I guess so based on your logic.
From fishery science to fake news: how ocean misinformation evolves
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I take that is yes.
To the best of my knowledge "drop-off-mortality" is currently used to mange fish stocks, and to the best of my knowledge without intervention from outside govt.Oh here comes the whale argument OMG. I know attitudes like ours are terrible.I feel ashamed for making fish stocks crash by taking my family out fishing, and releasing fish. My bad.
You see this is perfect example of misinformation, and you two are proving by your last two posts. Big statements with no data just personal opinions. Sorry we can't manage fish stocks like that.
Actually down here in WA C&R - only seasons ARE SHUT DOWN as they should be.
I'll proudly continue to be part of the solution versus part of the problem.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
yep we get that's the goal
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Yep proudly accomplishing nothing, but have at it.
From what I read from most on this site, the primary concern is catching and bringing fish home. Very few actually advocate for the fish … I find it ironic most here believe fish farms are killing wild salmon, and pinnipeds are killing upper Fraser chinook smolts and Thompson River steelhead smolts, even when there is no measurable data to confirm this, but don’t believe c&r and drop off mortality is a problem to endangered fish stocks. It seems like a very selective agenda.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
Maybe most folks on here are supportive fishing because this is a sports fishing forum? Should be no surprise about this.
The Public fishery is always an easy target to attack because we don't need to be able to catch a fish for the social and cultural enjoyment or to feed ourselves anymore right?
Most public/rec fishers do realize it is ultimately all about the fish i.e. no fish = no fishing. So it is important to remember that the rec/sports or public fishery sector is one of the largest and most active groups for fish habitat restoration, conservation, recovery projects and conservation advocacy that exist across North America. The concept behind this is simple - if you take something out of nature, you need to put something back to help make it more sustainable.
If it was not for the countless hours of hundreds of community based volunteer groups our fisheries would be in much worse shape because of the impact of ALL the fishing sectors actions and many environmental issues, not just the public fishery.
Last edited:
and the drop-off mortality (which also happens from other fisheries) likely feeds the seals, too.
And good points about the volunteers, WitW. Back in the days of the Forest/Fisheries Renewal and HRSEP, those organizations and projects were way more supported and organized. Too good to last, apparently. Because fish get in the way of "progress", as defined by "externalizing" costs so that shareholders receive more dividends.
And good points about the volunteers, WitW. Back in the days of the Forest/Fisheries Renewal and HRSEP, those organizations and projects were way more supported and organized. Too good to last, apparently. Because fish get in the way of "progress", as defined by "externalizing" costs so that shareholders receive more dividends.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
As far as i'm aware most of our fisheries are managed based on in season or postseason reviews of exploitation rate. IF the public fishery was assigned a higher C&R figure, than the calculations of our exploitation rate would increase in the modeling. If that exploration rate was seen as too high than DFO would respond with more closures.
BUTTT we are not last in line.... So we get pegged with a higher exploitation rate say the goal was to keep sport fishermen at 1% and FN to 4% of an at risk stock. So more fish make it past the hook and line to the river. Oh look a high than expected return in river time to give a few more net openings.
I not seeing the benefit to the fish???? Still a 5% assigned exploitation rate.
BUTTT we are not last in line.... So we get pegged with a higher exploitation rate say the goal was to keep sport fishermen at 1% and FN to 4% of an at risk stock. So more fish make it past the hook and line to the river. Oh look a high than expected return in river time to give a few more net openings.
I not seeing the benefit to the fish???? Still a 5% assigned exploitation rate.
I think the point is while people advocate for fishing,
Thanks Dave, one of the best posts I've read in these sort of discussions. It's important for all anglers to recognize when to put the well being of the fish ( and their environment) before our self interest.
Actually what really affects TACs in watersheds that are managed through TACs and run size estimates - are changes in the run size estimates. Estimates of sportsfishing are largely forensic and happen long after the fish get through the fisheries. The run size estimates on the other hand can change reasonably quickly and have the largest effect on apportioning TACs. Any change in run size estimates typically occur after the middle of the run passes whatever escapement estimates are available (DIDSON, cameras, visual, test fishery, etc.) and that "peak" is usually based on historic run timing. And there are plenty of watersheds that have no in-season run size estimates, and are also not managed by TACs broken onto different fisheries. Altho some do - but many ocean fisheries (esp. sports-fisheries) that intercept mixed stocks have no DNA samples to determine watershed of origin from Alaska, South.
And that was a good post, Dave - agreed Ralph.
And that was a good post, Dave - agreed Ralph.
Believe it or not this subject is a lot broader than what happens to Fraser fish. Many Chinook caught in lower BC are Puget Sound Chinook with every run (13 or so) on the US Endangered Species List. Historically, many more are caught in BC than in WA. It is legal under the Salmon Treaty. The FN catch on the Fraser is legal as well. As pointed out by Dave & Ralph, there seems to be a pattern on hipocracy here.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
well Atlest your agenda on here is more clear now you would like to see Canadian fishers shut down so more fish get pasted to your USA fisheries. Your motives were always kinda blurry on this but it’s pretty clear that’s why you come on this site to lobby for.
that’s right guys fishing right now in Howe sound Eric would like to see it shut down because you catch to many of his fish.
Last edited:
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Lot of greed on this thread, and it's really showing. Disgruntled river anglers, and US anglers siding with NGO's to shut down the fishery because they're areas closed. How does that help fish recovery?
How does hours of meeting haggling on fishing mortality and burning up DFO time help fish recovery? I would love to see what the dollar value is?
What we should be doing is working together and not against, but yet these comments show how far apart we all are. It's actually really disappointing to be honest.
How does hours of meeting haggling on fishing mortality and burning up DFO time help fish recovery? I would love to see what the dollar value is?
What we should be doing is working together and not against, but yet these comments show how far apart we all are. It's actually really disappointing to be honest.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
its certainly depressing to those of us who have spend countless hours fighting to keep our acess alive to read some of these comments.
This is from Fishing with Rod, a link to what might be an interesting discussion. It happens tonight.
Tomorrow evening I will be showing a presentation made by Steve Johnston from UBC's Pacific Salmon Ecology and Conservation Lab back in early February. It's about his ongoing study on post-release mortality of chinook salmon in saltwater around BC. The presentation is about 45 minutes long, with plenty of interesting background info and fascinating findings. The video starts at 7:30pm and Steve will be joining in the live chat to answer your questions while the presentation is shown.
I can easily see your logic, but for the most part it is untrue. In the last 25 years I have fished in WA twice; both times in the Ocean not Puget Sound. I just used the PS Chinook and FN gill nets as an example of fisheries that are legal, but not good for wild fish recovery. IMO the list of such fisheries is much longer that the list of fisheries that support recovery.
Right now the main population bottleneck for endangered Puget Sound Chinook is habitat; so any catch reduction in southern BC of PS Chinook would be unlikely to affect what fishing down here.
Similar threads
