Print

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

[Steelhawk]

What if people catch a spring in the test fishery? Do they have to return the spring too as this is a c/r test fishery? 

I like the fact that they will radio tag the fish in the study. Now they will know how many just disappear into some illegal nets.    But honestly I don't see how they can tell a tagged sockeye not back to natal streams is due to sporties c/r or due to disappearing into some nets. Will FN cooperate to send in all tagged fish caught, assuming it is caught in a legal F&S fishery? That is a gapping hole in the study. And if these fish disappear into illegal nets, the bbers will again have to bear the blame of some body else's sin. Go figure.

Assuming a perfect world, hopefull, and once for all, we will see how many will make it back to natal streams after c/r in a sport fishery. However, unless they have a control group of fish which has been tagged too but w/o being caught in a recreational fishery, how will they know that it is the sporties who are causing more fatalities during the fish migration. Just too many holes in this study to me. Any comments from people more familiar with scientific test sampling?

[scuntor]

Without pulling out a stats text...
The researcher should try to use two identical groups in his or her control group (in this case fish caught by beach seine) and the experimental group (BB caught). One of three things should come out in the results once they have been gone over by the researcher and, I would hope, reviewed by others.

a. there is no significant difference in mortality between the groups
b. there is a significant difference between the groups
c. there is not enough statistical evidence to prove or disprove either way

It looks like it's set up well assuming the sample size is 50 in each group (100 tags). Hopefully they time it so both groups are caught and released at similar times. Stats is heavily dependent on probability and this is why a small sample can be accurate for a population. Not likely that only BB caught fish will be caught in illegal nets. Its like a public opinion pole, they can call 100 houses and ask if people like or dislike something and it will be accurate if the numbers called are a random sample. Gotta trust that statistical analysis is accurate. Now they way the results are presented is where the BS can come in!!

[chris gadsden]

What if people catch a spring in the test fishery? Do they have to return the spring too as this is a c/r test fishery? 

I like the fact that they will radio tag the fish in the study. Now they will know how many just disappear into some illegal nets.    But honestly I don't see how they can tell a tagged sockeye not back to natal streams is due to sporties c/r or due to disappearing into some nets. Will FN cooperate to send in all tagged fish caught, assuming it is caught in a legal F&S fishery? That is a gapping hole in the study. And if these fish disappear into illegal nets, the bbers will again have to bear the blame of some body else's sin. Go figure.

Assuming a perfect world, hopefull, and once for all, we will see how many will make it back to natal streams after c/r in a sport fishery. However, unless they have a control group of fish which has been tagged too but w/o being caught in a recreational fishery, how will they know that it is the sporties who are causing more fatalities during the fish migration. Just too many holes in this study to me. Any comments from people more familiar with scientific test sampling?

Last year they retained them.

[buck]

Summer run numbers downsized from 2,858,000 to 600,000 and they still want to go ahead with this study ?

[alwaysfishn]

I don't understand why people keep asking questions about why is the study still being carried out? 

The study is necessary so that DFO has some science behind their assumptions that using C&R techniques on sockeye salmon has minimal impact on their survival rates. If the study proves that the mortality rate is high they will close the river entirely to salmon fishing in any low return years for sockeye salmon. This would create not only political backlash but economic losses to government and businesses. FN as I have said before would love to have the river to themselves 24/7. The science would also be helpful should DFO's decision making be challenged in a court.
 
DFO realizes that they can only close the river totally, or keep it open totally to any salmon fishing.

They are asking fishermen not to BB but they are not making it a restricted fishing technique because they can't enforce it. Even after tomorrow, there will be individuals that will ignore the request to stop bottom bouncing and they will get away with it, because it isn't against the law, and even if it was made into law it is unenforceable. A low mortality rate on the C&R sockeye study would allow DFO to argue that the river can remain open, as the sports fishermen have minimal impact on the sockeye.

On the other hand without the C&R study there would be no science to back DFO's current assumptions, particularly if it was taken to court!

[chris gadsden]

It will be disappointing if people continue to BB after this request, it shows they are not conservation minded and may lead to further restrictions at a later date.

[alwaysfishn]

To answer your first part, once again, as I have said many times I do not favor any type of recreational angling that is using a method when the fish are not biting, to me it is not fair to the fish. I hold them in too high regard and their wonderful life cycle of hatching in some distance stream under adverse conditions threatened by floods and the many predators in the fresh water environment they try to avoid for a year or more before they migrate to the ocean where many other predators including man are after them for the 1 to 4 years they are there. They then must travel the return route back to their natal streams where the same dangers try to cut the journey short.

