Print

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

[firstlight]

Maybe its time to forget about the Sockeye as a sport fish.
Things were actually very good out on the river before this new fishery came along.
The hard work of others over the years to have a fishery for Chinook has been undermined by those advocating this joke of a so called sport fishery.
We can fish for all other species of Salmon and Steelhead.
Lets get back to how it once was and worked for all them years.
I also would have a very hard time donating money to organizations that approve and are lobbying for BBing.

[limit time]

 im not one for long words, so i say give the socs and only the socs to the fn to  controll under there own laws! then we will really see what happens to them.

[BwiBwi]

im not one for long words, so i say give the socs and only the socs to the fn to  controll under there own laws! then we will really see what happens to them.

When that happens, makes sure none of my paid tax money went into sockeye programs. 

[Old Black Dog]

 
Minister Hearn Announces Survey Results of Recreational Fishing in Canada

August 28, 2007
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
OTTAWA – The Honourable Loyola Hearn, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, today announced the results of the 2005 Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada. The 2005 survey was the seventh in a series, produced every five years since 1975, and is the most comprehensive assessment of recreational fishing conducted in Canada.

"This survey highlights that millions of Canadians and tourists continue to enjoy recreational fishing in Canada's oceans, rivers and lakes every year, and Canada's New Government is committed to ensuring that our future generations can also enjoy activities like recreational fishing," said Minister Hearn. "That is why we are taking action to conserve, protect and improve Canada's vast water resources, through initiatives such as our new National Water Strategy announced in Budget 2007."

The survey found that in 2005, over 3.2 million adult anglers participated in a variety of recreational fishing activities in Canada.  Participation rates, however, have been on a downward trend in most provinces and territories over the past 10 years. This trend is partially attributed to changing lifestyles and other activities that compete for limited leisure time.

The population of active adult anglers continued to age. More than half of the Canadian anglers were in the 45-64 age group, whereas only 26% of the general Canadian population falls within the same age range.

The average number of days fished per angler remained relatively unchanged over the past ten years at 13 days. Canadian non-resident and foreign anglers made over two million trips within Canada in 2005.

In total, anglers caught 215 million fish of all species in 2005 and retained nearly 72 million fish. The success of catch and release programs is a testament to the importance of conservation to anglers in Canada. Resident anglers caught 157 million fish, followed by foreign anglers who caught 54 million fish, with the remainder being caught by non-residents.

Walleye was the predominant species caught in 2005, surpassing trout for the first time since the survey was first conducted in 1975. Other top species were trout, perch, bass and northern pike.

In 2005, anglers contributed a total of $7.5 billion to various local economies in Canadian provinces and territories, up 12% from the $6.7 billion estimate in 2000. The most recent survey showed that total investments that were directly attributable to recreational fishing reached $2.5 billion in 2005.

The survey presents information about recreational fishing activities and describes the socio-economic contribution of these fisheries in Canada.  It was conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in cooperation with the fisheries and licensing agencies of all provinces and territorial governments.

To access the survey report on-line, please visit DFO's Statistical Services web site: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.cs/communic/statistics/recreational/canada/2005/index_e.htm.

 
-3
 
 
 

[Eagleye]

im not one for long words, so i say give the socs and only the socs to the fn to  controll under there own laws! then we will really see what happens to them.

The Alaskans and other US fisheries would still get their piece of the pie.  Also the unruly bands on the lower who (quote from a sto:lo member upriver) "think they own the river" would most likely continue to catch as many as they can and give the others a bad name.  We need the government and courts to put these bands in line with conservation concerns before it's too late.   I think we all know over fishing by FN is a one of the problems facing the sockeye and I for one don't want to see them catch the last one.  Once that happens the natives would probably be happy to do a joint venture with government/industry to dam the Fraser. Worst case scenario but still a possibility. 

[RA40]

Just to keep you guys in the loop, The Fraser Panel met yesterday, the majority of the Canadian panel approved an opening for the Fraser River Sport fishery for Pinks & Chinook. Paul Ryall who chairs this group should have immediatly announced an opening for Fraser River Sport Fishing but has again stalled. To make matters worse the Canadian portion  of the Fraser Panel at the same time approved an extension for a 4 day USA commercial fishery on Fraser River Pinks with Sockeye as a by-catch.
There is an order for non-retention but as these nets are over 200 fathoms in length and 90 meshes deep with a two hour drift, past studies show release mortalities in excess of 90%.

