Print

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

[Rodney]

One of the items discussed at the UFV SFAC meeting last night was the change of Chilliwack River's upper fishing boundary. Since it was temporarily changed, there has not really been clarified when it comes to the reason, duration, length of the closure, etc. Here's some information for readers after definitive decisions were made tonight.

The boundary change was due to the shortage of summer red chinook salmon broodstocks that the hatchery experienced in mid August. Many fish were holding at the section just below the previous boundary.

Fortunately, the hatchery just made its broodstock quota before the season ended once the boundary was changed.

Bob, the hatchery manager, provided his thoughts on how and when the boundary should be lowered. Mike from DFO's C&P provided his feedbacks on how they would like it done to make enforcement easier.

In the end, it was decided that the lower boundary would apply between August 1st and September 7th in the future, so summer red chinook brood collection would not be jeopardized. For the rest of the year (except June when the river is closed), the old boundary will be in effect. The official change should be available in next year's regulation synopsis.

[Tex]

So that means it's still closed for this year then, if I read that correctly?
Or has it opened again to the "old" boundary?

Thanks Rod!

Tex

[Salmonator]

Yes, I was also at the meeting last night and the boundary 100 m down from the confluence of the Slesse creek and the Chilliwack river is still in effect.

[Rodney]

That part wasn't clarified I think. I assume that the lowered boundary is still in effect until the resource manager makes the changes that we discussed last night, probably very soon.

[adriaticum]

They should leave the boundary where it is and make it permanent.
That 100 meters doesn't make a difference for the fishermen and it obviously does make a difference for the fish trying to enter the hatchery.

[buck]

Just another example of the fishing communities unwillingness to protect fish stocks. The UFV-SFAC should give their heads a shake. I guess they all think that snagging fish at the limits
hole is an appropriate method of taking fish. Thumbs down to the SFAC.

[Geff_t]

I was so happy to hear the news when they closed the limit hole and I knew the good news would not last forever. I am once again dissapointed. I wish they would just keep it closed and give these fish a chance. Look what they have to put up with once they enter the river. They have to run the gaunlet of the snaggers that try to hook them, the ones that make it past that now have to worry about being snagged right by the hatchery  . 

[scute]

are not the fish "stacking"in the "limit hole" mostly of hatchery origin therefor put there for sports fisherman 

[kingpin]

oh well the beeks that were there just migrated to other areas and nothing was really done about them so whatever. spot closures wont solve the problems affecting that river.

[SmokeyRiver]

Majority are hatchery fish, it's a good hole if people fished it properly,it spreads the people out abit more lol, Did I mention HATCHERY fish,
Enforcement up there has been alot better this year but still needs to be better.I am ok with the Reg's.

[adriaticum]

are not the fish "stacking"in the "limit hole" mostly of hatchery origin therefor put there for sports fisherman 

They are not put there for the sport fishermen.
They are put there to ensure survival of the species by taking pressure of the wild fish.
Because some sport fishermen do not have any regard for the fish.

oh well the beeks that were there just migrated to other areas and nothing was really done about them so whatever. spot closures wont solve the problems affecting that river.

This is true, but the number 1 priority should be to ensure that the hatchery gets the fish they need.
So if they have to close the entire river to ensure they get enough spawning adults, that's what they should do.

[BwiBwi]

are not the fish "stacking"in the "limit hole" mostly of hatchery origin therefor put there for sports fisherman 

They are not put there for the sport fishermen.
They are put there to ensure survival of the species by taking pressure of the wild fish.
Because some sport fishermen do not have any regard for the fish.

oh well the beeks that were there just migrated to other areas and nothing was really done about them so whatever. spot closures wont solve the problems affecting that river.

This is true, but the number 1 priority should be to ensure that the hatchery gets the fish they need.
So if they have to close the entire river to ensure they get enough spawning adults, that's what they should do.

Hatchery is there to provide fishing/retention opportunity for anglers or when a wild spawning environment can not be established.  Many scientists is against hatchery as they believe it reduces genetic pool.  So rivers that are for protecting wild fish will only see closures and not hatchery program.

[rhino]

Just another example of the fishing communities unwillingness to protect fish stocks. The UFV-SFAC should give their heads a shake. I guess they all think that snagging fish at the limits
hole is an appropriate method of taking fish. Thumbs down to the SFAC.

not everyone snags fish. i don't think it appropriate to stereotype.

[Steely]

are not the fish "stacking"in the "limit hole" mostly of hatchery origin therefor put there for sports fisherman 

The two water bodies that flow into that area are slesse creek which fish will be heading up to the hatchery but the other is the chilliwack in which the wild fish will be heading up so it is a mixture of both. Still no excuse for snagging black chum and springs used to be a good steelhead hole though but not much you can do

[BigFisher]

The CO's had the quads out today, playing with the toys.