Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stealth on June 29, 2006, 12:10:35 PM
-
This is always an interesting time of year to watch the forums. To floss or not to floss is the great debate. As many may, or may not know, I have been kicking around the fishing and guiding industry for the better part or 12 years or so. I very seldom post on forums but do lurk and enjoy others commentaries. Personally, I will use any legal method that I deem appropriate to catch fish for my clients and myself, PERIOD! and I make no apologies nor will I debate this any further. What I do see every year is DFO causing fear-mongering and division among Fraser River anglers. This Stuart run sockeye issue pops up every season. I think that if we are a legitimate threat to these fish than we should absolutely not fish for them or any other species that is at risk for that matter. But are we a risk to Stuart Sockeye??? I have always said no.
There are several sites that post DFO actual Sockeye catch and escapement numbers and these come straight from DFO. See for yourself, Decide for your self. All I can say is why is DFO wasting so much time on us anglers monitoring Bottom flossers when the only term that can possibly come to my mind with regards to our impact is
INSIGNIFICANT!!
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/recreational/creelsurveyPDFs/2005creel/creel05FRSummerDesign.htm
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/Escapement/2005SUMMERPRELIMINARIES.htm
In 2005 the Stuart run escapement was 293,144 our bi-catch was 3,601 with a 10% mortality rate we killed 306 fish from July 1 to July 31. Even if every fish that we caught died it would still be Insignificant. Check out past seasons and do the math. In my opinion this is not the conservation issue that DFO would have us think that it is. If they honestly think that we cause a serious risk to Stuart Sockeye than they clearly are not looking at there own data.
I know that this will not stop the cries to stop flossing from the anti-flossers and its not meant to. I just thought it was interesting that so many would take DFO at their word when their track record in the past would suggest that maybe what the say is not always based on fact but possibly more so on politics.
This post is simply put up to show facts as I have interpreted them, not as a pro or con flossing thread so come to your own conclusions and enjoy this great sport and resource that we have hear.
Just for the record these are my personal thoughts and do not reflect the opinions of any business or organization that I may be affiliated with.
Fish on!
Steve Kaye
-
Thanks Steve, Great post
-
i am not a flosser but i am not an anti-flosser either. great post with some interesting facts
-
Way to put it Steve!
Mike <")))))><
-
What ever happened to every angler being a stuart of the resource and we each do our part, regardless of what others do.
-
believe me boys this year will not be a small year in sockeye and i have the records of recent years kept in my book to prove it. this year is a Adams year and[4th cycle] this year is going to be HUGE just watch...... keep you lines tight buddies!
-
believe me boys this year will not be a small year in sockeye and i have the records of recent years kept in my book to prove it. this year is a Adams year and[4th cycle] this year is going to be HUGE just watch...... keep you lines tight buddies!
This coming from the guy who didn't know what a bb setup was. Who are you?
-
In all respect to Steve's post the numbers mentioned there is for Late Stuarts.
The sockeye of concern is the Early Stuart sockeye stocks that are starting their migration now in the Fraser River. These fish are made up of 32 different stocks that spawn in the Stuart River system and run from the end of June to late July. These endangered stocks are the ones we have been asked to not fish for in a method that could impact them. I am not sure of the escapement of these fish the last couple of years but it was no where near the total in Steve's post. For example information from several FOC web sites said that in 2002 only 187,000 Early Stuart sockeye made it past Mission and then only 9,244 of them were counted on the spawning grounds for a total of only 5% of the sockeye that passed Mission. I know some will question the counting methods at Mission.
As well the parasite Parvicapsula that attacks the sockeye kidney has resulted for thousands if not millions of some runs of sockeye and make fish management difficult.
Lots of talk is circulating that the Fraser River rec fishery could close if compliance is not followed and I just received a e-mail that a stepped up creel survey will be out on the river evaluating the unselective fishery going on. At least were have been warned and if the river is closed we will know what caused it. :( ::) :-[
-
biffchan thats because i dont waste my time bb'ing.
