 total licences issued, with 121,569 annual resident and 3,533 annual non-resident licences issued? You really think there is an average 30 salmon per sport angler? It woul be closer to maybe two (2) and that is an estimate, as I haven't seen this years numbers yet!

Reported Sales in TWSF Database: Year-to-Date Comparision
For the period of April 1, 2010 to October 26, 2010
Updated October 29, 2010

Fishing Year 2009, 2010, Comparative between years, % Amount
Resident Licence Categories
Annual 122,026 121569 -0.37% -457
5 day 9,599 10904 13.60% 1,305
3 day 15,300 16262 6.29% 962
1 day 27,396 27902 1.85% 506
Senior 22,386 23882 6.68% 1,496
Juvenile 35,989 34721 -3.52% -1,268
Total 232,696 235,240 1.09% 2,544

Non-Resident Licence Categories
Annual 3,788 3533 -6.73% -255
5 day 12,856 13246 3.03% 390
3 day 9,186 9396 2.29% 210
1 day 10,859 11152 2.70% 293
Juvenile 2,730 2831 3.70% 101
Total 39,419 40,158 1.87% 739

Licence Replacements 7278 7498 3% 220
Salmon Conservation Stamps
Adult 192,699 199,382 3.47% 6,683
Replacements 4889 4985 2% 96
Total 197,588 204,367 3.43% 6,779

Breakdown of Licence Totals by Categories
Juvenile Licences 38,719 37,552 -3.01% -1,167
Adult Licences 233,396 237,846 1.91% 4,450
Total Licences 272,115 275,398 1.21% 3,283

% of total issued on line:Licences Stamps
24.90% 23.50%

Notes: 1 Licence replacements not included in total.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/licence-permis/stat-eng.htm

Btw… I would certainly like to see the “published” studies backing that 40 per cent Cowichan Chinook figure, if any exist? While I really don’t know the U.S. by-catch numbers (that would have to be in the Strait of Juan de Fuca), I believe that 40% number is optimistic and understated.

BBtw… In case everyone doesn't realize it, your Canadian Chinook are ALL in TROUBLE in the entire southern portion of BC, including the Fraser. If you take out the U.S. equation, your current WCVI Canadian Chinook fishery is becoming NON-EXISTENT!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i appreciate the math lesson but the point is we are back to pointing fingers and no one is willing to back off. These stocks have no chance if every user group doesn't become more accountable so we have a clue what is coming out of the water.

2 fish average. you really believe that?


One question: all those numbers you posted.... how accurate do you think they are?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fish4all, pardon me but are not most sport fishers "white'? "White" to me means, sport, commercial, forestry, mining, farming, (irrigation) land development etc etc. I'm not pointing fingers elsewhere. What I see right now is an unwillingness by some first nations groups to admit that "they" may also be responsible for some more recent further declines. These few renegade groups have a nasty habit of ignoring any suggestions from more qualified sources (DFO science) and instead directly point at others. They play the "right to fish card" and seem unwilling to cut back when asked. Instead they demand others be shut down even when told that the others have no impact on the fish of concern. If they still don't get their way they use intimation tactics on government. Money = greed.
 
Wont have to wory about too much longer because the way its going with FN they want most sportfishing closed and unfortunatlly they will get there wish,ironic how the people put into power have sided with the fn and now WE are the minority....... unless we raise hell. all I can say is nice democratic society we live in the one who yells the loudest wins???? sad very sad
 
Accountable....good one to talk about. The only group that can even suggest with any seriousness that they are accountable are the commercial guys. Are you suggesting that the reported native catch numbers are accurate? LOL, give me a break. I know there are inaccuracies in the catch data for both sport and native fisheries. Lets say they are both under estimated by 50%. The area 19/20 2010 Sockeye catch is estimated at around 10,000 fish. The last number I heard from the native catch from the Fraser in late August was about 350,000 fish. So bump both up by 50% to 15,000 for sport and 525,000 for native. Which fishery would you as a fisheries manager be most concerned with? I would want more accurate info from both but be honest...when nets, no enforcement and large profits are involved the potential for overfishing increases dramatically.
 
i appreciate the math lesson but the point is we are back to pointing fingers and no one is willing to back off. These stocks have no chance if every user group doesn't become more accountable so we have a clue what is coming out of the water.

