DFO proposed chinook retention

[donnie d]

I realize SFAB probably working on a preferred option C and that the initial push from the Rec community was to describe the nuclear magnitude of option A. Which I did.

Now do we all have a concept of an appropriate option C? Reduction in limits, higher fees, and more scientific timing of Fraser related restrictions perhaps? I certainly don’t have the experience or in depth knowledge but am gleaning a lot of information from the discussions here for my correspondence with the ministry and my local MP, who happens to be the opposition fisheries critic.

Hoping we continue with constructive discussion on this and not the bickering between sectors (and anglers) that seems to pop up continually in the face of these challenges.

Cheers,

Donnie

Hummmm. I think that the SFAB DID tell DFO to stuff Option A where the sun dont shine. :
And as far as opening up the discussion to other options.... read Motion 2 again that the SFAB does want to see other Options rather than A & B.

 

[wildmanyeah]

ow do we all have a concept of an appropriate option C? Reduction in limits, higher fees, and more scientific timing of Fraser related restrictions perhaps? I certainly don’t have the experience or in depth knowledge but am gleaning a lot of information from the discussions here for my correspondence with the ministry and my local MP, who happens to be the opposition fisheries critic.

If I had to guess more hatchery marked fish options and also size slot options(max/min) size. They will push to keep 2 daily in some areas I would guess with a combination of wild (slot) + hatchery fish.

The JDF even under option B is 1 hatchery daily, My guess is the representatives of that area will lobby hard for maybe a slot limit or perhaps 2 hatch daily. Or perhaps limiting the time its at 1 hatchery daily(maybe april to july instead of april to august).

They will still have to reduce the exploitation rate, it won't be as good as last year but perhaps better then option B.

The SFAB will need to come out with option C in time to get everyone to lobby for it and then it will be game on to try to push for it.

That's all a guess i'm not part of the high level process

 

[Cuba Libre]

For a start lets get all hatchery chinook and coho marked. And increase the chinook limit in the Areas covered by Option B to one unmarked and one marked chinook per day. Get proper creel surveys done and stop using the unreliable IREC survey. I could go on, and on, and on.......

 

[california]

If I had to guess more hatchery marked fish options and also size slot options(max/min) size. They will push to keep 2 daily in some areas I would guess with a combination of wild (slot) + hatchery fish.

The JDF even under option B is 1 hatchery daily, My guess is the representatives of that area will lobby hard for maybe a slot limit or perhaps 2 hatch daily. Or perhaps limiting the time its at 1 hatchery daily(maybe april to july instead of april to august).

They will still have to reduce the exploitation rate, it won't be as good as last year but perhaps better then option B.

The SFAB will need to come out with option C in time to get everyone to lobby for it and then it will be game on to try to push for it.

That's all a guess i'm not part of the process

Most marked fish are from the US since Canadian hatcheries only mark (and wire code) a small proportion of the hatchery smolts. US hatcheries mark most or all of their smolts, and wire code some. Putting any hatchery restriction on means targeting most retention to US bound fish, so reduces Fraser interception. The earliest Canadian hatcheries could start complete marking programs would be for fish returning in 3 or 4 years if they started marking this year. They should find a better way than adipose fin clipping as well since there have been several studies showing it is not a vestigial fin at all and has a role in the swimming positioning of the fish.

 

[ziggy]

Most marked fish are from the US since Canadian hatcheries only mark (and wire code) a small proportion of the hatchery smolts. US hatcheries mark most or all of their smolts, and wire code some. Putting any hatchery restriction on means targeting most retention to US bound fish, so reduces Fraser interception. The earliest Canadian hatcheries could start complete marking programs would be for fish returning in 3 or 4 years if they started marking this year. They should find a better way than adipose fin clipping as well since there have been several studies showing it is not a vestigial fin at all and has a role in the swimming positioning of the fish.

Yeah it’s almost laughable DFO offers the Marked fish option, but doesn’t mark hardly any fish! I hope someone draws their attention to the fact that if the ever had taken the time to develop a long range plan they would have started marking all hatchery fish prior to implementing this plan. As you’ve stated most marked fish will be American hatchery fish.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Can I ask a simple question that's been bothering me last few days? Why is it that our SFAB and other lobby groups were at the table last few days with DFO hammering this out? Had motions saying we didn't like A or B even. How is it that the SFAB or others wouldn't want or try for an option C? Why would we even waste our time meeting DFO if we don't try better? We have to stop the conspiracy theory talk everyone is trying to keep this fishery open.

On another note the reason we asked for emails and letters is not just have people state they don't agree with Option A. More important was to tell the story direct of the economic harm from this decision. This is the untold story to this fishery.

Coming on here telling we shouldn't accept anything is not going change the fact that DFO is going to impose restrictions. Blaiming other groups isn't going help either. The Fraser River is in deep trouble right now. Changes need to be made.