-
biffchan thats because i dont waste my time bb'ing.
Then how do you keep track of the numbers, unless of course you like fishing for big trout ;)
-
albion test nets, look at recent years. adams run happens every 4 year. 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
-
Most die-hard anti-flossers are so due to the issue of fishing ethics far more than conservation so the minimal impact in terms of conservation card isn't going to make any impact in their minds. Conservation concerns become a much more real issue on smaller systems where the methods carry-over and can have a much greater effect on smaller runs. The advent of flossing has also greatly increased MEAT fisherman mentality which in my view has severely effected fishing etiquette on our rivers.
I've never been completely sold on the ethics argument, I think it is an argument reserved for purists of the sport. If you want to be a purist that's good and fine but you have no right to pry into other peoples lives and subject them to your standard of ethics as I am 110% sure you do not allow others to do the same to you. In fact, with the constant second-guessing and looking for ulterior motives I have seen by a number of hardcore ethical anti-flossers I have been pretty turned-off the argument. Preaching ethics to someone who is not interested in your sermon is no different than force-feeding someone religious beliefs they have no interest in. I don't mean to seem like I'm picking on any religious folk that may be reading but calling someone a "beak" at the slightest possibility of ethical impropriety in your eyes is just as bad as those self-righteous religious people who will go out of their way to tell you that you are a bad person who is going to hell because you do not live up to their vision of good and righteous person.
For me flossing is a conservation and etiquette concern due to issues noted above. For those that do choose employ such methods, please be aware you may be effecting at-risk stocks and stop or change your methods if you are. Also, please remember our rivers are the lifeblood of these fish we all cherish, our rivers are also for many an escape from the daily grind where they go to relax and enjoy not only fishing but the river and it's surroundings. Be aware of your actions, you may be having fun but you may be doing it at other peoples expense regardless of what method you are employing. Let's keep the gridlock on the roads and off the rivers.
-
I sure hope somebody's paying attention to what Chris said, if they close the river down it's all over but the whining. I won't call anyone a beak but in my opinion allowing for 10% mortality in the fish you C&R has got to be an unacceptable thing, that's killing fish just for the fun of it or if you're a guide for the money I guess. Unfortunately sockeye have the smallest energy reserve of any of the Pacific salmon and 10% is probably a conservative estimate, how many of you out there think it's a good idea to kill one out of every ten fish you release and just waste it? So what if it looks healthy when you release it how does it handle that extra stress of being caught and released once or twice by the time it's going past Prince George. The DFO has asked us as sportsmen to voluntarily avoid the sockeye as a conservation method if we don't adhere to this we'll look like the deer hunters in the Bambi movie.
-
The total Sockeye numbers vary from year to year. The numbers I quoted earlier come from their site
(http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/Escapement/2005SUMMERPRELIMINARIES.htm)
Interpreting them can be confusing that’s for sure. However, The catch numbers paint a pretty clear picture. Fraser anglers caught and released about 3600 Stuart Sockeye last season. With a generally accepted mortality rate of 10% that is between 300 to 400 dead Sockeye that we are responsible for over a months time. You could double that number and it still would not have any real impact on this run! All angling has a mortality rate associated with it. Regardless of the run size this is an insignificant impact on this fishery by sports anglers. Personally I feel that this Stuart Sockeye issue is not about conservation but is more about politics, you know business as usual!
I am on the water regularly at this time of year and I catch very few Sockeye and see very few Sockeye caught.
Fish on!
Steve Kaye
-
For the Early Stuart I think this is the link you should be looking at Steve: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/Escapement/2005EARLYSTUARTPRELIMINARIES.htm :)
-
For the Early Stuart I think this is the link you should be looking at Steve: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/Escapement/2005EARLYSTUARTPRELIMINARIES.htm :)
Thanks for posting this, as once again we are talking about the Early Stuarts, the one run that we need every sockeye possible back to their natal streams.
