Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Chum Salmon Closure and how the Commercial Chum Fishery has affected things.  (Read 4816 times)

Darko

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616

Hello everybody, this is my first year fishing for salmon and naturally, I was very excited to get an opportunity to catch my first chum salmon this fall as I heard about what amazing fighters they are. Sadly though now it looks like with the return not even enough to reach escapement that even C&R is not allowed. This brings a couple of questions in my mind. Wasn't chum historically one of the most abundant salmon species? How have we reached a point now that they are so scarce? Also why was there a commercial net fishery allowed in the FRASER for chum when vulnerable steelhead runs are returning in the same time frame? Who knows what happened with all the bycatch trout and other species that were caught. Can we really trust they were handled carefully and survived? I have some doubts if I am honest. Also the killing of chum for their roe and throwing back the rest of the fish is a complete disgrace I have heard about happening often in the past. What can we do to prevent this sort of thing in the future? Do anglers not realize that roe is not the only way to catch salmon? Or could it be that they are being poached by boats in the ocean and exported? It's impossible to know but I would love to hear what you guys think about all this.
Logged
if you ain't fishin, you ain't livin

VictorBai

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 45

I have some confusions with the latest "No fishing for Chum salmon" fishery notice as well. How is this implemented? For example, if I go fishing in the Vedder river this weekend, I know there are Coho, Chinook and Chum in the river. How can I fish for the other species while not fishing for Chum? The setup I use could attract any of them. This doesn't really make sense to me.

What should I do to ensure that I am fishing responsibly and legally?
Logged

Darko

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616

I have some confusions with the latest "No fishing for Chum salmon" fishery notice as well. How is this implemented? For example, if I go fishing in the Vedder river this weekend, I know there are Coho, Chinook and Chum in the river. How can I fish for the other species while not fishing for Chum? The setup I use could attract any of them. This doesn't really make sense to me.

What should I do to ensure that I am fishing responsibly and legally?

well, it's a little complicated because the way chum are usually targeted are by jigs or wool ties from what I know, which are also used for coho and chinook. So maybe just the type of gear or hook size? Though honestly, I wouldn't be too worried as nobody is really going to be looking through your setup and say you're targeting chum, though I am not an expert that's my opinion. Maybe someone more experienced can shed some more light.
Logged
if you ain't fishin, you ain't livin

psd1179

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 732

chum are usually school and easy to find in slower water. If the angler is on purposely fish through the school of chum, it should be consider fishing for chum.

I am pretty sure the CO will show in Stave river. but they won't bother people fishing below Vedder crossing.
Logged

Darko

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616

chum are usually school and easy to find in slower water. If the angler is on purposely fish through the school of chum, it should be consider fishing for chum.

I am pretty sure the CO will show in Stave river. but they won't bother people fishing below Vedder crossing.
I second this
Logged
if you ain't fishin, you ain't livin

Steelhawk

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1382
  • Fish In Peace !

Hello everybody, this is my first year fishing for salmon and naturally, I was very excited to get an opportunity to catch my first chum salmon this fall as I heard about what amazing fighters they are. Sadly though now it looks like with the return not even enough to reach escapement that even C&R is not allowed. This brings a couple of questions in my mind. Wasn't chum historically one of the most abundant salmon species? How have we reached a point now that they are so scarce? Also why was there a commercial net fishery allowed in the FRASER for chum when vulnerable steelhead runs are returning in the same time frame? Who knows what happened with all the bycatch trout and other species that were caught. Can we really trust they were handled carefully and survived? I have some doubts if I am honest. Also the killing of chum for their roe and throwing back the rest of the fish is a complete disgrace I have heard about happening often in the past. What can we do to prevent this sort of thing in the future? Do anglers not realize that roe is not the only way to catch salmon? Or could it be that they are being poached by boats in the ocean and exported? It's impossible to know but I would love to hear what you guys think about all this.

It seems a lot of roe guys have switched to beads from what I saw thus year in some canal runs. The demise of chums seem to start when DFO allowed chum roe commercial fishery on the Fraser for exporting to the Japanese sushi market. Same with herring roe fishery damaging herring population, chum population will be taking a hit. The endangered interior steelhead unfortunately get caught along with the chum. Why did DFO open the commercial chum roe fishery in the past, knowing full well the steelhead run at the same time, while they shut down the recreational fishermen even with the remotest chance of affecting the endangered stocks?
Logged

