Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Morty on November 21, 2008, 03:35:25 PM
-
Here's the year to date numbers
7 pink (it would have been better if THESE weren't killed)
23 steelhead
321 Coho
20,926 Chinook
79,650 Chum
268,192 Sockeye
(that's what DFO shows on their website for First Nations retention)
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/firstnationsLF_e.htm
This causes me to wonder???? If that's all the fish that several dozen fishers can get, with the use of dozens of: Set nets, AND Drift nets, AND Beach Seine nets, out every weekend, for 5 or more months:
- should ANYONE be fishing the Fraser basin stocks AT ALL?
??? ??? ???
Rick
-
Whoever believes those numbers is living in another world.
-
These might be the official #'s that DFO checked at their checksites. I'm sure that 100% of all fish were checked in ;)
-
Whoever believes those numbers is living in another world.
I don't believe those numbers for a minute. Are these figures provided by the First Nations themselves ?
-
321 Coho!? That's per sunny afteernoon just at the Chehalis band boat launch right?. It begs the question, Is DFO complicit in this crime, or have they lost all control of the river that they pretend to be stewards of?
...Fire them all..
-
Hey Nuggy, I appreciate you doing the math and it does seem to be a lot of fish when you look at it that way. We need to keep in mind though that some of that catch was for legitimate economic purposes, and some more was used at events that many British Columbians and tourists attended. But that's not what this is about.
I truly believe that First Nations were short changed in the past and they do deserve some compensation for that. Again, that's not what this is about.
We need to, and can rebuild these stocks!
It's important to our economy. It's important to Rec fishers. It's important to First Nations. Each of the forementioned groups claims to respect the salmon but we're all trying to get our share before they're gone (that last part goes unsaid too often)
Have you seen the numbers that Alaska harvested this year? If we had those numbers most of the problems on this site would go away. First Nations could get all the fish they truly need in a weekend or two. Rec. fishers could fish far more days. The guiding business would be far more stable. Tackle shops, motels, Starbucks, Tims the whole Fraser River basin would benefit. All resulting in more taxes to Victoria and no need to rely on the head tax they currently get from floating farms.
-
surprise suprise Alaskan fish catch is up.
Surprise Surprise BC fish catch down.
Gee I wonder why!!! Could it possibly be that the Alaskans have figured out a way of catching the fish heading for BC while leaving their own stocks alone.
How long is this going to go on before our fisheries department wakes up to what is happening. Probably never.
As for the 321 coho what a crock. IN two hours I watched natives net and snag at least 60 Coho at mouth of Chehalis. I phoned it ion and nothing happened, next time I watched them snag 8 fish in 10 minutes with treble hooks. So 321 coho dream along!!!
-
Nice try, but our salmon don't come home by way of Alaska. Our salmon start out their ocean journey by travellin up the coast to Alaska first, the circle out toward mid ocean then loop around southward.
They have WAY MORE fish because all the parties involved are participating in managing their resource well.
Here's how well - 146 million this year. And that's down 67 million from last year.
More impressive - that's how many they harvested.
We can do this too - the Fraser has supported 100 million in the past (100 million sockeye plus Coho, Chinook, Pinks and Chum)
-
American believe in hatchery supplement. Canadian government believe in keeping gene pool variety.
-
I have read a few articles stating American bycatch is an issue, one example is:
Bering Sea pollock fishery accidentally takes 130,000 prize chinook; [Final Edition]
Terri Theodore. Whitehorse Star. Whitehorse, Y.T.: Feb 27, 2008. pg. 21
Copyright 2008 Whitehorse Star.
"40 per cent of those salmon were destined for rivers in British Columbia and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. The U.S. North Pacific Fisheries Management Council is looking over several options to prevent such a massive bycatch again, but it will be two years before new rules are implemented. "And in the meantime nobody's watching the fish," Gerry Couture said in frustration.The billion-dollar Bering Sea pollock fishery is the largest in the world. The bycatch issue has been a problem for years but never have so many chinook been caught up in the nets as in 2007. Jon Warrenchuk, a marine scientists with the American marine advocacy group Oceana, said the failure to cut the bycatch is a failure in regulation.About 90 per cent of the 130,000 chinook bycatch was picked up by trawlers, while the remainder was captured by all other fisheries in the Bering Sea" Thats 52,000 chinook that could have ended up in bc and the pacific northwest. Don't know about you but I'll never have any immitation crab meat again! Keep this in mind next time you go to buy some ;).
P.S. - It states in the article they did DNA analysis of the bycatch fish to determine where they were heading.