After this run is throught the system even though I personally donot agree with the flossing way of bringing a fish a shore the recreational anglers has no impact on the strong sockeye stocks. Maybe during the short sockeye openings that are given to the recreational anglers I donot think they take the 50,000 pieces that FOC says they do.
-
In response to Steve Kaye saying he sees very few caught this time of year, it's because they ARE endangered don't you get it not catching fish while you are bottom bouncing means they aren't there,they haven't gone"off the bite". when a run is endangered everyfish counts.
-
Steve, I think the problem not only lies with low numbers of early stewart but also the law and how it is interpreted by our local native bands. Section 35 of the constitution says that conservation is first, natives is second, then commercial and recreation can begin. Only after the first two are met are we allocated a # of fish.
DFO does not give the local native bands an opening for early stewart as these fish are protected and have conservation concerns. Anglers are out bottom bouncing and catch & release a few sockeye, using your 10% mortality ( i think that is low). Those fish are now allocated to the sport fishing community as a mortality, whether it's 10 fish or 200, it's still an allocation. To the natives, that means the sport fishing community has been given an allocation before them.
The Cheam Band has said very clearly, if an allocation is given to the sport fishing community then the nets go in the water. So although I agree with the low impact on BB early season, the repercussions are much greater.
Although I do enjoy a bit of BB during sockeye season, I don't think it is a proper way to fish for Chinook or any other species. There are many other options for fishing the Fraser. Bar fishing, trolling, casting spoons and spinners and even float fishing at creek mouths. Anglers just need to be a bit more patient with these methods.
I think Chris will agree, for many years we have been going to meetings, arguing for selective fishing by commercial and natives groups and asking for more angling opportunities, yet we as recreational anglers are now fishing with a non-selective method. It's been well documented that bi-catch has caused much of the decline in fish stocks around the world. This is no different, just lower numbers.
I know this issue is a hot one and know matter what view I have, I will be hammered from one side or another. But for me, BB ( the way it is done on the Fraser) is a method used for sockeye and sockeye only. Anglers and guides on the Fraser need to make a choice, my choice is to not BB or promote it unless we are given a green light to retain sockeye.
Tight lines and have a great season.
Vic
PS. By the way the bar fishing has been excellent this past week, best day was 8 fish.
-
Excellent post Vic, thanks for posting it. Just heading to the bar, bar fishing that is ;D right now.
Hope to see you on the river.
-
Hello Vic / Chris,
I am well aware about the concerns with first nations, so clearly this is politics as usual. In past seasons they have had “Chinook nets” in the water during this time so we will see what happens this season, also lets not forget the many test fisheries that also take there toll on Stuart Sockeye.
“The other Gman” posted this link http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/Escapement/2005EARLYSTUARTPRELIMINARIES.htm
Good info for sure but still close to 100,000 fish on the spawning beds so obviously the few fish that we catch are not at issue. As I said it’s all about politics.
I made this post because every season it is made to sound like Bottom flossers will be the death of Stuart sockeye and this could not be farther from the truth. Our impact is less than 1% no mater what numbers you look at.
BTW I am certainly not anti bar fishing. I actually prefer it whenever possible and have already had great success barfishing this season.
This issue is not going away anytime soon I just wanted to educate people to what our impact actually is.
Unfortunately even though we clearly have the smallest impact we are the most visible user group on the river and will continue to be a pawn in the Fraser River politics game.
Have a great season everyone!
Steve Kaye
-
Ya sure blame on rec' fishery. (regardless of fishing method)
So far there has been no report of sockeye been caught by Rec' fishery. However, the so called chinook nets set by the FN has already captured and kept 32.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/HTMLs/SockeyeKeptCatch.html (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/HTMLs/SockeyeKeptCatch.html)
-
The entire "it's not us it's them" is the same arguement used by everyone with a stake in fish stocks. Regardless of any actual legitimate merit of it, it's an endless circle that just points the finger elsewhere and will do nothing to help protect endangered runs. Can we not find more constructive methods than finger pointing?
