Print

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

[Rodney]

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.

Buck, while I personally wouldn't mind seeing the section closed (for two reasons, I don't fish anywhere near it due to poor tablefare of these fish so it wouldn't bother me, and I do not condone the general practices that take place in the area), I agree with what my colleagues' thoughts on this issue at the meeting. The main reason for the section closure has been to ensure broodstock number is met at the hatchery. At the meeting, Bob provided the information on by half of the hatchery. He said the problem has been obtaining summer red chinook broodstocks due to a combination of factors (low water level that causes fish to stage there, low fish number and high fishing pressure due to a lack of summer fishing opportunities elsewhere). When asked if there is a problem on obtaining broodstocks for fall runs, he said that has not been an issue. Based on this information, members of the UFV SFAC then advise the resource manager that we should keep the section closed during the period when summer red chinook salmon would stage there so the hatchery can ensure that their broodstock requirement is met.

We also wanted to make sure the closure is not based on poor fishing practices. If it was the case, then where does one draw the line? Enforcement is the solution for violations. When drivers speed on the freeway, you do not close the freeway for all, instead the police enforce the speed limit. If we are to close down a section of the Chilliwack River due to poor fishing practices by certain individuals, then we should close down the entire river, or actually all rivers in BC. 100 meters of additional closure may not seem much, but it simply shifts the problem downward. Do we close another 100 meters below it next year, and another 100 meters the following year? Once fishing access is lost, it is rarely gained back.

At the same time, no one wishes to turn a blind eye on the increase of violations that we are seeing. Mike from DFO's C&P presented his observations on the Chilliwack River from this season. He provided the most common problems and the type of anglers who tend to be involved in these infractions. These problems are always discussed at the SFAC meetings and solutions are always being brainstormed. An increase of enforcement is obviously on top of the list, but we also recognize that there has to be a better way to educate new anglers.

The sad reality is that we are losing more fisheries in the Lower Mainland each year due to poor returns. The removal of one fishery simply results in another burden on the Chilliwack Hatchery as more anglers flood to the Chilliwack River to do what everyone else wants to do - to catch fish. This past summer's limited chinook and sockeye salmon fishing on the Fraser River is a good example. Current hatchery production cannot sustain this spike of demand on the Chilliwack River. If anglers wish to enjoy the same quality (quantity) of fishing experience on the Chilliwack River, then some may want to start pressuring your MPs to bring back the DFO fundings that have been cut by Ottawa over the years.

[buck]

Rodney
Although I agree with what you have said at what point do we start to become advocates for fish. The "Limits Hole" is a stagging area for salmon before entering the hatchery.
These fish are very vulnerable at this point and should not be harassed to the extent that they are. No one wants to take  responsibility and make a decision that may upset
the fishing community. Unfortunately members of the UFV- SFAB do not have to witness the mayhem that takes place daily. We were asking members of the fishing community
to support a recommendation for a complete closure of the limits hole. This did not happen and a number of staff members were shocked to say the least. Once again the fish are
the losers

[SmokeyRiver]

They have the fish counter lady at the slab all day why not have a CO posted at limit?? Is it money?? the snag factor would go way down....Cammer it still is a good steely hole..

[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.

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.

No, hatchery is not there to provide an opportunity for anglers. That's a misconception.
Hatcheries are there to save what would otherwise be completely destroyed.
Hatcheries do work and as a matter of fact there is a good article about it in the newest BC Outdoors issue. Read it.
Let the scientist disagree, in the mean time, if it weren't for hatcheries, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[gman]

I feel that they should have closed this area permanently. No, not all such areas can be closed, but this one is right next to the current boundary. From what I have ssen closing it would be no loss to sport fishermen.
Just my 2 cents.

[SmokeyRiver]

Exactly Cam....

[BwiBwi]

No, hatchery is not there to provide an opportunity for anglers. That's a misconception.
Hatcheries are there to save what would otherwise be completely destroyed.
Hatcheries do work and as a matter of fact there is a good article about it in the newest BC Outdoors issue. Read it.
Let the scientist disagree, in the mean time, if it weren't for hatcheries, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You're only correct for hatchery function in the past.  Before International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission was dissolved many hatcheries were there for the purpose of restocking/re-establish salmon runs.  But since then, government has taken side with scientists recommandation hatcheries does not help wild fish.  Many hatcheries have since then been closed.  The remaining hatcheries it's main goal is to continue restocking of heavily utilized and habitat distructed river sytems (Capilano, Stave, Vedder, Allouete...)  Rivers that are to protect wild fish, habitat reconstruction, spawning channel, rearing habitat, lake nutrient enhancement projects are initiated instead of hatchery.

[Rodney]

if/when they get there quota for red springs it should also be opened instantly,  they are hatchery fish anyways, but ethics police should be on hand for the festivities

The boundary change will be from August 1st to September 7th, not until when the hatchery obtains its broodstocks. My understanding is that (Buck can correct me if needed) the hatchery collects broodstocks beyond the number that is required because holding mortality occurs at times and hatchery staff also want to select their broods. Also, any in-season closures/openings would only cause more confusions and work for both anglers and enforcement staff.

