searun
Well-Known Member
PART 2: WCFGA Letter
3. Area Closures – Recreational Input
Non-fishers might think that areas popular and successful for recreational fishing also provide the same prey acquisition success for SRKW. The facts are, recreational fishers rely upon Chinook encountering and actively feeding upon baitfish to be successful. Whereas, SRKW do not require feeding Chinook to be successful – often targeting Chinook that are actively migrating near the surface. Thus areas important for SRKW feeding success are not necessarily the same areas utilized by recreational fishers. Therefore, Area Closures based upon locations frequented by recreational fishers are not necessarily effectively protecting habitat areas critical to SRKW who take advantage of different environments and spatial areas to acquire prey.
Area Closures are an unnecessary management tool, because recreational fishers engaged in salmon trolling do so with small auxiliary motors (most popular being 9.9 hp). These auxiliary motors are ultra quiet, and as such create very limited acoustic profiles. Therefore, Area Closures do not afford appreciable benefits for SRKW.
Additionally, fishing sounders are most effective at a 200kHz range for deeper water, which is less impactful than lower kHz ranges. Notwithstanding, we are recommending sounders be turned off when whales are in the vicinity of recreational fishing to reduce acoustic disturbance to improve prey acquisition.
Area closures are not an effective tool because they fail to address the fact that whales range widely in their search for food. They do nothing when whales are not present in these locations. A 400m bubble zone strategy is far more effective at providing mobile protection for whales throughout their range.
Additionally, Area Closures based on “fin fish” (total closures), are highly impactful to other recreational fisheries such as halibut. Halibut fisheries are distinctly different from salmon fisheries because the majority of halibut fishing takes place while the vessel is on anchor, therefore little acoustic or physical disturbance impacts are associated with this fishery. Where it is felt Area Closures are necessary to determine if there are quantifiable benefits accruing to them, we believe that “fin fish” closures are not necessary. Salmon Area Closures would be a far less impactful way to achieve the desired outcome.
Sooke Chapter Input:
WCFGA has a close association with the Sooke Charter Boat Association. Our membership in Sooke feels strongly that the proposed management measures for areas 20-3 and 20-4, as currently written, have significant impact on both salmon and ground fish fisheries for Area 20 Recreational anglers. The area around Sheringham Point is one of the most heavily fished locations in the area. This location is of critical importance to the Area 20 fishery. The proposed Area 20-4\20-5 boundary cuts right through the middle of the trolling zone. Splitting the normal fishing area by using Sheringham Point as the boundary will present difficulty as vessel operators will be required to turn, in the middle of the fishing zone, creating confusion and potential enforcement problems.
We request consideration to the following amendments:
· Relocate the proposed eastern boundary of 20-4, from Sheringham Point west approximately 5 km to Fossil Point
· Replace “fin fish” closure, with a “No salmon fishing” closure, enabling the recreational halibut fishery to continue
· Alternatively, allow a recreational Halibut only (at anchor) opportunity May 1st to Jun 15th, implementing the full “fin fish” closure commencing Jun. 15
Additionally, with respect to the proposed study of the adjacent area opened to recreational fishing to provide comparative data to assess effectiveness of Area Closures we strongly recommend that no whale watching operations be allowed into the study area. The proposed study methodology is flawed from the standpoint it allows other vessel operations, such as whale watching, into the area being assessed to determine the impact differences between areas where recreational fishing activity takes place, and areas that are closed. The proposed study methodology is badly flawed as it will allow whale watching impacts to be super-imposed upon the intended study results for the recreational fishery alone.
Vancouver Chapter Input:
The WCFGA also has a close association with the Vancouver Fishing Guide’s Association. Members in the Area 29 are supportive of proposed management measures with a number of key provisos. The most important of which warrants calling out separately from the others. That is – Area Closures in Area 29 are not to extend into Area 29-3 and 29-4. These portions of Area 29 are of special significance to recreational fishers. Expanding the Area Closures into these portions would seriously impact community support for the current management proposal.
In addition, we agree with testing the Area 29 closures to allow SRKW foraging, so long as this is combined with the following:
1. 400m bubble zone strategy detailed earlier in this document
2. Measures to similarly restrict (close) whale watching activities within the Area Closures
3. Significant effort to explore every reasonable means to address pinniped predation – this is the number one issue raised in the public consultation meeting feedback
4. Restrictions on large commercial vessel traffic to significantly reduce speed which will in turn diminish acoustic disturbance
5. Reductions in pollution from sewage outflow from the GVRD through enhanced treatment to lessen impacts
6. Closing Areas 29-6; 29-7; 29-9; 29-10 to all commercial crabbing as these are critical forage habitat for SRKW, and the intense crab fishery contributes serious physical and acoustic disturbance for whales
3. Area Closures – Recreational Input
Non-fishers might think that areas popular and successful for recreational fishing also provide the same prey acquisition success for SRKW. The facts are, recreational fishers rely upon Chinook encountering and actively feeding upon baitfish to be successful. Whereas, SRKW do not require feeding Chinook to be successful – often targeting Chinook that are actively migrating near the surface. Thus areas important for SRKW feeding success are not necessarily the same areas utilized by recreational fishers. Therefore, Area Closures based upon locations frequented by recreational fishers are not necessarily effectively protecting habitat areas critical to SRKW who take advantage of different environments and spatial areas to acquire prey.
