Emergency Victoria @ Area SFAB Mtg Re: 2018 Chinook - May 4/18

[scott craven]

An 85cm Chinook will fall into the 16-20 lb class (approx)
With the year over year decline in size, I think it's within reason.
We all complain about the lack of bigger fish, maybe this will help them rebuild ?

 

[profisher]

California...of course we all contribute to the problem. The point is that we continue to see our fisheries get clawed back which is would be totally acceptable if all the past suite of restrictions on both Chinook and Coho had bared fruit. DFO continues along the path of further cuts to fisheries without any other meaningful recovery steps...thinking that maybe if you do repeat the same mistakes over and over again you will eventually get a different result. Bring forward a DFO document that outlines a real recovery plan for the Fraser (and now the Skeena) and I will gladly go along with what ever needs to be done to ensure that fish numbers build. Just going along with this DFO insanity over and over again while stocks continue to tank means we all just as negligent for not standing up for what needs to be done. We all need to demand a meaningful recovery plan with the resources to carry it out. NOW!

 

[wildmanyeah]

I find it hard to criticize government for not coming up with a strategy for salmon enhancement. When the PSF and salish sea project have yet to yield results that show where that money would be best spent. We have discussed the many issues that are plaguing our salmon on here a lot. They don't get a free pass tho and Certainly stream keepers and volunteer hatcheries have been pulling more than their share of the weight for years now.

It seems that salmon ranching in Alaska and Net pen projects in BC are yielding some good results on the production side. Also that the Chum enhancement on the fraser is also very well. Chum returns on the fraser are is high as they were in the 1980's. However chum have been proven to be far more resilient to environmental pollution then Coho. That has been well document and known since DFO did some big studies in Northern Vancouver island on the effect of logging in the 1970 and 1980's.

I also don't think that targeting only some areas is the way to go and leave others untouched with fishing restrictions. At some point it bet will see 1 chinook a day for all areas.

 

[Rockfish]

An 85cm Chinook will fall into the 16-20 lb class (approx)
With the year over year decline in size, I think it's within reason.
We all complain about the lack of bigger fish, maybe this will help them rebuild ?

Perhaps it could help, but even when we let them past Victoria and Sooke with this and the early season much tighter slot, they still have to be allowed to make it to the spawning beds.

We have been letting the early season big Fraser Chinook spawners past Victoria and Sooke for years now with the very tight early slot.

We were not the major problem to begin with and have more than done our part. If others did theirs, the early runs may possibly have a chance at recovery.

Early Fraser Chinook may be toast and if extinction is their fate, I take some satisfaction in knowing that it will be others who kill the last buffalo, not Victoria and Sooke sport fishers.

 

[SpringVelocity]

I totally agree it is not wise to do any blanket restrictions. Many of us fish other areas not just one

Fully agree with what profisher said. We still aren't adressing the issue on the decline of the salmon.

It also concerns me that if gets really bad we may lose our volunteers at the salmon enhancement creeks and rivers. Almost 90 percent of them are anglers and have done some amazing work.

I don't necessarily agree PSF hasn't done anything. Many projects they have supported have been successful.

The take way here is we must drop 10 years ago thinking when slots rolled in and move on. It has been depressing in the Sooke and Vic areas I know especially. We have to also think about other areas not just ourselves in our immediate areas wherever they are.

 

[ziggy]

I totally agree it is not wise to do any blanket restrictions. Many of us fish other areas not just one

I also fully agree with what profisher said. We still aren't adressing the issue on the decline if the salmon.

I think if you just target certain areas you are in danger of just shifting the fishing pressure. Fishermen are a pretty mobile bunch. If for example fishing becomes too restricted in 19/5 to 18, a lot of people myself included would look at fishing out of Sooke.
Unless of course you can say with some certainty that the fish you are catching in one area are not the ones you are trying to protect in another area, why have different regs along the same fishes migration route. It seems to me a lot of regs are more political than scientific.

 

[SpringVelocity]

I think if you just target certain areas you are in danger of just shifting the fishing pressure. Fishermen are a pretty mobile bunch. If for example fishing becomes too restricted in 19/5 to 18, a lot of people myself included would look at fishing out of Sooke.
Unless of course you can say with some certainty that the fish you are catching in one area are not the ones you are trying to protect in another area, why have different regs along the same fishes migration route. It seems to me a lot of regs are more political than scientific.

I don't necessarily agree with that statement on fishing pressure. We all know south island anglers rarely cross the malahat no offense. If you come down to Sooke it's not like no one goes down there from up island.

The decisions on what areas to close are based on data Ziggy. Georgia straight data is fairly advanced on DNA when knowing what fish are in the system at given time. Maybe it would helped if more DNA was put in place years ago in Sooke and Vic areas. Also we have not a lot of people turning heads in in many areas. If we don't have data then we don't know what fish are in waters at a given time.

Anyway I won't comment more on data side if things. I know Searun and others know more about this than I do.

 

[wildmanyeah]

DNA not very accurate Harrison stock. Considering Harrison stock is basically a put and take fishery made up of quite a few hatcherys. Capilano, Chilliwack, Challis. all use Harrison whites as brood stock now for their hatchery programs. Most of these are unmarked fish. They are also for
Rebuilding programs in other locations like the allouette river where they have yet to be very successful. Kinda a waste of brood stock.

I beleive this is one reason they chose to
Use CWT instead. Lots of other reasons too I’m sure.

Now these bigger fish are gonna be protected for these systems pending they make it though the recreational anglers on these systems and back to the hatchery. Not sure what the hatcheries I’ve mentions do with returns that are not used for brood. Chalis, Chilliwack do have natural spawning area but some still end up at the door step of the hatchery. @Dave could probably comment on this.

