Print

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

[Morty]

Chemical poisoning.
I'm against fishing for Steelhead with chemically cured bait because Steelhead can live-on after spawning and breed another year or more.

If a Steelhead takes a cured bait and shakes the hook, or is wild and released, that chemically cured roe, or shrimp, or prawn, or.... remains in their gut.  I've seen several pictures of legally retained steelhead when 'gutted' revealed several baits in their stomach.  I sense that roe-bags would cause additional threats.

Curing with non-iodized salt 'might' be ok, but borax and many of the other chemicals are poisonous.  [Although Boron (the basis of borax) in micro-concentrations is essential for animal life, higher concentrations can be poisonous].  Rainbow Trout, a very close relative to Steelhead, seem to be the most sensitive.

 http://www.greenfacts.org/en/boron/l-3/boron-5.htm

[RalphH]

I’ve learned to respect your single mindedness, Robert, and your absolute confidence in your singular grasp of the truth.

It’s reported that the Thompson steelhead started to decline in the 1990’s. When did the Fraser chum gillnet fishery begin?

I have a copy of a letter dated in the 1950s from a biologist with DFO that discusses the impact of the fall gillnet fishery in the Fraser on Thompson steelhead. Estimate of the by catch was 3,000 or so - about 30 to 40% of the run. He estimated while the gillnets reduced the # of fish available to anglers on the Thompson it did not seem to effect the size of the total return. In the mid 80s a study of the FN sockeye fishery estimated  the by catch could take as many as 5,000.

[Robert_G]

Part of the problem is that too many people here and the so called experts don't really understand how run timing and genetic diversity work...dependent and independent of each other that is...
The bycatch numbers you mention are not sustainable 'long term' to keep strong genetics in the runs. It takes its toll after time. We are seeing the final stages of that right now.

Its the same as when some of you guys ask why certain runs of salmon or steelhead only contain smaller fish. What happened to the big fish we used to catch on 'x' or 'y' stream?
The answer is the same. Loss of genetic diversity.

Almost every system sees the same pattern. First they lose the larger/stronger fish, then years later...the population crashes. Only hatchery systems survive....and I can tell you from both personal experience and catch statistics that both the Coho and Steelhead on the Vedder are averaging smaller every year.  A simple case of loss in genetic diversity. So the loss of numbers in a run doesn't necessarily happen at the same time a big commercial gillnet fishery starts. The timing will vary on the actual collapse.
The Thompson Steelhead are past that stage and with no hatchery, this strain of Summer Run Steelhead are in the final stages of collapse.

[RalphH]

...hmm. I think you have seriously misread my post and missed the point.

For a start the other fisherman was not a 'noob'. I had met him a number of times and he was clearly experienced. I also did not say any coho he caught - I wrote "he said he had just released a 10lb coho doe and had released some number of cutthroat and jacks" - had died or floated belly up. The trout are all wild in that stream as are most of the coho. Though I hate to see such fish floating belly up I made a point of not discussing it with him.

BTW if you caught 200 coho in one season that in itself is a problem in my book. I think I caught 25 to date and killed 4 hatchery fish

How's that for elitism?

[RalphH]

Part of the problem is that too many people here and the so called experts don't really understand how run timing and genetic diversity work...dependent and independent of each other that is...
The bycatch numbers you mention are not sustainable 'long term' to keep strong genetics in the runs. It takes its toll after time. We are seeing the final stages of that right now.

I've never heard this particular version of the erosion of genetic diversity RG, do you have a source for this?

As far as the 40% rate of by catch for T steelhead ....well the traditional harvest rate for IF coho through to the 80s was 60% to 70% (from Brian Riddell's talk at the BCWF selective fishery seminar earlier this year) and still the long term average return of fish was maintained.

Other research on T steelhead found there was a fry to parr bottleneck, regardless of the number fry produced we ended with the same # of parr implying there was some loss of productivity in the rearing waters.

[avid angler]

I have a copy of a letter dated in the 1950s from a biologist with DFO that discusses the impact of the fall gillnet fishery in the Fraser on Thompson steelhead. Estimate of the by catch was 3,000 or so - about 30 to 40% of the run. He estimated while the gillnets reduced the # of fish available to anglers on the Thompson it did not seem to effect the size of the total return. In the mid 80s a study of the FN sockeye fishery estimated  the by catch could take as many as 5,000.

The chum roe fishery became a bigger problem for ifs when the chum were enhanced and the run timing changed to earlier in the season and the ifs migration timing. Also how can it effect the number of fish available to anglers but not the total return? Your statement completely contradicts itself.

[avid angler]

Chemical poisoning.
I'm against fishing for Steelhead with chemically cured bait because Steelhead can live-on after spawning and breed another year or more.

If a Steelhead takes a cured bait and shakes the hook, or is wild and released, that chemically cured roe, or shrimp, or prawn, or.... remains in their gut.  I've seen several pictures of legally retained steelhead when 'gutted' revealed several baits in their stomach.  I sense that roe-bags would cause additional threats.

Curing with non-iodized salt 'might' be ok, but borax and many of the other chemicals are poisonous.  [Although Boron (the basis of borax) in micro-concentrations is essential for animal life, higher concentrations can be poisonous].  Rainbow Trout, a very close relative to Steelhead, seem to be the most sensitive.

 http://www.greenfacts.org/en/boron/l-3/boron-5.htm

If it’s killing them care to explain why the couple hundred broodstock caught steelhead throughout the province that are caught primarily on bait and held for months have a mortality rate of basically 0

[Robert_G]

Whoa....Ralph took me off his ignore list.