2 fish average. you really believe that?

One question: all those numbers you posted.... how accurate do you think they are?
You are welcome and sorry, missed your question!


How accurate? The license numbers are computerized, unless, DFO goes and tries to "conserve" something, they should be very accurate. As far as two fish, that would be a guess, but I have to believe close based on salmon stamps. So... yes I do believe it will come out around two Cinook per angler give or take… and we are talking Chinook.

How many Chinook salmon stamps issued, 204,367. If there were a around 300,000 Chinook caught in BC (this was a good year) 2010 average is around 1.5 Chinook per angler? DFO might not know how to count "sea lice", but they really can’t be that far off on these numbers! J

How’s this for numbers? As stated, I don’t have 2010 recreation catch records yet, but you might want to look at the published PSC annual reports to get some idea of just how many Chinook (and other salmon) are being caught and by who. 2006 numbers are the easiest for me to pull! And yes, I know they are estimates! J
http://www.psc.org/pubs/22ndAnnualReport.pdf

Chinook reported catch in 2006.
North Coast = 64,500
WCVI Outside Sport = 37,905
Sport Juan de Fuca = 39,431
Sport Strait of Georgia = 15,207
Sport Johnstone Strait = 7,092
Inside Sport WCVI – ISBM = 43,411
Sport Fraser River = 15,143
Total Recreational Sport Catch = 222,689

Want to see the areas reported in 2006 AABM Chinook recreational catch?.
Statistical Area, Catch
Area 21/121 = 2,449
Area 23/123= 19,530
Area 24/124= 3,713
Area 25/125 = 2,089
Area 26/126 = 5,272
Area 27/127 = 4,852
TOTAL = 37,905

WCVI ISBM estimated recreational catch by statistical area in 2006.
Statistical Area, Survey Period, Chinook Kept.
Area 23, August ~ September; 26,631
Area 24 August ~ September; 1,569
Area 25 July ~ September; 11,832
Area 26 July ~ September (Based on preliminary logbook data); 2,225
Area 27 July ~ September; 1,154
Total; 43,411

Concerning the Cowichan
“Cowichan Tribes traditionally have a dip-net fishery on the Cowichan River. 2006 catch data are not yet available. An assessment of the escapement is currently underway by the Native Guardian group of Cowichan Tribes.” I don’t believe those numbers will ever be published? I can’t say that I really agree or disagree with the Tribes? Why should they care, if Canada, DFO, British Columbia, or any of the rest of the British Columbians do not care enough to do something? As far as the finger pointing goes. If anyone really wants to start pointing fingers they might want to start pointing at the beginning of the problem (Canada, DFO, and BC), not at the end of the problem (stakeholders)? Canada (and BC) knows exactly what is transpiring and are letting it happen – THEY see no value in the Pacific wild salmon. And, I hate using the term feedlot, but that is the only thing Canada sees of economic value for those pristine waters. The hell with Pacific salmon, fish farms will increase our GDP!

If all stakeholders in British Columbia don’t unite and get DFO on board to fix the issues concerning Wild salmon – you will lose them! As in, DFO has completed studies confirming ocean conditions have been fine, and there is sea lice (and disease) problems with fish farms! Why don’t they release all that information? If they did, ALL British Columbians would flat out come un-glued!

There is an old saying, “United we stand, divided we fall,” there is something to that statement!

