trawler bycatch data


" B.C. groundfish trawl fleet caught more than 28,000 salmon as bycatch over a single fishing season"

Quite startling considering that nearly matches the entire Area G Troll annual quota.

I believe the focus on "feeding the whales" to be a misnomer in this case however.

The actual focus should be reducing that bycatch to nothing, or getting the damn draggers off the water permanently.

Cheers
 
And you can thank the SFAB for bringing this issue to light and demanding that DFO require the trawl fleet to land all by-catch so it can be accounted for (rather than dumped over the side) and DNA sampling take place to measure the impact these fisheries were having on Chinook stocks of concern.

The purpose being to assemble data on where/when and which chinook stocks are being encountered to help the fishery implement changes to locations and timing where Chinook stocks of concern were encountered in their fishery.

This is a similar management approach as is practiced by DFO when managing the recreational and commercial troll fleets. If we are serious about recovering weak stocks of Fraser Chinook every fishery (including ground fish) must be playing from the same play book IMO.
 
yeah it doubled
Because previously it was only an estimate. We noticed when reviewing by-catch data reported internationally that the US had detailed accurate data by salmon species. Digging into it discovered that Canada allowed the GF fleet to dump by-catch and just provided standard year over year "estimates" of salmon bycatch. We brought this forward within the SFAB process, developing motions to suggest reasonable amendments to how DFO practiced managing/accounting for salmon by-catch. Our interest isn't to stop GF fisheries, rather to seek improvements in management practices to reduce impacts to Chinook stocks of concern to help all of us recover these stocks and eventually return to our former fishery opportunities which have been closed now for some time.

So that explains how the data suddenly doubled, and you may have also noticed that some GF fisheries have been suspended or moved from areas where there are high encounters of Chinook - which going forward is a responsible way for our GF fleet to fish sustainably while protecting Chinook stocks of concern.
 
Be careful what you wish for! If the sport fishery was properly monitored with all the undersized fish encounters being accurately reported, and the abysmal release techniques factored in, you might not be happy with the DFO response.
As far as I can see, sportfishing data is also a bit like throwing a dart at the dartboard and cherry picking the data (estimate) that fits the narrative.
 
Last edited:
Because previously it was only an estimate. We noticed when reviewing by-catch data reported internationally that the US had detailed accurate data by salmon species. Digging into it discovered that Canada allowed the GF fleet to dump by-catch and just provided standard year over year "estimates" of salmon bycatch. We brought this forward within the SFAB process, developing motions to suggest reasonable amendments to how DFO practiced managing/accounting for salmon by-catch. Our interest isn't to stop GF fisheries, rather to seek improvements in management practices to reduce impacts to Chinook stocks of concern to help all of us recover these stocks and eventually return to our former fishery opportunities which have been closed now for some time.

So that explains how the data suddenly doubled, and you may have also noticed that some GF fisheries have been suspended or moved from areas where there are high encounters of Chinook - which going forward is a responsible way for our GF fleet to fish sustainably while protecting Chinook stocks of concern.
No mystery why the US fleet has reasonably accurate data for by-catch in its groundfish fisheries: 100% mandatory observer coverage.

It would be similar to having mandatory observer coverage in First Nation in-river gill net fisheries: The incidental catch of Steelhead during their FSC sockeye and chum fisheries would increase from the zero they report to DFO to a factor of many, many hundreds

To paraphrase Samuel Clements, man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to…
 
Be careful what you wish for! If the sport fishery was properly monitored with all the undersized fish encounters being accurately reported, and the abysmal release techniques factored in, you might not be happy with the DFO response.
As far as I can see, sportfishing data is also a bit like throwing a dart at the dartboard and cherry picking the data (estimate) that fits the narrative.
So how would you go about accomplishing that with 300,000 license holders that is an enhancement to the current approach DFO employs? In other words, what would you change in the current DFO approach to catch monitoring? Recreational catch monitoring modernization is a priority the SFAB has consistently pressed DFO on. Always interested in hearing practical modernization enhancements that could be advanced to DFO.

Maybe a topic worthy of its own thread to explore ideas.
 
So how would you go about accomplishing that with 300,000 license holders that is an enhancement to the current approach DFO employs? In other words, what would you change in the current DFO approach to catch monitoring? Recreational catch monitoring modernization is a priority the SFAB has consistently pressed DFO on. Always interested in hearing practical modernization enhancements that could be advanced to DFO.

Maybe a topic worthy of its own thread to explore ideas.
As far as I can tell the bulk of DFO's data is based on accurate self reporting by anglers (creel surveys, DFO online surveys, and license date). We have seen how well that has worked in the commercial sector hence the observer/camera options now in place for most commercial fishing sectors.
How could that be corrected in the sport fishing sector?
Well, DFO could select a few people to install camera/cameras ( or take on an observer ) on their boats to accurately count the actual number of fish caught, released, etc etc, instead of relying on self reporting. DFO could take high hour fishers, such as select guides, to get this data. Refuse to participate, your guide license is suspended.
Then the data could be extrapolated to cover the 300,000 licenses.
DFO could also get rid of the ability to print and subsequently replace your own self reporting licenses.
These are just a couple of simple things that could be done. I am certain DFO could come up with more.
Do you really want DFO to explore these, or similar options?????
 
