Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA  (Read 5666 times)

Ross UK

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm a llama!
Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« on: October 13, 2005, 03:39:50 PM »

Hi Chris,

I'm sorry that I missed you on my latest visit, I'm now back in the UK....maybe next time ?

Since you seem to be the FWR spokesman for SDA I wonder if you can tell me if they are getting involved in the possible halting of sturgeon fishing on the Fraser ?.

Vic Carrao (of STS guiding) was explaining to me how he feels that SARA (a bunch of politicians and hangers on) have decided that the sturgeon population is under threat on the Fraser. They have the power to close the fishery down and a decision is due next April. I'm sure that Vic's opinions might be slanted toward his guiding business but I have a few observations from my recent trip.

Firstly let me make it clear that I've only been sturgeon fishing for the past 4 years and I'm certainly not an expert on the subject. BUT...

1) I've never caught so many small (i.e.around 24" long) sturgeon as I did this year. This seems very strange for a species on the verge of extinction.

2) I've fished with quite a few guides in the last 4 years, without exception they all handle those fish with kid gloves and they are very quick to reprimand anybody who they think might be damaging their beloved fish.

3) Sturgeon fishing is mostly done by a vast number of guides plus a few dedicated individuals. There is very little likeliehood of the fish being damaged / killed by the snaggers of this world, they simply aren't targeted by that section of the so called "fishing fraternity".

4) Sturgeon fishing brings a large number of visitors, especially from the UK and those visitors spend money in the local economy. In fact I've never known so many British and Irish visitors sturgeon fishing as I met in the last 3 weeks, they were everywhere  ;)

5) The Sturgeon Conservation people did an experiment last year whereby a number of fish landed on rod and line were then kept in cages for a number of days. This was to see if there were any signs of fish failing to recover from their exertions. There were no signs of damage and all of the fish were released from the cages (unlike those that had been caught in native nets....but that's a different story and I'm not going there  ;)).

6) Although I can't remember the exact terms, SARA can protect a species when their numbers have halved within three generations. Now this presents an enormous statistical challenge with regard to sturgeon. Three generations could take us back over 200 years. There is no longer a commercial sturgeon fishery so no records to compare against. What species of fish or animal hasn't declined in numbers in the last 200 years, mainly due to the efforts or ineptitude of man ?.

I guess my question boils down to

DO the initials SDA stand for Sportfishing Defence Alliance or Salmon Fishing Defence Alliance ??  

Thanks for your time and Thank You British Columbia for another great holiday  :)

Ross
Logged
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot

Sam Salmon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2005, 10:57:06 PM »

Ross I can answer a few of your questions.

First off if you were catching a lot of small fish you were in the wrong place.
Everyone who fishes the Fraser knows where the bigguns hang and where you'll catch a lot of smaller fish + guides are generally lazy.

The idea that fish aren't being harmed is shared by many but is not scientifically supported and SARA isn't "a bunch of politicians and hangers on"-that is ignorant BS.

Your questions contain some apparent contradictions.
 "What species of fish or animal hasn't declined in numbers in the last 200 years, mainly due to the efforts or ineptitude of man ?." how can anyone be sure that " they all handle those fish with kid gloves and they are very quick to reprimand anybody who they think might be damaging their beloved fish."
In fact Guiding/fishing for Sturgeon has exploded the past 5 years with the decline of Salmon-how can this be good for fish?

In the end it's the Sturgeon that matter not some guy with a $100,000 jet boat and a mortage.

Please understand I'm not attacking you just pointing out that it's a complex situation.




Logged

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13952
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2005, 12:51:42 AM »

 Ross, I am no expert on sturgeon at all but saying that I see a lot of politics involved with this as on so many other fishing issues. I will e-mail you a contact or two that is closer to the action on your questions than I am on this one. Other sturgeon guys will comment for you also I am sure.

Glad you had a good trip.

O, Sportsfishing Defence Alliance is the SDA.

Ross UK

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2005, 08:53:44 AM »

Hi Sam,

Quote
First off if you were catching a lot of small fish you were in the wrong place.

In your own words, "Ignorant BS". I fished with a whole bunch of different guides in just about every known sturgeon hole between Agassiz Bridge and Maple Ridge. We caught small sturgeon from a whole host of different spots. I wasn't moaning because we caught small fish, I was simply pointing out that there seemed a lot of small fish for a breed on the brink of extinction.

Quote
Everyone who fishes the Fraser knows where the bigguns hang and where you'll catch a lot of smaller fish + guides are generally lazy.


