Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rodney on July 13, 2005, 02:08:05 PM
-
Background information
Earlier in the season, the Fraser River Panel predicted that the early Stuart sockeye salmon would pass through the Fraser during the following periods:
June 27 to July 19: Steveston to Port Mann Bridge
June 28 to July 21: Port Mann bridge to Sawmill Creek
Since June 21, test fishing catches of early Stuart sockeye salmon in both marine waters and Fraser River have been extremely low. The escapement of Early Stuart sockeye past Mission through July 7 is 12,000 fish. The original predicted run size (258,000 fish at 50% probability) has been revised and based on the test fishing results the current estimated run size is at 35,000 fish.
Conditions for salmon migration in the Fraser River is currently satisfactory. As of July 12th, river discharge (amount of water) is 5% higher than average and temperature is 0.2C above average.
Early chinook salmon have not been doing that great either. DFO analysis of scale samples from the Albion test fishery indicates that there is a lack of four year old fish (6% out of the sampling population, typical percentage for this time of the year should be around 33%).
Due to the unexpected low returns, DFO is consulting with the Upper Fraser SFAC on possible regulation changes to ensure the early Stuart salmon are protected.
Options
Currently, commercial and First Nations fisheries have remained closed (with the exception of some communal and ceremionial openings for FN) while recreational angling has remained opened since May 1st. There are several options that
Having a complete recreational salmon fishing closure until the summer sockeye salmon arrive (the stocks that usually allow an recreational opening) may ensure a safe passage for all early Stuart sockeye salmon and early chinook salmon.
Restricting salmon fishing method to barfishing only allows anglers to fish selectively as most fish taken by barfishing are chinook salmon. However, Fraser River visibility and level are currently not ideal for barfishing. Further more, wouldn't this change contradict the need to preserve early chinook salmon?
Most anglers employ leader length over five feet when bottom bouncing on the Fraser River. Long leaders (especially those longer than the rod length) result in lengthy fish fighting time. If a sockeye is hooked, the fish may die from exhaustion due to this fishing method. Having a leader length restriction would reduce the fighting time if the fish needs to be released safely.
Some argue no changes are needed, as catch per effort by recreational fishermen is so small. Although our group is the only sector that is opened for fishing on the Fraser, our implication on the fish stocks is minimal, yet the sportfishing sector provides large economic benefits into the local communities. Some say any changes to the regulations would be a political one.
On the other hand, by keeping the sportfishery open while other two sectors are closed due to conservation, what is the message that we are sending out to the general public? Would others assume that there isn't a will to protect and conserve within our community?
Please complete the poll above and provide some feedbacks if you wish. I shall forward your concerns when consultation with DFO begins.
-
You missed "No fishing for Salmon by ANY sector"
-
i agree wholeheartedly with dragonspeed. ABSOLUTE TOTAL CLOSURE OF ALL SALMON FISHING BY ALL GROUPS. that means FN (ceremonial communal or otherwise),COMMERCIAL, TEST, GUIDES and RECREATION.
I feel that every liscence holder who signs his name where it says signature on the liscence, signs a contract that , above all else, recognizes and commits to the ideals of CONSERVATION.
-
You're going to get some heated arguments from bar fishermen.
-
i agree wholeheartedly with dragonspeed. ABSOLUTE TOTAL CLOSURE OF ALL SALMON FISHING BY ALL GROUPS. that means FN (ceremonial communal or otherwise),COMMERCIAL, TEST, GUIDES and RECREATION.
Good points.
Keep in mind that conservation is placed on top priority in fishery management, then First Nations have first rights on ceremonial fisheries, then recreational anglers, then commercial fishermen.
Keep your thoughts coming and cast your votes please, ideally before tomorrow evening so I have a chance to go through everything.
-
conservation should be the desire of all fishermen, even the barfisherman. no special interests.... shut it ALL down
-
Hoooold on. Do you see anything wrong with the current state? Did you see any sockeye dead or killed by rec. fishermen? Instead of spending tyime at the keyboard I would suggest to some posters go on the river see what's is going on there. With the water coming down there will be prime chinook opportunities before sockeye crowds flood the river in two weeks. I certainly don't want to miss this time I've been waiting the whole year for and preparing for it (new tackle, etc.).
