Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rodney on January 03, 2021, 12:41:17 PM
-
There are some proposed changes to the steelhead fishing regulations on the Chilliwack/Vedder River system. One is to close all fishing upstream of Tamihi Bridge from April 1st to June 30th instead of May 1st to June 30th. The other is to change the daily quota of one hatchery steelhead back to the regional daily quota which is two per day. The same increase is being proposed for the Chehalis River.
https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/chilliwackvedder-rivers
The proposed closure is supported by my colleagues and me. This is welcoming as snorkel survey in the last couple of years has shown that most wild spawning steelhead are in fact staging between the upper no fishing boundary and Tamihi, while very few fish are utilizing the river upstream from the boundary surprisingly. This closure would avoid repeat captures of wild steelhead during their spawning stage, giving the population a better recruitment success which may mean more fish in the future.
Changing the daily quota of one fish to two fish would in my opinion reduce the overall angling quality. This is the most heavily used watershed by recreational fishermen in the province. We are already doing a very good job on harvesting hatchery steelhead and eliminating interbreeding between hatchery and wild adult steelhead. I also like the current arrangement where anglers need to stop fishing after retaining one hatchery steelhead, giving others a chance to have a go. By increasing the daily quota to two, we may see anglers choosing to retain one fish then catch and release for the rest of the day. Not only does this translate to more anglers on the river, it also puts more pressure on wild fish as repeat captures would become more frequent.
I would love to hear your opinions and reasonings behind them in case I am not seeing the full picture, so please feel free to leave them in the comments.
Each year, the province has a list of proposed regulation changes and public can provide feedbacks on them. You can see the current list at:
https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/angling
-
This is great to see! The closure above Tamihi is something we have been pushing for years and will certainly help future generations of steelhead, and consequently, a continued source of fish for hatchery stock. A big shout out to Regional Biologist Mike Willcox for bringing our concern forward.
Although I no longer fish, I share Rodney's opinion that 1 fish is enough, if you choose to kill a hatchery fish, you are done for the day.
So, these are proposals now, it is important you contact the link supplied to express your opinions or comments.
-
When the daily quote raised to 2, I would like to see how to enforce the annual quote of 10 steelhead. I heard many local guys catch more than 100 fish in a season. It won't take many days for them to scoop everything
-
The Tamihi bridge closure has been suggested for some time and is a great idea. I think the entire region should be standardized to a daily quote of 1 hatchery steelhead per person. I've never understood why the very few other streams a small hatchery component have remained at 2. They should have been reduced to 1 long ago. For my money the fly only opening could be until May 15th as the river is usually high and coloured by the last half of May. Not many anglers fish it after April 30th in any event.
I'll pass those suggestions on via the feedback link.
-
The last thing Chehalis needs is more fish being taken. It should stay at 1 steelhead for that system. That hatchery is no where near producing the same amount as Chilliwack river hatchery from what I can tell.
-
The last thing Chehalis needs is more fish being taken. It should stay at 1 steelhead for that system. That hatchery is no where near producing the same amount as Chilliwack river hatchery from what I can tell.
The province is dead set against hatchery fish spawning with wild fish. Hatchery fish are abominations to them that need to be killed.
-
I say keep the limit at one steelhead per day. As for the closure I don't think it would matter a lot one way or the other.
-
As for the closure I don't think it would matter a lot one way or the other.
I don't agree.
About 50 years ago when I first started looking, steelhead staged (or held) in a place called the box canyon above the closed to fishing boundary, often hundreds at a time. Now, virtually no fish hold in this pool and for whatever reason are holding further downstream including the area above Tamihi Creek. This is documented through snorkel surveys and visual observations. Staging fish are subject to continuous fishing pressure and are likely hooked many times. Spawning success is compromised when fish are stressed and that is important if we want a steady supply of unclipped steelhead for hatchery broodstock.
-
I would love to see the ministry put a bunch of spaghetti tags in fish above the boundary prior to the float count similar to what they do on the coquihalla. I think this woukd help get a better idea of the effectiveness of the float counts and to see what percentage of fish are actually being observed.
-
The province is dead set against hatchery fish spawning with wild fish. Hatchery fish are abominations to them that need to be killed.
That's what they are for. The V/C at least isn't such a beggar for spawning adults it needs hatchery fish to survive and spawn.
they could increase the annual limit to 15 or 20 top help crop them off. Keeping a one hatchery adult per day limit may avoid additional crowding on a stream already overcrowded.
-
How or where do you go to comment directly to the ministry?
I am in agreement with most. The Tamahi and above closure sounds good but going back to a 2 /day is going to be brutal for fish, mostly wilds, and fisherman.
Thanks in advance.
-
https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/contact-us
Make sure you include the regulation number in your email.
-
The April 1 closure above Tamahi should have been implemented years ago.
I would say keep the daily limit at 1, but don't force people off the river after retaining a fish.
My $0.25
-
I support these changes. Let the wilds spawn untouched above tamahi. They don't want hatchery fish spawning so many anglers release Hatchery fish to continue fishing. Set the rules so this issue is eliminated. If going back to 2 a day pump up hatchery production a bit. Why not.
-
the information that the large majority of fish are spawning below the hatchery means that it is more likely wild and hatchery fish will spawn together and that is best avoided. There is growing evidence that hatchery fish degrades the genetics of wild fish making them less adaptive and that hatchery fish have significantly lower survival rates than wild fish.
I don't know if it increasing the daily bag limit matters much as I hear that rivers gets pounded so much very few hatchery fish make it into the section above Tamihi. The long term enhancement objective has been to produce about as many returning hatchery fish as wild fish so increasing the that doesn't make a lot of sense. I also wonder if there is capacity at the hatchery to increase the number significantly.
-
The province is dead set against hatchery fish spawning with wild fish. Hatchery fish are abominations to them that need to be killed.
They are all Hatchery fish now.
Even the ones with adipose fins.