Not the guides that I hire. Those guys were pulling the anchor from depths up to 80ft twenty or more times a day. It's plain insulting to call them lazy.

Quote
The idea that fish aren't being harmed is shared by many but is not scientifically supported

So show me the scientific evidence that angling is the main cause of Sturgeon mortality and in return I'll point you to the scientific papers that blame a large percentage of sturgeon deaths on them being a by-catch of netting.

Quote
In fact Guiding/fishing for Sturgeon has exploded the past 5 years with the decline of Salmon-how can this be good for fish?

Well, now we're really getting into hot water. I'd have a hard time explaining how ANY fishing is good for any species of fish, be it sturgeon, salmon or whatever. If we look for ANY benefits they'd be incidental ones such as trying to be guardians of the environment, reporting pollution etc. It's a job that the Natives used to be very proud of, but sadly that particular halo seems to have slipped in my eyes.

Quote
In the end it's the Sturgeon that matter  not some guy with a $100,000 jet boat and a mortage.

That's a very strange thing to say, it has tones of jealousy and bitterness in there.

Quote
Please understand I'm not attacking you just pointing out that it's a complex situation.

Yeah right, I'll just pull this knife out from between my shoulder blades. Why not spell out your justification for a ban on sturgeon fishing rather than posting such vitriolic nonsense ?


Chris,

So is the SPORTFISHING Defence Alliance doing anything to oppose a ban on sturgeon fishing ?. Not sure that you actually answered my question.

Ross
Logged
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13952
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2005, 11:13:53 AM »

Some of our SDA executive members have been dealing with this but as I have said most of us are on different organizations that deal with a whole realm of different issues including the sturgeon situation with SARA.

I just do not follow what is going on with sturgeon as maybe I should but with 10 different organizations I get overloaded with stuff. For example this week am now up to 6 meeting including one I have to go to shortly and I can not keep on top of it all. As I said I will PM you a fellow that I think should be able to answer some of your concerns.

legend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 411
  • There's no nookie like Chinookie
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2005, 05:20:48 PM »

Ross don't mind Sam Salmon I have had this argument before with him he's an expert and allways right your typical know it all Canadian . But i agree with you and had many of your same points and the same argument presented it self before. So save your self the greif . As for his comments about lazy guides  I call BS . Being in the wrong spots thats just ignorant I have caught 8 footers in the same spots as 12" Sturgies so I call BS on that statement as well. I have caught Sturgeon in threre differrent bodies of water in the lower mainland all containing different sizes .
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 05:28:41 PM by legend »
Logged

Sam Salmon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2005, 08:20:08 PM »

Ross-I must admit to being somewhat disingenuous with my response-I knew you'd respond as you did-you come across as a typical know-it-all foreigner(!)

The inaccuracies in your response are so apparent it's embarrassing to read them

"Those guys were pulling the anchor from depths up to 80ft twenty or more times a day".
I can think of one spot in all that stretch that's over 50 feet deep-where did you find all those uber-deep Sturgeon hidey holes anyway?
If the fishing was that good why did you have to move constantly anyway?
We often never pull the anchor at all in an 8 hour day (barges notwithstanding)-a quick release knot on the scotchman means we can cast off and chase any fish we want then return to the same place to fish-that's generally how it's done among locals you know.

I could go on and on about how you picture of Sturgeon fishing is skewed/incomplete/totally out of whack but enough is enough-you've hung yourself already.

It's nice for the people from places where nature has been cut up and sold to the highest bidder/trampled into dust to come here and revel in the beauty and plenty we enjoy.

But don't make the mistake of thinking you have any input because you spent a few Euros-Canadians alone will make the decisions that impact our children's patrimony.

The Sturgeon matter more than anything and if we err on the side of caution that's OK-it's how we run our country.

I note that Sturgeon on the mighty Columbia River were closed for decades but now populations have stabilised.

One last word Ross-tiny points of light on a computer monitor cannot hurt you OK ;D
« Last Edit: October 14, 2005, 08:55:36 PM by Sam Salmon »
Logged

Ross UK

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2005, 02:19:14 PM »

Quote
Ross don't mind Sam Salmon I have had this argument before with him he's an expert and allways right your typical know it all Canadian

Well he's certainly the RUDEST Canadian I've ever come across.  >:(. You'd think that a man with his wealth of experience would be out guiding us ignorant foreigners, but guides need to be nice people, so I guess that rules him out.

