Print

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

[blaydRnr]

In Gooey's defense, it is true about the loss of trophy sized fish from years past.

The prime example is the TYEE.  25 years ago they were classified as Chinook weighing 50 lbs or more.  The decline, is definitely a result of over fishing.

[Fish Assassin]

I have seen numerous changes in fish stocks since I was a kid. As BlaydRnr has pointed out, there were tons of smelts available on local beaches to be caught. I've seen 100-150 lbs caught in one evening. Nowadays if you catch 20 lbs you be laughing. The beaches off the Maritime Museum used to have a huge oyster bed. That is all gone.

[gman]

I have never seen them Tomcod over a foot myself and from what I can see on the internet they never get more than about 12 or 13 inches. Check out the following link.

http://www.enature.com/fieldguide/showSpeciesSH.asp?curGroupID=3&shapeID=995&curPageNum=9&recnum=FI0070

Maybe those fish in the 4 pound fish were something else?

[reach]

The prime example is the TYEE.  25 years ago they were classified as Chinook weighing 50 lbs or more.  The decline, is definitely a result of over fishing.

That's kind of hard to prove.

For salmon, I would think that the decline in total population size could be caused by overfishing (along with habitat destruction - let's not forget about that).  But the percentage of springs that reach a given size should remain the same, unless something is applying very strong selection pressure and affecting the genetics.  Sounds like a good thesis topic.    I should go back to school so I could go fishing for a few years.  

Long lived fish that spawn multiple times, on the other hand, are a different story.  Species such as lingcod, rockfish and herring are being harvested when they've barely reached sexual maturity.  So it's true that they never get a chance to grow big.

Gooey, maybe when you say greenling you are now talking about juvenile lingcod (ophiodon elongatus) which sometimes have green flesh?

[Gooey]

I have caught many a species of fish both as a sports and commercial fisher.  Altho it was a looooooooooong time ago what I remember as a tommy cod looked much different than the one pictured in gmans link.  

I have caught all sorts of benthic fish species and the fish pictured was definitely not what i was remembering.  I had just moved to the island from back east so I picked up on what ever the locals shared...maybe I picked up an incorrect name...the bottom line is this thread is really about over fishing and the current mentality to harvest anything that comes to shore (legal or not depending who you are).

Simply put I wont kill a jack that wont provide my family with enough food for a meal.  If you catch 20lbs of smelt...fly at 'er thats a lot of protien.  But back to the question stated...whats one tiny fish worth in terms of a food source in comparison to being left to grow and reproduce?

It all comes down to that harvest mentality that, IMHO, we all need to be in more  control of.

[blaydRnr]

The prime example is the TYEE.  25 years ago they were classified as Chinook weighing 50 lbs or more.  The decline, is definitely a result of over fishing.

That's kind of hard to prove.

For salmon, I would think that the decline in total population size could be caused by overfishing (along with habitat destruction - let's not forget about that).  But the percentage of springs that reach a given size should remain the same, unless something is applying very strong selection pressure and affecting the genetics.  Sounds like a good thesis topic.    I should go back to school so I could go fishing for a few years.  

Long lived fish that spawn multiple times, on the other hand, are a different story.  Species such as lingcod, rockfish and herring are being harvested when they've barely reached sexual maturity.  So it's true that they never get a chance to grow big.

Gooey, maybe when you say greenling you are now talking about juvenile lingcod (ophiodon elongatus) which sometimes have green flesh?

of course habitat destruction is a contributer to the problem, but you can't dispute over fishing. if so, why is it still common to find white spring (ie.. the vedder) weighing in at over 40-50 lbs, but hard pressed to find red spring weighing in at least 35 lbs (anywhere in and around the lower mainland). you know why?... because trophy red springs are alot more desirable.
  if the biggest and strongest fish is always targetted and killed, doesn't that alone, alter the 'make up' of genetics.
 in the wild, it's the weakest and most vulnerable that's targetted.  also,  only the strongest and most fittest males are allowed to mate.  therefore, if you wipe out the biggest and strongest  fish, what do you think you're left with?

[reach]

Yes, you're right.  I suppose with the salmon's short life cycle, in a few decades it might be possible to breed out most of the big ones.