-
The long term enhancement objective has been to produce about as many returning hatchery fish as wild fish so increasing the that doesn't make a lot of sense. I also wonder if there is capacity at the hatchery to increase the number significantly.
Where are you getting this information from? There is a hatchery smolt target, which has been 125,000 each year and has not changed in a long time. I’ve never heard of that long term objective. All the discussions have been around getting a more accurate picture of the population size and figure out whether the hatchery program is extracting too many adults for broodstock.
-
If the goal is to remove hatchery fish from the system, why not also impose mandatory retention of hatchery fish? That would also prevent all day C&R of wild fish after catching a hatchery fish.
-
Where are you getting this information from? There is a hatchery smolt target, which has been 125,000 each year and has not changed in a long time. I’ve never heard of that long term objective. All the discussions have been around getting a more accurate picture of the population size and figure out whether the hatchery program is extracting too many adults for broodstock.
My memory is that is what was stated in some of the papers derived from the radio tag studies that were done, what about 15 years ago? At that time they though the LTA for wild fish was about 2,000 fish (?) that return on 125k hatchery smolts works out to about 1.5 to 2% adult return.
-
The radio tagging was done in 2000 I believe, 20 years ago already yikes.
I've asked Mike to comment on it. Also, he wants me to share this chart with everyone. This is the river's catch and effort on steelhead based on the steelhead questionnaire people mail back.
(https://i.imgur.com/2Iz7bSj.jpg)
Number of angling days per fish caught have not changed over the years, therefore they believe increasing the daily quota to two would not change angling pressure.
My concern isn’t that we’d see a surge of anglers or angling days if we change the daily quota, but more how much more time anglers would spend on the waters when they are out on any particular day. Current reg means they’d get their hatchery fish, maybe first thing in the morning, or by Noon, then head home right away. With the daily quota of 2, you’d get people sticking around for the rest of the day, trying to retain another one, or just wanting to catch and release until they have to go home. This would become especially frustrating on days when fish are concentrated at certain locations where people would just fence post all day.
-
Number of angling days per fish caught have not changed over the years, therefore they believe increasing the daily quota to two would not change angling pressure.
My concern isn’t that we’d see a surge of anglers or angling days if we change the daily quota, but more how much more time anglers would spend on the waters when they are out on any particular day. Current reg means they’d get their hatchery fish, maybe first thing in the morning, or by Noon, then head home right away. With the daily quota of 2, you’d get people sticking around for the rest of the day, trying to retain another one, or just wanting to catch and release until they have to go home. This would become especially frustrating on days when fish are concentrated at certain locations where people would just fence post all day.
From what i can tell most the people on local social media want it to stay at 1 fish a day. Tho i don't think it has anything to do with increased pressure i think it has more to do with they view it as more competition with the top anglers.
If a pro shows up on friday and takes his two, that's one less for the next guy on saturday. There is a finite amount of returning fish and everyone always says the majority of fish are caught by the top 5% of anglers.
if the province goal is to kill more hatchery fish faster, then letting the pros keep more will accomplish that.
-
Does "angling days" or "Effort in days fished" reflect days per hour? Where the potential for increased pressure is that if people stay on the river after catching and killing a hatchery fish whereas previously they'd go home or go somewhere else (believe it or not folks there are other places!) that will increase the number of angling on the river banks at any given time.
Rod there had been previous attempts to estimate the total number of returning fish. There was one published back in the 70s (IIRC) that put it at about 5,000 fish. Of course averages are just that - year to year it may vary wildly. Also be interested in how the angler success rate has changed over the years. FWIW when I go to the river, which isn't often. I seldom speak to an angler who has caught or hooked a fish. More often they don't even see or talk to a person who has hooked one. The old adage that 10% of the anglers catch 90% of the fish may be more true than ever.
-
The radio tagging was done in 2000 I believe, 20 years ago already yikes.
I've asked Mike to comment on it. Also, he wants me to share this chart with everyone. This is the river's catch and effort on steelhead based on the steelhead questionnaire people mail back.
(https://i.imgur.com/2Iz7bSj.jpg)
Number of angling days per fish caught have not changed over the years, therefore they believe increasing the daily quota to two would not change angling pressure.
My concern isn’t that we’d see a surge of anglers or angling days if we change the daily quota, but more how much more time anglers would spend on the waters when they are out on any particular day. Current reg means they’d get their hatchery fish, maybe first thing in the morning, or by Noon, then head home right away. With the daily quota of 2, you’d get people sticking around for the rest of the day, trying to retain another one, or just wanting to catch and release until they have to go home. This would become especially frustrating on days when fish are concentrated at certain locations where people would just fence post all day.
Angler effort has not changed in the last 4 years but I would bet the angler effort graph would be much higher ( maybe closer to the 50 000) mark demonstrated around 2012 if 2 fish were once again allowed. I personally like the 1 and done regulation and feel allowing 2 hatchery fish per day hurts the anglers who hate fence posting on known lower river sections. The kind of anglers looking to keep 2 steelhead a day are not the anglers who care about the QUALITY of their experience on the water.
I thought the idea behind the 1 and done regulation put in place was to ensure a quality fishing experience for ALL anglers. If guys need 2 hatchery fish a day they can drive to another system. When did the steelhead season turn into a meat fishery? I sure hope the number of returning steelhead equals 50% of the salmon return daily to support a 50% harvest of what the salmon retention is daily in the fall. GOOD GOD help us! Oh, when will the surplus hatchery fish be allocated to FSC harvest if we think there is a surplus for rec anglers?
I support the Tamihi closure in April, but do not support the 2 hatchery fish a day.
-
Lots of feedbacks being provided here but you need to send them in to the fish and wildlife head office.
To do this, go to:
https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/chilliwackvedder-rivers
Click on login and log in with your BCeID.
Once you are logged in, in that link above, scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll find three options for you to choose - Support, neutral, oppose.