-
Fishery Notice - Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Subject: FN0481-Salmon: Fraser River Sockeye Update - June 30 - Areas 11 to 29
The Fraser River Panel met today, June 30 to review assessment data on Fraser
River sockeye salmon and complete the management plan for 2006 Fraser River
sockeye salmon fisheries in Panel Area waters.
The total return of Fraser River sockeye for 2006 is a forecast of 17,357,000.
Early Stuart and Early Summer-run sockeye are forecast to return at abundances
of 84,000 fish, and 1,303,000 fish, respectively. Summer-run sockeye stocks are
forecast to return at an abundance of 7,158,000 fish with most of the
production expected to come from the Quesnel and Chilko stock groups (4,613,000
and 1,689,000 fish, respectively). This is the dominant cycle year for Late
Shuswap sockeye (which includes the Adams River) and Late-run sockeye are
forecast to return at an abundance of 8,812,000 fish. This strong forecast
return is due in part to the low in-river mortality that they experienced and
the large spawning escapement of some Late-run stocks in the brood year. Late
Shuswap sockeye are expected to comprise a high fraction of the Late-run return
at 7,725,000; while Weaver and Birkenhead sockeye are forecast to return at
abundances of 411,000 and 433,000 fish, respectively. Cultus sockeye are
forecast to return at a level of 5,800 fish.
There is high uncertainty in the forecast of the total run size of Fraser
sockeye this season since most (71%) of the production is dependent on the
return of just two stock groups; Quesnel and Late Shuswap. The forecast for
Quesnel sockeye is particularly uncertain, in part because the fry from the
2002 brood year had a much smaller body size than average, which may result in
low marine survival.
The problem of early entry of Late-run sockeye stocks has continued every year
since 1995 and has resulted in significant in-river mortality during this
period. Management actions taken to compensate for this mortality have
substantially reduced harvest opportunities on these Late-run stocks as well as
co-migrating Summer-run sockeye. The 2006 management plan assumes that this
abnormal upstream migratory behavior and associated in-river mortality will
continue. However, based on the relative strength of the forecast Late-run
return in 2006, a flexible approach to Late-run sockeye management wherein
their escapement target will vary with in-season estimates of abundance and
upstream migration behavior. Additional management actions will be taken to
protect Cultus and Sakinaw sockeye.
Fishery openings in 2006 will be adjusted as required based on in-season
estimates of abundance and timing of sockeye, and on the corresponding spawning
escapement needs for each stock group. Conservation concerns for other species
and stocks will be taken into account throughout the 2006 management season.
The present forecast of the proportion of Fraser River sockeye salmon that will
divert through Johnstone Strait in 2006 is 52%. The forecast 50% cumulative
migration timing of Early Stuart and Chilko (and Summer-run sockeye in
aggregate) sockeye through Area 20 are July 3 and August 9, respectively.
During the last two weeks of May, there were six days of record or near-record
high temperatures through portions of the Fraser watershed, which resulted in
snow-melt rates that were well above normal. Several of the snow-water indexes
in the Fraser River watershed to June 1 are now far below average: the upper
Fraser and Nechako were 30% and 61% of normal, respectively, while the middle
and lower Fraser were 53% and 84% of normal, respectively. Snow-water indices
in the north and south Thompson watersheds were 81% and 86% of normal,
respectively. Fraser River discharge levels and water temperatures will be
monitored closely this summer to determine specific management actions that are
required during the in-river migratory period to help achieve spawning
escapement goals for Early Stuart, Early Summer-run and Summer-run sockeye.
River entry timing for Late-run stocks will also be monitored, and management
adjustments will be adopted as necessary to increase the likelihood that
desired numbers of Late-run fish will reach the spawning grounds.
Sockeye have begun entering the marine and Fraser River assessment areas,
however it is too early to provide an update on the strength of the Early
Stuart sockeye migration. Migration conditions for sockeye entering the Fraser
River are presently satisfactory. The discharge of the Fraser River at Hope on
June 29 was 4,650 cms, which is approximately 30% lower than normal for this
date. The water temperature of the Fraser River at Qualark Creek on June 29 was
16.9 degrees C, which is over 2 degrees C warmer than average for this date.
