UBC study: changing catch-and-release fishing practices can boost salmon survival

[Saxe Point]

I disagree here. I am a hunter/ gatherer. Fish, seafood, game, garden, mushroom gathering is where I prefer my organic food to come from. We just need to practice a respect for our resources.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact I like all those organic things too. But unfortunately there are too many people who like to eat fish. So with the commercial and recreational take, combined with habitat loss in rivers and warming ocean temperatures caused by global warming, there are fewer and fewer fish surviving and reproducing. So while we agree that respecting our resources (in this case, the fish) is critical, doing so involves a lot of different things. Keeping less (I didn’t say none) is an important part of it. I’m not sure we disagree.

 

[Tips Up]

Yes, we can agree to disagree that the fishery should be catch and release only. We seem to agree that respecting the resource is critical.
This thread is titled " UBC study: changing catch-and-release fishing practices can boost salmon survival" So not about commercial and recreational take. This is about type of gear and release tactics and boosting survival rates.
My points are regarding catch and release tactics. I know that not All of the fish I release will survive but I manage that number by practicing good technique and being respectful. I think ignorance (not yours) kills more fish than any gear used. We all see some pretty awful catch and release tactics and outright disrespect on the water. I hate to see us all over regulated due to this kind of ignorance.

 

[SpringVelocity]

I feel sorry for the people in rec sector that put there time in into this UBC study. It is being taken way out of context by the environmentalists and now on this thread.

Other stakeholders right now are also trying to use it as leverage to get more share of the allowable catch for themselves.

The purpose of the study was to understand how we as group could recommend different fish practices to help reduce any mortality when fish are released.

I think people need to read it more. It doesn't say all mortalities are all 40 percent and it makes a lot of theoretical assumptions.

I still have hard time with one main aspect in paper. I question the acoustic tags stapled to the back of fish. I don't think you can use a mortality in that case.

Any fish manhandled with a large acoustic tag strapped to its back is going to have a high mortality vs a fish released without one. Without a control sample to compare the drop off mortality figure is not accurate. I would argue it isn't even close.

 

[brands51]

Nothing wrong with that. In fact I like all those organic things too. But unfortunately there are too many people who like to eat fish. So with the commercial and recreational take, combined with habitat loss in rivers and warming ocean temperatures caused by global warming, there are fewer and fewer fish surviving and reproducing. So while we agree that respecting our resources (in this case, the fish) is critical, doing so involves a lot of different things. Keeping less (I didn’t say none) is an important part of it. I’m not sure we disagree.

“Fewer and fewer fish surviving and reproducing” is misinformation & shouldn’t be said so lightly by anybody who enjoys the resource, whether it be for table fare or CnR. That’s like a headline for an ENGO article. Plenty of stocks experiencing “above average” and “strong returns” - that’s DFOs words, not mine.

See 2023 WCVI Chinook returns & 2023 Cowichan River escapement.

 

[searun]

This is a classic situation of an ENGO twisting the actual research objectives and findings. The research was to apply a series of differing fishing encounters and release approaches to look at which appear to influence injuries that lead to mortality. This is the first of kind research, involving holding fish for 10 days - never before attempted. From the research findings a number of the treatments employed to test various tackle and handling practices surfacing strong patterns of which treatments lead to higher mortality. These finding informed best practices, which if employed generally across the recreational fishery would likely have the best outcomes in reducing FRIM. The study did not attempt to establish a FRIM rate, rather to identify the mechanisms leading to mortality.

The next likely (logical) step in extending and expanding upon what was learned would be to design a new study that applies all the best practices identified and then determine what the FRIM rate could be. This would be a powerful tool to help inform which best practices need to be applied in practice or potential updates to fishery regulations. Without a doubt the overwhelming evidence points to never handling a fish that is to be released - instead leave it in the water and use a water release using a gaff or similar tool to carefully remove the hook. Nets of any kind were very bad, as were larger gap hooks greater than 3/0. Also problematic are there is a relationship between smaller size fish not tolerating capture and release as well as larger mature fish - so if encountering small fish - move or stop fishing.

