There are some clarifications needed here.
The warm water temperature referred to in the briefing is ocean temperature, not river water temperature. In 2004, while driftnetting by First Nations contributed to the depletion of the runs, warm river temperature played a crucial role as well. I'll try to dig up some graph of last year's river temperature compared to historic data later.
The surplus spawning stock theory is not proposed by DFO, but by different interest groups of the stocks. It is entirely correct. A system has a limited amount of resource that can sustain a population. For example, human population will eventually reach a point when the earth can no longer sustain that number due to limited amount of food, water, and other necessities. This point in biology is known as
carrying capacity. When a population reaches carrying capacity, it gradually depletes as mortality increases while birth rate remains low. A river has finite amount of spawning gravel for certain number of salmon. Once that maximum number of spawners is reached, number of offsprings produced from that system remains the same when even more salmon return to spawn (late spawners dig up new redds, killing eggs of earlier spawners etc). Commercial and recreational sectors see this surplus of salmon as allocation quotas that can be harvested as they have no use when they reach the spawning ground. It is also believed that when too many offsprings are produced from a system, there would not be enough food to sustain the juvenile population. As a result, smolts that enter the ocean would be smaller, and marine survival during first year decreases. This is incorrect in my point of view, surplus spawners do not necessarily lead to poor survival during smoltification. More post-spawn carcasses provide more nutrient into a system, which raises primary productivity. This means more insects to accommodate the juveniles. The smolts that enter the ocean would not be undersized and unhealthy.
It's a contradiction when one criticizes DFO as a mismanager by stating that they are allowing too many spawners in a system, and on the other hand accusing them disregarding conservation by allowing one group to harvest while others sit on dry land.
I sometimes find it embarrassing when some fishermen who lack the biology background and field training to discount all of DFO's report based on absolutely no evidence at all. FIshery management is not mathematics, the answer is never black or white. Factors that influence a fish stock are not static, instead they continuously change therefore resource managers do their best to accommodate all user groups and satisfy the goal of sustainability. Unfortunately the Fraser River management is too often tainted with politics.
The key issues that were not focused during today's media briefing are:
- While the stocks are mysteriously low and there is a grave concern on the future of these stocks, the angling community should not pressure the resource management for an opening to satisfy our taste buds.
- We the sportfishermen understand (but don't necessarily agree and like) that First Nations have priority to harvest the stocks, but we wish DFO to properly allocate their catches by closely monitoring and recording harvest numbers and enforce the law (catch and seize nets during closures). We are unhappy that DFO continues to keep us in the dark by not telling us exactly how many fish and openings First Nations will be granted this year.
I do like to express my appareciation and congratulations to most of the local DFO staffs for working so closely with the local sportfishing sector. So far this year we have been constantly briefed with updates and there is definitely a willingness to establish a closer relationship between DFO and anglers for the sake of better management.
One step at a time, we'll get there.
Author
Topic: Documetry on sox today? (Read 7497 times)