Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Moloto]

Some comments about the video I posted in the Fish Porn thread have got me thinking.

Considering the condition of the fish in the video, it is easy to jump to the conclusion that these fish were taken off of their redds. However, the fish caught in the video were actually swimming in small groups with some chrome bullets, and these were the first to bite. Catching hatchery-clipped kelts wasn't exactly what I was going for, but they were brought in quickly and released no worse for wear.

I do not support the intentional targeting of spawning fish. Bycatch is just part of being out there on the water (especially towards the tail end of the season) - there's no way to completely avoid it besides not fishing at all. This is when proper catch and release is important. (Gotta keep them wet!)

I apologize if the video offended anyone's ethics or morals, that was not my intention. That was simply the best footage I had of the season, I wasn't lucky enough to get any video of keepers this winter. (The one doe we did take was on a trip without my GoPro)

I don't see how my experiences are any different than the fly-fishing only steelhead fishery implemented on the Chilliwack every May; I am sure a large portion of fish caught there are drop back kelts/spawners. Furthermore, a similar argument can be made for the salmon runs in the fall, as well as the big Browns and Rainbows with bright spawning colours and huge kypes caught in the USA and New Zealand. What makes my spring steelhead any different?

Would like to hear your thoughts and opinions.

[dufflayer]

I drove ten hours to wade past my armpits for four days in the freezing and blown out Kitimat River eating nothing but trail mix and hot dogs and sleeping in a leaky tent to try and catch one Steelhead. Broke a $400 rod, put holes in my waders, got my truck window shot out by some idiot camper with a pellet gun, and lost about ten flies. Would have been happy with a 30cm Pikeminnow by the last day. And now here you go making a cute little video and claiming that these beasts are bycatch? Doesn't add up bro...

Just some food for thought. 

[Moloto]

I drove ten hours to wade past my armpits for four days in the freezing and blown out Kitimat River eating nothing but trail mix and hot dogs and sleeping in a leaky tent to try and catch one Steelhead. Broke a $400 rod, put holes in my waders, got my truck window shot out by some idiot camper with a pellet gun, and lost about ten flies. Would have been happy with a 30cm Pikeminnow by the last day. And now here you go making a cute little video and claiming that these beasts are bycatch? Doesn't add up bro...

Just some food for thought. 

Thanks for the reply.  I'm not claiming steelhead are bycatch, sorry if I was unclear. In the original post I was accused of intentionally going after spawning fish, so I'm saying that the spawners/kelts were a bycatch of trying for the fresh fish.

There's no denying that steelhead aren't easy to catch, especially on a big system like the Kitimat! If I had the chance I'd love to get out there to wild rivers like that! If it were easy it would be catching, not fishing 

[Fish or cut bait.]

It was a well put together video.
The fish were released with respect.
BUT! Remember, this is the interweb and not a private conversation.
The best of your intentions might be misinterpreted by others and or the knowledge...abused.

😉

[DanL]

As far as I know any wild steelhead were made extinct long ago when the Stave was dammed (please correct me if I'm wrong) and is now a totally hatchery augmented system. If there is such a thing as a put and take steelhead fishery, its the Stave. They are there to be caught.

Have a read through the thread in the Fishing Issues and News subforum regarding how hatchery raised undergo dramatic genetic changes in as little as a single generation. The one thing we would not want is hatchery steelhead breeding in the Stave, then the progeny potentially straying into other systems and possibly breeding with and affecting the genetic makeup of an actual wild stock (if such a thing even truly exists anymore).

I dont know if steelhead can actually spawn in that back channel, but if they can, then maybe those who dislike this video should be advocating total closure of that entire back channel to fishing as that's probably the only terrain on the entire lower Stave suitable for spawning? I totally get that targeting fish off redds is bad form and I tend to agree that its distasteful in principle. In the bigger picture the OP hasnt really done any harm and if the battered brutes are the ones that were aggressive enough to bite while casting for the chromers, well then just that's how it goes...

[RalphH]

As I saw them myself I know there were steelhead there after the dam and before stocking started but who knows if they were remnants of fish that spawned in the Stave before the dam or a few fish from other rivers. AFAIK anadromous fish could not go farther up the Stave than Stave Falls at least in historic times.

[Speyfitter]

A few statements for you to consider:

Lets be realistic here. Not advocating for mistreatment of fish, but the fish in the Stave are there for a fishery, the stocking program there was never intended to create, rebuild, or augment a wild run of fish.  It was intended to create another place for anglers to fish for Steelhead.

British Columbia hatchery steelhead are about as responsible as it comes if you want to talk about supposed "Impacts" that hatchery fish could have on a wild stock genetically. With the exception of very few transplant programs (the Stave is one of them as pointed out), all hatchery steelhead in BC are taken from wild, native (to the watershed they are stocked in) broodstock. This means that genetic impacts are minimal and the wild offspring of hatchery fish from wild native broodstock are about as fit as offspring from wild fish, in the wild. Consider that hatchery fish tend to home in on both their release and rearing site, and as their rearing and release sites get closer they tend to home in on their rearing site (aka the hatchery water source/area/channel). This helps isolate them to some degree from the wild fish in the river as well, or limit their upstream travel to some degree in many cases.