As far as I am concerned Paul Ryall should be removed from Chair and from the Fraser Panel all together. He actions not only show his inability to make informed decissions but also shows his contempt to all British Columbians and total disregard for Canadians right to sport fish for our own fish before approving a US commercial fishery.

On another note, I don't want to start a debate on sockeye fishing but I would ask you to think about this idea and provide a short reply.

The angling community is clearly divided by the ongoing Fraser river Sockeye Fishery.  Why? maybe because we all call it something different, some call it fishing, some call it snagging, flossing, linning, bottom bouncing, some call it unethical, some call it a meat fishery or harvest. One of the main reasons for all of the infighting is that we really don't know what it is and every British Columbian calls it something different. There is no other fishery that I know of that we don't know exactly what it is.

What if we were to define what sockeye fishing really is? Call it what it is, define it, regulate it and enforce the definition. We could then all stop arguing over what our interpretation of sockeye fishing is and move on to solving all the issues surrounding it.

The current fishing regulations have definitions for barbless hook, bait ban, fly fishing, Chumming, down -rigging etc. They also have a Special restrictions/Notes section where there is also definitions for No Fishing, Catch & Release, Special Quota's, etc etc. The definition for sockeye fishing could be in one or both places.


For example: Definition of sockeye fishing - Bottom Bouncing with a weight, swivel and leader in excess of 1 meter.

This simple definition would allow a managment tool for DFO to open and close all rivers to sockeye fishing and at the same time, controling leader lengths without restricting the method of fishing called bottom bouncing. When DFO announces "no sockeye fishing" the defination would apply to all rivers listed in their announcement. During steelhead or Chinook season on the Vedder, there is a no sockeye fishing put in place and any angler bottom bouncing with a leader in excess of 1 meter could then be fined.
When the Fraser has conservation concerns for sockeye, simple " no Sockeye fishing" is enforced and anyone bb with long leaders are fined. It's simple, effective and clear. We can then all stop arguing over what it is and move onto other things.

[Schenley]

Remember that this 

DFO is preparing a regulatory submission that would make it possible to implement the mandatory use of circle hooks in certain places and at certain times when fishing for salmon. The main cause of mortality in released sport-caught fish is organ and gill damage. This damage occurs when a fish is “deep-hooked,” that is the hook catches in the fish’s gut when it is set by the angler. Circle hooks are a valuable conservation tool in certain fisheries as they are less likely to deep-hook a fish and therefore have a lower post-release mortality rate than traditional J-hooks

is coming down the pipe too.

This will DRASTICALLY lower the catch.

[firstlight]

Why do we want to continue a fishery that has turned the fishing community upside down?
Lets get rid of the Sockeye fishery alltogether.
If you want Sockeye that bad either buy them  or fish for them where they actually bite.In the ocean.

[RA40]

Although I have the highest regard for Bill Otway, this is one subject that I completely disagree on. Circle hooks may be useful in saltwater where fish are activley feeding but in freshwater, salmon don't feed, they react. We did try them for sturgeon a few years back and were not very successful at hooking fish. The only time they work is when the fish aggressivly take the bait. Having said that there maybe some specific fisheries on the Fraser where curcle hooks may work, for eg; the bar fishery in the lower river where rods are placed in rod holders and biat is used.

[RA40]

firstlight, I hear what you are saying but that is not a workable, agreeable solution because the majority of people still want to fish for sockeye regardless of the method. The definition would be a way to resolve the conflicts and give fishery managers the tools to manage( god forbid)

[BwiBwi]

Circle hooks are not good for groundfish also.  In some cases, they are harder to unhook than regular hooks.  When fish is tight liped it's hard to get to the hook as there's nothing sticking out of the mouth.  The new Gammy barbless hook is a good hook.  It's barbless and it's shape makes it easy to release fish.  (a bit too easy, if line slacks abit you can loose alot of fish)

[Old Black Dog]

Just to keep you guys in the loop, The Fraser Panel met yesterday, the majority of the Canadian panel approved an opening for the Fraser River Sport fishery for Pinks & Chinook. Paul Ryall who chairs this group should have immediatly announced an opening for Fraser River Sport Fishing but has again stalled. To make matters worse the Canadian portion  of the Fraser Panel at the same time approved an extension for a 4 day USA commercial fishery on Fraser River Pinks with Sockeye as a by-catch.
There is an order for non-retention but as these nets are over 200 fathoms in length and 90 meshes deep with a two hour drift, past studies show release mortalities in excess of 90%.