Chris, your comment bothers me, therefore the reason for the late post..... 
 
The angling method a fisherman uses to put fish on their table does not reflect their level of regard for the fish.

The commercial fisherman, the FN fisherman, the bb'ing fisherman and even the hunter who shoots his unwary prey, likely regards the resource as much or more than a PETA vegan or a barfing fisherman.

Most fishermen and hunters have high regard for their prey because like you, they understand the struggle that life goes through just to survive, and they appreciate the effort it takes to put healthy wild food on their table.

But ultimately it is food, whether we shoot it, catch it with a 20 foot leader or choke it to death  .....  as long as it's legal, we shouldn't be judged for our technique. 

[chris gadsden]

Chris, your comment bothers me, therefore the reason for the late post..... 
 
The angling method a fisherman uses to put fish on their table does not reflect their level of regard for the fish.

The commercial fisherman, the FN fisherman, the bb'ing fisherman and even the hunter who shoots his unwary prey, likely regards the resource as much or more than a PETA vegan or a barfing fisherman.

Most fishermen and hunters have high regard for their prey because like you, they understand the struggle that life goes through just to survive, and they appreciate the effort it takes to put healthy wild food on their table.

But ultimately it is food, whether we shoot it, catch it with a 20 foot leader or choke it to death  .....  as long as it's legal, we shouldn't be judged for our technique. 

Sorry these are just my thoughts and to give others "food" for thought. Remember, I at one time took sockeye this way and thought nothing of it. At least now with the request from FOC starting today I donot think that is unreasonable to cease BB ing for this time period. Don't you agree?

[alwaysfishn]

At least now with the request from FOC startiung today I donot think that is unreasonable to cease BB ing for this time period. Don't you agree?

Yes I agree. The reason I agree is that DFO has made the request and if fishermen don't comply, DFO will close the river. Over the next few weeks I look forward to setting my barfing gear on the sparsely populated bars.   

As you have gathered what I disagree with is bickering with each other over minor issues such as bb'ing and trying to make our position point by belittling others. While you have not used the term "snaggers", others have, and I have never heard you correct them. This is counter productive to the sport fisherman's cause and I believe is being noted by politicians and FN groups. That's why people like Crey are using that info as ammunition to take their agenda to the public and politicians are generally ignoring us.

We need to be careful to not sound like the smoker who stops smoking and then try's to convince all their smoker friends to stop smoking. After a while it's tough listening to them. 

[Steelhawk]

I agree with AF totally. Due to constant flaming within our own sport fishing community by defaming & twisting bbing out of porportion, DFO & FN will now consider the recreational sector capable of threatening the fish stock (what a joke, man). How much of their action is influenced by the constant peddling of the bf fanatics?  Even this sockeye C/R study may have been initiated by the constant lobbying of influential members of the bf groups, saying that bb kills sockeyes. It is really affecting the name of the sport fishing sector unnecessarily, considering we have retained zero sockeye whereas the other sectors (FN & test fisheries) have killed 40,000+ fish, and we have retained meager number of fish in the past compared to others. Yet we are the group singled out for action and not others. Why? Guys, use your brain. Isn't this fishy and quite a cruel joke? I really think somebody's relentless effort to shut down your fellow anglers' fishing oppportunities may back fire, as the whole sport fishing community will  now be convieniently blamed for the disappearance of sockeyes. If the public media pick up on this, we as a free people pursuing a wholesome hobby will be in trouble. We don't need to give PETA or FN sympathizers more ammo to attack us as a group. Do you really think the uninformed public can differentiate one method from the others, or how few fish we have caught compared to other groups? I don't think so. They will make their impression based on how many times they see headlines saying that sporties are now threatening fish stocks. That is what Crey wants to create, a smoke screen.

Is it really possible to massively convert bbers to bfers? Not really. If you study the demographics of the bbers, most are not retirees, not own a boat, don't live near the fishing locations and can't fish often like some of the bfers can. There are some exceptions but most bbers drive far to hopefully catch a fish on the only trip of the week so the whole family can enjoy that wholesome catch. Can most of these people withstand the constant empty trips of bf to still retain their interest to keep on fishing? Perhaps some. But realistically, they will not be interested. To be a bfer, you need to spend for a boat and for a truck/SUV strong enough to pull a boat. These expenses will scare off most bbers. So they will stop fishing. And if they like eating salmon, they will buy from FN. The assumption that the drop-outs will refrain from buying from FN because of ethics or fish stocks concern is just not realistic. Perhaps some will, but not the majority. There are not many saints around these days.

