Print

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

[RalphH]

RG if you have sources you should cite them. I have a background in Anthropology & it's not just "close to 5 years "of 1st and 2nd year night school courses.  There was intense fishing activity in the Fraser Canyon in the summer when sockeye migrate. Bands came from as far away as the Southern part of the Island to hereditary fishing locations in the Canyon. The canyon was preferred due to the warm summer winds that were perfect for drying salmon. Yearly consumption of dried fish was likely dozens per person per year. Sockeye were targeted as they have the highest oil and protein content. Other salmon were targeted for fresh fish or when sockeye were not plentiful. Native oral traditions record instances of low abundance and even total stock collapse that brought famine. Natives fished 24/7 for many months to catch and preserve fish whereas seine and gillnets may target sockeye a few days per year currently.

Population before the small pox and other epidemics vary widely but currently now moderate estimates suggests that there were three to five hundred thousand FNs in the Pacific Northwest of BC alone. ( https://opentextbc.ca/postconfederation/chapter/11-3-natives-by-the-numbers/ )

[wildmanyeah]

looks pretty effective to me! maybe that's why DFO banned it?

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/165966.pdf

[Robert_G]

It was estimated the average Aboriginal salmon catch pre-contact to be ~88 million kg per year, comparable in magnitude to the average yearly commercial catch between 1901 and 2000 (Jones 2002).


“The Northwest Coast was estimated to have the second highest indigenous population density in North America (after California) at European contact, with population estimates ranging from 102,100 to 210,100. At an annual average per person consumption rate of 230 kg/yr, 200,000 people would annually consume 46,000 metric tons (50,706 tons) of salmon, comparable in magnitude to the average yearly commercial catch between 1901 and 2000 (Jones 2002).”

You're talking basically from North of Prince Rupert to Portland....geographic borders were different. We're talking about catch on the Fraser system only. You would have to include the whole Vancouver Island and all the runs from the little streams up and down the coasts which are numbered well into the thousands. The catch numbers you have here aren't that bad when you consider the whole province plus the Pacific northwest....also given the fact that small streams were very healthy then....same small streams today many are devoid of salmon.

RG if you have sources you should cite them. I have a background in Anthropology & it's not just "close to 5 years "of 1st and 2nd year night school courses.  There was intense fishing activity in the Fraser Canyon in the summer when sockeye migrate. Bands came from as far away as the Southern part of the Island to hereditary fishing locations in the Canyon. The canyon was preferred due to the warm summer winds that were perfect for drying salmon. Yearly consumption of dried fish was likely dozens per year. Sockeye were targeted as they have the highest oil and protein content. Other salmon were targeted for fresh fish or when sockeye were not plentiful. Native oral traditions record instances of low abundance and even total stock collapse that brought famine. Natives fished 24/7 for many months to catch and preserve fish whereas seine and gillnets may target sockeye a few days per year currently.

Again....it all comes down to match and logistics....During a good sockeye run, we know that the Mission echo counting estimates anywhere from 20000-150000 sockeye per DAY go by. I don't care how many guys are standing out there with dipnets....You simply can't scoop up that many fish with that ancient technology.

[GordJ]

"Again....it all comes down to match and logistics....During a good sockeye run, we know that the Mission echo counting estimates anywhere from 20000-150000 sockeye per DAY go by. I don't care how many guys are standing out there with dipnets....You simply can't scoop up that many fish with that ancient technology. "


They say the enemy of learning is knowing.
I guess a couple of weirs across the Adams wouldn't be effective? Those silly Indians would be out dip netting the Fraser instead trapping on the Allouette or Salmon or Nicomeckl (sp) because they're not smart enough to harvest efficiently. They'd all be standing on the Mission bridge dip netting.

[RalphH]

Again....it all comes down to match and logistics....During a good sockeye run, we know that the Mission echo counting estimates anywhere from 20000-150000 sockeye per DAY go by. I don't care how many guys are standing out there with dipnets....You simply can't scoop up that many fish with that ancient technology.

this is just a strawman argument. Who said they were scooping up 20,000 to 150,000 sockeye a day with dip nets? I said the numbers they took were substantial. I didn't say it was on an industrial scale.

If for example there were 50,000 FNs in the Fraser Basin with a yearly consumption of 3 dozen sockeye per year , that's close to 2 million fish per year.

[BBarley]

Wow, this thread escalated to the typical racial debate it always boils down to. First Nations took millions long before we got here, traditionally they’re main villages were located at choke points that allowed for advantageous salmon harvesting. Moricetown Canyon on the Bulkley, Fort Babine on Babine/Nilkitkwa Lake, Kisgegas Canyon on the Babine River, Kispiox at the mouth of the Kispiox River. What’s different today is what the smolts go into, hard to argue with ocean acidification through carbon sequestration, ice melt influencing salinity levels and ocean currents. Range expansion of predator species and major fluctuations in the levels of available biomass in the major ranges these salmon inhabit while in the ocean. This isn’t even touching on inland habitat change.......