Choose your option, then a field will become available for you to provide your feedback before sending it.
-
From what i can tell most the people on local social media want it to stay at 1 fish a day. Tho i don't think it has anything to do with increased pressure i think it has more to do with they view it as more competition with the top anglers.
If a pro shows up on friday and takes his two, that's one less for the next guy on saturday. There is a finite amount of returning fish and everyone always says the majority of fish are caught by the top 5% of anglers.
if the province goal is to kill more hatchery fish faster, then letting the pros keep more will accomplish that.
Pro's......... ::) I wonder if there might have been 8 fish weighed in the Boxing day derby if these pros could have kept 2 each?
-
Pro's......... ::) I wonder if there might have been 8 fish weighed in the Boxing day derby if these pros could have kept 2 each?
so if we went to two a day only 6 more people would of been fishing longer on boxing day lol. Are you really concerned about 6 more people sending the day on the water?
-
so if we went to two a day only 6 more people would of been fishing longer on boxing day lol. Are you really concerned about 6 more people sending the day on the water?
Ok the boxing day derby is a bad example, however over a season we are taking about a lot of extra rod day effort.
I am not worried about any anglers if you are asking in the context of competing for fish that I may or may not encounter in a day.
-
Thanks for posting this Rod. I going to send in my 2 bits reply. I remember the 80's and 90's retention of 2 steelheads a day on Chilliwack-Vedder system. Not fun. Meat fishermen would fence post on all the popular meat holes.
Silex-user
-
i think the boundary rule change is a great idea. i have personally witness steelhead pairing up well before the hatchery on more than one occasion.
i think the daily quota should stay at 1. i know a few individuals who dont abide by the current rules. think if you were fishing with a pair. could hand off fish to others. dont like it. then think about the procession limits. 2 guys could harvest 8 fish. if their were good numbers of fish i wouldn't care but that is not the case.
-
I believe a concern of the Province is if the Tamihi closure is put in place, the possibility of hatchery fish spawning with wild fish, or together, is more probable, having a month’s less angling pressure. The 2000 telemetry study that showed hatchery fish were spawning then in this area and I suspect have been spawning there since. It is possible spawning hatchery fish are a considerable component to our later run unclipped fish.
So the question is, does the closure, the good in this case (less pressure on unclipped fish) outweigh the bad (more clipped fish spawning)?
-
https://www.bcfishingjournal.com/journals/how-many-steelhead-are-returning-to-the-chilliwack-vedder-river/
Taken from the above article. "The visual observation is close enough to see any present adipose fins on the fish in Centennial Channel. In this location they have never observed a clipped Steelhead (hatchery Steelhead)."
-
I don’t think the 2/day rule will change much either way. Not many guys are even capable of regularly having multiple fish days.
-
https://www.bcfishingjournal.com/journals/how-many-steelhead-are-returning-to-the-chilliwack-vedder-river/
Taken from the above article. "The visual observation is close enough to see any present adipose fins on the fish in Centennial Channel. In this location they have never observed a clipped Steelhead (hatchery Steelhead)."
Yup, that's why I said later run fish. I don't believe significant numbers of clipped steelhead spawn in the closed section of the upper river, but they are documented to spawn in the upper open area.
-
Yup, that's why I said later run fish. I don't believe significant numbers of clipped steelhead spawn in the closed section of the upper river, but they are documented to spawn in the upper open area.
I would be very interested in seeing the data, showing hatchery fish spawning on redds between tamihi and the hatchery closed area. There are some nice off channels in that section you never here about being utilized by steelhead? Are they using the main river side channels?
-
So the question is, does the closure, the good in this case (less pressure on unclipped fish) outweigh the bad (more clipped fish spawning)?
So it's a question of quality or quantity. In this case I think quantity is the way to go. The more spawners the better. The C&R mortality on the wild fish is too high a price to pay to weed out the small(?) percentage of hatchery fish that make it that far. How many wild fish die or don't have the energy to spawn to remove a single hatchery fish from the gene pool?
In any case the quality issue tends to fix itself. The epigenetic changes associated with hatchery fish happen very quickly in the early stages of life, in the tanks where they are raised. Even with both parents being wild, the progeny quickly develop hatchery type epigenetic changes under hatchery conditions. In my mind there's no reason to think that the reverse isn't true. Even with both parents being hatchery, the progeny should epigenetically revert to wild type if raised in wild conditions in the first few months of life. Those that don't revert are less likely to survive and contribute to the next generation.
If the idea is to have more wild type fish return then the more spawning fish the better.
-
actually Roderick they have been studies that examined the 'epigenetic' issues raised for hatchery fish that spawn in the or where there is in essence some sort of cross breeding. IIRC they do find a decrease in spawning success and survival that last for more than 1 generation. One possible reason why the V/C has done so well could be the avoidance of hatchery sourced spawners essentially overwhelming wild fish. The river has a relatively long stretch of water open to fishing so there is a long filter to remove hatchery fish from the gene pool. Many other rivers don't. In the US where the were slower to invoke c&r on wild fish together with retention of hatchery fish the filter was applied to both. Also as ocean survival fell in the US they increased hatchery output to try and compensate. Something like 70% of all smolts that go out in the SOG are derived from US hatchery sources.
However I think your concerns about repeated c&r of wild fish are valid.
-
I don’t think the 2/day rule will change much either way. Not many guys are even capable of regularly having multiple fish days.
The truth is Not many fish to show up.
-
I would be very interested in seeing the data, showing hatchery fish spawning on redds between tamihi and the hatchery closed area. There are some nice off channels in that section you never here about being utilized by steelhead? Are they using the main river side channels?
This information, and tons more, is available in the 2000-2001 telemetry study, sorry I don't have a link. I personally have not seen spawning fish in the area mentioned.
-
If the idea is to have more wild type fish return then the more spawning fish the better.