-
American believe in hatchery supplement. Canadian government believe in keeping gene pool variety.
Actually genetic variety isn't really negatively affected by hatchery operations that use the strains of fish from the waters the hatcheries operate on. From what I've learned about hatchery methods, they don't use the returning hatchery fish for breeding, this essentially guarantees that you don't lock in on any particular variants in the population they are working with. Although I'm pretty certain that there are still hatchery fish that manage to make it to spawn, and I doubt that there is any discrimination in breeding between the wild born fish and the hatchery ones when they are on the redds. I doubt very much that this is a cause for concern for the genetic variety that results from that, it is more likely to enhance the variation.
I think the main reason that our Federal and Provincial gov'ts have cut back on hatcheries in BC is because they are cheap SOBs.
-
Clownfish
Hatchery coho, chinook and chum are used for brood stock. Any unmarked wild coho that stray into the hatchery are used as well. Only wild steelhead are used for brood stock on the Vedder and hatchery stock are used for the Stave. ( Chilliwack Stock )
-
Morty
Preliminary numbers for early and mid timing chinook to the Fraser River are bleak and these stocks are in dire straights. These fish should not be targeted by any user groups if we are to have fish for the future.
-
For the sake of all concerned parties, it sounds like we need reliable fish counters for all commercial and FN netting operations. It is impossible to make plans for future salmon stocks using inaccurate data. Maybe this is where we need to be pressuring our government and fishery 'experts'. The whole issue stinks as much as the Vedder at the moment.
-
American believe in hatchery supplement. Canadian government believe in keeping gene pool variety.
Actually genetic variety isn't really negatively affected by hatchery operations that use the strains of fish from the waters the hatcheries operate on. From what I've learned about hatchery methods, they don't use the returning hatchery fish for breeding, this essentially guarantees that you don't lock in on any particular variants in the population they are working with. Although I'm pretty certain that there are still hatchery fish that manage to make it to spawn, and I doubt that there is any discrimination in breeding between the wild born fish and the hatchery ones when they are on the redds. I doubt very much that this is a cause for concern for the genetic variety that results from that, it is more likely to enhance the variation.
I think the main reason that our Federal and Provincial gov'ts have cut back on hatcheries in BC is because they are cheap SOBs.
Ya but that the arguement government is using. To me I thinks it's BS especially if there is only a few fish left. In hatchery setting you can actually mix more varient than in wild if you only have a few spawning pairs to work with.
-
Whatever they did for Snow Geese worked pretty well.
-
BWIBWI,
not keeping distinct population segments "distinct" will shut down a hatchery in Washington. Too many hatchery strays up a different river will put a hatchery in hot water. Also, if hatchery fish are suspected of bypassing the hatchery and spawning with natives in the river, the hatchery can face penalties and be forced to correct the situation. Genetic diversity, distinct population segments and evolutionary significant units are not taken lightly in the US.
-
Both countries would do for rivers that still has hope in rebuilding by itself your right they do try to keep it as natural as possible and aid by building spawning channel and/or enhance river environment. But for those river that has very little chance of rebuilding on it's own, US government has no problem with installing and rearing lots of hatchery fish. In comparison Canada isn't doing much to increase production. As far as strays it is not as common upon salmon and in the higher latitude rivers. But is more common in California and also more common for steelheads.
-
American believe in hatchery supplement. Canadian government believe in keeping gene pool variety.
Actually genetic variety isn't really negatively affected by hatchery operations that use the strains of fish from the waters the hatcheries operate on. From what I've learned about hatchery methods, they don't use the returning hatchery fish for breeding, this essentially guarantees that you don't lock in on any particular variants in the population they are working with. Although I'm pretty certain that there are still hatchery fish that manage to make it to spawn, and I doubt that there is any discrimination in breeding between the wild born fish and the hatchery ones when they are on the redds. I doubt very much that this is a cause for concern for the genetic variety that results from that, it is more likely to enhance the variation.
I think the main reason that our Federal and Provincial gov'ts have cut back on hatcheries in BC is because they are cheap SOBs.
From what I understand the problem is that the fish are shielded from natural selection early on in their lives. How much of a difference this makes I think is negligible.
-
Less hatchery production, less returners in the river. Americans flood their rivers with fish and ours are the other way. Still remember the Expo years when the Cap was loaded with coho. Used to go after high tide and saw runs and runs of coho and patches of blue shades all over the river. Now the Cap is sort of like an abandoned ghost town. The Vedder used to see thick waves of coho going by all day long. Now the number is soooo low too. Whatever happen to our fishery people? The license fees have climbed through the years and the fish getting less and less. I guess the money all go towards some fat pension or wage increase than the fish. ??? No wonder why license sales is declining year after year. People are no dummies and will not buy a product or an entertainment unless it is worth the money.
