Skeena River trap Project, By Bob Hooton
- Thread starter OldBlackDog
- Start date
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
A true WTF moment here...
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
the comments of FB are even more entertaining
Spring Time in Vienna
Active Member
I don't quite get the argument here. As far as I'm concerned why not try fish traps? If they end up getting Gill Nets out of even a single river (or part of) than it's a win for me. Government pisses so much money into the wind at least in this case it's pointed in the direction of progress on selective fishing by FN.
I'm supportive of fish traps when/where they work.
But ALL fishing gear types - both active & passive - have strengths/weaknesses. AND places where they work well - and places where they don't.
It is extremely naïve to expect any 1 type of fishing methodology to solve all the myriad of problems in any watershed.
It is also extremely naïve to expect any and all watersheds to be the same - and to have the exact same mix of problems that either the Skeena or Fraser have - AND that only a fish trap will solve them.
But ALL fishing gear types - both active & passive - have strengths/weaknesses. AND places where they work well - and places where they don't.
It is extremely naïve to expect any 1 type of fishing methodology to solve all the myriad of problems in any watershed.
It is also extremely naïve to expect any and all watersheds to be the same - and to have the exact same mix of problems that either the Skeena or Fraser have - AND that only a fish trap will solve them.
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
I agree that fish traps are not the only answer to solve the complex and numerous problems facing wild salmon populations in BC. However, where they would make sense it may be good to have more of them to promote more selective harvesting to better protect species and runs of concern.
If they can reduce the number of nets stretched from one side of the river to the next that indiscriminately kill multiple species at a time I say it is high time to properly investigate to see if we can use more fish traps. My 2 bits.
If they can reduce the number of nets stretched from one side of the river to the next that indiscriminately kill multiple species at a time I say it is high time to properly investigate to see if we can use more fish traps. My 2 bits.
Last edited:
I think many inexperienced people want to see easy and simple answers, WitW:
There's
* many large-scale and localized environmental variables; including inriver habitat, riparian impacts, turbidity, water quality & water withdrawals,
different watershed sizes and dynamics, including access to anadromous species - or not,
* different sizes, species & life history stages and migratory routes of fish - each with their own needs and ways to capture them that may or may not work,
* many different agencies involved in regulating some of these numerous impacts,
* different fisheries management regimes between watersheds with only a few with inseason management - or none at all,
* many different ways to capture fish including both active & passive methods, including fixed and mobile gear - ALL with their strengths & weaknesses and places they can or can't be used. All and each have their installation, operating & maintenance costs, as well.
Fish traps are but only 1 way to capture fish out of dozens. And they have their very specific requirements about where they can be used. Fish wheels, likewise. Nets - both passive & active, likewise. Hooks & set gear, likewise. Electrofishing, likewise.
And nobody has yet to suggest how numerous communities with fishing fleets and other fish capture methods would transition & divide up fish caught in any such trap that like would be many km downstream or down the coast from each community - and how they would compensate their individual fishermen for giving up their livelihoods into some yet undetermined and unproven communal hand-out (after operating costs are taken out). And who gets to own the trap & the operating/maintenance costs and liabilities?
And that's another big highly unlikely unspoken assumption - that the numerous communities & their many fishermen both need and want this switch.
And it is highly unlikely that all communities on any river would be able to access and use fish traps. Fish traps (with piles) only work in low-gradient, soft sediment stretches where the sediment is some feet thick, and there isn't too much current. Fish wheels, on the other hand - only work in narrow canyons with bubbles/turbidity.
And then there is the bycatch issue. Many smaller watersheds on the coast have very clean runs of fish with minimal bycatch and no risks to any weak stocks. Not every watershed is as large and complicated as the Skeena or worse - the Fraser wrt weak stock management. Only naïve & inexperienced people wouldn't catch those differences.
Like I posted earlier - It is extremely naïve to expect any 1 type of fishing methodology to solve all the myriad of problems in any watershed.
But as long as any fisheries consultant is getting his fees to promote any asserted silver bullet - they will keep making that claim. I call that taking advantage of people's inexperience & ignorance.
There's
* many large-scale and localized environmental variables; including inriver habitat, riparian impacts, turbidity, water quality & water withdrawals,
different watershed sizes and dynamics, including access to anadromous species - or not,
* different sizes, species & life history stages and migratory routes of fish - each with their own needs and ways to capture them that may or may not work,
* many different agencies involved in regulating some of these numerous impacts,
* different fisheries management regimes between watersheds with only a few with inseason management - or none at all,
* many different ways to capture fish including both active & passive methods, including fixed and mobile gear - ALL with their strengths & weaknesses and places they can or can't be used. All and each have their installation, operating & maintenance costs, as well.