I've always wondered if we're breeding deep running, long skinny salmon, and those that arrive early or late in the season, with our commercial fleets.  We could easily be doing the same sort of thing to springs if people are releasing only small and/or white springs.  I'd sure like to see some real research on the subject.

Is it possible to target large reds without catching small springs or white springs?

[DragonSpeed]

BTW, I also think we may be selectively breeding less aggressive fish.  The aggressive ones take a hook - BONK.  The shy fish, swims up and get's lucky.  We're weeding out the ones that bite  

[blaydRnr]

Is it possible to target large reds without catching small springs or white springs?

yes...
 on the most part, red springs migrate before the whites. also, larger reds have a greater advantage over the juveniles, therefore, they get to the bait first.

[FishiN AddicT]

Simply put I wont kill a jack that wont provide my family with enough food for a meal.  If you catch 20lbs of smelt...fly at 'er thats a lot of protien.  But back to the question stated...whats one tiny fish worth in terms of a food source in comparison to being left to grow and reproduce?

It all comes down to that harvest mentality that, IMHO, we all need to be in more  control of.

Gooey.....if you really support the cycle of reproduction......you should ask yourself why you are fishing for salmon at all.   We all know that salmon season starts when these fish come down for the purpose of spawning.  Why not leave a "BIG" one alone cuz it's ready to spawn?  I'm sure you've caught nice size doe's and bonked them throughout your fishing years.  Also keep the roe for bait.  

Now i ask you.....what's one "BIG" size Doe worth in terms of a food source in comparison to being left alone to spawn?

[TtotheE]

Anybody see that commercial that was being aired for a short period of time talking about releasing the "big" one?

The guy stated that a larger chinook can carry 5000 eggs as opposed to a regular nice sized 3000 eggs.

The reasons for allowing the big one go to spawn were:

- Bigger fish,  bigger fish genes
- Bigger fish,  more eggs = more big fish

And...I don't remember the rest.

Anybody else see it?

[Gooey]

in response to fishing addict...salmon is a different situation than any other becuase they die after spawning (unlike steelhead or even tommy cod that may live to produce several generations of offspring).  

Add into the mix that hatchery coho's (the only one we can kill) are meant to be harvested and really there isnt a reason not to take a hatchery salmon.   In terms of salmon and steelhead, I wont take a fish if I think it will make a difference to the run (in 17 years of fishing the north shore I have never killed a seymour steelie).  On top of that I was told by a reputable source that it only takes 4 generations for negative genes to really start been seen in a run of primarily hatchery fish.  So infact it is good to take the hatcheries out.  

[Rodney]

Both Gooey and FishiN AddicT brought up some excellent points. I've stopped fishing for groundfish eight years ago (actually, never really did that much, maybe once a year) after recognizing their regeneration time is simply too long.

Gooey's point regarding hatchery fish is good, but what about the big Fraser chinook and those big wild fish you see up north? By selecting the big specimen over the small ones when retaining fish, wouldn't it skew the gene pool? Same goes with groundfish (at least for pacific rockfish species). It is recommended to harvest smaller fish as fecundity of bigger fish is much bigger. Can't say much about the pacific cod species yet, will have to do some reading and get back on that later.

[Matuka Jack]

Gooey,
Not all hatchery salmon are meant to be harvested.  Hatchery salmon in many cases are released to shore up the population decline.  The ratio between 'hatchery salmon' and 'wild salmon' are carefully being monitor as an indicator of success of the initiative.  The result of natural spawning of hatchery fish are then consider wild.

[FishiN AddicT]

in response to fishing addict...salmon is a different situation than any other becuase they die after spawning (unlike steelhead or even tommy cod that may live to produce several generations of offspring).  

that's true......but the key word is "after" spawning.  I was merely pointing out the fact of bonking one that hasn't even had a chance to release their eggs. So really, the salmon dies before it had a chance to spawn.  

My point is you're quick on the gun to shoot others' methods of fishing, size of fish, etc. etc. , but what make's you different?  No rules or regulations has been broken.  

The bottom line is there's nothing wrong with wanting to bonk a small fish compared to a big one  (whether it's a tommy cod, Jack, trout, etc.) to eat at the dinner table, as long as the regs are followed.  Some may find the smaller fish more tasty?

Plus......I always thought that size didn't matter?