Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Non Selective Fishing.  (Read 15754 times)

nosey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
Non Selective Fishing.
« on: August 07, 2016, 10:53:04 AM »

Does anyone here have any good ideas on how to politely and peacefully shame the guys out there bottom bouncing into perhaps learning a different method of fishing. I have explained to quite a few bottom bouncers this year that they were the ones solely responsible for getting the river closed last year in the middle of the spring opening with mixed results. The one guy even told me he thought that might of been it because the one day they were 2 dfo officers came to the bar where they were bbing with notebooks and counted them all and the next day the river was closed, he was bar fishing when I talked to him but had a snagging outfit leaning against the tree behind him, which he folded up after we had our conversation. However when i rode my bicycle past the parking spot at Laidlaw this morning and yelled out "I see there's a bunch of F***king snaggers going out again today" it didn't seem to be met with positive results at all. I don't even think a lot of these guys are aware that they will close the river down again if they count too many people using non selective methods, I find it hard to believe that that many fishermen would deliberately screw things up for the rest of the sports fishermen out there, I cannot entirely grasp that mentality. There somehow needs to be some form of better education, perhaps getting together with other bar fishermen arriving early at the popular bb spots and blocking them off with bar rods, passing out educational pamphlets and taking the time to explain politely to these inconsiderate idiots the consequences of their actions, somehow I don't think I'd be that good at that.  IDK I find this problem perplexing, perhaps someone in here has some workable solutions. From years past discussions on here I am aware that there are a lot of die hard bottom bouncers on this forum, so maybe some of them could explain to us what made them respect the fisheries request lol or not.
Logged

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14817
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2016, 10:57:58 AM »

...and yelled out "I see there's a bunch of F***king snaggers going out again today" it didn't seem to be met with positive results at all.

Yeah, that's totally unreasonable for them to be all negative, I can't see why that'd happen.

odesseus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2016, 11:38:20 AM »

While I appreciate the selective fishing method debate and what everyone, including the DFO is trying to convey; not sure how much the DFO REALLY care? Both the FN and commercial fisheries use non-selective gill nets. From a purely statistical point of view this would seem to impact the non targeted / pressured species much more than the BB'ers. A gill net stretched bank to bank, or left tethered picks up not only all salmon species but wild steel head, sturgeon and others. Looking at the big picture I would think the decision to open or close a fishery would be based primarily around return levels and politics. The recommendations around angler methods are well meaning but rhetorical when the statistical by catch is considered against other fisheries.

There is also another point to consider; that the fishery many are so eager to condemn is a non-FN, subsistence / ceremonial fishery. There is no commercial element to this fishery whatsoever (catch is never resold) and most if not all is eaten by the angler themselves. By recognizing that this valuable fishery feeds many families and carries important cultural significance for non-FN peoples; we should have more consideration prior to the quick condemnation of it's anglers.
Logged

Sage2106

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2016, 11:41:53 AM »

In a perfect world the gill nets would be banned.
Logged

MetalAndFeathers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 498
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2016, 11:49:13 AM »

Change regulations to set-line only.
Logged

odesseus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2016, 12:14:39 PM »

As will other highly pressured global stocks; set line or fish weir may become the only option.
Logged

DanL

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2016, 12:35:17 PM »

I have explained to quite a few bottom bouncers this year that they were the ones solely responsible for getting the river closed last year in the middle of the spring opening

Is this really true? Have the DFO ever actually cited too much non-selective methods going on as the actual reason for that or any other closure in the past? 

The whole "non-selective method is strongly discouraged" thing has been in the recreational fisheries notices for over 10 years now and hasn't done squat in changing behavior. It's been so ineffective that it's basically a running joke IMHO. As long as its technically legal then lots of people are going to do it.

If they don't want bottom bouncing then come up with some regulation that can be specifically enforced and then maybe us as a sport-fishing community can use to pressure fellow anglers. Set Line Only, leader length restrictions, or whatever. I believe the vast majority of fisherman are law abiding so if you change the regs they will follow.

Considering how rich the salmon fishing opportunities are around here I surprised how far behind the curve Canada/BC is in this. BB/snagging is not unique to us, west coast states like Washington & Oregon have had the same problems but at least they have taken the initiative to put some regs in place to deal with it.  The fact that we are so far behind on this is embarrassing.