Although I agree with what you have said at what point do we start to become advocates for fish. The "Limits Hole" is a stagging area for salmon before entering the hatchery.
These fish are very vulnerable at this point and should not be harassed to the extent that they are. No one wants to take  responsibility and make a decision that may upset
the fishing community. Unfortunately members of the UFV- SFAB do not have to witness the mayhem that takes place daily. We were asking members of the fishing community
to support a recommendation for a complete closure of the limits hole. This did not happen and a number of staff members were shocked to say the least. Once again the fish are
the losers

I would like to be convinced by you and a few others but having a hard time to find the permanent boundary shift justified. There are two separate issues here. If the hatchery is able meet its broodstock requirement during the fall fisheries, what would be the reasoning behind closing the section? On the other hand, if we are talking about wild stocks staging and spawning in the section, then we should be advocate for them and revisit the issue at the next meeting. The poor fishing practices being witnessed would not be put to an end if the section is closed permanent, they would simply move to other well known locations where fish also stage (eg. Tamahi, the crossing, KWB, etc). This problem can only be tackled by two solutions - Enforcement and education.

The solution needed is almost identical to how street racing has been dealt with. Everyone remembers that street racing was common just several years ago. Through aggressive enforcement and education, which has made it into a social stigma, plus strengthened punishment, the problem has been reduced significantly.

We can certainly use more enforcement and higher fines for violations, but an aggressive education program needs to be developed. As stated in another thread, we need pamphlets that clearly illustrate what is and is not acceptable in river fisheries for new anglers, which could be distributed by retail stores and officers. We need information kiosks/boards with the same information, as well as fish id photos, in-season fishery notices and RAPP numbers, at heavily accessed fishing spots. We need to have more river fishing seminars offered to new anglers. We need anglers to join their local angling affiliations so we are more organized and quicker when actions are needed. There are so many positive initiatives that can begin changing our fisheries. If everyone just takes on one initiative, then... I better stop or I'd be too excited and unable to sleep tonight.

They have the fish counter lady at the slab all day why not have a CO posted at limit??

Again, having a officer stationed at one location simply moves the problem elsewhere. It is unrealistic and not as effective as most believe.

Is it money??

Yes.

Currently there are 8 DFO officers who are responsible for Mission/Chilliwack area. Beside attending recreational sportfishing infractions on the Fraser, Stave, Norrish, Chilliwack, Harrison, Chehalis Rivers, they also deal with bigger issues such as illegal netting by First Nations, illegal purchases of fish at restaurants (three were charged this summer. Out of all restaurants checked, 50% reported that they have been approached by illegal sellers), habitat infractions.

[Gooey]

The limit hole and 95% of the "fishing" that goes on there is a disgrace...during red spring season, I saw a line of flossers, one of which has his float upside down with the bright orange cap underwater.  Unfortunately, this represents the majority of fishing going on everywhere else on the vedder and many other rivers too.  We are now living with the aftermath of Fraser's sockeye fishery and I think maybe a good place to start is the banning of bottom bouncing on the fraser...PERIOD.

Shifting boundaries only changes things for that one small section of river and as previously noted, it just shifts the problem elsewhere.

What we need is regulation aimed at reducing flossing; mainly leader length restrictions but also a better definition of for snagging/fair hooked fish would help.  I hope one day that we will see a return to the type of river/fishing etiquette that was commonplace when i was learning to fish.

[SmokeyRiver]

Bottom bouncing has nothing to do with the low returns of fraser sockeye.........

[rhino]

The limit hole and 95% of the "fishing" that goes on there is a disgrace...during red spring season, I saw a line of flossers, one of which has his float upside down with the bright orange cap underwater.  Unfortunately, this represents the majority of fishing going on everywhere else on the vedder and many other rivers too.  We are now living with the aftermath of Fraser's sockeye fishery and I think maybe a good place to start is the banning of bottom bouncing on the fraser...PERIOD.

Shifting boundaries only changes things for that one small section of river and as previously noted, it just shifts the problem elsewhere.

What we need is regulation aimed at reducing flossing; mainly leader length restrictions but also a better definition of for snagging/fair hooked fish would help.  I hope one day that we will see a return to the type of river/fishing etiquette that was commonplace when i was learning to fish.

LOL.LOL> Float upside down. Im sorry but thats too funny!lol. what a donkey!

[Fish Assassin]

Yes, it's funny but it happens more often than you think.

[BwiBwi]

Hey my float is all green   

Flossing flossing flossing, when would this get old...
Leader restriction yap, you know flossing with a spinner is actually ALOT more effective.  Hey 0" leader length.  Try banning that!!!

[rhino]

Hey my float is all green   

Flossing flossing flossing, when would this get old...
Leader restriction yap, you know flossing with a spinner is actually ALOT more effective.  Hey 0" leader length.  Try banning that!!!

im sorry but i dint understand your comment. can you clarify?do you mean you floss fish witha spinner?

[rhino]

the color side is suspossed to be up on a float?

yes.and fish are suppesed to be beached by yanking their tail.