[/font]
Good post. The realist in me agrees with this sentence.
-
I don’t think the 2/day rule will change much either way. Not many guys are even capable of regularly having multiple fish days.
You need to get out more.
-
You need to get out more.
😂😂😂
-
This information, and tons more, is available in the 2000-2001 telemetry study, sorry I don't have a link. I personally have not seen spawning fish in the area mentioned.
Thank you Dave, I am familiar with that study.
I often wondered if fisherman were asked to also kill those telemetry hatchery fish if there would have been so many left to find the spawning grounds? I honestly believe most hatchery fish would be bonked and out of the river system before finding the spawning grounds if not told to release encountered radio tagged fish, especially with the increased number of fisherman on the river compared to 2000, even though the graph showed earlier in this post would lead you to believe differently.
I also believe the study is somewhat presumptions is saying all non retained hatchery fish that were either recaptured or not found the grounds/spawned then moved out and on their way? while the study was and is a great base line for steelhead activities it is a shame the funding couldn't be found to carry on the study and improve on its science base to help better understand an issue that really does have one of the biggest impacts when making "best practice decisions"
Dave I believe you and Buck have done more for the steelhead in the Chilliwack valley than any other government funded project, and for that I personally thank you. I do hope that one day our Provincial leaders will understand that boots on the ground really is the best practice when trying to make decisions for these fish.
-
Thank you Dave, I am familiar with that study.
I often wondered if fisherman were asked to also kill those telemetry hatchery fish if there would have been so many left to find the spawning grounds? I honestly believe most hatchery fish would be bonked and out of the river system before finding the spawning grounds if not told to release encountered radio tagged fish, especially with the increased number of fisherman on the river compared to 2000, even though the graph showed earlier in this post would lead you to believe differently.
I also believe the study is somewhat presumptions is saying all non retained hatchery fish that were either recaptured or not found the grounds/spawned then moved out and on their way? while the study was and is a great base line for steelhead activities it is a shame the funding couldn't be found to carry on the study and improve on its science base to help better understand an issue that really does have one of the biggest impacts when making "best practice decisions"
Dave I believe you and Buck have done more for the steelhead in the Chilliwack valley than any other government funded project, and for that I personally thank you. I do hope that one day our Provincial leaders will understand that boots on the ground really is the best practice when trying to make decisions for these fish.
Yes! Almost certainly that aspect of the study design forced the result. Also best I recall it involved a total of 40 fish. How many were hatchery fish and was there an estimate of total spawners? The sample was just a small % of the total.
I think the change to a retention of 2 will happen and not because the Province thinks hatchery steelhead are "abominations". It will happen for the sake of "angler satisfaction", people whining they had to let one go so they could keep for fishing for the entire day.
-
Thank you Dave, I am familiar with that study.
I often wondered if fisherman were asked to also kill those telemetry hatchery fish if there would have been so many left to find the spawning grounds? I honestly believe most hatchery fish would be bonked and out of the river system before finding the spawning grounds if not told to release encountered radio tagged fish, especially with the increased number of fisherman on the river compared to 2000, even though the graph showed earlier in this post would lead you to believe differently.
I also believe the study is somewhat presumptions is saying all non retained hatchery fish that were either recaptured or not found the grounds/spawned then moved out and on their way? while the study was and is a great base line for steelhead activities it is a shame the funding couldn't be found to carry on the study and improve on its science base to help better understand an issue that really does have one of the biggest impacts when making "best practice decisions"
Dave I believe you and Buck have done more for the steelhead in the Chilliwack valley than any other government funded project, and for that I personally thank you. I do hope that one day our Provincial leaders will understand that boots on the ground really is the best practice when trying to make decisions for these fish.
More hatchery fish spawn then people think. I personally catch a dozenish clipped mending fish (almost always female) every season.
-
stsfisher, thanks for the kind words.
You and Ralph raise good points that need to be answered. I wonder how much money it would cost to do this study again, 20 years later?
Gotta think it would be money well spent considering how important this system is for steelhead.
-
It will happen for the sake of "angler satisfaction", people whining they had to let one go so they could keep for fishing for the entire day.
From what i can see on social media the vast majority of people want it to stay at 1/day. So if it goes to two a day its going the because the province wants it to not the fishermen.
-
Terrible rule change for the Chehalis. Theres already a big problem with poaching in the upper sections of this river. Over the past 3 years I've seen more anglers in the mid to upper sections AS WELL AS wild Steel being taken. Ive called the RAPP line each time and reported each incident. I feel that with a regular change, it'll make this problem worse. Just this September I saw a boat come into the camp site at the lake with ( what looked like ) a 10 pound Chrome wild Steel. Sure ot was probably a summer heading into the upper river and probably shouldn't have been there to begin with but my point is, poaching is a serious issue on the Chehalis.
-
For the V/C I am less convinced by the 'overcrowding' argument than I was at the outset of this discussion. I don't think it's a good thing for hatch fish to spawn with wild fish. I also don't believe social media is necessarily representative of the responses Government will get. Advocacy groups such as the BCWF will no doubt organize their members to respond in favor.
-
Advocacy groups such as the BCWF will not doubt organize their members to respond in favor.
Yes don't discount the sportfishing industry reps and their ability to control the narrative.
-
This was posted in the proposed Chehalis reg changes (https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/chehalis-river-hatchery-steelhead-daily-quota-change)
Rationale:
The current regulation was enacted for the 2000-2001 Synopsis for the purpose of “alleviating crowding” on very heavily fished hatchery-augmented steelhead waters (e.g., Chilliwack and Chehalis rivers). At that time, it was determined that angling effort on these streams had reached a point where there would be an adequate harvest of hatchery fish at the 1 fish quota to ensure reduction in interactions between hatchery and wild fish.