Fish traps are but only 1 way to capture fish out of dozens. And they have their very specific requirements about where they can be used. Fish wheels, likewise. Nets - both passive & active, likewise. Hooks & set gear, likewise. Electrofishing, likewise.
And nobody has yet to suggest how numerous communities with fishing fleets and other fish capture methods would transition & divide up fish caught in any such trap that like would be many km downstream or down the coast from each community - and how they would compensate their individual fishermen for giving up their livelihoods into some yet undetermined and unproven communal hand-out (after operating costs are taken out). And who gets to own the trap & the operating/maintenance costs and liabilities?
And that's another big highly unlikely unspoken assumption - that the numerous communities & their many fishermen both need and want this switch.
And it is highly unlikely that all communities on any river would be able to access and use fish traps. Fish traps (with piles) only work in low-gradient, soft sediment stretches where the sediment is some feet thick, and there isn't too much current. Fish wheels, on the other hand - only work in narrow canyons with bubbles/turbidity.
And then there is the bycatch issue. Many smaller watersheds on the coast have very clean runs of fish with minimal bycatch and no risks to any weak stocks. Not every watershed is as large and complicated as the Skeena or worse - the Fraser wrt weak stock management. Only naïve & inexperienced people wouldn't catch those differences.
Like I posted earlier - It is extremely naïve to expect any 1 type of fishing methodology to solve all the myriad of problems in any watershed.
But as long as any fisheries consultant is getting his fees to promote any asserted silver bullet - they will keep making that claim. I call that taking advantage of people's inexperience & ignorance.
Last edited:
And the way to find the most effective management option(s) is to look at what used to be called "bottlenecks", but is now renamed the "Likely Suspects Framework" https://yearofthesalmon.org/lsf/
What one does is look at the very long list of impacts - some of which are unknown - and try to prioritize the most important and most critical impacts & their potential management actions/responses. This is usually done by watershed & species. And simultaneously we knock off the actions that have been proven ineffective - or are likely to be.
Then look at what ones we can control & prioritize what changes/treatments we can afford. A cost/benefit analysis.
Then we tailor in a directed smaller-scale pilot project onto the most likely "suspect", and collect the data - and tweak as necessary. Then maybe expand the project if it is successful, or change it if not.
This iterative process was recently done extremely professionally on the eelgrass project in Howe Sound: https://ocean.org/app/uploads/2022/03/OceanWatch-HoweSoundReport2020-online.pdf
The one thing we should NEVER do is to take what is sold to us as an asserted silver bullet and then try to back engineer & change the problem to fit the asserted desired solution. That NEVER works - but it makes for a good political & sometimes financial soundbite. Many predatory ENGOs function that way.
So do some less-than-professional & less-than-truthful fisheries consultants.
What one does is look at the very long list of impacts - some of which are unknown - and try to prioritize the most important and most critical impacts & their potential management actions/responses. This is usually done by watershed & species. And simultaneously we knock off the actions that have been proven ineffective - or are likely to be.
Then look at what ones we can control & prioritize what changes/treatments we can afford. A cost/benefit analysis.
Then we tailor in a directed smaller-scale pilot project onto the most likely "suspect", and collect the data - and tweak as necessary. Then maybe expand the project if it is successful, or change it if not.
This iterative process was recently done extremely professionally on the eelgrass project in Howe Sound: https://ocean.org/app/uploads/2022/03/OceanWatch-HoweSoundReport2020-online.pdf
The one thing we should NEVER do is to take what is sold to us as an asserted silver bullet and then try to back engineer & change the problem to fit the asserted desired solution. That NEVER works - but it makes for a good political & sometimes financial soundbite. Many predatory ENGOs function that way.
So do some less-than-professional & less-than-truthful fisheries consultants.
Last edited:
And we have some concrete examples of how the most recent added sections (Fish Stock Provisions) within the newest Fisheries Act will push us in that direction with rebuilding plans that start with Risk Assessments. Those have been done for the salmon species also under SARA: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/reports-rapports/regs/sff-cpd/guidelines-lignes-directrices-eng.htm
But implementation & monies for implementation are always a challenge.
But implementation & monies for implementation are always a challenge.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