Darko

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 616

It seems a lot of roe guys have switched to beads from what I saw thus year in some canal runs. The demise of chums seem to start when DFO allowed chum roe commercial fishery on the Fraser for exporting to the Japanese sushi market. Same with herring roe fishery damaging herring population, chum population will be taking a hit. The endangered interior steelhead unfortunately get caught along with the chum. Why did DFO open the commercial chum roe fishery in the past, knowing full well the steelhead run at the same time, while they shut down the recreational fishermen even with the remotest chance of affecting the endangered stocks?

that's exactly what I was thinking  :-\
Logged
if you ain't fishin, you ain't livin

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4883
    • Initating Salmon Fry

It seems a lot of roe guys have switched to beads from what I saw thus year in some canal runs. The demise of chums seem to start when DFO allowed chum roe commercial fishery on the Fraser for exporting to the Japanese sushi market.

do you know that has been going on for 40 years or so? The runs of chum in the 90s and into this century were huge in the Fraser Valley and were harvested for the sushi market.
Logged
"Two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity... though I am not completely sure about the Universe" ...Einstein as related to F.S. Perls.

Knnn

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 582

Good to know, but why were these harvests allowed to continue in light of declining numbers and continued decline to almost extinction of an endangered species? 

A) Denial of a problem? 

B) Political expediency and influence? 

C) Bribery and corruption? 

D) No one, but a few interested stakeholders who are squabbling over the remains, gives a SH#T (not auto correct to cupcakes)?

E) All of the above.
Logged

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4883
    • Initating Salmon Fry

Oh I don't know.

Having lived here all my life and gone fishing for most of it, I do know that in those close to 60 years everyone I ever heard talk about it said the fishing at any given time was worse than 10 years ago and that was worse than the previous 20 or 30 and in another 10 years it would all be gone yet they kept going fishing. Not much has changed other than the big one reason people pick for the current sorry state of affairs.
Logged
"Two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity... though I am not completely sure about the Universe" ...Einstein as related to F.S. Perls.

psd1179

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 732

check the northen cod. until the chum stock drop to extinction, DFO won't do anything.

In one seminar, one biologist said salmon need certain number to maintain. once the population drop below certain number, the run will collapse immediately.  see the Passenger pigeon extinction as an example.
Logged

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4883
    • Initating Salmon Fry

check the northen cod. until the chum stock drop to extinction, DFO won't do anything.

In one seminar, one biologist said salmon need certain number to maintain. once the population drop below certain number, the run will collapse immediately.  see the Passenger pigeon extinction as an example.

That may have been David Welch. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdq3EdrNXYg&t=50she talked about the diving numbers for smolt survival for all 6 species of salmon mentioned was it hit 1% of less a steep dive down the extinction cliff would follow.

In the Northern Cod collapse it's clear the advice DFO gave was ignored and the intense cod fishery continued as a result of political pressure from the commercial fishing industry. It's not clear the cod would have been better off as a result of reduced fishing since evidence is the ocean has grown too cold for cod stocks around NFLD and the Maritimes and cod declines have spread south into US waters.

 No doubt the same political pressure has been driving the decline of salmon but that pressure is much broader than the Fraser Valley, the SOG or BC. The excessive artificial enhancement of salmon number, pink and chum in particular has gotten considerable attention in the last few years. Many are realizing this could be major cause of decline as salmon number overload the declining capacity of the North Pacific to feed them. BC is a bit player in this as Alaska, Russia and Japan's release of ranched salmon far exceeds our enhancement output.

The Passenger Pigeon is an interesting case. For years it's extinction was blamed on wildly proliferate, uncontrolled hunting but today it's known that destruction of much of their habitat was happening at the same time. Recent genetic work has lead some researchers to conclude the species was genetically adapted to living in huge flocks and once these numbers were destroyed extinction was inevitable;

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/conspiracy-theories-human-rat-starter-brains-the-catastrophic-extinction-of-passenger-pigeons-and-more-1.4406927/why-did-the-most-abundant-bird-in-the-world-go-extinct-in-just-50-years-1.4407018

Pacific salmon may be a similar case. The hugely prolific species are also very specialized. Lately we have been artificially making them more specialized via artificial enhancement.

The geologic record is full of extinct species. Few species last more than few million years. We are undeniably in the midst of a great extinction driven by anthropomorphic factors. Pacific Salmon is just one cluster of species at serious risk let alone those already gone in the last 100 years. How can we think they can survive in the face of rising population levels, increasing economic consumption and demands for high protein healthy fat food sources and a absolute failure of an international economic system to control their exploitation?

I think saying that such a decline as we've seen in chum returns is due to one factor is pointless as there are so many other factors at play. Since they have been kept, catch records show there have been similar years of bad returns. First nations oral history reports much the same. There were years where salmon numbers just disappeared and people starved for lack of food.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2021, 08:26:26 AM by RalphH »
Logged
"Two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity... though I am not completely sure about the Universe" ...Einstein as related to F.S. Perls.