The ongoing angler survey on the Chilliwack River indicates that many anglers release hatchery fish because they do not want to have to quit fishing. It is assumed the same applies to anglers on the Chehalis River. Given current low numbers of wild fish and a greater understanding of potential adverse effects of hatchery fish on wild populations, it may be important to reduce this effect through increased retention of hatchery steelhead. This regulation, in combination with education of anglers, should help increase removal of hatchery fish.
Additional Information:
Annual creel surveys have been conducted on the Chilliwack River through the River Guardians program since 2018. Changes to fishing regulations (specifically increasing the daily quota of hatchery fish) was one of the top 3 most common comments shared by anglers. Analysis of 2018-19 creel survey revealed that approximately 58% of hatchery steelhead landed were released, 50% of which were released specifically because the angler wanted to continue angling that day. In addition, 25% of respondents who claim to routinely release hatchery steelhead, do so to continue fishing. It is assumed that anglers on the Chehalis River would express similar opinions.
Seems like they've been receiving this comment a lot. The meat doesn't really matter to me, so if I caught one early in the day, I wouldn't retain it either. Though I'm surprised that it's as high as ~60% of hatchery steelhead are released. Though if relatively few hatch are making it to the staging/spawning areas (which others here have suggested), then that would imply that most are eventually harvested by someone (or C&R mortality is higher than expected), which also implies that nearly all wilds will be caught/released multiple times.
If by increasing the retention to two is also an effort to reduce hatch fish making it up, would that not also increase the bycatch effect on wilds. Though I guess the earlier upper closure will mitigate that. And it sounds like there is particular concern with hatchery-wild interbreeding, so measures that might reduce that are ultimately beneficial.
As far as the quality of the fishery goes, increasing limits to 2/day is not likely to 'spread the wealth'. The top skilled anglers are likely to catch and retain more, leaving fewer for the casuals, like me. It's obviously not like salmon season where there's usually plenty of numbers for everyone. I would expect the chances of success of most anglers to decrease with a 2/day reg.
-
Very good post DanL. Thx!
-
More hatchery fish spawn then people think. I personally catch a dozenish clipped mending fish (almost always female) every season.
Yes and they all spawn at or below the hatchery, leaving the whole upper river for the wild fish.
It will happen for the sake of "angler satisfaction", people whining they had to let one go so they could keep for fishing for the entire day.
It's the scenario of three people fishing together. One catches a hatchery fish right away and has to sit in the car for the rest of the day or convince his buddies to go home. Causes whining to happen I would think.
-
did you read the part that few steelhead spawn above the hatchery and by far most spawn between Tamihi and Slesse Creek? I have seen the odd pair below Tamihi. As for the 3 guys in the car ... most people I see are angling solo. A good number are a duo. Not too many are 3 or more.
There certainly have been good points made in favour of raising the limit to 2 though you seem to think better we gets lots of hatchery spawning so why raise it (?)
-
Question for the guys who do or have worked the Chilliwack hatchery.
Are hatchery steelhead allowed to spawn in the channel and head out naturally on their own?
If Not, At what lengths does hatchery staff go to to ensure no hatchery fish are spawning in its channel? And lets include that portion of Slesse creek as part of the hatchery channel as presumably those hatchery fish making their way back would utilize that section.
-
I'll let buck have this one :)
-
There's a scenario here that everyone seems to be missing out on.
This exact same thing (creel finding high release rate of hatchery fish due to anglers not wanting to stop fishing) happened on the cowichan. They cut that program. When a program isn't being used as intended, there's no need for it (especially with the concern surrounding hatchery genetics mingling with wild). Personally, I'd rather see a rule change than losing it outright.
Based on those creel results on the chilliwack/ Vedder since 2018, my feeling is that this is an effort to convince anglers to kill some hatchery fish (prove utilization of the program/ Stop hatchery steelhead from spawning). If the creel continues to find that hatchery steelhead are being released, even after increasing to 2/ day, it probably wouldn't be a good thing based on history. If everyone petitions to keep it at 1/ day, and creel continues to find high proportions of hatchery being released, the results would also probably not be good.
At the end of the day, a 2/ day limit would definitely increase retention. I don't really care for steelhead, and tend to release all my hatchery fish, especially if it's 1/ day. On 2/ day rivers, I often find myself killing my first one to hand as a gift for a friend, and continue fishing. Sometimes if it's near the end of the day I'll even kill my 2nd. With the huge number of people starting to drift the C/V now, there's no doubt that people will retain their first and then fish the rest of the day. Right now they'd definitely release the first.
-
I'll let buck have this one :)
👍
-
I don’t think there is that many people releasing hatcheries. It’s probably less than 10% of the anglers and or releasing rats and small bucks .At least In the early months. I rarely see hatcheries released. Especially on the Mid and lower stretches where retention seams stronger. The percent of catch and release may go up later in the season when fish colour up though.. Lots of hatcheries make it through when the water Bumps and then become untouchable when they reach the hatchery . It would be nice if the hatcheries could Maybe round up and release these fish back in the canal to increase the odds of being caught the second time through. Sts Fisher makes a good point about hatcheries spawning above the boundary and in slesse creek channel. I think the 2 fish a day is counter intuitive when wild fish will be hooked more often as a result of more angling pressure. With the number of tubed wilds pairs bumped down there is going to be less hatcheries returning already.
-
How about we make it two hatchery fish per day above Tamihi until March 31st before closing it, and just keep it one hatchery fish per day below....... ;)
I almost never see hatchery fish being released in the lower river. Dan makes a good point on drift trips though. They are likely to release any hatchery fish early on and only retaining fish near the end of the drift, but we are still only talking about a small % anglers in comparison to the number of foot anglers from the upper boundary down to mid river.
Dan's also right that if the province concludes that a significant number of hatchery fish are not being harvested, then you may see the hatchery program being cut. The FV hatchery cutthroat trout program was not exactly cut due to this, but the low harvest rate was a big concern for managers before the program was discontinued.