“Conclusion
Salmon have adapted to changes in climate over millions of years, but literature on the mechanisms of environmental effects on salmon productivity in the Pacific is limited. Although most Pacific salmon research has focused on freshwater survival (Pearcy and Masuda, 1982; Beamish et al., 2003), recent declines in the marine-survival rates of many stocks add urgency to the need for information about their ocean phase (Beamish et al., 2008). Very little is known about current stock-specific marine survival and migratory behaviour. Therefore, the mechanisms of short- and long-term changes in survival and behaviour attributable to environmental factors and ecosystem dynamics remain a mystery. Such knowledge gaps are a serious challenge to fishery managers trying to predict accurately how salmonid populations will be affected by harvesting and a changing climate. Coordinated international research efforts using advanced electronic technologies to investigate the consequences of short- and long-term climate trends on ecosystem dynamics and individual salmon populations are vital to the predictive ability of fishery managers and the conservation of Pacific salmon.”
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2009/06/23/icesjms.fsp174.full.pdf

“Introduction
Aquaculture and salmon farming are important and developing industries in British Columbia. There are 126 salmon farms licensed in British Columbia and 86 farms in 2004 were growing salmon. In recent years the total production of farmed salmon in British Columbia has been about 70-80,000 t (Figure 1). This production of farmed salmon increased steadily since 1985 as the catch of wild salmon declined (Figure 2). The decline of wild salmon catches resulted from a natural decline in marine survival, management actions to protect stocks as a result of this decline, and low prices for species such as pink and chum salmon. Each salmon farm either directly or indirectly employs about 50 full time people. About 500,000 salmon are cultured over a two year period with most being Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). The average weight of a fish at harvest is about 5kg and the product value may be 10-12,000,000 Canadian dollars for each farm. The current annual value of the farmed salmon exceeds the landed value of all wild fish fisheries combined.

One benefit of salmon farming is the jobs that are created in coastal communities. However, there is concern about salmon farming harming wild Pacific salmon. One concern is that sea lice produced on farmed salmon will infect wild salmon and increase their natural mortality (Morton et al. 2004). It is well known that sea lice are a common parasite of wild Pacific salmon, but the occurrence of sea lice on all species of adult Pacific salmon returning to a large coastal ecosystem remains to be documented. Understanding the impact of sea lice produced on salmon farms requires an understanding of the natural production of sea lice. This report provides an assessment of natural sea lice production on adult Pacific salmon.”
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/people-gens/beamish/PDF_files/npafc819(Canada).pdf

Take a look at “Figure 1. Production (t) of farmed salmon in British Columbia from 1985 to 2004” and “Figure 2. Total Canadian landings (t) of Pacific salmon from 1920 to 2004 (thin line) and farmed salmon production (t) in British Columbia from 1985 to 2004 (thick line),” of the above!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I CALL BS ON YOUR AQUACULTURE EMPLOYMENT STATS CHARLIE!

I wrote a paper on the industry in 2000 or so and in that work I disclosed data from NOAA which stated (way back then) that each net pen salmon farm created the equivalent of 8 to 10 full-time jobs, and it was said that this data also closely mirrored the industry situation in Norway.
Extrapolation: 8 x 130 farms = 1040 jobs.

Think about it. Where the hell can you or anyone else possibly dream-up 50 jobs from a fish farm? The commie's couldn't generate that much work and they had to chase the fish in boats!

With technology advances (mechanical feeders) and an increasing reliance on drug/chemical application to keep their fish alive, it wouldn't surprise me one iota if modernization and streamlining of the operations has reduced industry employment by 30% or more in the past 10 yrs.

Your quote reminded me of then Minister of Agriculture John Van Dongen's statement (notice I omitted the Hon. tag) that the lifting of the moratorium on expansion of the industry by the Campbell government (in 2001 or so) would create nearly 20,000 jobs in BC. What a crock!

To add insult to all the environmental chaos/destruction wrought on our marine ecology by this terrible industry, not only do the few jobs created by the business pay meager wages - the industry is nearly 100% owned by Norway. So, one does not need a 'sniffer-dog' to discover where the real money-trail leads to: Norway and then into the pockets of the collusive Provincial/Federal Canadian politicians who are too greedy & stunned to grasp the immense value of this wonderful natural bounty Mother Nature has gifted us - Pacific Salmon.