How much non paid DNA and logbook data does the commercial sector collect out of curiosity?

Also how accurate are the logbook on commercial side? Pretty sure ours is fairly accurate.

I am just asking because there are great deal of guides and also regular anglers like me that provide this data to DFO. Both logbook and DNA. We collect at as volunteers. Don't do it to make money.
 
Last edited:
DNA samples are collected at the dock. Some lucky boats get selected and need to keep every head from every marked fish. Logbooks are NOT particularly accurate, in fact, I would say, mostly BS other than what is caught and kept, (we learned the hard way that information given to DFO, can, and will be used against you, to close areas and shorten seasons). All kept fish are then counted and verified by JL Thomas at the dock, at the expense of the boat owner.
Some of the troll fleets data is accurate, some is NOT. I am not sure if the observer program is still in place for the troll fleet but we did, on occasion, have to take independent observers. I am actually surprised DFO has not made cameras mandatory on all trollers. I guess, from DFO's point of view, there are so few trollers left, and that number continues to decline, that get so little time on the water, that eventually they will achieve the unspoken goal of having zero, non FN, trollers in BC waters.
Good luck on data collection once the whole troll fleet has been reallocated to FN.
 
Last edited:
DNA samples are collected at the dock. Some lucky boats get selected and need to keep every head from every marked fish. Logbooks are NOT particularly accurate, in fact, I would say, mostly BS other than what is caught and kept, (we learned the hard way that information given to DFO, can, and will be used against you, to close areas and shorten seasons). All kept fish are then counted and verified by JL Thomas at the dock, at the expense of the boat owner.
Some of the troll fleets data is accurate, some is NOT. I am not sure if the observer program is still in place for the troll fleet but we did, on occasion, have to take independent observers. I am actually surprised DFO has not made cameras mandatory on all trollers. I guess, from DFO's point of view, there are so few trollers left, and that number continues to decline, that get so little time on the water, that eventually they will achieve the unspoken goal of having zero, non FN, trollers in BC waters.
Good luck on data collection once the whole troll fleet has been reallocated to FN.

Excellent posts, onefish. The commercial fisheries are by far the most restricted and monitored fisheries in Canada. Way beyond both most sports & FN fisheries; although some FN fisheries are commercial, as well. Those not involved with commercial fishing usually don't recognize this reality.

To add to your post – JO Thomas is the West Coast salmon 3rd party observer contractor; while Archipelago does the groundfish fisheries. There is far more choice in observer companies on the East Coast than the West Coast: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fisheries-peches/sdc-cps/nir-nei/obs-contact-eng.html

Cameras have replaced onboard human observers for many fisheries. There really isn't room for another person on many smaller commercial fishing boats – and they stay out for days and even weeks if the weather is safe and the quotas unfulfilled and the ice lasts.

Commercial fishing is very diverse wrt gear, ports, season & room onboard. Some boats are too small or don't offload to a designated port with observers. But for groundfish - Costs per season for camera leases, video analyses, onboard and dockside observers is often over $10K per boat/licence.

The crab & prawn by trap fleets and the groundfish fisheries are the most regulated and monitored. Cameras that turn on and record when hauling gear, and a private AIS/GPS system called Vessel Monitoring System that Archipelago monitors is a requirement: https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fisheries...monitoring-surveillance-navire/index-eng.html

Also, anyone can reference the restrictions placed on commercial fishing boats by referencing both the appropriate IFMP, and Conditions of Licence.

IFMPs are fairly complex & detailed, & seasonally updated - and are often over 200 pages for many fisheries - but are more of an seasonal overview reference as compared to the conditions of licence which are more inseason and operational. The 24 Pacific Coast IFMPS can be found at: https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/ifmp-eng.html

Conditions of licence can be quickly updated and those changes can be tracked using DFOs Fishery Notice System: https://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?

Commercial boats also have to both hail out and hail in before/after any fishing trip. Overages have to be rectified before anyone can hail out again for the next trip. Any infractions are a fine and suspension of licence - and likely a large fine.
 
Last edited:
My last few years on the salt was spent mostly chasing tuna. I loved tuna fishing, one logbook to fill out (location and catch, there is zero byecatch), no DFO bs to deal with, no JO Thomas bs, no whale zones, no groundfish zones, just a huge ocean with small patches of tuna to find. Head offshore, find warm water, and hunt down some fish. Fished from the California border to the top end of the island. Mostly mid Oregon coast to mid island. Loved the Washington coast as it was the best location for lack of wind. Not sure if any Canadian boats are still allowed to fish in American waters or not. I know the boat I ran lost its USA fishing privileges on the last year I ran it.
Just like sockeye fishing, there are lots of tricks in the Tuna game. I don't miss anything about salmon fishing but I sure miss the hunt and subsequent rush when you really get it dialed in on a school of tuna. Nothing quite like finding an area of tuna and you are the only boat for 20 miles in any direction. You really have to learn to be able to find your own fish and not rely on just following other guys around.
Tuna fishing is old school fishing!
 
Back
Top