Print

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

[wildmanyeah]

If everyone likes the brood take from the wild stock. What is the solution then to not killing of the early run.

Reduce fishing pressure in December, January and February?

Take brood later in the season? Or reduce it?

Or just do nothing and hope ocean survival rates improve?

[Dave]

I likes the idea from the video (on the Yakima river) of capturing and re-conditioning female kelts so they are likely to make a second spawning run - that is a real way to increase eggs in the system, which is one of the big limiting factors on numbers of steelhead.  Anything you do is going to have an impact on genetics, but that seems like a smaller impact than hatchery programs.

As Ralph suggests this is indeed do able at the Chilliwack River hatchery, just not sure if the cost involved would be worth it. 
The females are air spawned, meaning although up to 500 residual eggs are often left in the body cavity, the fish is not killed.  They are however seriously compromised in that they may be blind after spending up to 3 months in the dark, and they are subjected to weekly treatments of a known cancer causing agent ( formaldehyde) to combat bacterial/fungicide problems, possibly making their release a liability issue.

[Dave]

Or just do nothing and hope ocean survival rates improve?

Book it.

[RalphH]

The Yakima recovery program did not include any traditional hatchery (brood stock takes, egg rearing etc) input. While it wasn't clear I guess spent females were captured and then reconditioned. When I said this could be done in hatcheries I meant the facilities were there. If brood stock aren't suitable then kelts would have to be captured...if that has a sufficient payoff.

[avid angler]

If everyone likes the brood take from the wild stock. What is the solution then to not killing of the early run.

Reduce fishing pressure in December, January and February?

Take brood later in the season? Or reduce it?

Or just do nothing and hope ocean survival rates improve?

Very few January fish are taken for brood stock. The guys taking the brood don’t catch them. Last year was the first time in a long time they had more then a half dozen fish before February. The best thing as far as restrictions go would be an earlier upper closure and stricter fish handling regulations.

[avid angler]

Here is a link to Bob Hooton's latest blog regarding Vedder steelhead

http://steelheadvoices.com/?p=1846&fbclid=IwAR2G8eYrcGq6oqS36oIkUKODtaios_RVnAaETu0xlxOd6v03M5GlyAdqaVA

He makes lots of good points but his lack of experience on this system is obvious with some of the comments. The early run steelhead move through the fishable portion faster then any fish the rest of the year. Especially with the typical December-January blowouts. Typically the fish that face the worst abuse as far as re capture goes are without a doubt the February and March fish. Pressure is high, water is typically low and I find they are way more likely to stage in bounds. These are also the fish that most of the brood stock is taken from. The brood being taken above boundary by the hatchery staff is honestly the biggest problem with this whole program and where most of the early stock would be mined from. The answer to that though is more/higher skilled volunteer brood anglers to capture fish in bounds throughout the season.

[RalphH]

That Hooton's memory of the river doesn't match your current experience possibly reflects just how much things have changed in over 50 years.

[redside1]

That Hooton's memory of the river doesn't match your current experience possibly reflects just how much things have changed in over 50 years.

Bang on. So much has changed so drastically in BC steelhead fishing over the past 50 years it's incredible.

Vedder/Chilliwack had lots of fish in it by mid December. I can think of having very good double digit days fishing before Jan. 1.
By middle of March you were always catching a kelt or two if you fished above the Tamihi bridge.

Alloutte system was a mid November to end of January river.
Cheakamus river had steelhead in enough numbers to catch January 1. Used to always go there on that day with my dad and rarely was he ever skunked  Jan. 1
On and on any oldtimer could speak about when talking about what once was to what is now.

One could also wonder just how good the Vedder/Chilliwack might be if there was no hatchery on it. For all one knows, it could be the cause of early wild steelhead to not be doing so well.
Early hatchery fish spawning with early wild fish could be the reason why there is now less early returning fish. Lots of studies showing fertility rates of hatchery steelhead to be no where near that of wild steelhead.
No one ever studied it to see if that happened. Maybe it did , maybe it didn't.