-
The fact is that FN get a crack at fish BEFORE Recreational. If we want to keep them from netting the important fish, the river will have to be closed. Otherwise FN THEN Rec fishermen
-
Pinkwool
HHHOOOOLLLLDDD on yerself bud. I work in the industry, spend time on the net and the phones with fishers and other shops, every day. I also spend many hours on the river, many times not even fishing. I've also lived for several years (in the past) in rosedale and chilliwack where all the "carnage" takes place. I've also spent well over 1/2 of my 36 years living, fishing the fraser and other local rivers.
When I make the comments I do they come from being educated to the realities of the situation we are facing.
I stand 100% behind my comments in this post, every letter of every word.
-
hey....way to go allwaysfishin.
SHUT THE WHOLE THING DOWN!
First, in recent years I haven't enjoyed getting shut down in the salt before other groups, and being shut down in the salt is total BS when I go over to the Fraser and watch EVERY OTHER USER group catching fish.
To be honest, SHUT THE WHOLE THING DOWN FOR EVERYONE that way there is no bickering, fair is fair for everyone, and people get a taste of what it is like to do without for once.
Personally, going out to the rivers as I have, and seeing hundreds of thousands of "anglers" if you can call them that...fish a few miles of river is total crap....I would be willing to be that the number of fish that get hauled out of the Rivers on a daily basis in the lower mainland when fishing is at its peak is more that 100 times that of what gets hauled out of the Salt.
I have a boat. I pay insurance, gas, maintance, gear (which is more expensive than bottom gear) parking, GAS GAS and more GAS, food, bait, etc etc etc...
Personally, as a professional who still works in the industry myself, I have no qualms about not fishing. Shut it down, and we obey...simple as that. Fair is fair.
Furthermore, if anyone tells me that recreational anglers do not impact fish stocks, they are a liar too...cuz we do.
Personally I would like to see any fish over 40 inches in length in the salt released. That would make perfect sense to me. I can imagine the balking that I am going to take for that one..but mark my words..one day...we'll see that regulation.
As for anyone that thinks that shutting the whole thing down isn't fair..well..you should just get your facts straight.
As a matter of fact, it takes BALLS to stand up and say...close the whole thing down, and those people that object....well...as far as having no BALLS...they may have no brains too...and that isn't an insult, but a statement of mind and mentality.
How else are we going to get anywhere if someone thinks that they are better than the other user group of the resource?
CLOSE THE FISHERY!
-
Just to make some clarifications first... This discussion forum is a public accessed forum where anyone can provide information and express his or her point of views, but it's not a tool that could be used to change the recreational fishery regulations. I think some maybe unclear about that when posting so it is important to sort that out first. The poll conducted above was a methodology for me to be educated so I can
To see changes, this is how you do it. ;) First, you join an active group that works closely with DFO. Second, voice your thoughts to those who speak for your organization or directly to those who manage the fisheries.
Finally, I believe there is a public interest to be updated on what is happening with our fisheries so I do my best to make accurate information available to readers, so not only all of you would be informed, but also appreciate the complexity of our fishery management.
Now, onto what I can tell you tonight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Upper Fraser Sport Fishing Advisory Committee had a teleconference with DFO tonight to go over updated Fraser River salmon stock assessment and what to expect in the next few weeks.
Stock Assessment
Most of the stock assessment discussed were on data collected from the Albion Test Fishery. If you are unaware of what the Albion Test Fishery is, please visit this section (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/commercial/commercialalbionchnk_e.htm). You can also retrieve the latest test fishery result from this page (http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fos2_Internet/Testfish/rptdtfdparm.cfm?fsub_id=242.).
Chinook salmon
To date, 280 fish were caught by the test fishery. 50 samples were collected for DNA analysis to determine which tributaries these fish were heading to. There is a lack of four year old fish in the sample. Normally, 1/4 to 1/3 of the sample would be four year old fish. This year, only 1 to 2 of the sampled population were four year olds.
What was unusual in the sampled population is that Birkenhead fish make up about 25% of the population. Birkenhead has a very low number of chinook returning (ie. several hundred fish only). The large % in the sample can be interpreted in a few ways: The run is stronger than anticipated (which is pretty unlikely), or the other runs are just so much smaller/late that the Birkenhead run formed the major part in the 2005 return.