-
Less hatchery production, less returners in the river. Americans flood their rivers with fish and ours are the other way. Still remember the Expo years when the Cap was loaded with coho. Used to go after high tide and saw runs and runs of coho and patches of blue shades all over the river. Now the Cap is sort of like an abandoned ghost town. The Vedder used to see thick waves of coho going by all day long. Now the number is soooo low too. Whatever happen to our fishery people? The license fees have climbed through the years and the fish getting less and less. I guess the money all go towards some fat pension or wage increase than the fish. ??? No wonder why license sales is declining year after year. People are no dummies and will not buy a product or an entertainment unless it is worth the money.
License fees have climbed? You show me where they have climbed much at all? Seems to me with this post and the post about increasing chum limits on another thread you are only thinking of yourself. For a freshwater license and salmon tag you are paying just over $50/year. If you retained 10 salmon in a year you are getting one heck of a deal for your money. Than because you have the freshwater license you can also retain lots of trout as well. Seems to me someone is being a bit greedy....Your freshwater license puts all those trout in all the lakes. Go to http://www.gofishbc.com/stockingreports/default.htm and see where your money is going. Over 500 lakes were stocked this year. What more do you want for $50?
-
I don't want to get personal and I hope you do the same. If you think the fees had not climbed, where were you 20 years ago? Fishing were phenomenal and fees were much lower. I don't have a good memory, but there were no extra fees for salmon & steelhead. I think the total fees (with everything included) must have doubled. It is plain truth that the stocking and fishery budget has been cut years after years. The low coho run is probably due to the cut of 600k smolts a few years back. Unless somebody wants to be DFO spokeman, I don't think DFO's track record is worth defending. ;D Hey, it is not a sin to defend the right of average fisherman to say the Vedder should have equal quota for chum as other systems just for the sake of comparison. I am not a elitist or a c/r specialist. If somebody wants to be one, be my guest. To each its own. It is important to respect forum member's fishing preferrences as long as they are fishing legally. Some people like to eat fish, have a big family and would keep or strive to fish for the quota. Some don't eat fish or eat little so they don't want to keep the quota. Just respect that.There is a tendency of holier-than thou attitude here. I don't think it is necessary. As long as people are fishing legally and the fish are hatchery origin, what is so wrong about taking the daily quota if you have the skill to do so? These are mostly hatchery augmented fishery and there is no need to pretend otherwise. If we want to talk about conservation, then the discussion should be about the wild system like coquihalla, Thompson, the Gold, etc. Just my 2 cents.
-
I wont make it personal just giving my opinion.
So the Vedder should have increased hatchery production? Thats interesting. You do know all the anglers in BC who buy licenses are paying for that hatchery right? So what about the rest of the rivers in BC? I think for the money we are paying its not so bad. Their are other reasons that those hatchery fish are not returning. Look at ocean survival. Its on a huge downward trend in the last 10 years.
Now for your point about licenses increasing. It has increased in the last 20 years but you tell me something that has not increased in the last 20 years. Do you think the hatcheries require more or the same amount of money they required 20 years ago? Do you not think with technological advances that it has not cost them more money? Do you remember when a can of pop was .25 cents? Now that same can is $1.50. Gas twenty years ago was like .30 cents a liter, now its a $1.00/liter. Everything has gone up. How do you expect the costs of licenses to stay the same as they were 20 years ago? They have not even gone up at the same rate of inflation. We are lucky to have them at the prices they are. One thing I well never complain about is the prices of licenses.
-
I don't think I ever mention about increase in hatchery production, did I? How about just keeping the old production. Factually, I think it has reduced production drastically, particularly in coho and steelhead which are the more expensive species to raise compared to the chum. Those 600k coho smolts cut a few years back, if stocked, could have 10K or 20K more adult coho in the Vedder and coho fishing should have been much better . But unfortunately there were cut. lThis in face of increased license fees is not something that is fair and right. If a business does that, it will not be a viable business model, but we all know DFO is a monopoly. ;D Yes, everything has gone up (surely DFO wages & benefits), but in the real world, a product has to be enhanced to be worth the increase fees to survive. The Honda civic of today has way more improvement of its counterpart 20 years ago, so it justifies the increase. Not so about our fishing... it has gone way down.