4x4

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187

That may have been David Welch. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdq3EdrNXYg&t=50she talked about the diving numbers for smolt survival for all 6 species of salmon mentioned was it hit 1% of less a steep dive down the extinction cliff would follow.

In the Northern Cod collapse it's clear the advice DFO gave was ignored and the intense cod fishery continued as a result of political pressure from the commercial fishing industry. It's not clear the cod would have been better off as a result of reduced fishing since evidence is the ocean has grown too cold for cod stocks around NFLD and the Maritimes and cod declines have spread south into US waters.

 No doubt the same political pressure has been driving the decline of salmon but that pressure is much broader than the Fraser Valley, the SOG or BC. The excessive artificial enhancement of salmon number, pink and chum in particular has gotten considerable attention in the last few years. Many are realizing this could be major cause of decline as salmon number overload the declining capacity of the North Pacific to feed them. BC is a bit player in this as Alaska, Russia and Japan's release of ranched salmon far exceeds our enhancement output.

The Passenger Pigeon is an interesting case. For years it's extinction was blamed on wildly proliferate, uncontrolled hunting but today it's known that destruction of much of their habitat was happening at the same time. Recent genetic work has lead some researchers to conclude the species was genetically adapted to living in huge flocks and once these numbers were destroyed extinction was inevitable;

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/conspiracy-theories-human-rat-starter-brains-the-catastrophic-extinction-of-passenger-pigeons-and-more-1.4406927/why-did-the-most-abundant-bird-in-the-world-go-extinct-in-just-50-years-1.4407018

Pacific salmon may be a similar case. The hugely prolific species are also very specialized. Lately we have been artificially making them more specialized via artificial enhancement.

The geologic record is full of extinct species. Few species last more than few million years. We are undeniably in the midst of a great extinction driven by anthropomorphic factors. Pacific Salmon is just one cluster of species at serious risk let alone those already gone in the last 100 years. How can we think they can survive in the face of rising population levels, increasing economic consumption and demands for high protein healthy fat food sources and a absolute failure of an international economic system to control their exploitation?

I think saying that such a decline as we've seen in chum returns is due to one factor is pointless as there are so many other factors at play. Since they have been kept, catch records show there have been similar years of bad returns. First nations oral history reports much the same. There were years where salmon numbers just disappeared and people starved for lack of food.

True but nobody will starve now if the Chum fishery is closed. I saw nets in the river again above the GE bridge yesterday. I'm in the Stave on a regular basis and we haven't hooked a single Chum in the Coho water this year. The lack of fish is even worse than 2-3 years ago yet the nets are out. Mind numbing. I know many people will go to the toilet bowl and see a bunch of Chum and say there are lots of fish. Just not true.
Logged

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2022

Boom and Depression: 1919-39

In British Columbia after the First World War, the demand of veterans for employment ended "limited entry" (licence limitation) in the salmon fishery, at least for white people. Restrictions remained for some time on Aboriginal people and Japanese-Canadians; meanwhile, white fisherman gained clear dominance in the fishery. With gillnetting still strong, the purse-seine and troll fisheries grew. The salmon industry, with more than 70 plants at the beginning of the century, began to consolidate in the late 1920s (as it did again in the 1950s and the late 1970s). The 1923 Halibut Treaty between Canada and the US was Canada's first independently signed treaty. Under its auspices, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, a pioneering venture in international management, regulated and improved the Pacific halibut fishery, partly through conservation quotas.

The pilchard (California sardine) fishery developed in the late 1920s and suited the purse seine and "reduction" fishery, which reduced fish flesh and bones into fertilizer or fish meal. It boomed in the 1930s but failed in the 1940s when the resource declined. Pacific coast fishermen continued to organize more than Atlantic fishermen, and their organizations had long-lasting influence. One, the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Co-operative Association, took hold in the 1930s and became one of the world's most successful fishermen co-operatives, dominating the northern BC fishery for several decades.

Though continuing to regulate extensively for conservation, federal fisheries management showed little vigour or innovation between the wars. In 1922 the federal government allowed Québec to manage its own fixed-gear fisheries, or that part of the industry using stationary equipment such as traps and longlines anchored to the bottom of the ocean. In 1928, following a court decision, it yielded control of processing plants to the provinces. In 1930 it allowed the Prairie provinces to manage their own fisheries and separated the Department of Fisheries from the Department of Marine.

Later in the 1930s, the fisheries department set up a Salt Fish Board to regulate and subsidize exporters, a move overtaken by the events of the Second World War. The war hiked prices and incomes, and the board vanished into the general wartime system of controls. The fisheries department ended the purse-seine ban in the 1930s, and began to remove restrictions on trawlers, as the war sparked a new emphasis on productivity and development.

