Important Chinook Information - Feedback Required

[Stizzla]

I am not quite following your request?! Myself and others have posted Chinook commercial and sport retained numbers...somewhere in the pinniped threads are guestimated numbers and no one has any FN numbers that i am aware of.

Yes please. I would like all those numbers again here please. Just for 2018.

 

[fish brain]

Dear Jeff Grout and Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson



I am writing to express my displeasure with DFO’s proposed changes for this years Coastal BC salmon fishery. I find neither Option A or B attractive, although if faced with having to choose an option I choose option B.

I am saddened that DFO has been content to allow the Coastal herring fishery to be fished into virtual collapse. I remember a time when everyone had a herring rake on their boat, and could expect to see a herring boil almost every trip out fishing, this doesn’t happen anymore. I am appalled that DFO has sat quietly by as enormous environmental damage has ben done to the entire Fraser River system, and that they still allow nets in the river at all. One can easily find numerous examples of the waste this fishery causes every year, yet they sit by and do NOTHING! I am distraught by the damage to our Coastal eel Grass and Kelp beds. Everyone knows that these are vastly important to Juvenile Salmon and important prey species such as Herring, Anchovies, and other small fish species. I am confused by DFO’s continuing lack of support for fish hatcheries and enhancement measures. And now you propose to take the very people who do the important enhancement and restoration work off the water completely? What exactly do you think the effect will be on the salmon when the Recreational Sport Fishers stop the important work DFO refuses to do? How about the endangered SRKW? Removing the Sport community from the water will likely ensure the demise of this important marine animal. In 2014 the rec fishery in Victoria area (Canada's highest ER for Fraser Chinook) was only 6,632 - that's enough Chinook to feed 82 SKRW for exactly 7 Days...hardly a material difference to SRKW recovery if we closed this fishery! How many days of feed are these same enhancement minded sports fishers putting back into the ocean? In case you forgot the Recreational salmon Fishery in BC contributes $330.2 million dollars to the BC Economy, and produces 4600 jobs. This is twice the income and jobs from the commercial sector. What Do you think will happen to communities up and down the coast when the recreational fishers stop spending their money in these communities?

The decision to essentially shut down the rec fishery will do more than take Sports fishers off the water it will literally destroy the fragile economies of several of our smaller coastal towns, while doing absolutely nothing to solve the low Frazer River abundance, and will likely have an overall negative effect for both Salmon and Whales. So once again, I ask you to consider your proposal very carefully before implementing yet another cut to the recreational sports fishery, while doing nothing to solve the underlying problems.

Clearly the repeated cuts to the recreational sector are going to have devastating consequences up and down the coast to salmon, the whales and the economy. How about stopping cutting the people who are trying to help, and work with us on enhancement and rehabilitation.

 

[Saxe Point]

@Saxe Point thank you for your perspective on this. I am trying to understand something about it though. Do you think either option for us is going to stronglychange the downward trend of Chinook stocks?

I would really appreciate it if a numbers guy could post some tangable numbers so in an get behind how much damage we are doing. That means each of the following groups:

-Recreational
-Commercial
-FN river nets
-pinnipeds

I’m guessing we are in a WAY distant third in total numbers, Only ahead of FN. but keep in mind they are a much smaller group of people and those are all quality mature spawning fish. Am I wrong?

As I said in a post I made in another thread, the numbers (as I understand them, which could be incorrect) don't suggest that overfishing is the major cause of the problem. Here's what I said:

"As I have not studied these issues in depth, I don't purport to understand them very well. However, there is one statistic which is overwhelmingly the most troubling to me, because it clearly points out what we know, namely that that there are many things beyond catching fish (commercially, for sport or for FSC First Nation purposes) that are destroying Chinook salmon populations. The statistic is this one: total fishery mortalities [from fishing] are 16.9% with remaining 83.1% of run going to spawning grounds. Unless, I am mistaken, this suggests it is not overfishing that is the principal cause, or even any cause at all, for this huge decline in the salmon numbers over the last decade or so.

This means that the salmon are not reproducing and/or dying in the ocean without ever being caught by fisherman at rates that will see their permanent demise unless we find out why and do something about if we can. Habitat loss, ocean warming due to climate change, and pollution generally may be the largest reasons for this and if so, I fear that our beloved Chinook are doomed."​

So whether they are dying in the rivers or the oceans, fish harvesting seems to not the main cause for the decline. I also base this on what accepted science seems to say: pollution and global warming are responsible for habitat loss and ocean warming (which is really a form of habitat loss) and less survivability in fresh and saltwater.