This whole discussion is about comparison, including my thread about chum quota which tries to compare Vedder to other systems. I don't think license fees here in Canada is expensive compared to Europe. But hey, there are places in the world where you can fish without a license. I just got back from Hawaii where a tourist don't need a license to fish. Tell that to the American tourists who want to fish here. ;D So I don't think we need to use that argument that our fees are low. It is just a comparative discussion that cutting fish production while increasing fees is not reasonable. Perhaps a lot of the money has gone into administrative & wage expenses of DFO and not where it should be. If you don't think so, I respect that but respectfully disagree. Perhaps DFO should open their books for all to see where the money went. But we know this won't ever happen. I will just leave it at that and there is no more I can say.
-
Thanks guys - you've brought this full circle right back to the intended topic - fish stocks are WAY DOWN!!!
What are YOU going to DO about it ??
-
John Cummings for Fishery Minister. ;D
-
http://www.natureandliving.com/Salmon/Salmonreleased.htm (http://www.natureandliving.com/Salmon/Salmonreleased.htm)
Less than favourable ocean survival and reduced hatchery output sure makes returns look worst than ever.
-
"ocean survival" WHAT A CROCK !!!
I guess those Alaskan fish spend their 2 or 3 years in a different, cooler Pacific Ocean than our fish do.
???????
Fish Farm Gauntlet would be more accurate I believe.
-
From the yearly stocking data of the Chilliwack River Hatchery, we know why this year's coho return is so dismal. The 2006 stocking was 800,000 less than 2005, and is only half of 2003. No wonder. Geez, the chum return has been 100k to 200k per year. If each fish has same survival rate in the ocean, then just think if we stock same # of coho smolts as chum. That will mean 100k to 200k coho swimming up the Vedder. Can you imagine what coho fishing will be like. ;D But too bad, it is the Americans who are doing that while we are cutting back year after year.
-
From the yearly stocking data of the Chilliwack River Hatchery, we know why this year's coho return is so dismal. The 2006 stocking was 800,000 less than 2005, and is only half of 2003. No wonder. Geez, the chum return has been 100k to 200k per year. If each fish has same survival rate in the ocean, then just think if we stock same # of coho smolts as chum. That will mean 100k to 200k coho swimming up the Vedder. Can you imagine what coho fishing will be like. ;D But too bad, it is the Americans who are doing that while we are cutting back year after year.
Chum survival is higher than that of coho. Thats why so many tributaries release so many chum fry. Those tributaries need the nutrients. What were the numbers of coho released in 2004. Thats where this years fish came from.
Dont you think the Americans have more money than we do? Think of the population and think of how many licenses they sell. If we sold as many licenses as they did we would have more money like they do...
Why dont you write some letters and ask why they have been cutting back. Than you can come back on here and paste the response you get back. It could be an interesting response from them.
-
It was my understanding that coho spawned every three years? One year in freshwater and two in the ocean, except for some northern run fish that spend up to three years in the ocean. That would mean that this years coho came from 2005. Jacks spend one year in the freshwater and one year at sea, making them two years old.
-
"ocean survival" WHAT A CROCK !!!
I guess those Alaskan fish spend their 2 or 3 years in a different, cooler Pacific Ocean than our fish do.
???????
Fish Farm Gauntlet would be more accurate I believe.
In fact they do. Our "local" salmon spend their ocean cycle outside of west cost VI. Alaskan runs is up close to Bearing sea, alot cooler.
This ocean warming trend off coast of west VI should not be taken lightly. fish species usually found south is moving northward and the our salmon's usual diet needs cold water and it's not abundant off VI.
-
The brood year of the 2008 adult coho stock is 2005.
-
"ocean survival" WHAT A CROCK !!!
I guess those Alaskan fish spend their 2 or 3 years in a different, cooler Pacific Ocean than our fish do.
???????
Fish Farm Gauntlet would be more accurate I believe.
In fact they do. Our "local" salmon spend their ocean cycle outside of west cost VI. Alaskan runs is up close to Bearing sea, alot cooler.
This ocean warming trend off coast of west VI should not be taken lightly. fish species usually found south is moving northward and the our salmon's usual diet needs cold water and it's not abundant off VI.
What's your source BwiBwi?
-
BC salmon migration
(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/bwibwi/BC_salmon_migration_chart.jpg)
Alaska salmon migration (from U of Alaska)
(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/bwibwi/migration.jpg)
Oh and with warming trend parasite infections also increase.
One of the most alarming climate-related impacts is a disease caused by the parasite Ichthyophonus hoferi. Some salmon (this parasite also infects other fish species) upto 1/5 had to be discarded because of this parasite infection. Fish infected is bad for eating and they also die before reaching spawning ground.