The next scheduled update will be Friday p.m., July 7 following the next Fraser
River Panel meeting.
-
If DFO does not give special treatment to certain group and ask another to reframe, then there would be less conflict.
-
Hello Vic / Chris,
I am well aware about the concerns with first nations, so clearly this is politics as usual. In past seasons they have had “Chinook nets” in the water during this time so we will see what happens this season, also lets not forget the many test fisheries that also take there toll on Stuart Sockeye.
“The other Gman” posted this link http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/Escapement/2005EARLYSTUARTPRELIMINARIES.htm
Good info for sure but still close to 100,000 fish on the spawning beds so obviously the few fish that we catch are not at issue. As I said it’s all about politics.
I made this post because every season it is made to sound like Bottom flossers will be the death of Stuart sockeye and this could not be farther from the truth. Our impact is less than 1% no mater what numbers you look at.
BTW I am certainly not anti bar fishing. I actually prefer it whenever possible and have already had great success barfishing this season.
This issue is not going away anytime soon I just wanted to educate people to what our impact actually is.
Unfortunately even though we clearly have the smallest impact we are the most visible user group on the river and will continue to be a pawn in the Fraser River politics game.
Have a great season everyone!
Steve Kaye
Steve,
If you want to educate other anglers on what their impacts may be, take some time to educate yourself first. Yes, last year there was an escapement of just under 100,000 Early Stuart sockeye. The year before there was UNDER 10,000. Is 300 dead sockeye ok then? In 2002 ( the brood for this year), there werre only 24,000 fish. What if the declining returns that have been occuring up there continue this year? But hey, as long as all the new guides can make some money, why not? A C&R'd Early Stuart fish is a dead fish, are far as I'm concerned.
Yes, anglers are most definately not the most pressing conservation concern when it comes to sockeye, but it sounds childish to me to refuse to do your part just because others aren't doing their part, in your opinion. Oh, and also, even though there is no record of sockeye being caught by this year's creel curveys, how many guys that release one may possibly 'forget' to mention it to the DFO employee asking them about it? I'm betting more than a few.
-
Does anyone know what is the mortality rate for release by-catch in drift net?
-
Keep in mind that as the sockeye run numbers go up and down so do our by-catch numbers, on a year with 10,000 spawners our mortality numbers would be much less than 300. One number affects the other. Fact is a 1% or less impact any other fishery would not normally even remotely be considered as a problem by DFO, it’s just that this one is so politically charged. I bet they (DFO) sit back and watch the forums at this time of year and laugh at all the infighting. ENJOY!!!
As I said before this is my opinion take it or leave it, just come to your own conclusion based on facts not propaganda.
I’m done here, enjoy the season!
Steve Kaye
-
I would not call it so much infighting other than posters on this subject are just expressing their views and it is up to readers to decide how they wish to fish. I know I try to approach it this way, by education but maybe sometime I fail.
While out on the river this weekend on Grassy, Wellington, Queens, Mountain and Maple Leaf Bar ;D ;D ;D I observed except for Grassy, the majority of anglers were following FOC's request to fish selectively.
The good part as well was the bar rods were doing very well, with excellent catches of chinooks. ;D ;D ;D
I hope this trend continues on both fronts.
-
I agree with Steve K.
If you look at the stats (and after being on the river a number of times... apply a little common sense), its pretty obvious that recreational fishers have the LEAST impact on Fraser salmon of the said groups, when they are all operating.