Now this is an inference I am drawing based on the fact that 83% of the runs make it to the spawning beds. But this could be wrong because perhaps a much larger number (95%) making it to the spawning beds will reverse the decline or even increase populations. And this prompts one to ask why more aren't getting to the spawning beds. Is it fishing, seal predation, environmental degradation (or even other reasons)? Probably a combination of all three; the big and interesting question is which is the largest cause? I don't know and I'm not sure if fisheries experts and scientists can say this. If too much fishing is the problem, then doing less (maybe a lot less) is the easy solution. But I don't think so, unless taking 17% of the potential spawners is enough to cause the population to continue to spiral downward.

 

[Stizzla]

The copy and paste function works great for everyone...anyone can do the work, it's already been posted in this site. Google is everyone's friend too.

Does anybody else want to please post these numbers? Not looking for riddle me these questions three right now

 

[wildmanyeah]

Does anybody else want to please post these numbers? Not looking for riddle me these questions three right now

Your going to have to put me on the payroll

https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...ment-actions-updated.73524/page-9#post-916726

 

[Stizzla]

As I said in a post I made in another thread, the numbers (as I understand them, which could be incorrect) don't suggest that overfishing is the major cause of the problem. Here's what I said:

"As I have not studied these issues in depth, I don't purport to understand them very well. However, there is one statistic which is overwhelmingly the most troubling to me, because it clearly points out what we know, namely that that there are many things beyond catching fish (commercially, for sport or for FSC First Nation purposes) that are destroying Chinook salmon populations. The statistic is this one: total fishery mortalities [from fishing] are 16.9% with remaining 83.1% of run going to spawning grounds. Unless, I am mistaken, this suggests it is not overfishing that is the principal cause, or even any cause at all, for this huge decline in the salmon numbers over the last decade or so.

This means that the salmon are not reproducing and/or dying in the ocean without ever being caught by fisherman at rates that will see their permanent demise unless we find out why and do something about if we can. Habitat loss, ocean warming due to climate change, and pollution generally may be the largest reasons for this and if so, I fear that our beloved Chinook are doomed."​

So whether they are dying in the rivers or the oceans, fish harvesting seems to not the main cause for the decline. I also base this on what accepted science seems to say: pollution and global warming are responsible for habitat loss and ocean warming (which is really a form of habitat loss) and less survivability in fresh and saltwater.

Now this is an inference I am drawing based on the fact that 83% of the runs make it to the spawning beds. But this could be wrong because perhaps a much larger number (95%) making it to the spawning beds will reverse the decline or even increase populations. And this prompts one to ask why more aren't getting to the spawning beds. Is it fishing, seal predation, environmental degradation (or even other reasons)? Probably a combination of all three; the big and interesting question is which is the largest cause? I don't know and I'm not sure if fisheries experts and scientists can say this. If too much fishing is the problem, then doing less (maybe a lot less) is the easy solution. But I don't think so, unless taking 17% of the potential spawners is enough to cause the population to continue to spiral downward.

I hear that. It’s pinnipeds man. They are why Chinook die. They got eaten by pinnipeds. One of my questions asked is how much of the salmon is it? Do we know how many pinninped there are in these waters? Do we know how much they eat in a day? I have a multiplication function on my phone that will answer a lot of questions.

 

[walleyes]

Classy reply!

Hope your employed downstream of this industry some how and will be effected by being unemployed when we do leave!

I don’t think some people realize the effect this is going to have on all sectors of business on the island. Guide business are going to be done! Lodges boarded up and closed,hotels restaurants and marinas empty!

I spoke to the manager of where I stay every year and he is very worried! They have had cancelations calling almost every day!

Next time you make a remark like you did, think of what the big picture is!

Mah don’t let it bother you tidal shot,, the man is obviously clueless to the raminfications of all this and a selfish human being. He thinks if visitors quit coming there will be more fish for him. Doesn’t realize those of us that travel there probly take very little out of those waters in the end so if we quit coming all that happens is they lose our revenue plus we all still lose the fishing, it’s a lose lose no matter what happens.

I’ll tell you what though, comments like that make it hard to throw any support behind them to help save those livelihoods doesn’t it. I mean we can always book a month later, we can always book in an area that stays open we aren’t locked in to going to the island we are mobile it’s the ones that live there that need this more than we do.

 

[Stizzla]

Mah don’t let it bother you tidal shot,, the man is obviously clueless to the raminfications of all this and a selfish human being. He thinks if visitors quit coming there will be more fish for him. Doesn’t realize those of us that travel there probly take very little out of those waters in the end so if we quit coming all that happens is they lose our revenue plus we all still lose the fishing, it’s a lose lose no matter what happens.