Sockeye salmon
Original estimate of early Stuart sockeye salmon was 258,000 fish at 50% probability, based on fry sampling. The test fisheries' results produced a new estimate at 35,000 fish, which is much lower than what was first anticipated. Are they simply late? Or is there a high marine mortality? Only time will tell.
Estimates of other sockeye runs:
Lake Washington fish - pre-estimated at 400,000 fish, now downgraded to 71,000 fish.
Barkley Sound fish - pre-estimated at 500,000 fish, now downgraded to 425,000 fish.
Skeena - pre-estimated at 1,500,000 fish, now downgraded to 800,000 fish.
Overall, it looks like most runs are lower than anticipated. Does this indicate a lower return of the summer runs that normally provide a recreational opening? The relationship is weak and almost no correlation at this point.
Sportfishery catch data
Using the data collecte by the creel surveys conducted, the equations produced the following catch numbers by sportfishermen:
102 chinook salmon in May
300 to 700 chinook salmon in June
1,500 chinook salmon in July (based on the data collected up to July 10th, estimated) <--- The advisory board members found the numbers for June and July way too high, it doesn't reflect the true catches that take place out there. Maybe the numbers need to be revised.
migratory conditions
As mentioned in an earlier post, Fraser River conditions for migration are satifactory.
First Nations openings
There was a Cheam Band ceremonial opening today from 8am to 8pm, another one tomorrow (Friday) from 8am to 8pm. The catch quota is 20 chinook salmon, netting will be stopped after 2 sockeyes are caught. 11 chinook salmon were caught today, no sockeyes were caught. The net size is 8 inch mesh. The net is set at once per hour (8 sets).
Total number of sockeye caught by FN to date is 40.
DFO currently has no conservation concerns on the recreational chinook fishery, so at the end of the meeting it was decided no changes be done. The fishery remains open (this may of course, change if new information becomes available, so check the fishery notices or we'll also post it here if changes take place).
This above information was retrieved from the notes I took during the call. I try to be as accurate as I could, but if there is an error, please email me so they can be fixed.
My own comments follow in the next post (edit, it'll come tomorrow instead, it's 2:20am. zzz....).
-
I personally feel that the fish has to come first, and like some of you mentioned earlier, the river should be closed for salmon fishing for a week or two. Those numbers pose an alarming trend, and there is still a lot of uncertainties to what exactly is happening with the runs.
Statistics show that the sportfishing sector does not directly pose a threat to the stocks. Catch per effort is just so much smaller than a drift net. However, do our actions indirectly pose a threat to the stocks? DFO is under a lot of pressure from both interest groups (sporties and FN) as both want equal opportunities to utilitize the resource. The sporties argue that FN has every right to fish (with rod and reel) during this time, just not with drift nets because of its inability to be selective (fish caught cannot be released). DFO has no legal ground to deny a ceremonial net opening because as long as the recreational fishermen are allowed to fish, they have every right to do so as well.
So, by keeping our fishery opened, we ultimately jeopardize some of the concerned stocks by allowing the other user group to net. Yes I understand we have the right to sportfish, but at which point do we tell ourselves it is time to voluntarily take one step back for the sake of the fish? The situation is very politically driven, nobody wants to lose a fight. Sadly, if the fight becomes lengthy, no one will win, including the fish.
On the other hand, the sportfishing industry is big. The Fraser keeps people employed. If the sportfishing opportunities become unavailable, people lose their jobs and business. This doesn't only have a tremendous impact on the economic status, but may also lead to the degradation of the community's health. Keeping individual anglers and guides off the river does not necessarily do goods. Who will be the eyes and ears on our waters? The fishery is also money driven. Without the demand, would there be an interest from the government to spend more money to manage it? A closure would have a cascading effect that can take a long time to recover. Is it in our best interest to tell the non-angling public that the fishery is closed due to low returns of sockeye salmon and then reopen it again two weeks later?
It's not always black and white.