I also want to point out in the fall we said and many said look at this changes are coming. Our meetings were very poorly attended. We sent out info pleading with many of you to pay attention to this. Now I know people get busy I get it, but this was probably one of the most important issues facing our fishery. It suprised me how many didn't take it seriously.

So again please keep sending those emails in. Be truthful and put a dollar value on your hobby.

I am being optimistic I think we are going to be able to fish this year. But we won't be able to do that if all 300k + of us don't push back and tell our story.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Most marked fish are from the US since Canadian hatcheries only mark (and wire code) a small proportion of the hatchery smolts. US hatcheries mark most or all of their smolts, and wire code some. Putting any hatchery restriction on means targeting most retention to US bound fish, so reduces Fraser interception. The earliest Canadian hatcheries could start complete marking programs would be for fish returning in 3 or 4 years if they started marking this year. They should find a better way than adipose fin clipping as well since there have been several studies showing it is not a vestigial fin at all and has a role in the swimming positioning of the fish.

Half of the fish I caught last year were marked fish from area 12 down to area 29. Of thoes half were from Canada. I have made a point to pay attention to marked fish in hero picks and many of them have been marked.

Even on the inside their is a good amount of marked fish, August their starts being a lot less but also by August under option B many of the restrictions are lessened and terminal fisheries start being the focus.

April and May in area 17 and area 29-3 lots of hatch fish around but the proposed regs are 1 daily.

I know what you mean about marking, If we did mark our fish I think people would be pretty surprise on how rare catching wild fish would be

 

[Cuba Libre]

Can I ask a simple question that's been bothering me last few days? Why is it that our SFAB and other lobby groups were at the table last few days with DFO hammering this out? Had motions saying we didn't like A or B even. How is it that the SFAB or others wouldn't want or try for an option C? Why would we even waste our time meeting DFO if we don't try better? We have to stop the conspiracy theory talk everyone is trying to keep this fishery open.

That is what they are presently working on...... Motion #2

Be it resolved that DFO with the help of the SFAB Chair initiate a formal public communication piece that gets distributed on Monday that will clarify the exercise under hand and that the options presented are not necessarily the outcome. We need to restore some confidence and ease the mass hysteria currently within the public fishery and its service sector before more irreparable damage is done.

 

[feelin swell]

If I had to guess more hatchery marked fish options and also size slot options(max/min) size. They will push to keep 2 daily in some areas I would guess with a combination of wild (slot) + hatchery fish.

The JDF even under option B is 1 hatchery daily, My guess is the representatives of that area will lobby hard for maybe a slot limit or perhaps 2 hatch daily. Or perhaps limiting the time its at 1 hatchery daily(maybe april to july instead of april to august).

They will still have to reduce the exploitation rate, it won't be as good as last year but perhaps better then option B.

The SFAB will need to come out with option C in time to get everyone to lobby for it and then it will be game on to try to push for it.

That's all a guess i'm not part of the high level process

I'm liking the option C idea. After further recflection I wish I hadn't sent my letter choosing B ...as both A&B are crude and thoughtless changes that will have an especially devastating impact to jobs and businesses in small communities. No surgical approach....simply uncaring blunt instrument force by DFO. It's not science based decision making anyway. As others have said they're slicing up a shrinking pie and not thinking/working toward reducing pollution and restoring habitat and restoring the former bigger pie. I'm thinking this agency isn't ever going to do it alone. They can be a partner but I believe its not in their mandate to do anything other than to directly protect and regulate federal marine resources. They are probably underfunded and short on staff after years or cutbacks and retirements. They have no jurisdiction over salmon habitat areas of land in BC. Land areas are under provincial, regional district, municipal, and private land holder jurisdiction. Estuary areas probably, but not river or stream beds, only the fed fish in them. I'm thinking as others... why should we accept their proposed ideas so easily. I take it communities, businesses, fishermen had no input there either. We need to push back with more input and pressure on DFO from the various fish sectors to do better than just A or B. I'm sure with some input there can be a better solutions. We need the Option C.

 

[profisher]

Option C: terminate DFO immediately and form a committee with DFO powers and includes reps from all sectors....locked in a room with no one allowed to leave until a meaningful Fraser River Chinook recovery plan and a reasonable 2019 fishing plan are both concluded and agreed on by all parties.

 

[feelin swell]

Option C: terminate DFO immediately and form a committee with DFO powers and includes reps from all sectors....locked in a room with no one allowed to leave until a meaningful Fraser River Chinook recovery plan and a reasonable 2019 fishing plan are both concluded and agreed on by all parties.

That committee .....could be something like ....the "West Coast Fishing Sector Alliance" or whatever .........maybe its time to form a volunteer organization that has reps from all fishing sectors that agree and move forward with a single voice.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Option number 3.