I’ll tell you what though, comments like that make it hard to throw any support behind them to help save those livelihoods doesn’t it. I mean we can always book a month later, we can always book in an area that stays open we aren’t locked in to going to the island we are mobile it’s the ones that live there that need this more than we do.

Please don’t think all island guys feel that way. Please man, love having you guys here to enjoy our beautiful part of the world! Really.

 

[dmurph]

Man j

Hey everyone...while we understand emotions are raw, let's stay focused on the big issue here and support the cause as opposed to reducing the thread to a messy bunch of posts that serve no purpose. Trying to be funny and sarcastic in threads like this that are deeply personal to most of our members doesn't really work as witnessed by the responses above. I just spoke to a long time friend who has been involved in the industry for over 30 years who has decided this is the last straw and is selling now. He has introduced so many people to the pure joy associated with fishing on our coast and, not of his own desire, he is being forced out of the passion and life he has carved for himself. It literally made me feel sick inside to hear his voice as he told me. Unfortunately, his is just one of many stories up and down the coast.

Brian

man, just reading your post makes me feel sick, and I don’t even know the person. Sorry to hear. Hope things take a turn for the better

 

[walleyes]

British Columbia is not an Island. The issue that we all face as recreational anglers is coast wide and will continue to be so. I don't care about my job more than I care about the fish. I can do what ever I feel like for work. I am not limited to working within an area of my passion like we see in some mindsets. My boss always says change with the circumstance be a chameleon in business. The issue is clearly about the fish. Keep focused and put fish first. Without the product(fish), there is no byproduct(food or hobby).

I agree it’s about the fish. But again we that visit there can sit this out for a few years until and hopefully stocks come back, how many businesses can make it that long, probably not many. As concerned as I am about the stocks I have to admit I’m equally as concerned about the people and their livelihoods.

I have written my letters and will try and help where it’s needed because I care as much about the people as I do the fish for myself to catch. Trust me we all know out here what it’s like to lose your jobs and businesses because of government failures and laws made on misinformation and the popular trend of the day.

 

[chris73]

Our recreational fishery will change, for sure. The days of the meat fishermen are gone. Gone will be the tourists to this coast that calculate the number of fish bagged against their expenses. A number of guides and lodges that mainly catered to those will close shop. It is sad that it has come to this because it didn't need to . The bounty of this coast was staggering but no longer. But I am sure a differently focused recreational fishery will survive. Taking a fish home for dinner will become something very special, no more freezers and coolers filled out of fish camps. Enjoying the scenery, the camradery and the lure of tricking a nice fish to bite will still draw thousands on the water. C&R ethics will drastically improve, have to, and the sport will be the focus of fishing. I am ok with that from a technical perspective. We were never big fish eaters so I never took much fish home anyway. I still invested large sums because I love the sport. And when I look at the trout fishery in Montana for instance with all the infrastructure and economic benefits from a purely C&R fishery then I am not worried that this coast has to close shop because of such a shift in the fishery. What troubles me just as much as many of you is that even such fundamental shift in our rec fishery will not reverse the trend. Montana's fly fisher enjoy healthy trout populations that can coexist with the existing C&R fishery. We have not found our new and stable equilibrium. Not by a long shot and the downward trend continues.

 

[ziggy]

It doesn't matter one way or the other Sport and Commercial don't have that option...it's not our choice, or an option. FN have priority access and that won't change ever. What we will get is what FN and Canada in Nation to Nation negotiations agree upon. Canada's share will be split between Sport and Commercial sectors. We had an opportunity ten years ago to work on things before it went in this direction. I warned of it - no one cared back then. It is what it is.

First Nations priority only takes affect after conservation requirements have been met. This Is often overlooked, but also non negotiable.

 

[paguy]

Now you guys know what your Washington neighbors have been dealing with for the last twenty five years. I feel your pain, Really I do.

 

[Peahead]

With respect, I say that this misses the point and is not a solution. As I said, "The rest of what's going on is just fighting over who gets the last salmon."

We should focus on making sure we don't get there.

If we have really reached this point, why is it always the REC guys that take the hit. Why are all sectors not cut back evenly. All I see is the REC sector being wiped out then the commies and then FN.

I actually agree to a point but it is a complicated and political. The problem is that as numbers get closer to conservation needs, the rec sector is cut and the FN still fish. The commercial sector on Chinook comes after the rec sector so that means we are fishing when the commercial fleet are not. Sectors being cut evenly is not how it works. FN sector take president over rec sector despite how little the rec sector exploitaion is each year and this is where I think many feel the pain and frustration. As the chinook numbers drop and drop the FN increase their pressure on government each year to close the rec sector and leave any 'surplus' to them. I honestly believe the gradual demise of recreational fishing as we know it is due in big part to the incompentancy by DFO to manage and protect our stocks but also as stocks decline, there is constant pressure by FN in exercising their rights to anything that is left.

