Print

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

1yr

3 (12%)

2yr

2 (8%)

3yr

4 (16%)

leave open the same

2 (8%)

no more nets or commercial opennings

14 (56%)

Total Members Voted: 24

[pepsitrev]

just curios to see what everyones opinion is thats all

[The Gilly]

I didn't vote.  This run will be affected 4 years from now.  If you had indicated how many returns this resource should be closed for I'd vote at least 4.  That's 16 years.  At that time we should revisit this question.

 

[Matuka Jack]

It should be completely close on the years that the runs are low in numbers.  This would allow those runs to build up.  The closure on those years should be for every one.

On the years that it is okay to do the harvest, it should be carefully monitored to insure the safeguard of the run's cycle.  When the runs are in danger due natural causes it should be closed also for every one --no exceptions.

[newsman]

   For those of us who are old enough to remember the DFO closed sport fishing for Sockeye for 30 years. Now I ask you in relation to what has happened this year, what did that closing accomplish. Sport Anglers funnel far more dollars into the economy of this country than first nations & comercial fisheries combined yet we are always the target. I say no to a closing. Tell the comercial boys and the natives that if they want Sockeye they can hand line them like they did in the old days. 

[aquaboy24]

I agree newsman....commercial and native netting is the big impact. Less licenses and more enforcement....and then build an industry of sockeye sport fishery that everyone wants to be a part of.

[blaydRnr]

   the only way a closure of this capacity could be effective,  is if the americans were to be fully involved and also commit themselves to the cause.  we all know that would never happen, so why would you want to create an economical rift that would do more harm than good?

  salmon, like the cod (and soft wood lumber) is a Canadian Icon and MUST be addressed at the highest level.   the federal government has to get involved in the enforcement of the law and dealing with special interest groups. this also means alloting  proper funding towards actual, enforcement agencies.

[blaydRnr]

grand banks is right... our guys foreclosing, while other nations take in the fish.

do that to the fraser and other bc systems on the west coast so that the americans will have more fish to catch.

[gman]

I think that in low runs (and the early summers in 2008 will almost certainly be a low) they should shut down all the sockeye fisheries.

One problem is that DFO does not seem to have the ability to close the fishery. Even early this season (June and early July) when sport and commercial were closed from fishing the early Stuart run in the Fraser there were nets all over the river. Due to their past actions they have lost control of the river, and do not know how many fish are taken, nor can they completely control the number taken. They need to have an accurate count of how many fish are taken from the river.

The Americans catch lots of Fraser river sockeye so they would be involved in the decisions as well.

Yes commercial and native nets catch by far the majority of the fish, sport is about 5% of the total catch according to DFO stats, however you must rememeber that the DFO mandate rates access to sockeye in the following order 1) Natives, 2) Commercial, 3) Sport. We may not agree with this (I certainly don't) but thats the way it is. Closing all the net fisheries and leaving open sport sounds good to some, but it will never happen. More likely sport and commercial (I mean non native commercail) will be closed, and the native fishery will continue due to the stated DFO priorities.

The main thing to me is that we stop the events of this summer from happening again and decimating other sockeye years.

[blaydRnr]

They already can take as much fish as they want in the straight of juan de fuca...  So shutting down the fraser won't do much other than protect the fish that actually get into the river from everything...

Remember, the sacraficial fish Bill Ottway caught had net marks on it. 

i haven't forgotten.  but any fish going to the fraser has to pass through american waters first. so whose fishery would we be protecting?

[gman]

For information on how Canada and USA divide up the catch check out the Pacific Salmon Commision website.

http://www.psc.org/Index.htm

Click on the "Who we are link", and the "Fraser River Panel" link.

[bigguy]

Because I, like most of us, am selfish, I say no but IF the information being  passed on to us is reliable which is always suspect when involved with the government then closures are prob. needed. I am fairly new at the sockeye harvest so really havent caught a huge amount but I guess if it is needed then!  I dont think the loss of fish was due to over fishing though and I guess it would influence more the fourth year of the cycle , but I imagine it would be best to close it, to all, I dont know what those commercial guys will do for a living, they have thousands tied up in their business!

[flyguy44]

I spent some time on sunday talking with a guide who is a former member of this site. that along with imformation gathered since then leads me to vote for a min 4 year closure and  better enforcment of new regulations by DFO

[redtide]

why would you want to close the sok fishery altogether? high water temps would still have devasted the late run anyways wether their is a closure or not. i believe the release for spawning was 1.2 million soks but almost half are decaying on the banks  with disease and mold. this is nature working against the fish. this run needs protection when the fish comes back to spawn in the future. full closure definately for the 2008 soks.

[flyguy44]

You may be right Pecan_sam but what if your not. At bare minimum full closure in 2008 but new and better regs in 2005 .  they,re calling for sunshine next year too.

    Just my views

        Mike

[pepsitrev]

thanx for all your input guys