I agree with you 100% on this Charlie: If the people of BC & Canada do not take prompt action to stand-up and stop this disastrous course of extirpation our sickly government has embarked on with these destructive Norwegians - our wild Pacific salmon have little chance.

This I know to be true.
 
Hey, Little Hawk, I am agreeing with you, those are NOT MY NUMBERS! J

If you want to fix the problem with the Cowichan Chinook “returns,” you have to fix the beginning of the problem – not the end of it? DFO indeed knows those fish are changing their migration patterns and have a large, poor mortality rate due to “oceanic conditions.” What they aren’t telling anyone, is they know what is creating those poor conditions! That link I posted highly suggests that!

I only posted that introduction to indicate the bias position of DFO bewteen farmed fish and the wild Pacfic salmon and their justification (NOT MINE). It is straight from a study presented by DFO to NPAFC in 2004. Maybe you missed it, but they are justifying their support of farmed fish over wild, and I referenced “Figure 1. Production (t) of farmed salmon in British Columbia from 1985 to 2004” and “Figure 2. Total Canadian landings (t) of Pacific salmon from 1920 to 2004 (thin line) and farmed salmon production (t) in British Columbia from 1985 to 2004 (thick line),” of the above! If all you do is look at figure 1, it pretty much shows the wild Pacific salmon did not really have “poor oceanic survival” problems, until there was an increase in the “farmed” Atlantic salmon production. You might also note the study addresses sea lice counts “above” the fish farms, and not below them? If one wants to talk about half-truths and sanitized reporting, I would suggest starting with DFO?

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/people-gens/beamish/PDF_files/npafc819(Canada).pdf

Sea lice counts on Adult Pacific salmon caught in the Central Coast of
British Columbia using trawl and troll gear.

By R. J. Beamish, C. M. Neville and R. M. Sweeting
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Biological Station
Science Branch
3190 Hammond Bay Road
Nanaimo, B.C. V9T 6N7
Canada

Submitted to the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission by CANADA October 2004
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feel your pain Smiley! Got to be careful introducing hatchery stock as the unique genetic footprint of the Cowichan Chinook could be lost forever. It's a tough call with proponents on both sides. I've seen first hand the benefits of a successful hatchery program (Cap River in West Van for one) but the original strain of the Chinooks & Ho's in that creek have long since vanished.
 
There will be no risk of losing your original genes if you start your hatchery with only local fish. As long as you still have some original salmon left to take eggs/milt from it's all good. Once they are all gone and you decide then to do something and you have to import alien eggs to this system then it's a different strain of fish you create. It is not too late yet for the Cowichan if they took what they can get in the river and started rebuilding stocks in a proper hatchery.
 
I'm going to throw this out there, but maybe the genetic makeup of the Cowichan Chinook is the exact reason why we can't get the damn things to come back? The hatchery has put a lot of them out there, the Cowichan terminal fishery does not even exist now, and except for one here and one there, no one seems to be intercepting a lot of them.

The Cow is a great river, and has been in decline for some time, it may be time to consider taking it off of life support and introducing something that will work there.
 
I hear you Chris and forgive me if I came across trying to sound like I actually know something about the science of genetics. One thing did cross my mind after your reply: natural selection.

Is it not true that when you eliminate competition for a mate - by grabbing an arbitrary sperm donor and blasting his jiz all over random eggs - you are also eliminating the opportunity for one of natures most important mechanisms to play out by preventing him (the strongest) from passing his genes to the female of his choice (the hottest babe) thus ensuring the species will produce the most vital and strongest offspring?

(Hope you can make it to the X-mas party Chris!)
 
I guess we need to introduce some kind of competition into the selection process. 100 meter freestyle maybe, on the end of a rod of coarse! :)
 
I wish as soon as the salmon finally make it to any river that they are left alone to spawn but nope they have to spear and wound hundreds of fish or better yet put a net across it man its the 21 century time to move on, I can respect the heritage and traditions but when they want to kill it off then what are they going to do???When its gone they wont be able to carry on with there traditions. to me thats very sad !!!!!
Wolf
 
Back
Top