Related note; why is it seemingly so hard to change regs here? I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that they were very close to implementing a leader length restriction or something last year but it got derailed by some faction. Perhaps someone more familiar with the process can lay out the process or barriers...
Logged

nosey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2016, 02:34:54 PM »

That is the truth, they  closed the opening last year in the middle of a dynamite run of Springs because of the number of bottom bouncers. Now there are another bunch of bottom bouncers out there that flat out do not care that they are running the risk if getting the river shut down again directly because of them, this has got nothing to do with gill nets or any other legal fishery this has everything to do with inorance and discoutacy towards your fellow fisherman I have no problem. How much credibility can sports fishermen expect at any bargoning table when you can just drive up the highway and see dozens of sport fishermen out there directly disobeying  a dfo request that made for conservation purposes.
Logged

nosey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2016, 02:41:16 PM »

It was last year when theyou finally defined bottom bouncing and flossing as the non selective methods they were referring to, this did this to remove grey areas. There are no grey areas now just ignorant people that don't care if they get the river shut down or not. I have no problem beine at odds with other sports fishermen whatsoever thank you if they are that inconsiderate
Logged

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14817
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2016, 03:06:05 PM »

Last summer's mid season closure was indeed because Fisheries and Oceans Canada decided too many people were fishing unselectively, but most of this was pressured by First Nations who were not permitted to harvest sockeye salmon at the time. The rationale was that if First Nations could not fish for sockeye salmon due to conservation concerns, recreational fishermen could also not have an impact on them even if they were by-caught and released. My colleagues and I at the Sport Fishing Advisory Committee repeatedly urged people to only bar fish, but in the end the recreational fishing community was once again not organized enough and got played around and kept off the river during the peak of the season. Meanwhile, First Nations fishers were granted their chinook salmon openings, with sockeye salmon being by-caught and harvested in the net anyway.

I and few others spent pretty much the entire last August in email communication trying to get the fishery reopened. One question posed was that at what percentage of non-selective fishing practice do we decide that it is unacceptable? Just about everyone downstream from Agassiz last year (this year too) has been practicing bar fishing and having a great time doing so. Few locations known for bottom bouncing continue to see bottom bouncers above Agassiz, should location-specific closures not be considered rather than punishing the entire community where majority of the participants are willing to cooperate? The other issue I pointed out was the inaccuracy when it came to observation of angling methods. DFO uses fly-by method to count rods and determine the percentage of angling method out of all the participants. Somehow, they'd decided that during the first weekend of opening last August, 87% of the participants in the Tidal Fraser River were fishing unselectively. If you've fished the tidal portion of the Fraser River regularly like me, you'll know what I think about that number... The % was based on 15 anglers they counted, two were observed bar fishing, while the other 13 were apparently bottom bouncing. Four categories of fishing methods were being counted - bottom bouncing, bar fishing, fly fishing and trolling. What about spincasting, which is probably the most commonly used method in the Tidal Fraser River?



1A - Port Mann to Mission
1 - Mission to Agassiz
2 - Agassiz to Hope


So you ask, if bottom bouncing poses a threat to the conservation effort on sockeye salmon, why is a regulation which prohibits it during sockeye closure not implemented? Guess what we've been trying to do in the past two years? Going into the last four or five sport fishing advisory committee meetings since 2014, representatives in the Fraser Valley who speak on behalf of you, had worked extremely hard to come up with such regulations so the river can remain open for fishing. Everyone agrees that we'd rather have some fishing opportunities with some limitations, than no fishing opportunities at all. Just about all of us (with the exception of one organization that is too stubborn to look out for your interest) put aside all the differences and worked hard together to present these options to Fisheries and Oceans Canada so the proposal can be put forward to the South Coast Sport Fishing Advisory Board Where it'd work with DFO to make this a reality, so we do not experience a closure like last year. Twice it has been pushed, twice it has been declined. There isn't a will, other than those who are directly involved in this fishery, to restrict terminal tackle so recreational fishermen can have a more consistent Fraser River salmon opening. Stop wasting your time asking for it. If you think it can be changed, become an vocal representative and show up at these meetings. The attendance at these SFAC meetings are truly pathetic. The Upper Fraser SFAC meeting, which oversees probably the busiest fishing activities in this province, has maybe 6 sport fishing representatives showing up every time. All of them (excluding myself), are 50+. Where are all the young 18 to 35 yo who are so vocally angry about these closures on the internet? At times there are maybe 15 people at the meeting, twice as many DFO staffs as the sport reps. IMO anyone who isn't involved and actively fishes in the Fraser Valley is partially blamed for these closures. You think going down to the river and "educating" those who are legally fishing by calling them f**king snaggers is going to make a difference? Keep it up, we'll see what difference it has done in ten years from now.