The argument that “they took millions of fish before we got here coast wide, so we can take millions today” holds zero water. We shall see when the proof is in the pudding in 2022 just how the trend (or cycle) is fairing.

[Hike_and_fish]

Wow, this thread escalated to the typical racial debate it always boils down to. First Nations took millions long before we got here, traditionally they’re main villages were located at choke points that allowed for advantageous salmon harvesting. Moricetown Canyon on the Bulkley, Fort Babine on Babine/Nilkitkwa Lake, Kisgegas Canyon on the Babine River, Kispiox at the mouth of the Kispiox River. What’s different today is what the smolts go into, hard to argue with ocean acidification through carbon sequestration, ice melt influencing salinity levels and ocean currents. Range expansion of predator species and major fluctuations in the levels of available biomass in the major ranges these salmon inhabit while in the ocean. This isn’t even touching on inland habitat change.......

The argument that “they took millions of fish before we got here coast wide, so we can take millions today” holds zero water. We shall see when the proof is in the pudding in 2022 just how the trend (or cycle) is fairing.

You lost me at the first line. Something about race ? Yawn. Cant people speak frankly anymore ? BUT then you got me back into reading your post with a very informative ending. Well said.

[RalphH]

gee Mr Barley I mentioned declining ocean conditions and related lower survival rates several posts if not pages back. Yet people think our lakes and rivers are akin to puppy mills - we just need to have much larger #s of breeding pairs than dumb old DFO allows past the gillnets to have pre-historic scale massive returns. The ocean will do the rest.

Nobody said FNs take 'millions'.

[BBarley]

I’m not saying that simply putting more fish on the redds means more offspring. I’ve had that discussion with the nice folks at the Babine Weir/Fulton Creek Spawning Channel years back. Fully aware of carrying capacity, overspawning, production levels of lakes for rearing sockeye in these cases. IIRC years back they dumped nutrients in Morice Lake in an effort to boost sockeye carrying capacity and boost sockeye returns for the Wetsuweten Band all along the Bulkley/Morice which had little to no effect as spawners were simply too diluted within the enhanced Babine run and could never rebuild the numbers.

What is within our control though Ralph? And I’m not asking that as a rebuff to poke holes in your argument or to rationalize mine, I’m genuinely a concerned individual looking for some veteran wisdom about what we can do to conserve and maybe even rebuild what we have left without pointing fingers at anyone. We’re in mutual agreement about inland carrying capacity and declining ocean productivity. Where do we go from here? 

[RalphH]

What is within our control though Ralph?... I’m genuinely a concerned individual... about what we can do to conserve and maybe even rebuild what we have left

What a lot to ask and I don't believe I am any more able to answer this than anyone else.

I am don't believe much is within our control as individuals. I can only speak for myself and believe others really have to stick with their gut, their own perception and beliefs.

I do believe the biggest threat our anadromous fisheries face currently is climate change & it's effect on the oceans. I am tempted to say take up trout fishing or get ready for striped bass and shad.

In our control is how we act and what we do. As an angler I have a relatively smaller carbon footprint than some though not necessarily by choice. Living close to Vancouver I have to travel more than someone who lives up the valley. But I don't go fishing close to everyday. Mostly once or 2x a week. I don't kill a lot fish. I don't own a power boat. I think the small trend to 'human powered' fishing craft is a positive thing. High powered boast - not that good.

I think however useless, write our policy makers. Tell them what you think and what you are concerned about. Thinking of sockeye consider Cultus Lake as the prime illustration of how to destroy a good sockeye population. As a watershed Cultus is over used and over developed. We need to do more to protect out shorelines and water basins for greedy developers and over use. Could Chilliwack Lake be next?

What is in our control is what we do. The alliances and relationships made, the perceptions of the non-angling public we form.

[Robert_G]

What a lot to ask and I don't believe I am any more able to answer this than anyone else.

I am don't believe much is within our control as individuals. I can only speak for myself and believe others really have to stick with their gut, their own perception and beliefs.

I do believe the biggest threat our anadromous fisheries face currently is climate change & it's effect on the oceans.
What is in our control is what we do. The alliances and relationships made, the perceptions of the non-angling public we form.

Man....do you sound like a politician......and that shouldn't be taken as a compliment...

[RalphH]

Man....do you sound like a politician......and that shouldn't be taken as a compliment...

I neither expect or would accept such a thing from you.

[Hike_and_fish]

A TON of sockeye rolling around out there yesterday. We were bar fishing Spaghetti bar area and counted over 50 throughout the morning.

[RalphH]

Mission Hydro-acoustic #s have jumped to around 100 to 150K in the last few days. Cool temperatures and rain have got the Adams River fish moving upstream in big #s

[wildmanyeah]

Yeah, They are in mass right now.