 

[SpringVelocity]

May I suggest that you don't reference anything related to recreational fishing as your "hobby" in any correspondence that you convey. It's not a strong term to use, even though it maybe what it is to many anglers. Remember in law fishing is your right and not a privilege like some enforcement people like to tout at times. We have a right to fish in tidal waters near our residence, even though it is accomplished under the guise of a contract with terms and conditions. We are already getting dangerously close to loosing our constitution in Canada as more and more UN related actions are being implemented.

But recreational fishing is my hobby. What a silly argument.

 

[SpringVelocity]

That is what they are presently working on...... Motion #2

Be it resolved that DFO with the help of the SFAB Chair initiate a formal public communication piece that gets distributed on Monday that will clarify the exercise under hand and that the options presented are not necessarily the outcome. We need to restore some confidence and ease the mass hysteria currently within the public fishery and its service sector before more irreparable damage is done.

Yes I know what what is going on. I was agreeing with you.

 

[Jencourt]

But recreational fishing is my hobby. What a silly argument.

Let me start by thanking you for the added effort you are making to help the guys who are in the trenches on our behalf.
I agree it is our hobby. More for many of us as it is a life long passion that has influenced where we live what we prioritize and what is in our hopes for each coming year.

That said I think Rob is trying to make the point that DFO at times needs to reminded of the fact that by law this is our right and to call it a hobby may strengthen the departments belief that it is a privilege which weakens the strength in our desire to maintain some sort of priority in their management decisions.
So in this case not silly at all in my view.

 

[SpringVelocity]

WOW! You really do have an odd way of thinking if for one second what I wrote as a suggestion(May I suggest that you don't reference anything related to recreational fishing as your "hobby" in any correspondence that you convey. It's not a strong term to use, even though it maybe what it is to many anglers.) is to be termed an argument...to which you just turned it into. Get a grip.

Lol ok Rob settle down...

 

[Whitebuck]

Option C

 

[searun]

This situation is the result of a combination of factors at play that seriously impact many Fraser - Thompson stocks. Particularly we are seeing Stream-Type S-1 & 2 Chinook performing very poorly, whereas their Ocean-Type cousins (S-0 Lower Fraser) whom emerge from the gravel and out-migrate within a short time to the ocean are performing far better.

We are recently learning that some of the shift in performance now appears to be happening in fresh water as well as in the marine environment. On top of that we also know predation is a large factor impeding early ocean entry survival.

As many will recall, in the past several summers we have experienced severe heat waves and massive forest fires in BC's interior. This climate related shift saw some situations where we wild stocks on upper Fraser experience very poor returns as compared to their hatchery cousins. The difference being hatcheries have controlled water temps etc.

The upshot of this appears to be that there will be no easy solutions in the short and perhaps even long term for some chinook stocks. Climate change is real and some chinook stocks are in the line of fire. This isn't a situation that will likely change quickly, nor is it as a result of over-fishing.

Faced with that, DFO managers have a daunting challenge to quickly shift gears to save what is left of the remnant stocks, while figuring out how to re-jig what we have been doing to rebuild what is left. Unfortunately, we do not have the political and public support to fully and aggressively fund the types of actions that will be necessary to accomplish this task.

While it is easy to pin the problem on DFO, we should be reminded of how we got here. I would also strongly suggest to everyone who is considering writing letters etc, that blaming DFO, and especially the people within the Department for this situation is simply aiming at the WRONG target. We (the Canadian public) have not provided DFO with the resources necessary to do the job. Its shameful actually given the very significant social and economic value that Canada derives from our Public Fishery!

We got here because successive governments and the public have failed to realize the social and economic value of our fishery. AND, we in the recreational sector have failed miserably to tell our story and build public support to invest the $$ necessary to protect Chinook and the unique pacific Public Fishery that exists no where else in Canada.

If you are writing letters, please be respectful to DFO staff - they are not the enemy. Secondly, please help by sending a clear message to the Fisheries Minister that he has a duty to protect the Public Fishery, and to take bold action to find the financial resources necessary to fund chinook recovery. What has happened to this point is a disgrace as compared to the investments we are seeing being made to the south of us by Washington STATE...I bolded "state" because Canada is a country and we are being out-performed by a small state in the US. Shameful.

Here's some economic data that you may wish to include in your letters to the Minister and frankly our Prime Minister - they need to hear that this will be an election issue!! Report is Nov 2018 Stats BC report on British Columbia's Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector

https://app.box.com/s/g6hv5ljaps3ilqh002hlki5b1lblnhmv


Note - the Public Fishery is the single largest of all fisheries for economic inputs, employment etc

 

[searun]

Here's some more economic data you could include in your letters to the Minister and Prime Minister:

 

[jeffywestcoast]

Thanks for the data information Searun ! And all the hard work you do behind the scence for our public fishery, it’s guys like you that are making the difference when dealing with DFO. Lets hope somehow all the letters and emails can make a difference and our government can be convinced to invest in the futre of wild salmon .