-
The brood year of the 2008 adult coho stock is 2005.
Wow, that is bad news, folks. If this year's coho return from 2005 stock is this bad, wait till next year when the 2006 stock come back (with only 1/2 of 2005 stocking). We aren't seen nothing yet.
-
Well not necessary next year would be bad. 2004 release at Vedder was lower than 2005 but last years return is alot better than this year. But then last years fish on the average's smaller than this year. Who knows may be with less competition those smolt had more food to eat and next years return just might be better. (okay I'm keeping all fingers and toes crossed)
-
Thanks for posting that info BwiBwi, very interesting... Where did that chart come from? The migration route on the north side of the island seems to be missing.
It's been common knowledge that the Alaskan Commy fishery hammer our fish when they come looking for land to start their homeward migration... Last year, from what I heard, the coho came to land slightly more south of the typical alaskan fishing grounds, which resulted in poorer coho catches for them, and a banner year for us... This was hearsay though, but from an educated source.
Cheers,
Nicole
-
Both chart come from university research committees. Pattern only shows off shore migration as you can see chart starts after salmon leave Juan de Fuca straight and ends after fish comes near shore close to QCI. This info is to show how Alaskan salmon still does better than ours out in the sea due to a more northernly migration route as Alaskan salmon route travels well into Bering Sea. Which is cooler and supposingly feed is more abundant.
Our salmon has been caught by Alaskan fisheries (commercial and recreational) in the past and will continue (just like us can't avoid catching WA and OR bound salmon). Many southern Alaskan rivers in the pan handle area will travel in a similar pattern as our salmon in the last lag of their journey home. Supposingly the fishing treating signed not long ago between our governments will reduce the catch on our salmon (time will tell). BUT this is only commercial salmon fishery. At this time, Alaskan cod fishery is doing more damage to our salmon stock (esp. chinook) due to their fishing method (by net), and this has yet to be addressed. BC also has commercial cod fishery but their fishing method is only limited to drop traps, hence salmon bycatch is next to zero.
-
Are you guys aware that " any Alaska state ( 6 mons or more res. ) citizen is entitled to catch in any manner ( snagging, dipnet , etc.) 50 to 100 sockeye or pink salmon for subsistunce use with out a license" Man , women, & children. Sockeye are the prime target. All catches must be " Inriver catches" . The only stipulation is they are caught inriver & during alotted seasons. In Alaska there are NO differences regarding heritige,,,,,IE whtie, native, etc. ALL citizens are Alaskans. Indians compete for the catch on an equal basis. NO reservations, bands, special rights ,,,none.
Smoke that one a while.....................
All came about 30-40 years ago with a treaty buy out from the oil money. Most of the Good tribal assoc.s set up business' and baught cannerys , boats, land etc. And have become good business people, sending their you people to college...............
-
BwiBwi
Coho returns to the Vedder have been poor over the last four years. Last year (2007 ) we had a return of 14,000 adult coho and about 500 jacks. This year it looks like we will top out at about
10,000 adults and 1500 jacks. The return of wild fish appears very weak this year compared to last year. All our indicator streams are well below normal levels.
-
Let's hope with the triple amount of jack returning this year plus improving ocean condition, next year coho return will be better than the past few.
-
Hey BwiBwi,
Thank for posting the charts. I believe it's good for readers here to know that there's some data and research behind what some participants post on this site. It's not all just personal opinion and griping. I always try to post my sources whenever I can.
Have you got any charts on ocean temperatures?
Rick
-
7/9/2007
(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/bwibwi/anomnight_7_9_2007.gif)
5/8/2008
(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/bwibwi/anomnight_5_8_2008.gif)
7/7/2008
(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/bwibwi/anomnight_7_7_2008.gif)
As you can see in the very last imagery, July 7 2008, effect of La Nina is pretty much gone. We are now back to neutral state.
(http://www.fishingwithrod.com/albums/bwibwi/North_Pacific_Gyre_Oscillation.jpg)
The NPGO was identified by Professor Emanuele Di Lorenzo and colleagues using satellite data and is described by a pattern of ocean currents which strengthen and weaken on decadal and multi-decadal timescales. The fact that changes in the NPGO coincide with changes in the ecosystem are consistent with other studies that show decadal variations in various other regional marine ecosystems.
-
That's pretty interesting water chemistry data. Anything on temperatures?
-
Added to prev. post.
PS Did you notice NPGO is derived by combining different oceanic data including SST?