The net result will be major drop in license revenue, loss of economic opportunities for local businesses catering to the fishermen, as well as a shrinking number of fellow fishermen who will share your concern of the big picture of fish stock conservation (and less people willing to go to pick up garbage  ), less number of eyes on the river to report FN's illegal fishing, and worst so, they may join in the buying group of the FN supply line which will motivate the latter to catch some more and some more....  Also, if even just a small portion of them convert to bf, then the bf bars can really get crowded if you still want the generous distance between bf rods. Well, the retirees bfers may not care because they don't usually fish the weekends, but are you really that selfish to think for yourself and not for other fishermen?

Also when DFO is faced with lesser revenue, what is the usual pattern? Budget cut of course. Which means cut to hatchery stocking usually (have they ever reduced staff salary/benefits?). Which means you and I will have less fish to catch. So eventually, it will have far reaching consequence than just shutting down bbers and keeping the majority of fishermen out of the Fraser River.

Is this the future big picture you wish to see by your contant action to push people to fish like you (or else don't fish at all)? All because of your view that it is not fair for the fish to be taken because it doesn't bite? Does the fish care if it becomes your dinner just because the poor thing just wants to eat its own dinner? Does it even have that smart in its primitive brain to make that judgement and thank you for making it your dinner the right way? So, can we as a united sport fishing community, leave the bb on Fraser alone as a special situation, and have a united front on other issues which have much more impact on the future of fish stocks and which can protect our fishing rights for generations to come?

While the current study on the impact of c/r bbing is going on, I really think some anti-sockeye-fishing minds should also carefully examine the impact of their actions on the future of sport fishing.

[bederko]

Steelhawk,

I believe the C&R study was originally put forward by members of the Cheam Band.  I doubt their actions were "influenced by the constant peddling of the barfishing fanatics" as you so eloquently put it. 

"Also when DFO is faced with lesser revenue, what is the usual pattern? Budget cut of course. Which means cut to hatchery stocking usually (have they ever reduced staff salary/benefits?). Which means you and I will have less fish to catch. So eventually, it will have far reaching consequence than just shutting down bbers and keeping the majority of fishermen out of the Fraser River." - Firstly, DFO gets no revenue from license sales.  Second, where in BC do they raise hatchery sockeye besides Cultus and Inch Cr?  And those sockeye are definitely not raised for the recreational fishery, strictly for conservation concern.  Not sure what this comment has to do with any of the discussion... DFO hatcheries were never intended to produce fish for you to catch with a rod. They produced fish for the commercial sector and I don't believe (even though the commercial numbers have dwindled) that this mandate has changed.

P.S. Rodney, your writings on the whole sockeye subject have been refreshing to read.  I appreciate your unbiased opinions above all others on the forum, kudos to a great moderator in the truest sense of the word.

[Steelhawk]

Fair enough. So where does the license revenue go? Who do we pay to when we get online to buy our licenses? If our license revenue does not go to support the hatcheries, who and what agencies take our money and spend on what?

I know hatcheries don't raise sockeyes. That is not what I mean. Don't hatcheries get funding from DFO? So if hatcheries are facing budget short fall, they cut fish production, which may mean chinooks and coho. We do see the Chillwack hatchery cut 600K coho smolts a few years ago, and look at how few coho in the river compared to many years ago. I am not sure if they also cut chinook stocking too, but I do remember more than a decade ago fishing for Chinooks/springs on the Vedder was exciting and really productive. Now, there is not even enough to return to the hatchery and many fishing reports were reporting next to nothing. Can't always blame ocean survival. When the stocking is cut, there will be less fish to support a productive fishery.

[scuntor]

Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC gets a big chunk of license revenue. Not sure if there are any other targeted funds or if the rest goes into general revenue.

[Steelhead King]

JUst got back from fishing today.. and did meet up with those guys doing the study.. They are doing beach scine and sport caught for they study...  so far they have keep about 50 sport caught in the holding pan for the last 24 hrs and everyone swim away freely this afternoon...   

[Gaffer]

Chris: You know you're wrong about the Study not getting off the ground last year. I participated last year as a member of a local fishing club to dispel once and for all the myth that hook caught die after release. Of 289 fish caught over a 3 wk period only 2 died-one was seal bit before being caught by hook and the other was a bleeder from the brachial artery . The study then & now is monitored by a DFO Rep & is paid for by funds from the Fraser Basin Council . The VOLUNTEERS are given a hat for participating in this Scientific study . So come out on & all to help 07:30 -08:00 Mon to Fri Island 22 for ride---See For Yourself--