-
If everyone is so scared that your action will damage the sockeye stock even by C&R, and even one dead sockeye is more than your guilt conscience can take, then even bar fishing has problem. Why not just hang up the rod and join PETA and feel forever peaceful about your cause. When DFO allow racist based fishing going on & take massive number of 'endangered' stock even as a bycatch, why hammer your other fisherman brothers on the head like they are a sore thumb to you when they just exercise their rights to fish just as much as you. They just don't have a boat to access other areas like you. If all BBers buy boats & turn into bar fishers, you bar fishers will then find no room to cast on your cuurent spots, or your private island even at first light. Each bar fisher requires much more room then BBer to fish.
No report of any sockeye hookups by BB fishers at all for a whole day of fishing in my last trip. So, you want to have all BBers stay home, you enjoy your private fishing, and FN killing endangered stock legally left and right. Sorry, I champion the fishing rights of all fishermen unless DFO close down all users groups for conservation concern. If they close down the Frase for sporties but not FN, don't blame your other fellow fishers for conservation concern (for there is none), blame yourself for sensitizing the issue to the point that DFO finds it convenient to shut us down. I have the suspicsion that the selective clause is placed there in the reg due to the relenless lobbying of the bar fishing fraternity to DFO to shut down BBers.
If your objection is ethics, then say so. We can then debate on that issue. But it has been debated to death. It is better just to do a search and you will get all the points debated in the past. Have peace in your fishing and don't try to force everyone to fish like you.
-
Agreed. So far there has no report of sockeye caught by any recreational fishermen. However, reported sockeye cought and kept by FN was 36 as of July 2. So much for conservation.
Ceremonial openings. Ya right ::) If they are so into their culture. Fish the way they used to.
-
Agreed. So far there has no report of sockeye caught by any recreational fishermen. However, reported sockeye cought and kept by FN was 36 as of July 2. So much for conservation.
There are quite a few sockeye being caught by bottom bouncers right now, spend some time on the river and you will see. 36 by the FN is well below what has been snagged so far on the Fraser by "sporties".
-
36 kept. Killed kaput. And how many by recreational?
-
some may have been killed by these so called sporties, but by accident. not like the fns keeping them on purpose for cerimonial food my my friend.close the whole thing down and let the early run go through then reopen it .heck whats a couple weeks doing the house chores as long as you get to go back on the river ;D thats my 2cents. 8) 8)
-
Please re-read funfish's blurb. I believe he has it correct.
Sockeye get caught via bar rigs, as well.
-
Agreed. So far there has no report of sockeye caught by any recreational fishermen. However, reported sockeye cought and kept by FN was 36 as of July 2. So much for conservation.
Ceremonial openings. Ya right ::) If they are so into their culture. Fish the way they used to.
And that doesn't include all the ones they have poached. Only 36 sockeye kept by FN :o ::) :-\
-
Another day out to the bar again today. Not a single sockeye hooked by anyone BBing. No dead sock floating by either. If people are really sincere about conservation concern, stop FN, not BBing. Socks caught in BBing never swallow the offering deep, so never have much blood loss. They also fight a much lighter lead than those used in bar fishing. Socks released by accidental catch in BBing are usually robust. You cannot say that if socks are caught by other methods using much heavier gear. Socks with net marks are usually too weak to to survive. I say if DFO really worries about conservation of the Early Stuarts, stop FN from using potent nets. Only whatever traditional FN methods are allowed.
-
That sounds logical. :) Socks jump and have robust runs when hooked by bouncing. When released they would burst off with tons of energy left. They are known to splash all over and get the releaser all wet. I don't bar fish, but I can not see how the small socks can have much energy left after dragging that much heavier lead after the fight. ;)
-
Funfish
On your last post you stated that sockeye don't take the offering deep. You make it sound like they are bitting which you should know is incorrect. As for catching sockeye on bar fishing gear, good luck. It occasionally happens but not often.
-
From last year and this year barfishing result, they do get caught on barfishing rigs often.
-
Sockeyes are mostly flossed, but many sockeyes are hooked with the hook squarely in the mouth. Since sockeyes bite in other rivers, how can we be so sure they don't bite. You are not down there to witness each hook up. So, you can't say every sockeye is flossed. They just don't bite deep because wool is not bait.