The % of hatchery fish harvested really are just speculations without much data to back it up. There are too many uncertainties in surveys done by river guardians, the mailed in questionnaires are not really that much better. There has to be a better way to collect concrete catch data... not just for steelhead, but for other species too. This would only benefit recreational fishers, and the fish.
-
I don’t think there is that many people releasing hatcheries. It’s probably less than 10% of the anglers and or releasing rats and small bucks
So, you're assuming that people are lying to creel surveyors then?
"Analysis of 2018-19 creel survey revealed that approximately 58% of hatchery steelhead landed were released, 50% of which were released specifically because the angler wanted to continue angling that day. In addition, 25% of respondents who claim to routinely release hatchery"
I know a number of people that release hatchery fish near the start of a day to keep angling, but would gladly retain that same fish after a few hours out/ near the end of the day. The 2/ day has existed on the island for a long time without issue.
Once again, for the last time, biologists often will make decisions based on creel. The question should be, "would you rather allow this regulation change, or potentially lose the program (that isn't being "utilized") outright?"
-
If the creel survey is the only place they are getting their data from then we're in trouble. To just assume that once a hatchery steelhead is caught and released its automatically going to spawn with wild fish is naive in my opinion. Fish can bite more than once. How reliable is the data from the creel survey anyway.
From the article that bc fishing journal posted
The visual observation is close enough to see any present adipose fins on the fish in Centennial Channel. In this location they have never observed a clipped Steelhead (hatchery Steelhead).
To say it's not being utilized to me is not accurate. 300 to 400 anglers were out on boxing day for 6 hatchery fish. The Vedder is probably the most fished river in the province when it comes to winter steelhead.
Why are hatchery steelhead such a nuisance on the Vedder. Why are they not allowing hatchery retention on other rivers in the region and the ones that are upping retention to 2.
-
What river in the region has a hatchery program that doesn’t allow retention?
-
What river in the region has a hatchery program that doesn’t allow retention?
Squamish, Seymour, Capilano.
-
No hatchery steelhead program on the Squamish since the 2005 - 2006 brood years that dealt with the Caustic Soda spill on the Cheakamus. Only steelhead program before that ended in the early 90's and that was a fry program.
-
What river in the region has a hatchery program that doesn’t allow retention?
You need to get around more, and leave the snakes alone.
-
😘
-
No hatchery steelhead program on the Squamish since the 2005 - 2006 brood years that dealt with the Caustic Soda spill on the Cheakamus. Only steelhead program before that ended in the early 90's and that was a fry program.
Thanks B, I kept forget that program was only for a couple of years...
So what would be the point for the province to propose changing the zero retention to 2 hatchery a day for the Squamish? That would just confuse a lot of people I think...
https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/ashlu-creek-cheakamus-river-elaho-river-mamquam-river-squamish-river-steelhead-quota-change
-
Thanks B, I kept forget that program was only for a couple of years...
So what would be the point for the province to propose changing the zero retention to 2 hatchery a day for the Squamish? That would just confuse a lot of people I think...
https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/ashlu-creek-cheakamus-river-elaho-river-mamquam-river-squamish-river-steelhead-quota-change
Rodney, the proposed change would remove the "release all steelhead" regulation which was applied specifically to the Squamish rivers following the caustic soda spill. For these streams, this would effectively revert to the regional daily quota for steelhead (2 hatchery steelhead over 50cm allowed). Note that there would be no water-specific regulation specifying a quota of 2 hatchery steelhead on the Squamish streams - the quota would apply by default.
Thus the quota on the Squamish streams would be the same as the quota on all other wild steelhead streams in the region. This allows anglers to retain stray hatchery steelhead that they catch in systems that don't have stocking programs. For example, anglers who catch a steelhead with a healed scar in place of the adipose fin can retain that fish in Norrish Creek, Coquitlam River, Indian River etc.
A concern often raised about this is that it would result in increased killing of wild steelhead due to misidentification of hatchery fish. The regional daily quota has been in place for a long time and I have yet to hear of a case of an angler killing a wild steelhead that was thought to be a hatchery steelhead.
Given the increasing awareness of potential harmful genetic and ecological interactions between wild and hatchery steelhead, anglers are encouraged to retain stray hatchery steelhead. When there is any doubt as to the identification of a hatchery stray, the fish should be released.
-
so it sounds like this is going to be a province wide regulation change? not just the chilliwack and the chehalis if i am reading this right
-
Just make it a mandatory retention of all hatchery steelheads on Vedder-Chilliwack system. Hopefully, the angler who catch a hatchery steelhead honor this system.
Just suggestion.
Silex-user
-
If the creel survey is the only place they are getting their data from then we're in trouble. To just assume that once a hatchery steelhead is caught and released its automatically going to spawn with wild fish is naive in my opinion. Fish can bite more than once. How reliable is the data from the creel survey anyway.
How else, exactly, do you propose we get catch data. Catch cards often don't get filled out and mailed in. Would you like them to install high definition cameras that can zoom in enough to tell if the fish you just released is hatchery vs wild? Let's get real here. 90% of the people aren't going to lie to a creel surveyor, and even if they (creel) only talk/ witness a small subset of anglers each day, trends like the release of 50% or more of hatchery are still relevant.
The visual observation is close enough to see any present adipose fins on the fish in Centennial Channel. In this location they have never observed a clipped Steelhead (hatchery Steelhead).
I think the point you're missing here is that two hatchery fish could spawn near Borden creek this year. They spread their genetics to their offspring (and there are a number of studies that show genetic changes from just 1 hatchery rearing relating to higher metabolism, lower predator avoidance, etc). Those offspring with altered genetics now appear "wild" and could easily pair up with wild fish down the road. Up until the last few years the genetic influence of hatcheries was poorly understood. With the new research coming out, biologists are taking it seriously and want all the hatchery fish removed.
To say it's not being utilized to me is not accurate. 300 to 400 anglers were out on boxing day for 6 hatchery fish. The Vedder is probably the most fished river in the province when it comes to winter steelhead.