Personally, I would keep myself away from the river for now, at least until July 22nd (estimated date that escapement of early Stuart sockeye reaches 90%). I will not barfish to specifically target chinook salmon until that date even if CG tries to bribe me. ;) The chinook salmon stocks appear not to be in danger, but those numbers do concern me. The river can use one less fishing machine for now (Nina doesn't count, she didn't even land one last year ;D ). ;)
So, how about those peamouth chub...?
-
I fully realize that this will be the unpopular opinion, however I strongly disagree with closing the Fraser to ALL recreational salmon fishing.
The Fraser River is ALREADY closed to sockeye salmon. This time of year is ideal for red chinooks, one of my favorite fisheries. Yes, some sockeye will incidentally be caught by recreational fishermen however ALL are to be released. I for one do not believe that even 10% of sockeye released this time of year will die. I have seen many anglers immediately release sockeye without having to beach the fish. A barbless hook is not that hard to dislodge from a salmon without causing serious damage. Water temperatures are also reasonable this time of year which assists the fish having a quicker resuscitation.
Recreational sport fisherman are not the reason that these early sockeye are struggling. We also have a minimal impact on these stocks that are now passing through. Further, I do not agree with the opinion that if recreational fisherman are allowed on the river, so must the FN fishers be allowed to net. ALL netting on the Fraser River MUST stop if we have a realistic hope of preserving the Pacific Salmon stocks. There can be no argument made that the FN fishery is driven for profit. I believe the FN's should be able to make a profit from these salmon as they have done for so long. Perhaps recreational fisherman should have to pay another licensing fee directly to the FN's people for the privilege of fishing. This system would provide a healthy revenue for FN's people and would take pressure off of the fish stocks while ensuring angling opportunities to recreational anglers.
Anyways, I don't pretend to have all the answers, I just do not agree that closing the Fraser to recreational anglers will ensure the salmon stocks are preserved.
-
Ernie, our impacts are not the point. The point is to show we can be sensitive to concervation concerns. Being sensitive to these concerns include fishing selectively. Everyone has to do their part. Even though we have a low % of impact, we do have an impact and should act accordingly. What % do we have to hit before we should start to act conservatively? 10%? 20%? FN currently have, let's say for arguement, 40% impact. Should they lower their impact to 5% by putting out only a couple nets and still be allowed to fish? Might be easier to see it from the other side.
Each user has to act accordingly and be responsible for themselves in such concerns regardless of their respective impacts.
Sad thing is, as someone mentioned, is that selective angling like bar fishing is going to suffer. In fairness though, I guess there is a very very low % impact even from bar fishing even though my scorecard for sockeye hooked on the bar rod is about an estimated 1 sockeye in 20 yrs of bar fishing.
-
We also have a minimal impact on these stocks that are now passing through. Further, I do not agree with the opinion that if recreational fisherman are allowed on the river, so must the FN fishers be allowed to net.
The only problem is that it's not an opinion...it's the LAW - if Rec gets to fish, so do FN. Conservation - FN - Rec ....in THAT order.
-
[Sad thing is, as someone mentioned, is that selective angling like bar fishing is going to suffer. In fairness though, I guess there is a very very low % impact even from bar fishing even though my scorecard for sockeye hooked on the bar rod is about an estimated 1 sockeye in 20 yrs of bar fishing.
That was in 1989 and it was captured on video. ;D ;D
A little note on fishing selectively. I was driving out to Island 22 this am to see if the river is clearing up to start bar fishing and just before turning onto Cartmell Road I spot this piece of material on the side of the road with a corkie and a wool tie on it. I pull over and it is exactly that. It must have blown out of a boat on the way to Island 22. Now get this, it measures the lenght of the Leaf Mobile actually it is 16 feet long with a 3/0 barbless hook on about 20 pound test leader. ??? :( :o No I am not going to return it. Will cut into lenghts to use from my bar weight to the spreader bar.
On the bright side river starting to shape up and the Master told me a chap hits some springs on the good old bar gear yesterday. The time has finally come to do some bar fishing. Be ready FA and DS for the trip in the Leaf Craft. ;D ;D
-
Chris, I believe that leader is mine. Can I have it back please ?
-
I doubt you'll even get your corkie back, he's probably using it as his strike indicator this weekend. :D
-
Creel survey final results of May can now be found on this page (http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/recreational/creelsurveyPDFs/2005creel/creel05FRSummerResults.htm).