The problem with hatchery opponents up here is they quite readily cite data from American hatcheries on American rivers and try to use it here as if it's applicable. Hatcheries down there are starting to change their tune slowly but surely but generally hatchery steelhead programs down there would typically recycle hatchery steelhead constantly along with transplants were quite common. They began hatchery programs before the homing of fish to their native watershed was really fully understood and so convenience of collecting broodstock was the primary concern. It's much cheaper to just collect one or two broodstock sources for the initial broodstock (i.e. Skamania Summer runs) and then transplant those everywhere. And then when they return instead of having to get anglers to try and target and catch wild fish, why not keep costs down and simplify thing by taking hatchery fish for broodstock which seem to readily return to the hatchery channel. They are then continually recycled for many generations to the extent that they are partially domesticated and their ability to produce fit offspring, in the wild, is reduced, and if they interact on the reds with the wild fish, will compromise their offsprings fitness for one or two generations. 

The thing that seems to be ignored is Rainbow/Steelhead interactions and offspring fitness. There ARE rainbow trout populations in the varying watersheds and they will spawn with Steelhead. We need to stop thinking of Steelhead and Rainbow as different and start looking at them as one big population of fish - some go to sea, some remain in the river. What cues or factors cause them to remain or out migrate are dependant on the individual watershed. I would imagine nutrient abundance in their watershed and possibly intensity of freshet might have something to do with it. Other factors as well. Obviously a cold, coastal watershed probably has less rainbow trout than a warmer fertile interior stream. But they are there and part of the Oncorhynchus Mykiss population.

No hatchery program is ever truly going to rebuild a wild Oncorhynchus mykiss stock - hatcheries should be utilized for fisheries and that is it.  Utilization of fish for hatcheries should be done with the best interests of wild fish BUT a balance needs to be struck. The Stave is a great candidate for a hatchery fishery.

There are some rivers that might be good candidates for Summer run Steelhead transplants fisheries.

[Moloto]

The problem with hatchery opponents up here is they quite readily cite data from American hatcheries on American rivers and try to use it here as if it's applicable. Hatcheries down there are starting to change their tune slowly but surely but generally hatchery steelhead programs down there would typically recycle hatchery steelhead constantly along with transplants were quite common. They began hatchery programs before the homing of fish to their native watershed was really fully understood and so convenience of collecting broodstock was the primary concern. It's much cheaper to just collect one or two broodstock sources for the initial broodstock (i.e. Skamania Summer runs) and then transplant those everywhere. And then when they return instead of having to get anglers to try and target and catch wild fish, why not keep costs down and simplify thing by taking hatchery fish for broodstock which seem to readily return to the hatchery channel. They are then continually recycled for many generations to the extent that they are partially domesticated and their ability to produce fit offspring, in the wild, is reduced, and if they interact on the reds with the wild fish, will compromise their offsprings fitness for one or two generations. 

For those interested, this article addresses the impact of poor broodstock management on steelhead runs in California. Backs up the brief summary Speyfitter provided.
http://fishbio.com/field-notes/the-fish-report/all-in-the-family-inbreeding-at-california-steelhead-hatcheries

[silver ghost]

A few statements for you to consider:

Lets be realistic here. Not advocating for mistreatment of fish, but the fish in the Stave are there for a fishery, the stocking program there was never intended to create, rebuild, or augment a wild run of fish.  It was intended to create another place for anglers to fish for Steelhead.

British Columbia hatchery steelhead are about as responsible as it comes if you want to talk about supposed "Impacts" that hatchery fish could have on a wild stock genetically. With the exception of very few transplant programs (the Stave is one of them as pointed out), all hatchery steelhead in BC are taken from wild, native (to the watershed they are stocked in) broodstock. This means that genetic impacts are minimal and the wild offspring of hatchery fish from wild native broodstock are about as fit as offspring from wild fish, in the wild. Consider that hatchery fish tend to home in on both their release and rearing site, and as their rearing and release sites get closer they tend to home in on their rearing site (aka the hatchery water source/area/channel). This helps isolate them to some degree from the wild fish in the river as well, or limit their upstream travel to some degree in many cases.

The problem with hatchery opponents up here is they quite readily cite data from American hatcheries on American rivers and try to use it here as if it's applicable. Hatcheries down there are starting to change their tune slowly but surely but generally hatchery steelhead programs down there would typically recycle hatchery steelhead constantly along with transplants were quite common. They began hatchery programs before the homing of fish to their native watershed was really fully understood and so convenience of collecting broodstock was the primary concern. It's much cheaper to just collect one or two broodstock sources for the initial broodstock (i.e. Skamania Summer runs) and then transplant those everywhere. And then when they return instead of having to get anglers to try and target and catch wild fish, why not keep costs down and simplify thing by taking hatchery fish for broodstock which seem to readily return to the hatchery channel. They are then continually recycled for many generations to the extent that they are partially domesticated and their ability to produce fit offspring, in the wild, is reduced, and if they interact on the reds with the wild fish, will compromise their offsprings fitness for one or two generations. 

The thing that seems to be ignored is Rainbow/Steelhead interactions and offspring fitness. There ARE rainbow trout populations in the varying watersheds and they will spawn with Steelhead. We need to stop thinking of Steelhead and Rainbow as different and start looking at them as one big population of fish - some go to sea, some remain in the river. What cues or factors cause them to remain or out migrate are dependant on the individual watershed. I would imagine nutrient abundance in their watershed and possibly intensity of freshet might have something to do with it. Other factors as well. Obviously a cold, coastal watershed probably has less rainbow trout than a warmer fertile interior stream. But they are there and part of the Oncorhynchus Mykiss population.

No hatchery program is ever truly going to rebuild a wild Oncorhynchus mykiss stock - hatcheries should be utilized for fisheries and that is it.  Utilization of fish for hatcheries should be done with the best interests of wild fish BUT a balance needs to be struck. The Stave is a great candidate for a hatchery fishery.

There are some rivers that might be good candidates for Summer run Steelhead transplants fisheries.

Great post.

[greyghost]

Great post.

X 2