I've never heard this particular version of the erosion of genetic diversity RG, do you have a source for this?

There are thousands of journals and articles written on this.

As far as the 40% rate of by catch for T steelhead ....well the traditional harvest rate for IF coho through to the 80s was 60% to 70% (from Brian Riddell's talk at the BCWF selective fishery seminar earlier this year) and still the long term average return of fish was maintained.

And did you not notice that the Interior Coho and Steelhead crash came pretty much in the same time frame as each other? Yes the average return of fish was maintained for both Coho and Steelhead, but the collapse also was pretty much the same time frame as well. That is not a coincidence. The genetics in both Coho and Steelhead work similar to each other...as we can see by the collapse of both.
And you seem to be ignoring what I said on the stages of collapse with the large fish disappearing first before the run collapses. I KNOW you've witnessed that first hand...so I'm confused how you don't see the similarities.

Other research on T steelhead found there was a fry to parr bottleneck, regardless of the number fry produced we ended with the same # of parr implying there was some loss of productivity in the rearing waters.

The stage of growth that the fish are in or what part of the watershed they are in when the greatest losses happen is irrelevant to the collapse when we are discussing genetic diversity. The fact is that the collapse happened, is all that matters...and that it starts with losing the largest/strongest fish followed by the final stage of the run collapsing. The signs of a genetic diversity problem are obvious. That progression from start to finish is consistent in pretty much every salmon/steelhead run that we have lost. Again....I know you have witnessed that first hand.

[stsfisher]

We, my family and I exercised our right to bar fish the Fraser today to ensure generations don't forget what it is like to socialize on the river by a fire without any distractions....... Oh sorry that's another thread
Anyways I am happy to report we used guts and did our very best not to harm any fish in the process, we did however have a great day.

[milo]

And bait does work.  It must be hard to watch as the hordes of newbies catch fish on bait while you get nothing but the satisfaction of knowing that you are more evolved then them.

I don't feel I'm more evolved. I simply hate the stink and the mess associated with cured roe.
I have no issues with people using bait, except when fish are wasted only to harvest roe for fishing. If people prefer to catch fish by feeding them rather than by fooling them, so be it. Whatever cranks your tractor.
What I do know is the few times that artificials outfish roe are absolutely glorious. Like yesterday. It felt great catching the only hatchery coho in the run using a jig under the float amidst a bunch of guys washing roe.

[RalphH]

We, my family and I exercised our right to bar fish the Fraser today to ensure generations don't forget what it is like to socialize on the river by a fire without any distractions....... Oh sorry that's another thread
Anyways I am happy to report we used guts and did our very best not to harm any fish in the process, we did however have a great day.

...and that's the main reason I still keep, cure and freeze the roe I catch fishing artificials. Sadly I think bar fishing will be going the way of the dodo.

And did you not notice that the Interior Coho and Steelhead crash came pretty much in the same time frame as each other?

yes pretty much the same. Also pretty much the same as when coho stopped residing in the Straight and headed out to the West Coast of the Island.

I don't feel I'm more evolved. I simply hate the stink and the mess associated with cured roe.

what an elitist!

[milo]

what an elitist!

Thank you. Takes one to know one. 

[Morty]

If it’s killing them care to explain why the couple hundred broodstock caught steelhead throughout the province that are caught primarily on bait and held for months have a mortality rate of basically 0

I backed up MY statement!!
Give me some data to work with.  Was that bait cured?  What was it cured with?  How many baits did each swallow?
Did you even read the science in the link I provided?

[Morty]

I've never heard this particular version of the erosion of genetic diversity RG, do you have a source for this?

As far as the 40% rate of by catch for T steelhead ....well the traditional harvest rate for IF coho through to the 80s was 60% to 70% (from Brian Riddell's talk at the BCWF selective fishery seminar earlier this year) and still the long term average return of fish was maintained.

Other research on T steelhead found there was a fry to parr bottleneck, regardless of the number fry produced we ended with the same # of parr implying there was some loss of productivity in the rearing waters.

Here's what Rodney wrote to another thread this September...

So when it comes to "fitness", big or strong does not always translate into "fit" if we are talking about genetic or adaptation. A population is not fit if there are only large fish, or only small fish, or medium sized fish. Fitness of a population can be measured by diversity. The more diverse a population is, the stronger it is when it comes to a change in environment, diseases, predation etc.

Killing that one big fish does not alter the fitness of the population, you're not taking away all the big fish immediately. If it was a female, then yes you're losing a lot of offsprings so that has an impact on the population.

If we are selectively harvesting only big fish (like we have unconsciously been doing) - directional selection, then that's bad for the population in the long run. You're shifting the bell curve of the population spectrum. Over time, fish become smaller because you're slowly taking out the genes that yield larger fish.

Selectively spawning only large fish at the hatchery is no good either, again, directional selection. This time, the bell curve of the population spectrum shifts right instead of left.

[RalphH]

In Darwinian terms 'fitness' means rearing the largest number of a cohort or generation to reproduce. Size doesn't matter. Pink salmon may be a good example. Small mature size almost to the extent of coming from a cookie cutter predominates with little varistion.

 However with all salmonids, the larger the fish, particularly but exclusively with females, the more potential reproductive potential, larger females produce more eggs though large males can both control and fertilize more females.

It seems to me more and more people are recognizing many of our salmon species, at least locally, are smaller than we have historically seen on average. It also seems to me that hatchery  specimens are significantly smaller than their wild counter parts which wasn't the case 10 or 20 years ago.