Anyhow Sam, you still haven't answered the two questions that are really troubling me :-

1. How can the white sturgeon be "endangered" i.e. A species facing imminent extirpation (no longer living in the wild in Canada) or extinction when there are such large numbers of juveniles being caught in the Fraser ?

2. Why would closure of the Fraser sturgeon fishery improve the chances of survival of the species when the COSEWIC Assessment states that over 1100 tagged fish had been recaptured, many of them more than once with no apparent harm, whereas fish caught in the First Nation's gill net fishery suggested a potential mortality rate of between 10 and 14% (Source : COSEWIC Status Report White Sturgeon 2003). Are you suggesting that ALL fishing that might affect the sturgeon population be closed to allow repopulation, in other words closure of the recreational fishery that seems to not harm the fish and closure of the native gill net fishery that kills between 10 & 14% of the sturgeon captured ? 


Incidentally, I sense that behind all that nastiness there's a very intelligent person trying to get out, so I'd have expected you to know that we didn't join the Euro monetary system, we're still using the good old UK pound, complete with the Queen's head....much like your $20 bill eh  ;D
Logged
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot

Sam Salmon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2005, 10:35:15 PM »

I will address the question tomorrow when I'm sober. ::)
Logged

DionJL

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2251
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2005, 10:53:17 AM »

Hi Sam,

Quote
First off if you were catching a lot of small fish you were in the wrong place.

In your own words, "Ignorant BS". I fished with a whole bunch of different guides in just about every known sturgeon hole between Agassiz Bridge and Maple Ridge. We caught small sturgeon from a whole host of different spots. I wasn't moaning because we caught small fish, I was simply pointing out that there seemed a lot of small fish for a breed on the brink of extinction.

Quote
Everyone who fishes the Fraser knows where the bigguns hang and where you'll catch a lot of smaller fish + guides are generally lazy.


Not the guides that I hire. Those guys were pulling the anchor from depths up to 80ft twenty or more times a day. It's plain insulting to call them lazy.

Quote
The idea that fish aren't being harmed is shared by many but is not scientifically supported

So show me the scientific evidence that angling is the main cause of Sturgeon mortality and in return I'll point you to the scientific papers that blame a large percentage of sturgeon deaths on them being a by-catch of netting.

Quote
In fact Guiding/fishing for Sturgeon has exploded the past 5 years with the decline of Salmon-how can this be good for fish?

Well, now we're really getting into hot water. I'd have a hard time explaining how ANY fishing is good for any species of fish, be it sturgeon, salmon or whatever. If we look for ANY benefits they'd be incidental ones such as trying to be guardians of the environment, reporting pollution etc. It's a job that the Natives used to be very proud of, but sadly that particular halo seems to have slipped in my eyes.

Quote
In the end it's the Sturgeon that matter  not some guy with a $100,000 jet boat and a mortage.

That's a very strange thing to say, it has tones of jealousy and bitterness in there.

Quote
Please understand I'm not attacking you just pointing out that it's a complex situation.

Yeah right, I'll just pull this knife out from between my shoulder blades. Why not spell out your justification for a ban on sturgeon fishing rather than posting such vitriolic nonsense ?


Chris,

So is the SPORTFISHING Defence Alliance doing anything to oppose a ban on sturgeon fishing ?. Not sure that you actually answered my question.

Ross

We should just close all fishing in canada. Since all stocks have declined and the mortality rate isnt know its better safe than sorry. Right???? It is the fish that matter. not the fishing
Logged

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14817
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2005, 04:02:04 PM »

Ross, meet Sam. Sam, meet Ross. ;)

I haven't had time at all to type out some info for this, but here is a C&P of a post I did on FishBC awhile ago:

Some numbers for those who are interested. Between October 1999 and December 2004, the Lower Fraser White Sturgeon Monitoring and Assessment Program has produced these sample sizes:

20,015 PIT tags released (in the "head" location) by program volunteers.
4,696 of these tags recaptured.
27,932 individual sturgeon sampled (scanned for the presence of a PIT tag).

The number of white sturgeon captured by the Albion test fishery between 1980 and 2004 (courtesy of the Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society):



Using comparative studies between present and historical numbers of the white sturgeon population to determine the health of the current sturgeon population is almost impossible.

First one has to know what the historical numbers are. There are no historical numbers available, population study did not exist until the 1980s.

Researchers use historical commercial catch data to get a good idea on how the numbers have changed, except historical catch data were recorded as total weight, not number of fish. To further complicate the problem, these total weights were the sum of the weight of both green and white sturgeon. The total weight data also don't take poaching into the equation. Poaching back in the late 1800s was believed to harvest as much as 50% of the commercial catches.