“Fewer and fewer fish surviving and reproducing” is misinformation & shouldn’t be said so lightly by anybody who enjoys the resource, whether it be for table fare or CnR. That’s like a headline for an ENGO article. Plenty of stocks experiencing “above average” and “strong returns” - that’s DFOs words, not mine.

See 2023 WCVI Chinook returns & 2023 Cowichan River escapement.

Thanks for these 2 posts - nailed it. There are indeed some stocks which are not doing well (especially stream-type Chinook), while others are at or above historic abundance. I concur that we should never buy into the spin ENGO's and others are making regarding the current state of chinook abundance. As for the misleading spin regarding the UBC research, again no surprises the ENGO and other crowds are telling fables about what the research was intended to help discover. The whole study wasn't about determining a FRIM rate - nothing could be further from the truth. The research intended to identify a number of fish handling and tackle methods and their associated mechanisms of injury that lead to mortality in a one of a kind holding study over 10 days post capture event. The hope being to clearly identify handling and tackle practices that resulted in higher rates of mortality. From there, the research outcomes can inform development of a set of science-based best practices that help reduce catch and handling effects that most commonly cause mortality.

Many are now hopeful these best practices can now be employed in a new/future study to determine what the positive effects of practicing a set of best practices based on the learnings from this current study. Additionally, the findings from the current (and future) studies will help inform science-based regulations aimed at mitigating catch and handling effects associated with fish that are released.

Ultimately the research outcomes will challenge many of our preconceived notions of best handling practices - each of us will need to be open to adapting our practices to contribute to reducing FRIM. I for one will not be netting any fish that I intend to release, instead opting for a gaff release and not touching fish to be released unless absolutely necessary to remove a hook.

 

[Hardy Guy]

As discussed in another thread it's better to loose a possible keeper fish by keeping it in the water for gentler handling then netting everything hoping for a keeper. ENGOs spin to suit their agenda for sure.

 

[Saxe Point]

Yes, we can agree to disagree that the fishery should be catch and release only. We seem to agree that respecting the resource is critical.
This thread is titled " UBC study: changing catch-and-release fishing practices can boost salmon survival" So not about commercial and recreational take. This is about type of gear and release tactics and boosting survival rates.
My points are regarding catch and release tactics. I know that not All of the fish I release will survive but I manage that number by practicing good technique and being respectful. I think ignorance (not yours) kills more fish than any gear used. We all see some pretty awful catch and release tactics and outright disrespect on the water. I hate to see us all over regulated due to this kind of ignorance.

I did not say that the salmon fishery should be entirely catch and release. I said it should be more like the 100% catch and release wild steelhead fishery, with “like“ being the operative word. I then went on to explain how more (and better) catch and release is better, indeed essential, for preservation of the resource. Some harvesting is perfectly appropriate, but the focus really has to be not on numbers of fish kept, but rather the experience of catching the fish, some of which are released, and a few of which are kept.

 

[Saxe Point]

“Fewer and fewer fish surviving and reproducing” is misinformation & shouldn’t be said so lightly by anybody who enjoys the resource, whether it be for table fare or CnR. That’s like a headline for an ENGO article. Plenty of stocks experiencing “above average” and “strong returns” - that’s DFOs words, not mine.

See 2023 WCVI Chinook returns & 2023 Cowichan River escapement.

“Pacific salmon are in decline across British Columbia and the Yukon, according to PSF’s State of Salmon Report. More than 70 per cent of salmon are below their long-term average of the 41 combinations of regions and species assessed. While the State of Salmon Report underscores widespread salmon declines, there are hopeful exceptions that highlight the resilience of Pacific salmon and opportunities for recovery.”

Are you saying this is misinformation?

This is from the Pacific Salmon Foundation’s recent report on the status of British Columbia salmon and steelhead: https://psf.ca/salmon/#:~:text=Pacific salmon are in decline,of regions and species assessed.

You are pointing to the “hopeful exceptions” rather than the overall health of the resource. That is misleading at best.

 

[wildmanyeah]

I feel sorry for the people in rec sector that put there time in into this UBC study. It is being taken way out of context by the environmentalists and now on this thread.

Other stakeholders right now are also trying to use it as leverage to get more share of the allowable catch for themselves.

The purpose of the study was to understand how we as group could recommend different fish practices to help reduce any mortality when fish are released.