This is just one of many inconsistencies that I have seen in the past ten+ years since I started being involved at these meetings. I am regularly pointing out the outdated regulations on DFO's website which show fisheries closed when they are in fact open. Wrong daily quotas listed and only corrected AFTER the fishery is done. Last year, after the Fraser reopened for chinook salmon, I repeatedly wanted clarification on whether no fishing or no retention (catch and release permitted) applied to pink and chum salmon. The answer I got was:

"Yes, and to be clear, the key message is that we want fishers to direct their effort on chinook. Further to this, pink and chum are not open to retention at this time so why would fishers be targeting them?"

Apparently some staffs fail to understand that C&R is what keeps many of our recreational fisheries open in this province.

Two seasons ago, the proposal of night time fishing ban for the Fraser River was brought up at the table to combat night time sturgeon poaching. None of us were in favour of it as it takes eyes and ears off the river, and eliminating those who enjoy fishing at night during the summer, for any species. We'd asked for more consultation time. A few months later, the province decided to add the night time fishing ban for the non-tidal portion of the Fraser River in the new regulation synopsis. While at the spring SFAC meeting, we were still discussing whether it should be closed or not because all of the poaching happens in the Tidal Fraser. I pulled out the new synopsis, and to everyone's surprise, it already showed that it is now closed. Since the province couldn't close the tidal portion as it is under federal jurisdiction, they closed the non-tidal so DFO can follow and make the closure consistent by closing the tidal.

This was followed by this year's night time closure for the Tidal Fraser added by DFO.

Four years ago, we talked about the proposed sockeye salmon communal fishery in Chilliwack River for Chilliwack First Nations. The proposed methods were dip netting and seine netting, to reduce impact and prevent potential conflicts between user groups. That year hardly any fish were caught due to challenges of using these methods in a new fishery. This year, without being notified, gill nets can now be used in this fishery because the other methods are just not effective enough.

??? ??? ???

And don't blame all of this on the natives either. The amount of hate on First Nations being displayed whenever you don't get to fish can make me puke. First Nations know their rights to harvest and are very organized to make sure their rights are recognized. Good for them. The lack of participation and dysfunctional organization within the sport fishing community when it comes to lobbying what we want is a complete joke. Instead of proactively fighting for the loss of these opportunities, we rather complain about what others are doing, publicly shame someone who unknowingly makes a mistake, rant about how crowded our own fisheries have become and bicker about the smallest things that makes no difference in the big picture.

Which fishery are you willing to give up next?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2016, 04:09:19 PM by Rodney »
Logged

swimmingwiththefishes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 318
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2016, 03:53:57 PM »

I whole heartedly agree with Rodney's analysis, although I don't know if it's worth getting too worked up about the complainers on the forum.  I mean really just look at most online forums for anything, full of complainers, racism etc..., as it's an anonymous way of venting.   

I commend very much the work of those sport fishing advocates who attend those meetings and hope they continue. They and those leading the various rec fish organizations are the ones who should be taking the lead and should continue to do so.

I do think that the constant ranting against the FN fisheries is not helpful and gets us nowhere, and more work should be done to work with them around conservation through organizations like the PSF . The initiative to work with them to use small seines is a step in the right direction and hopefully DFO can provide them with some actual incentives such as a very limited access to a legal commercial harvest. There is already an under the table commercial sale let's at least open this up and acknowledge it and make it legal (with a reasonable harvest).  Another idea might be for the rec sector to work with FN on obtaining an exception to the current ban on seal hunting, and allow for a small harvest number especially for the salmon smolt specialists (lot's of interesting research coming out on this).

Just a few ideas that probably aren't very good but maybe could be...

In the end, the rec opportunity and most importantly the fish are the ones that will lose out if we just keep battling FN.  Their opportunity is guaranteed by the charter. They have very little incentive to work with us unless we bring something to the table, like dollars for conservation and hatchery programs (managed well), that increase the stocks.

Logged

DanL

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2016, 04:08:08 PM »

Thanks for the time for such an epic post.

Last summer's mid season closure was indeed because Fisheries and Oceans Canada decided too many people were fishing unselectively, but most of this was pressured by First Nations who were not permitted to harvest sockeye salmon at the time.