-
I note how efficient sports fishermen are. All the talk about flossing and how effective it is becomes questionable.
122.5 hours per fish!
-
I note how efficient sports fishermen are. All the talk about flossing and how effective it is becomes questionable.
122.5 hours per fish!
As you will see the results are all estimated and when you see under fish released the total is 0.
I personally do not put that much faith at all in any numbers FOC put out. They are always estimated and of course there is no survey pepole there all the time and at all landing stations.
I personally landed 5 springs, released one of them and also kept a jack. I was not surveyed once but then I was outside the survey area. I most likely fished around a hundred hours for the 7 fish I landed. so my average is about 14 hours per fish.
-
What the survey doesn't indicate is how many fish are being poached as well by dishonest people.
For example, I remember taking a statistics class..and that class...well...there was this question...and since no one would ever answer the question when asked....as is this similar scenario with the unsupervised miles of river out there, the question is....how many people are poaching salmon that do not account for the numbers out there?
Interesting result I bet that a few people would be surprised to hear.
Sooo..what I am saying is..they need to shut the rivef down, impose severe gear restrictions at the least--as for incidental catches not meaning much so state a lot of sporties..think again as I relate this scenario....
For the record, I can remember fishing last August in the chuck and I had six rods out, fishing for coho and springs, and hooking a triple header of Sockeye...on gear totally not intended to fish for sockeye. Concievably, although remote, I could have gill hooked or gullet hooked one or more of those Sockeye which were closed.
If memory serves me correctly, the Sockeye all hit on different items, and since fishing was slow that day, I was going through the tackle box trying different lures left right and center hoping to find the right colours, as there were lots of fish around but they just weren't biting.
I remember getting a triple header hook up of Sockeye on Herring, a Coyote Spoons with Green in it, and a Bluish coloured hootchie--all within seconds of course, and each one we released at the side of the boat. 2 other rods actually went off at that time too..but didn't stick.
Incidental catches when we are talking about Cultus and like stocks that are endangered are significant---for all I know, all three of those fish could have been Cultus stock fish.
I remember my fishing mate stating "there are lots of people that would have killed those fish" and I remember a few surrounding boats asking "What the heck was going on?..to which I replied "Sockeye" and I got dirty looks from them, and people shaking their heads in disbelief because I released every last one of them.
What happened was entirely unusual, but then again..not impossible. Thus, if salmon fishing is to cease, us sporties need to be the leaders, as after all, we are doing this for SPORT and not MEAT RIGHT?, and lay our rods down.
Personally, I take more pleasure in releasing fish that I catch, and I ask a few people to try it now and then, and watch the eyes pop out of the surrounding anglers heads.
-
Statistics will always have a % of error, no doubt about that.
FM, your assumption that there are an overwhelming number of dishonest people who would keep fish that are required to be released unlike you is a major flaw of your hypothesis. It's also irrelevant to be making comparisons between two totally different fisheries, especially when you're using what happened during one instance as an example to generalize other fishermen's actions.
On a side note, not everyone who participates in sportfishing is doing it purely for the sport < :o >. There are many objectives in sportfishing, and they vary between individuals. These objectives include to relax, to socialize, to practice casting, to seek and release the largest catch in a lifetime, to view the scenary, to bond with partners, and to HARVEST. The objectives change as an angler evolves. Most people who start out are there hoping to catch a fish to eat. When an angler gradually develops better skills, his or her objectives change. After many years of fishing, taking a fish home may not be a goal, but a bonus. Does that make those newcomers who intend to go out and hunt for a fish to take home terrible? I certainly hope not! As long as people are obeying the regulations, conducting themselves with respects on the waters, we should treat them with respect even if we "know better" or "are not out here for the meat". Why is there a need to criticize someone when he or she harvests a fish legally? If people feel the regulations are not justified, take that message to those who manage the fisheries.