Area Closures are an unnecessary management tool, because recreational fishers engaged in salmon trolling do so with small auxiliary motors (most popular being 9.9 hp). These auxiliary motors are ultra quiet, and as such create very limited acoustic profiles. Therefore, Area Closures do not afford appreciable benefits for SRKW.
Additionally, fishing sounders are most effective at a 200kHz range for deeper water, which is less impactful than lower kHz ranges. Notwithstanding, we are recommending sounders be turned off when whales are in the vicinity of recreational fishing to reduce acoustic disturbance to improve prey acquisition.
Area closures are not an effective tool because they fail to address the fact that whales range widely in their search for food. They do nothing when whales are not present in these locations. A 400m bubble zone strategy is far more effective at providing mobile protection for whales throughout their range.
Additionally, Area Closures based on “fin fish” (total closures), are highly impactful to other recreational fisheries such as halibut. Halibut fisheries are distinctly different from salmon fisheries because the majority of halibut fishing takes place while the vessel is on anchor, therefore little acoustic or physical disturbance impacts are associated with this fishery. Where it is felt Area Closures are necessary to determine if there are quantifiable benefits accruing to them, we believe that “fin fish” closures are not necessary. Salmon Area Closures would be a far less impactful way to achieve the desired outcome.
Sooke Chapter Input:
WCFGA has a close association with the Sooke Charter Boat Association. Our membership in Sooke feels strongly that the proposed management measures for areas 20-3 and 20-4, as currently written, have significant impact on both salmon and ground fish fisheries for Area 20 Recreational anglers. The area around Sheringham Point is one of the most heavily fished locations in the area. This location is of critical importance to the Area 20 fishery. The proposed Area 20-4\20-5 boundary cuts right through the middle of the trolling zone. Splitting the normal fishing area by using Sheringham Point as the boundary will present difficulty as vessel operators will be required to turn, in the middle of the fishing zone, creating confusion and potential enforcement problems.
We request consideration to the following amendments:
· Relocate the proposed eastern boundary of 20-4, from Sheringham Point west approximately 5 km to Fossil Point
· Replace “fin fish” closure, with a “No salmon fishing” closure, enabling the recreational halibut fishery to continue
· Alternatively, allow a recreational Halibut only (at anchor) opportunity May 1st to Jun 15th, implementing the full “fin fish” closure commencing Jun. 15
Additionally, with respect to the proposed study of the adjacent area opened to recreational fishing to provide comparative data to assess effectiveness of Area Closures we strongly recommend that no whale watching operations be allowed into the study area. The proposed study methodology is flawed from the standpoint it allows other vessel operations, such as whale watching, into the area being assessed to determine the impact differences between areas where recreational fishing activity takes place, and areas that are closed. The proposed study methodology is badly flawed as it will allow whale watching impacts to be super-imposed upon the intended study results for the recreational fishery alone.
Vancouver Chapter Input:
The WCFGA also has a close association with the Vancouver Fishing Guide’s Association. Members in the Area 29 are supportive of proposed management measures with a number of key provisos. The most important of which warrants calling out separately from the others. That is – Area Closures in Area 29 are not to extend into Area 29-3 and 29-4. These portions of Area 29 are of special significance to recreational fishers. Expanding the Area Closures into these portions would seriously impact community support for the current management proposal.
In addition, we agree with testing the Area 29 closures to allow SRKW foraging, so long as this is combined with the following:
1. 400m bubble zone strategy detailed earlier in this document
2. Measures to similarly restrict (close) whale watching activities within the Area Closures
3. Significant effort to explore every reasonable means to address pinniped predation – this is the number one issue raised in the public consultation meeting feedback
4. Restrictions on large commercial vessel traffic to significantly reduce speed which will in turn diminish acoustic disturbance
5. Reductions in pollution from sewage outflow from the GVRD through enhanced treatment to lessen impacts
6. Closing Areas 29-6; 29-7; 29-9; 29-10 to all commercial crabbing as these are critical forage habitat for SRKW, and the intense crab fishery contributes serious physical and acoustic disturbance for whales