Statistics will always have a % of error, no doubt about that.
FM, your assumption that there are an overwhelming number of dishonest people who would keep fish that are required to be released unlike you is a major flaw of your hypothesis. It's also irrelevant to be making comparisons between two totally different fisheries, especially when you're using what happened during one instance as an example to generalize other fishermen's actions.
On a side note, not everyone who participates in sportfishing is doing it purely for the sport <
>. There are many objectives in sportfishing, and they vary between individuals. These objectives include to relax, to socialize, to practice casting, to seek and release the largest catch in a lifetime, to view the scenary, to bond with partners, and to
HARVEST. The objectives change as an angler evolves. Most people who start out are there hoping to catch a fish to eat. When an angler gradually develops better skills, his or her objectives change. After many years of fishing, taking a fish home may not be a goal, but a bonus. Does that make those newcomers who intend to go out and hunt for a fish to take home terrible? I certainly hope not! As long as people are obeying the regulations, conducting themselves with respects on the waters, we should treat them with respect even if we "know better" or "are not out here for the meat". Why is there a need to criticize someone when he or she harvests a fish legally? If people feel the regulations are not justified, take that message to those who manage the fisheries.
Now, back to the May creel survey result. The study area was bounded by the outlet of the Sumas River (Chilliwack, B.C.) and the outlet of the Coquihalla River (Hope, B.C.). 60% of total May fishing effort were concentrated at outlet of Sumas River and Harrison River. Two surveyors were stationed at Island 22, interviewing anglers throughout the day. At the end of the day, the surveyors travelled down to Grassy Bar and interviewed every angler between Island 22 and Grassy Bar. Overflights for rod counts were also conducted twice per week (once during weekdays, once on the weekend). From the data collected, HPUE (harvest-per-unit-effort) and RPUE (release-per-unit-effort) were then determined from equations derived from past creel survey studies. These are calculated estimates.
Is it possible that some anglers who were interviewed did not report their release sockeye salmon? Possibly. Is it possible that all anglers out there would also operate the same way? Highly unlikely. If that's the case, why were there no released sockeye salmon reported? To pinpoint the reason, one needs to know what sockeye runs were present in the studied area and how many fish were estimated passing through during May. Not a whole lot according to the Albion test fishery, which produced a total of zero sockeye salmon in the month of May. The point is, HPUE indicates that the number of fish the sportfishing sector intercepts is extremely low in relation to the number of rod hours. On the other hand, HPUE is much higher in the FN driftnet fishery, therefore only a limited number of openings is granted.
Is the sportfishing sector paying attention to DFO's request for a selective fishery? You bet. The answer lies in the comparison between rod days, number of harvested fish and HPUE in 2004 and 2005. Let's take a look at those numbers:
In May 2004, estimated angler effort was
24,109 hours, estimated number of chinook harvested was
174.
In May 2005, estimated angler effort was
12,496 hours, estimated number of chinook harvested was
102.
In June 2004, estimated angler effort was
26,237 hours, estimated number of chinook harvested was
1,035.
In June 2005, estimated angler effort was
14,545 hours, estimated number of chinook harvested was
186.
From the numbers given above, you'll see number of angler effort had dropped by almost 50% in May and June. Why? To some anglers, fishing selectively means don't fish at all. Of course you will still find bottom bouncers out there targeting chinook. A
request means people are allowed to choose their actions voluntarily. If you wish to see 0% of bottom bouncers out there fishing, then you need to see a
demand from DFO, not a request.
Am I pro-flossing? Absolutely not. As mentioned in numerous posts in the past, I've never participated in it and never will because I feel that I probably wouldn't get the same enjoyment out of it like those who choose to. The point that I am trying to make is, this is a legal fishery after all because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans feels the sportfishing sector does not pose a threat to the stocks. Keep in mind, in the
fisheries notice, it reads "Anglers are requested to use selective fishing methods when fishing for Chinook." The notice did not request anglers to only participate in barfishing, lure fishing, or float fishing. The term "selective fishing methods" can be interpreted differently by different anglers. Selectively fishing method maybe defined as barfishing only to some, it maybe defined as shortened leader for another. Some may also and have chosen to bottom bounce with a longer leader because based on their experiences/skills, they feel that they will be able to target chinook salmon effectively and minimize the chance of intercepting a sockeye salmon at the same time. To me, selectively fishing method means no fishing until now, because water clarity has not been ideal for the methods that I wish to participate in. If people are out there fishing legally and following the guidelines published by the governing body that regulates them, what gives people the right to label them as criminals or poachers?
The health of our fish stocks need to be determined scientifically, not whether the fish is caught because it eats a hook or not. If there are concerns on the direction where the sportfishing sector is going towards, join an active group, educate and be educated, and voice your concerns to those who can actually make a difference. By belittling those who share the resource with you simply because they do not have the same values and point of views when it comes to fishing, it will ultimately backfire in the end.
Poll
Author
Topic: Fraser River regulations and early Stuart sockeye salmon (Read 13532 times)