 

[ziggy]

I don't necessarily agree with that statement on fishing pressure. We all know south island anglers rarely cross the malahat no offense. If you come down to Sooke it's not like no one goes down there from up island.

The decisions on this are based on data Ziggy. Georgia straight data if fairly advanced on DNA when knowing what fish are in the system at given time. Maybe it would helped if more DNA was pulled years ago in Sooke and Vic areas. Also we have not a lot of people turning heads in. If we don't have data then we don't know what fish are in waters at a given time.

Anyway I won't comment more on data side if things. I know Searun and others know more about this than I do.

Well the example I gave wouldn’t require crossing the Malahat. As I’m sure you are aware 19-5 is just north of Victoria, Saanich Peninsula area 18 is Gulf Islands and Saanich Peninsul,both of which already have a different slot than does 19-4 to 20 and more restrictions as the summer runs start.

Essentially folks living on the North end of the Peninsula fish these areas. My point being if even more restrictions to an area that is already perhaps the most restricted on the coast(certainly one of them),could well convince people to trailer out to Sooke or even take advantage of cheaper mooring and moor there. Or simply take a run up Island.

Not sure why people would not pull boats over the Malahat, given the proposed SRKW areas endorsed by the ecotourism shills and the already very restrictive Spring fishery (understandably to protect the cowichan river approaches), leaves very limited fishing opportunity. Trailering will become a much more desirable option in my opinion. We have been spoiled in having more options than many other have where trailering fairly long distances is simply part of doing business. As you say, you fish more than one area! The Malahat ain’t Everest, people may not want to drive it, but may have to if the want to fish. Just my take on it!

 

[The Jackel]

Well no matter what is rammed down out throats it won't matter as the FN's will net the shiet out of the fraser all in the name of conservation, my butt!!

 

[Fins -n- Skins]

Yesterday at the Sidney derby at the weigh station they were scanning hatchery fish looking for tags,dna samples and keeping most of the heads and guts of all fish to study.. It took along time to process fish but it was worth it to collect data. Again good job Sidney Anglers.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Well no matter what is rammed down out throats it won't matter as the FN's will net the shiet out of the fraser all in the name of conservation, my butt!!

That’s why I don’t think we should fall on our sword. We should take the lest restrictive option. There is no way should an excess of fish is going to make it back to the spawning grounds under the current First Nation fishing plan. Boob Hooton layes that out quite well in his blog.

Call me pessimistic but history has shown any restrictions we take to pass fish they have not worked.

A 25-35 percent reduction won’t mean 25-35 percent more fish spawning it will mean 25%-35% in first nations pokets. You can take that to the bank. Write it in your diary and come back and read it in 10 years.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Well the example I gave wouldn’t require crossing the Malahat. As I’m sure you are aware 19-5 is just north of Victoria, Saanich Peninsula area 18 is Gulf Islands and Saanich Peninsul,both of which already have a different slot than does 19-4 to 20 and more restrictions as the summer runs start.

Essentially folks living on the North end of the Peninsula fish these areas. My point being if even more restrictions to an area that is already perhaps the most restricted on the coast(certainly one of them),could well convince people to trailer out to Sooke or even take advantage of cheaper mooring and moor there. Or simply take a run up Island.

Not sure why people would not pull boats over the Malahat, given the proposed SRKW areas endorsed by the ecotourism shills and the already very restrictive Spring fishery (understandably to protect the cowichan river approaches), leaves very limited fishing opportunity. Trailering will become a much more desirable option in my opinion. We have been spoiled in having more options than many other have where trailering fairly long distances is simply part of doing business. As you say, you fish more than one area! The Malahat ain’t Everest, people may not want to drive it, but may have to if the want to fish. Just my take on it!

I am in area 18 btw

 

[High Time]

Is there any update on what's happening re the SRKW proposal for area 18?

 

[SpringVelocity]

Is there any update on what's happening re the SRKW proposal for area 18?

Not yet as far as I know.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Thought, Harrison River Stock, what % is hatchery?

Lots of hatcherys used this stock!

That’s why I don’t think we should fall on our sword. We should take the lest restrictive option. There is no way should an excess of fish is going to make it back to the spawning grounds under the current First Nation fishing plan. Boob Hooton layes that out quite well in his blog.

Call me pessimistic but history has shown any restrictions we take to pass fish they have not worked.

A 25-35 percent reduction won’t mean 25-35 percent more fish spawning it will mean 25%-35% in first nations pokets. You can take that to the bank. Write it in your diary and come back and read it in 10 years.

 

[spoiler]

Well no matter what is rammed down out throats it won't matter as the FN's will net the shiet out of the fraser all in the name of conservation, my butt!!

exactly right Mr. Jackel! Our buddy Justin is going to pay reconciliation in salmon dollars! Even when there's no legal openings fishing continues by the light of the silvery moon. I have seen it first hand! Too bad there's no funding for additional fisheries patrols although even if there was I think or politicians have told DFO it's "hands off" when it comes to FN's and their fishing!

 

[Whitebuck]

Spoiler....there has been legal Chinook openings since end of March for FN netting on the Fraser. Multiple openings over the last few weeks as well.

 

[Aces]

Well no matter what is rammed down out throats it won't matter as the FN's will net the shiet out of the fraser all in the name of conservation, my butt!!

That's right buddy! I have basically said the same thing so several years. Those fish are doomed if the Feds keep trying to appease the FN with Fraser Chinooks.

Oh, guess i'm being racist now.

 

[Whitebuck]

Wildmanyeah...u know the.brood is taken from hatcheries on the tributary rivers and not taken from wild Harrison stock itself?