The commercial white sturgeon catches reached as high as just over 500,000kg per year in the late 1800s.

The bottom line is, historical population numbers, which do not exist anyway, cannot be used to assess the current population status. Commercial catch data provide a good indication, but there are too many uncertainties involved (eg. CPUE or catch per unit effort changes overtime, the improvement of commercial fishing technology).

The health of a population cannot be exclusively determined by the number in that population. One needs to consider other factors that can be used to forecast where that population is going in the future. These factors include:
  • Fecundity (number of eggs produced) of females.
  • Gender ratio.
  • Age class size.
As Ripple has brought up, the large fish of the population, although do exist, but are rare. Large females produce large number of eggs, they are the driving force of the population recruitment. However, the PIT tag program and the Albion test fishery catch data have indicated that recruitment is in fact on the rise over the last decade.

There is a strong surge of recruitment in the younger age classes (age 4 to 10), which can simply be the result of the ceasing of the gill net exploitation that took place in the 1970-90 period. If that's the case, we should expect to see the same trend in this recruitment in the future. The data from the next ten years will show that.

The PIT tag program produced some fantastic data, but the program was narrowed to a very small sampling area. Walters et al. recommended that in the next decade, the PIT tag program should be conducted further downstream on the Fraser River to produce a better picture on the overall population size.

In "An Asssessment of White Sturgeon Stock Status and Trends in the Lower Fraser River", Walters et al in the end concluded that "it is discouraging to see that these data sources do not imply a single, unambiguous interpretation or hypothesis about what is happening."

There are too many uncertainties and assumptions used in the population forecast models, but they are the best available so far.

They further provided an allowable harm assessment. They expect:
  • a target of 10,000 reproducing adults could be achieved in 8 years (2013.
  • a target of 50% of historic egg production could be achieved in 61 years (2066).
  • a target of 25% of historic egg production could be achieved in 27 years (2032).
These are the more important numbers that we should be concerned, not the number of the total population. Large number of fish doesn't always mean good.

As mentioned in my second post, catch and release mortality rate cannot be determined simply by looking at how the fish swim away and basing on the catch and recapture data. As Floon brought up, the Fraser is a large water body that has poor clarity most time of the year. It is impossible to know the outcome of the fish that are released without acoustic tags on them. The P.O.S.T. program should hopefully kick in very soon after its success on tracking the salmon and steelhead migrations, it will be able to provide us a better look at the implications of this catch and release fishery.

To make the assumption that catching and releasing white sturgeon has little or no impacts on the fish is a recipe to failure. One needs to consider the behavioral, physiological effects on the fish that are caught and released. Will the capture develop stress in females and influence egg production (number and health of the eggs)? Would repetition of captures in popular angling grounds changes the feeding, mating, territorial, and other social behaviours of the fish?

On a related note, back in late July I posted the Fraser River White Sturgeon Conservation Plan from the Fraser River Sturgeon Conservation Society. The plan was a draft that will eventually be used to make recommendations to the panel that decides whether the Fraser River white sturgeon is to be listed on SARA or not. The public was asked to review it and send in comments by September 15th, I hope those who are in the interest group have done so.

Sam Salmon

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2005, 06:55:19 PM »

" Large females produce large number of eggs, they are the driving force of the population recruitment. However, the PIT tag program and the Albion test fishery catch data have indicated that recruitment is in fact on the rise over the last decade."
The workshop I attended with Troy Nelson head of the Sturgeon Society wasn't quite so optimistic.
In fact because juvenile male Sturgeon outnumber fertile females by many many times it's not altogether certain that the numbers of fertile females is stable/increasing at all.
From the numbers as quoted by Troy it's possible that as few as 300 female fish are the main breeding stock for the total 60,000+ population-a sobering thought.
And of course therein lies the rub-err on the side of caution because those breeding females numbers are low and the backwaters where young are spawned/rearer are also under increasing pressure from human populations.
Or take a chance that a unique population of ancient animals will end up sacrificed to human ignorance as per so many times in the past.

re:Sober-I was quite drunk last night and decided not to post because of that.
Logged

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14817
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: Question For SDA / Chris re Sturgeon Fishing - SARA
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2005, 01:42:27 AM »

Just a reminder that comments on the draft of Fraser River White Sturgeon Conservation Plan can still be sent in, by November 11th (extended deadline).

A draft copy of the plan can be viewed at:

http://www.fishingwithrod.com/fishy_news/file/050722.pdf