Shutting down the rec sector WILL NOT SAVE OUR CHINOOK however if there is only enough for FN and conservation ( and now SRKW too) then we will be stopped despite everything else or how little we take. Brian Riddell of the PSF has said we have cut the rec exploitation on Chinook by approx 75% since the eighties ( I think was the number) and suggests cutting the rec sector any more is not the answer to bringing back those stocks of concern. Hopefully the future brings a fisheries department with greater efficiency ( and not one that only knows how to manage by cutting rec sector ) and a much more selective and sustainable FN fishery in the river. Rebuilding stocks and improved ocean survival are needed otherwise no matter who you are, you are seeing the last of the remaining stocks.

 

[wildmanyeah]

First Nations priority only takes affect after conservation requirements have been met. This Is often overlooked, but also non negotiable.

Not sure if this is actually been tested in court, Yes the supreme court decision did say conservation is suppose to come first I believe they left that interpretation of what that means to DFO. Not only that but we also have a process to override conservation concerns. This is called the social and economic impact clause. ITs been used for lots of now extinct salmon runs and endangered runs (cultus lake sockeye and others, probably hundreds of small steelhead stocks too at this point).

Now the question is say what would happen if someone decided to challenge that in court? that conservation must come first? that would be interesting,

Surrley being listed in SARA as endangered is a conservation concern, and DFO responsibility is to conservation first

That's a rabbit hole that no one may want to go down, that may result in DFO closing all fishing down and perhaps having to pay first nations millions in compensation.

 

[Saxe Point]

Our recreational fishery will change, for sure. The days of the meat fishermen are gone. Gone will be the tourists to this coast that calculate the number of fish bagged against their expenses. A number of guides and lodges that mainly catered to those will close shop. It is sad that it has come to this because it didn't need to . The bounty of this coast was staggering but no longer. But I am sure a differently focused recreational fishery will survive. Taking a fish home for dinner will become something very special, no more freezers and coolers filled out of fish camps. Enjoying the scenery, the camradery and the lure of tricking a nice fish to bite will still draw thousands on the water. C&R ethics will drastically improve, have to, and the sport will be the focus of fishing. I am ok with that from a technical perspective. We were never big fish eaters so I never took much fish home anyway. I still invested large sums because I love the sport. And when I look at the trout fishery in Montana for instance with all the infrastructure and economic benefits from a purely C&R fishery then I am not worried that this coast has to close shop because of such a shift in the fishery. What troubles me just as much as many of you is that even such fundamental shift in our rec fishery will not reverse the trend. Montana's fly fisher enjoy healthy trout populations that can coexist with the existing C&R fishery. We have not found our new and stable equilibrium. Not by a long shot and the downward trend continues.

I agree 100%. I've said the same stuff, he's just said it more articulately and eloquently!

 

[dmurph]

I’d hate to see any sector shut down and have people lose jobs or traditions that are sacred to them, but at least with sportfishing any citizen can purchase a license and have a shot at catching a salmon. Doesn’t go the other way around though if there are only FN or commercial fisheries. For this reason I feel sportfishing should take precedence as it allows any person with a license a chance to fish

 

[walleyes]

It’s going to get rough before it gets better.

 

[california]

Totally agree, but the REC sector gives so much more then the other 2 back to the resource , but we take the biggest hit. All I see is we keep getting a smaller piece of the pie and the others taking a larger piece.

I think its pretty hard to say the Commericial guys aren't taking a hit on Chinook. Option A or B is the same for WCVI trollers - Closed until August 1, and Option B only gives an additional week for Northern Trollers, season not starting starting until well into July.

I guess if Option A were implemented, (which I don't believe it will be), Barkley, Nootka, Esperanza and Kyuquot will all all be chock full of fisherman! The last places accessible by road to fish and still keep some.

 

[fishin solo]

This is an incorrect statement. Many habitat restoration projects are funded by government and other fundraising groups from many sectors. There are numerous projects happening that are partner projects and others that are completed by individual sectors and volunteers from various areas of expertise. FN communities are huge in this area right now. Do some research to see and know.

first nations habitat rehabilitation - Our friend Google
About 8,460,000 results (0.49 seconds)

https://www.google.com/search?ei=FU...4......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.k0uuR_srQME

I think if your gonna talk how highly fn help you should also talk about how they are the biggest group to exploit the resource and take advantage of it. That’s a big piece of the pie especially on the Fraser. If you think the FN reporting numbers are even close to what they say well I have a bridge id like to sell you. Come over here rob and check it out for yourself spring and summer