As far as I am concerned Paul Ryall should be removed from Chair and from the Fraser Panel all together. He actions not only show his inability to make informed decissions but also shows his contempt to all British Columbians and total disregard for Canadians right to sport fish for our own fish before approving a US commercial fishery.

On another note, I don't want to start a debate on sockeye fishing but I would ask you to think about this idea and provide a short reply.

The angling community is clearly divided by the ongoing Fraser river Sockeye Fishery.  Why? maybe because we all call it something different, some call it fishing, some call it snagging, flossing, linning, bottom bouncing, some call it unethical, some call it a meat fishery or harvest. One of the main reasons for all of the infighting is that we really don't know what it is and every British Columbian calls it something different. There is no other fishery that I know of that we don't know exactly what it is.

What if we were to define what sockeye fishing really is? Call it what it is, define it, regulate it and enforce the definition. We could then all stop arguing over what our interpretation of sockeye fishing is and move on to solving all the issues surrounding it.

The current fishing regulations have definitions for barbless hook, bait ban, fly fishing, Chumming, down -rigging etc. They also have a Special restrictions/Notes section where there is also definitions for No Fishing, Catch & Release, Special Quota's, etc etc. The definition for sockeye fishing could be in one or both places.


For example: Definition of sockeye fishing - Bottom Bouncing with a weight, swivel and leader in excess of 1 meter.

This simple definition would allow a managment tool for DFO to open and close all rivers to sockeye fishing and at the same time, controling leader lengths without restricting the method of fishing called bottom bouncing. When DFO announces "no sockeye fishing" the defination would apply to all rivers listed in their announcement. During steelhead or Chinook season on the Vedder, there is a no sockeye fishing put in place and any angler bottom bouncing with a leader in excess of 1 meter could then be fined.
When the Fraser has conservation concerns for sockeye, simple " no Sockeye fishing" is enforced and anyone bb with long leaders are fined. It's simple, effective and clear. We can then all stop arguing over what it is and move onto other things.

Interesting.
So you are considering a regulation that could effect all the rivers in the Province.
If so, then you need to have this discussion with ALL the anglers on all the other rivers FIRST.

Remember, you proposal allows all management to pass this regulation on to any river in the Province.

I am sure the people who fish up north would like to discuss this first.

Any time you go into the tackle box it effects all the people not just a few on the Fraser.

[Old Black Dog]

Although I have the highest regard for Bill Otway, this is one subject that I completely disagree on. Circle hooks may be useful in saltwater where fish are activley feeding but in freshwater, salmon don't feed, they react. We did try them for sturgeon a few years back and were not very successful at hooking fish. The only time they work is when the fish aggressivly take the bait. Having said that there maybe some specific fisheries on the Fraser where curcle hooks may work, for eg; the bar fishery in the lower river where rods are placed in rod holders and biat is used.

I believe there has been a number of studies done on circle hooks. U.S. has done some.
The concern regarding SNAGGING drops dramatically using these hooks and that is the reason for the proposed regulation change.

They were also I believe tested on the Fraser as well.

[firstlight]

Whats the difference if you snag them in the belly or the mouth.
Its all snagging no matter how you look at it.
Quit fighting for a fishery that has been nothing but a bone of contention since its inception.
Sure its an easy fishery for the uneducated and paying type but we all know that this fishery is wrong and that it doesnt belong anywhere the term sportfishing.
If you want to fish Sockeye buy some downriggers and head to the salt.
Lets give these Sockeye back to the FN and commie fishers and get on with what once was a great river to fish.
Vic i am disapointed in you guys for lobbying to keep this mockery of fishing afloat.
You guides and guide services should know better and should be ashamed of yourselves.
I though i appreciated what you did for the industry but it is becoming all to clear that you also see dollar bills when the Sockeye swim up the Fraser just like some FN groups do.

[DragonSpeed]

If you want to fish Sockeye buy some downriggers and head to the salt.

I tried.... but I just can't manage to stay afloat treading water with the Rod/downriggers etc....  And like 95% of the rest of the anglers out there a BOAT isn't in my future for various reasons.