The Age of Development: 1945-68

In BC, federal fisheries officials developed a superb corps of salmon managers after the war who kept stocks fairly stable, despite increasing pressure from the fishing fleet and from the encroachment of an urban-industrial society on fish habitats. The department led public opinion in a struggle that held back potential damage to salmon stocks from hydroelectric dams. BC fishermen's organizations such as the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union (UFAWU) and processor organizations actively influenced fishery management. The UFAWU pushed for licence controls to improve prospects for conservation and incomes; this came about in the late 1960s. Meanwhile, vessel ownership by processors decreased. The BC fleet became more independent and the salmon-canning industry increasingly consolidated. Still concentrated on salmon, herring, and halibut, the BC fishery had fewer resources and a far smaller fleet than did the Atlantic’s. But its fishermen tended to be better educated, and made more money. On both coasts and inland, many part-time fishermen supplemented their income with other work.

Comprehensive Management Begins: 1968-84

In this period, major fisheries on both coasts went through booms and crises, the latter usually stemming from overexpansion in an industry of fluctuating resources and markets. Key measures included limits on the number and size of vessels, and, especially on the Atlantic, use of fishing quotas and zones, encouragement of fishermen's organizations, and the establishment of many industry-government advisory committees. In 1979, the government created the stand-alone Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), responsible for fisheries management and research, oceanography, hydrography, and small craft harbours.

Moving Forward

British Columbia has traditionally had better-educated, better-organized, and more highly urbanized fishermen. Salmon landings and overall fishery values were high in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even so, BC fishermen felt they were losing influence to the recreational and the small but growing Aboriginal fishery, and were being robbed by America’s failure to fully comply with the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty. The latter issue was addressed by a new agreement in 1999. Meanwhile, salmon landings took a drastic decline in the mid-1990s. Half a century earlier, regulations had let most boats fish nearly every day of the season, but by 1997, controls brought on by the strong fleet and weak stocks kept many boats tied up for 10 or 11 months of the year, with chinook and coho salmon showing serious signs of decline. Besides fishing pressure and habitat loss, oceanic changes affecting survival seemed to be a key cause.

Other BC fisheries such as herring, halibut, other groundfish including sablefish, and shellfish proceeded well enough for the most part. Many were gaining in value, helped in some instances by ITQs. But the salmon fishery had struck not only a resource but a market disaster. Prices plunged as aquaculture poured more supplies into the world market. Though still small compared to leading countries, Canadian aquaculture was growing fast. By 2002, production value reached $639 million, mostly from farmed Atlantic salmon, which even Pacific fish farmers had taken up. BC provided more than half of Canada's aquaculture value.

In BC's wild-salmon fishery, strict conservation policies in the late 1990s including fishing cutbacks and gear modifications helped reduce pressure on chinook, coho, and salmon in general. Starting in 1996, federal programs and industry conditions reduced participation in the BC fishery. The number of licensed fishermen and fishing craft in the industry dropped. Although major corporations remained, some even taking a stronger ownership position in the salmon fleet, the number of large, industrial salmon canneries declined to a handful. The processing and marketing sectors became less industrial and more entrepreneurial.

At century's end, despite discouraging short-term prospects for salmon and herring and some uncertainty in coastal communities, the resilient BC fishery had hopes of continuing as a dynamic industry. The freshwater fisheries also seemed at least halfway stable, with many participants using IQs or ITQs, and with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation still strong on the Prairies.

At the beginning of the new century, co-operation and co-management seemed to be increasing, and incomes were reasonable in many areas. As modern technology strengthened fish-catching skills, other factors loomed larger in fishermen's fates, namely their abilities in business, in representation and in acquiring the right licences. On both coasts, the fishery, despite its complex, contentious, and crisis-filled history, retained a special pull. Even in bad times, many fishermen not only had no way but also no desire to get out of the occupation that had shaped their families, communities and culture. Despite all the troubles, many still find it a satisfying business. Working alone on the water, the fisherman lives with challenges and perceptions largely unknown to the rest of us.




Logged

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2022

Oh I don't know.

Having lived here all my life and gone fishing for most of it, I do know that in those close to 60 years everyone I ever heard talk about it said the fishing at any given time was worse than 10 years ago and that was worse than the previous 20 or 30 and in another 10 years it would all be gone yet they kept going fishing. Not much has changed other than the big one reason people pick for the current sorry state of affairs.

your probably one of the only posters on sport fishing forums that recognize that salmon have gone through boom and bust periods in our past.

Logged