I think people need to read it more. It doesn't say all mortalities are all 40 percent and it makes a lot of theoretical assumptions.

I still have hard time with one main aspect in paper. I question the acoustic tags stapled to the back of fish. I don't think you can use a mortality in that case.

Any fish manhandled with a large acoustic tag strapped to its back is going to have a high mortality vs a fish released without one. Without a control sample to compare the drop off mortality figure is not accurate. I would argue it isn't even close.

It’s because the author put out the 40% mortality rate in the news and in the study without explaining or maybe they did and it was quoted out of context but it seems the damage has been done. From my understanding the gaff release had near 100% survival rate but I don’t see the author being quoted saying this.

still have hard time with one main aspect in paper. I question the acoustic tags stapled to the back of fish. I don't think you can use a mortality inthat case.

You’re absolutely right there is no proper control. Ie fish survival without a tag. best it can be used for is a comparison between techniques.

 

[PEETZcanada]

Inch by inch our historic sportfishing culture is slowly being eroded to the point of near extinguishment. Mostly due to political means and failed micromanagement of the resource. I still for the life of me can not understand why people would prefer to squabble over the egos of who's right or wrong instead of getting together with all stakeholders in order to respectfully develop an equitable stake for all to share and participate in together. The way forward is working together and building sustainable opportunities for everyone to enjoy.

I may be coined a HAIDA Indian through the Indian Act, but I am a human and I am on this earth to serve and share and build.

Move on and get together.

 

[wildmanyeah]

This is a classic situation of an ENGO twisting the actual research objectives and findings.

The author of the study sure hasn’t helped maybe a media release with clarification is in order.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Reminds me of the paper that said fish farms may pose more than a minimal
Risk to salmon.

Then it was turned into they do, and the damage was done.

 

[Whole in the Water]

Sorry I have to respectively disagree with you on this one. There is more than enough independent, peer reviewed, scientific research that clearly shows that net pen fish farms have a measurable negative impact on the marine environment.

The ENGO's can spin it however they want, just as the pro FF folks do it for their side. That's why we need independent peer reviewed research that it is supported by other such research - its called science, not opinion, speculation or emotions, but repeatable, reliable facts and truth - and it can help humankind progress if we chose to let it.

 

[Stoisy]

The author of the study sure hasn’t helped maybe a media release with clarification is in order.

I think you mean, the author of the media post sure hasn't helped? The information is in the document, and that was the author's job, to provide the information. They can't control the media. Media grabs on to the highest numbers 40% - severely injured fish with air exposure and rough handling. A small proportion of fish caught within the fishery actually have an experience like this, and thus, very few would experience mortality this high. Also, see quote below.

I still have hard time with one main aspect in paper. I question the acoustic tags stapled to the back of fish. I don't think you can use a mortality in that case.

This is the unfortunate impossibility of any tagging and tracking study. No way to determine the tagging effect in a real situation because, well, you can't track a fish without a tag. There are studies that have looked at swim performance and have shown no consequences for adult Atlantic salmon with external tags, so the impacts should be marginal. I think it's important to remember that this 'mortality' is worst case scenario, and the real rates would be less, given natural mortality, straying, and non-reported tag capture can all artificially increase the apparent mortality.

I think this quote from the report provides some important context. Figure 9 is also included for context. They get "close" to a control, minus the tagging effects, and those fish have near perfect survival across the first 10 days post release. This suggests that fish with limited injuries and handling, do really well post release. Any level of injury decreases the probability of detection and eye injuries have a delayed effect.

"Using a final detection is not a perfect definition for mortality as we do not know the true fate of the fish at this time and some of the fish would have certainly survived beyond their last known detection. However, the relative difference among the contrasted groups is the important result to highlight. Note the large immediate mortality levels of up to 20% (e.g., within 10 days of release) for all groups except those released in ‘good condition’, our closest proxy to a ‘control’ fish possible in tagging and tracking studies, which had limited mortality during that time period (Figure 6A and B). Further, after the first 10 days post-release, all groups showed declining detection proportions and a similar declining rate of time to last detection, including those in good condition, implying other non-fishery related factors were responsible for that apparent mortality. However, at approximately 40 days post-release, eye injured fish exhibited a divergent pattern and increased rate of time to last detection relative to all other fishery effect groups suggesting a further potential latent impact of this injury type on survival (Figure 9A and C)."