This might be a minor point but should not the DFO specifically cite non-selective methods as a reason for closing down a fishery whether the methodology was solid or not, if that was indeed their actual justification. Maybe if those who participate in such methods can see how their actions can literally ruin the opportunity for everyone including themselves then they might start taking such recommendations in the fisheries notices a bit more seriously. If they don't offer the actual reason for the closure then people will just blame low returns, water temps, natives or everything else but themselves.

Quote
The attendance at these SFAC meetings are truly pathetic. The Upper Fraser SFAC meeting, which oversees probably the busiest fishing activities in this province, has maybe 6 sport fishing representatives showing up every time. All of them (excluding myself), are 50+. Where are all the young 18 to 35 yo who are so vocally angry about these closures on the internet?

Can literally just any member of the public attend these meetings and have a voice? I would imagine most of those angry youngsters don't even realize there are ways to get involved in these issues.
Logged

Sage2106

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2016, 04:19:32 PM »

I don't understand why everyone steers away from bad talking the natives. I've been fishing the Fraser for 30+ years with my dad who has 30+ years on me. Spend some time out there and watch the over exploitation by the natives. Over fishing is 90% of the problem. Like in the fall when they do all the beach seining pulling chums and pinks off their reds by the thousands and people question where the fish are going. People need to open their eyes to the reality of things and stop burying their heads in the sand to the true cause of our salmon depletion.
Logged

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14817
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2016, 07:00:44 PM »

Sage2016,

What we are discussing here is not really whether bottom bouncing causes similar damages as other user groups, but how we can retain our fishing opportunities and stop having our seasons cutting short. There's no doubt that First Nations' fisheries, either legal or not, have a huge impact on the resource. I think everyone can agree on that. We can probably also agree that the commercial operations in the ocean, plus other human caused factors (pumping raw sewage into the estuaries where smoltification occurs, loss of spawning habitat due to development, water shortage due to improper management, and climate change...). What the recreational fishing community needs to do is to form one voice and have one consistent response on every issue. To start with, we need a chair at the sport fishing advisory committee who can lead the group. Right now there isn't one. We need people to start joining groups such as the Fraser Valley Salmon Society, BC Federation of Drift Fishers and contribute to the newly formed Fraser River Sportfishing Alliance which is representing all of these groups. We also need to work with the First Nations and support the current Peace Keepers program where our reps sit at the table with FV chiefs so issues like illegal netting, user conflicts can be dealt with. You might be surprised to find that many First Nations' individuals share the same concerns as you.

DanL,

Anyone can attend these meetings. If you cannot, the next best thing is to join an organization which has a representation at these meetings as mentioned earlier, so you can stay informed and form educated opinions when these issues arise. Right now, what really angers me is that most people choose to form an opinion without getting all the facts. A good example of this is when I shared the Chilliwack netting information on our Facebook page last week. I had expected people to read the information provided, instead just about everyone went off on a rant about FN after seeing the title "Netting Vedder canal".

https://www.facebook.com/fishingwithrod/posts/10153863203582712

swimmingwiththefishes,

That's right. Keep fighting FN for their rights to fish will find ourselves at the losing end of the battle. Looking back in the past ten years to see what progress has been made in dealing with this, not many positive things. We now have even less rec fishing opportunities in rivers, and for the first time we are seeing gill netting in the Vedder being legalized.

nosey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
Re: Non Selective Fishing.
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2016, 07:15:49 PM »

A lot of people do not realize that the rights of indigenous populations of our country are enshrined into our Constitution and won by the natives in hard fought  court battle's, some lasting over decades we just can't take that away with the swipe of a pen those are fights already settled , it would take another hundred years of court battles to change anything with the possible outcome of the sport fishery losing all rigbts to fish in the river.These are the laws of the land we live in, this is not going to change, you can't just bitch about the  natives every time there is a change in regulations or restrictions.  I just find it extremely frustrating that other anglers would disregard the fisheries requests with no thought whatsoever of the results of their actions.  And actually shaming may help, I heard of a few cases last year on Gill where the bottom bouncers were discouraged from continuing by the loud and boisterous voices of the bar fishermen present and by the end of the season there were no bottom bouncers there. I of course do not believe in spot closures above the Rosedale Agassiz bridge as that would directly affect me. Thank you Rodney for your insite on this, with the amount of work and time you put into this I know of no one else as informed on this matter, lol I'd keep away from the spot closure idea if it is possible, that's just another closed fishing opportunity but 8 would sooner sacrifice my fishing spots than watch a bunch of snaggers snubbing their noses at those of us looking for ways to make it work within the boundaries given us,
Logged