[Roderick]

Sure things have changed.  Notice how all the fish in the 1962 picture had an adipose fin?  Just think how many early wild fish were taken out of the spawning population by the derby alone. There was not even a hatchery until 1981.  By that time there was so much of a decline that the hatchery was the only answer for saving these fish.  Still is IMO.

[Robert_G]

One could also wonder just how good the Vedder/Chilliwack might be if there was no hatchery on it. For all one knows, it could be the cause of early wild steelhead to not be doing so well.

Not sure you if you have noticed, but there are ZERO wild steelhead streams in BC that are running anything near historical numbers. Now that doesn't mean you still can't get off the beaten path and find some decent fishing, but it's terrible to what was there historically. Without the hatchery on the Vedder, there would be no steelhead fishery here in 2020. That is an undeniable fact.

[stsfisher]

I think its time to get the ministry to do proper snorkel counts similier to the ones done in the early 2000's.http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r2210/chilliwack_adult_2001_1106349746675_e5c96f8eb41e4f4b8c1eb5150a80e5f7.pdf

Seems to be the only way to get fact based numbers. Far over due ( yes I know there was a float done last year and I believe there is a plan to due others however I do feel they are limited and nothing like the ones done previously.

This is what we as fisherman should be demanding before coming up with our own opinions to "stop hatchery production" "limit fishing days" "close the river" which do nothing in the way of finding the facts. I feel those suggestions and most I have read only hurt the ability to find the truths as a sweep under the rug kind of fix tot he problem.

Real money and effort needs to take place before anything else is accepted.
 

http://a100.gov.bc.ca/appsdata/acat/documents/r2210/chilliwack_adult_2001_1106349746675_e5c96f8eb41e4f4b8c1eb5150a80e5f7.pdf

[avid angler]

I have no confidence in the snorkel counts done currently. Talking to the guys saying they saw no fish in osborne, only a handful in limit and in low clear mid March.

[Rodney]

I have no confidence in the snorkel counts done currently. Talking to the guys saying they saw no fish in osborne, only a handful in limit and in low clear mid March.

They saw a lot more than that.

The current snorkel count is a five year project and this winter will be the second year of conducting the survey. I have a video on the overview of the project and a brief summary of year one's findings in a couple of weeks from now.

[RalphH]

Sure things have changed.  Notice how all the fish in the 1962 picture had an adipose fin?  Just think how many early wild fish were taken out of the spawning population by the derby alone. There was not even a hatchery until 1981.  By that time there was so much of a decline that the hatchery was the only answer for saving these fish.  Still is IMO.

Well there are very few fish at that same time currently without an adipose fin. The decline that happened before '81 had to due with ocean conditions and steelhead numbers went way up in the 80s regardless for rivers with hatchery enhancement or no. It was a high point for steelhead numbers.There is no way of knowing what steelhead populations would be in the Chilliwack if steelhead had not been enhanced.

[Roderick]

As a general rule, the earlier returning fish spawn higher in the watershed, and later fish in the lower part.  The only reason to spend more time in the less-safe and food-scarce river is because they have farther to go to get to their particular spawning ground.  The good spawning areas fill in from the top down and the whole run spawns around the same time.  Notice how the early fish have smaller eggs then the later ones?

Return time has a strong genetic component, but what part of the river they return to is (I think) imprinted on them very early, either as alevin or fry.  Any early fish raised in the hatchery will return early but they will return to (the area around) the hatchery.  They would literally have to be lost to find spawning grounds higher in the watershed.  Releasing them further down river confuses them even more.  Early fish that try to spawn in the lower river would be out-competed by the later fish that are better fed and fresh from the ocean. 

The answer is for the hatchery to separate the run into two components: early and late.  Broodstock for the early component should be taken from hatchery returners so that the early wilds that are imprinted to return to the upper watershed spawning grounds can do their business.  This would increase the number of early broodstock available to the hatchery and to the wild spawning grounds. The later run is easier because they naturally spawn closer to the hatchery.  Obviously taking broodstock from wild fish hasn't impacted the later run as much.