Now, back to the May creel survey result. The study area was bounded by the outlet of the Sumas River (Chilliwack, B.C.) and the outlet of the Coquihalla River (Hope, B.C.). 60% of total May fishing effort were concentrated at outlet of Sumas River and Harrison River. Two surveyors were stationed at Island 22, interviewing anglers throughout the day. At the end of the day, the surveyors travelled down to Grassy Bar and interviewed every angler between Island 22 and Grassy Bar. Overflights for rod counts were also conducted twice per week (once during weekdays, once on the weekend). From the data collected, HPUE (harvest-per-unit-effort) and RPUE (release-per-unit-effort) were then determined from equations derived from past creel survey studies. These are calculated estimates.
Is it possible that some anglers who were interviewed did not report their release sockeye salmon? Possibly. Is it possible that all anglers out there would also operate the same way? Highly unlikely. If that's the case, why were there no released sockeye salmon reported? To pinpoint the reason, one needs to know what sockeye runs were present in the studied area and how many fish were estimated passing through during May. Not a whole lot according to the Albion test fishery, which produced a total of zero sockeye salmon in the month of May. The point is, HPUE indicates that the number of fish the sportfishing sector intercepts is extremely low in relation to the number of rod hours. On the other hand, HPUE is much higher in the FN driftnet fishery, therefore only a limited number of openings is granted.
Is the sportfishing sector paying attention to DFO's request for a selective fishery? You bet. The answer lies in the comparison between rod days, number of harvested fish and HPUE in 2004 and 2005. Let's take a look at those numbers:
In May 2004, estimated angler effort was 24,109 hours, estimated number of chinook harvested was 174.
In May 2005, estimated angler effort was 12,496 hours, estimated number of chinook harvested was 102.
In June 2004, estimated angler effort was 26,237 hours, estimated number of chinook harvested was 1,035.
In June 2005, estimated angler effort was 14,545 hours, estimated number of chinook harvested was 186.
From the numbers given above, you'll see number of angler effort had dropped by almost 50% in May and June. Why? To some anglers, fishing selectively means don't fish at all. Of course you will still find bottom bouncers out there targeting chinook. A request means people are allowed to choose their actions voluntarily. If you wish to see 0% of bottom bouncers out there fishing, then you need to see a demand from DFO, not a request.
Am I pro-flossing? Absolutely not. As mentioned in numerous posts in the past, I've never participated in it and never will because I feel that I probably wouldn't get the same enjoyment out of it like those who choose to. The point that I am trying to make is, this is a legal fishery after all because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans feels the sportfishing sector does not pose a threat to the stocks. Keep in mind, in the fisheries notice (http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/fns/index.cfm?pg=view_notice&lang=en&DOC_ID=78410&ID=recreational), it reads "Anglers are requested to use selective fishing methods when fishing for Chinook." The notice did not request anglers to only participate in barfishing, lure fishing, or float fishing. The term "selective fishing methods" can be interpreted differently by different anglers. Selectively fishing method maybe defined as barfishing only to some, it maybe defined as shortened leader for another. Some may also and have chosen to bottom bounce with a longer leader because based on their experiences/skills, they feel that they will be able to target chinook salmon effectively and minimize the chance of intercepting a sockeye salmon at the same time. To me, selectively fishing method means no fishing until now, because water clarity has not been ideal for the methods that I wish to participate in. If people are out there fishing legally and following the guidelines published by the governing body that regulates them, what gives people the right to label them as criminals or poachers?
The health of our fish stocks need to be determined scientifically, not whether the fish is caught because it eats a hook or not. If there are concerns on the direction where the sportfishing sector is going towards, join an active group, educate and be educated, and voice your concerns to those who can actually make a difference. By belittling those who share the resource with you simply because they do not have the same values and point of views when it comes to fishing, it will ultimately backfire in the end.
-
Rod, well put!
-
Point taken Rod, but, when I read reports in the Vancouver Sun about FN nets out there wihen they shouldn't be, and I go out there and see the river banks lined with 5000 anglers, you can't help but wonder.
Interesting point about what you said about sportsfishing, and meat fishing. In that event, they should come up with a meat fishing license, because that is EXACTLY what people are doing.
As for the number of fish that are being poached, as with the statistics example I was quoting, the majority don't poach, but I bet there are poachers who make up a statistically significant number of fish harvested when there are fish around...
At any rate, when I see anywhere from 1000 to 10000 people on the rivers on a given day of fishing depending on what are around, you can't help but wonder sometimes.