1 day of the year, on the most prestigious derby day, is not an indication of utilization. Sure, anglers might kill a majority of their hatchery fish in December, but come January when multi fish days are achieved often in a number of cases, guys let hatchery fish go all the time. People want to keep fishing, so they let them go.
Lastly, in regards to the no retention of hatchery in the Seymour and Capilano... those fish lost most of/all of their habitat and were/are at extreme risk of extirpation. In those cases, mixed genetics are better than none at all.
-
so it sounds like this is going to be a province wide regulation change? not just the chilliwack and the chehalis if i am reading this right
Please refer to the regulations. There has always been a 2 per day steelhead retention in region 2 (and region 1) - that's how you are able to kill your one on the Vedder and go fish elsewhere for the day. It's only a limit of 1 if it's specifically mentioned in the table for a particular river.
-
I'll say it one last time for those of you reading who care to listen. Rejecting this change would be a huge mistake.
If the biologists deem that hatchery fish are being released, and that you're unwilling to make a change that could increase retention, they can make recommendations to cut or reduce the program further.
It happened on the Cowichan. The last 2 years on the island another 2 of the last 3 remaining hatchery programs have been cut. Chehalis summers cut. Something to think about...
-
My initial reaction to the regulation changes was no to the limit increase and a begrudging yes to the closure above Tamahi. I feel anglers are losing more and more opportunities these days but if it the closure truly helps wild steelhead then that is not a bad thing at all. They need all the help we can give them. I have since come around on the limit increase and would support this change. Everyday had a good point if the hatchery steelhead resource is not utilized enough then it may be reduced further even removed completely. If the government wants the hatchery steelhead retained then the 2/day limit would help that. I know I would like to keep fishing after the first hatchery fish. This change would keep people on the river longer but I'd rather keep the resource (hatchery) than loose it.
Anyway my 2 cents.
Tight lines
-
Rodney, the proposed change would remove the "release all steelhead" regulation which was applied specifically to the Squamish rivers following the caustic soda spill. For these streams, this would effectively revert to the regional daily quota for steelhead (2 hatchery steelhead over 50cm allowed). Note that there would be no water-specific regulation specifying a quota of 2 hatchery steelhead on the Squamish streams - the quota would apply by default.
Thus the quota on the Squamish streams would be the same as the quota on all other wild steelhead streams in the region. This allows anglers to retain stray hatchery steelhead that they catch in systems that don't have stocking programs. For example, anglers who catch a steelhead with a healed scar in place of the adipose fin can retain that fish in Norrish Creek, Coquitlam River, Indian River etc.
A concern often raised about this is that it would result in increased killing of wild steelhead due to misidentification of hatchery fish. The regional daily quota has been in place for a long time and I have yet to hear of a case of an angler killing a wild steelhead that was thought to be a hatchery steelhead.
Given the increasing awareness of potential harmful genetic and ecological interactions between wild and hatchery steelhead, anglers are encouraged to retain stray hatchery steelhead. When there is any doubt as to the identification of a hatchery stray, the fish should be released.
Thanks Mike, I just wasn't sure what the objective is. Having strayed hatchery fish removed is certainly a good thing, I just don't like it may give anglers the wrong impression that there is a ongoing hatchery program there. It may be very beneficial to have what you stated above about strayed hatchery steelhead, actually published in the regulations, and regularly reminded on social media.
Back to the Vedder, if the frequency of hatchery fish releases by anglers is in fact as high as what the creel surveys have determined and a significant number of hatchery fish are ending up on the redds instead of being retained, yes it would make sense to change the daily quota from 1 to 2 so it aligns with the regional quota. A change like this would actually benefit those (guides) who drift the river. How it'd influence anglers' behaviours in the lower river, difficult to say. Realistically, how many hatchery fish are being retained per day during the peak season? a couple dozens? So we are talking about a couple dozen more anglers possibly continuing fishing instead of heading home, which probably wouldn't make much of a difference. In some scenarios it would definitely impact angling quality. We've all seen fish bunched up at several key locations in the lower and it takes no time for pressure to increase throughout a hot day. With two fish per day being implemented, you'd just put even more pressure on those runs.
If the whole goal is just to "eradicate" hatchery fish, rather than using the program to enhance angling quality (which isn't always measured by how many you catch/keep in a day), I wonder why there is even a need for a hatchery program then. You'd put 60 extra wild spawners in the river, protecting key spawning area by closing the upper river after March 31st, which should result in a much better return right? Or maybe I shouldn't go there.... ;)
-
i apologise, i thought the catch cards were the only way they were obtaining their information. i have been actively steelheading for 15 years and i have never ran into someone that is asking me about my catch in person. didn't know that was actively done anymore. 95% of that fishing has been done here in the fraser valley and squamish valley with about 5% on the island. i would like to think snorkel counts make up most of their management decisions but i guess thats a pipe dream.
90% of the rivers i fish are 1 hatchery fish per day or realase all steelhead here in the lower mainland. i have never encountered a hatchery fish in a river where i though it shouldn't be.
it just seems to me the only reason the vedder is what it is today is because of the hatchery. look at all of the fraser tributaries without hatcheries and look what shape they are in. some even have hatcheries and its still dismal.
and for the record, i could care less if their are any hatchery steelhead. if biologist believe this is the best way forward than that's what should happen. what ever way gets us to back to a strong wild population the better. wild>hatchery
-
If the whole goal is just to "eradicate" hatchery fish, rather than using the program to enhance angling quality (which isn't always measured by how many you catch/keep in a day), I wonder why there is even a need for a hatchery program then. You'd put 60 extra wild spawners in the river, protecting key spawning area by closing the upper river after March 31st, which should result in a much better return right? Or maybe I shouldn't go there.... ;)
was just going to say the same thing but i deleted it
-
and for the record, i could care less if their are any hatchery steelhead. if biologist believe this is the best way forward than that's what should happen. what ever way gets us to back to a strong wild population the better. wild>hatchery
This brings up my next question. So are we, or the province, ok with having strictly catch and release wild steelhead fisheries? Or is that going to be unacceptable in the long run. DFO has already made that move last year, removing all exclusive catch and release fisheries for salmon in Region 2, and will managing rec freshwater salmon fisheries by either opening for retention, or closing completely.