 

[Whole in the Water]

I can live with using smaller, single hooks, even no inline flashers (can make using hootchies a little harder) if that is needed to reduce catch & release mortality and to open up more marked selective fishing opportunities.

One of the trickier issues is what to do with the use of landing nets - do we eliminate or restrict their use in the public fishery?

We could fish like commercial trollers and release and retain fish only using gaffs. The use of nets, with scale loss, fin tearing, laying a fish on the dry, warm boat floor, removing the hook and then possibly touching the fish to release it is a big factor in catch and release mortality rates in my understanding. If need, be I could live with no longing using a landing net if it meant more fishing opportunities.

What do others think on this?

 

[Tips Up]

I can live with using smaller, single hooks, even no inline flashers (can make using hootchies a little harder).

One of the trickier issues is what to do with the use of landing nets - do we eliminate or restrict their use in the public fishery?

We could fish like commercial trollers and release and retain fish only using gaffs. The use of nets, with scale loss, fin tearing, laying a fish on the dry, warm boat floor, removing the hook and then possibly touching the fish to release it is a big factor in catch and release mortality rates in my understanding. If need, be I could live with no longing using a landing net if it meant more fishing opportunities.

What do others think on this?

I don't think you can eliminate landing nets. This would lead to fish close to size restrictions being gaffed and then measured. Can restrict the type of net. I use knotless net. I don't like the rubber ones, they are heavy and have too much drag in the water. I used an old net on a buddies boat one day last summer and was surprised how abrasive it was on the fish.
More important is educating fishers to only use net when you plan to retain. Some how getting across the message that it is OK to lose a fish at side of boat while identifying. Just catch another. I see so many boats netting every fish on the line.
I think some boots on the ground educating fishers at the dock, maybe leaving flyers with catch and release tactics and other educational material on vehicles at ramps. Signs around the launch... Sell the message that we need to be responsible so we are not restricted.
Not everyone sees this stuff posted online. Need to get message more directly to the fishers.
But... no man power or funds.
Eliminating tandem hooks is a realistic restriction that would have impact.

 

[wildmanyeah]

The regulator is not going to get in to the weeds with all the different areas needs/wants. They will just take what they think is the hugest mortality and then only open the fishery when there is a suitable amount of fish to allow that mortality..

Take flashers for example how would you restrict them you can’t just say no flasher. You would have to say something like no inline device between the reel and hook.

Would that also include a deep six? Dipsy divers?what about In-line weights for cut plugging ect?

 

[Whole in the Water]

I agree eliminating landing nets could be tricky. You could ask fishers to measure fish in the water (this is what I do with halibut with a floating foam noodle as I do not want to bring the halibut on-board unless I am going to keep it.) Knotless nets are much better if a net is to be used.

Agree that a well thought out and delivered education program is a must going forward.

Regulating no inline flashers would not be that hard, similar to barbless or single hooks. How many people use deep sixes and dipsy divers when salmon fishing when we have downriggers?

In-line weights for cut plugging would need to be an exception in my mind if this type of fishing is to be allowed - very sad day if it wasn't.

 

[Tips Up]

I would be surprised to find that flashers are a big enough issue to be regulated but I am no expert.
The biggest and most effective change needs to come from the angler. Proper handling, awareness and respect for the resource.
Did I mention tandem hooks should be eliminated? LOL!

 

[terrin]

I agree eliminating landing nets could be tricky. You could ask fishers to measure fish in the water (this is what I do with halibut with a floating foam noodle as I do not want to bring the halibut on-board unless I am going to keep it.) Knotless nets are much better if a net is to be used.

Agree that a well thought out and delivered education program is a must going forward.

Regulating no inline flashers would not be that hard, similar to barbless or single hooks. How many people use deep sixes and dipsy divers when salmon fishing when we have downriggers?

In-line weights for cut plugging would need to be an exception in my mind if this type of fishing is to be allowed - very sad day if it wasn't.

I guess you don't fish hootchies.