Personally I'm not ok with having a wild steelhead catch and release fishery at the same level of access which the Vedder sees.
-
This brings up my next question. So are we, or the province, ok with having strictly catch and release wild steelhead fisheries? Or is that going to be unacceptable in the long run. DFO has already made that move last year, removing all exclusive catch and release fisheries for salmon in Region 2, and will managing rec freshwater salmon fisheries by either opening for retention, or closing completely.
Personally I'm not ok with having a wild steelhead catch and release fishery at the same level of access which the Vedder sees.
C&R fisheries are not OK with FN, now. If we want any kind of sports fishery in the future we had better start building some sort of partnership with them soon.
-
C&R fisheries are not OK with FN, now.
Well C&R fisheries are not ok with a lot of non-fishing non-FN too.
The other thing to consider is that if the hatchery program is removed, participation would drop, initiatives like the fundraising for FVWC would disappear too.
-
Well C&R fisheries are not ok with a lot of non-fishing non-FN too.
The other thing to consider is that if the hatchery program is removed, participation would drop, initiatives like the fundraising for FVWC would disappear too.
I wonder if participation would drop? Fishing on wild fish would attract a lot of people, especially from out of country ( when that happens again, lol) and those people tend to have deep pockets. Anyway, by then it will be FN dictating the terms ;)
Seriously, imo the best thing to happen would be to stop steelhead production at the Chilliwack hatchery and spend the money on habitat restoration.
I'm going to do a Mike Pence now and barricade myself away before buck reads that ... ;D
-
90% of the rivers i fish are 1 hatchery fish per day or realase all steelhead here in the lower mainland. i have never encountered a hatchery fish in a river where i though it shouldn't be.
I have caught over the years hatchery stray steelhead in many rivers that they were not planted in at the time.
Places like Gold River, Nimpkish river, squamish both upper and lower squamish river, Ashlu, Cheakamus, Mamquam, Indian to just name a few.
In recent years guys have been catching hatchery summer steelhead in the Mamquam river. This has happened since the Seymour river rock slide.
Fish stray a pile.
-
I wonder if participation would drop? Fishing on wild fish would attract a lot of people, especially from out of country ( when that happens again, lol) and those people tend to have deep pockets. Anyway, by then it will be FN dictating the terms ;)
Seriously, imo the best thing to happen would be to stop steelhead production at the Chilliwack hatchery and spend the money on habitat restoration.
I'm going to do a Mike Pence now and barricade myself away before buck reads that ... ;D
Haha...
There are so many approaches to manage this recreational fisheries, but the end goal, which we anglers need to keep reminding ourselves, should always be the preservation of fish first. No fish, no fishing.
-
The regional daily quota has been in place for a long time and I have yet to hear of a case of an angler killing a wild steelhead that was thought to be a hatchery steelhead.
I saw this happen on the upper squamish river many years ago. It was done by an American angler because at the time they had in place a dis formed dorsal fish was also classified has a hatchery fish in Washington state. he thought it was the same deal in BC.
Showed me the card to "prove" he has killed a hatchery fish.
I showed him our regulations and he left the river before I made it to a CO to report him.
-
I have caught over the years hatchery stray steelhead in many rivers that they were not planted in at the time.
Places like Gold River, Nimpkish river, squamish both upper and lower squamish river, Ashlu, Cheakamus, Mamquam, Indian to just name a few.
In recent years guys have been catching hatchery summer steelhead in the Mamquam river. This has happened since the Seymour river rock slide.
Fish stray a pile.
well it is a known fact that some percentage of salmonids will enter streams that are not their natal rivers and spawn there. No doubt some hatch fish carry such a 'wandering gene'.Reports of summer run fish in the Squamish have been around for a very long time though a sudden increase on the Mamquam certainly could be fish from the Seymour. Similar things happened with Toutle steelhead and salmon after St Helen's errupted.
-
This brings up my next question. So are we, or the province, ok with having strictly catch and release wild steelhead fisheries? Or is that going to be unacceptable in the long run. DFO has already made that move last year, removing all exclusive catch and release fisheries for salmon in Region 2, and will managing rec freshwater salmon fisheries by either opening for retention, or closing completely.
Personally I'm not ok with having a wild steelhead catch and release fishery at the same level of access which the Vedder sees.
so legally you are not aloud to target coho on the upper pitt anymore. thats a bummer. if my memory serves me right it was just chinook that was closed.
i wonder when people are just going to play it and fish anyway. sad state of affairs.
-
I'm going to do a Mike Pence now and barricade myself away before buck reads that ... ;D
bahahaaha, im sure mitch is in their with pence.
-
One thing missing in all of these discussions. Actual hatchery steelhead witnessed on the spawning grounds with wild fish.
1 fish 2 fish retention means nothing if they do not know the magnitude of "the problem". Maybe an angler should be allowed 3 fish a day 😉 yes a bit tongue in check with that comment, but the province has no data other than a study done 20 years ago designed to put hatchery fish on beds.
-
I wonder if participation would drop? Fishing on wild fish would attract a lot of people, especially from out of country ( when that happens again, lol) and those people tend to have deep pockets. Anyway, by then it will be FN dictating the terms ;)
Seriously, imo the best thing to happen would be to stop steelhead production at the Chilliwack hatchery and spend the money on habitat restoration.
I'm going to do a Mike Pence now and barricade myself away before buck reads that ... ;D
I personally believe that if the hatchery program was cut that funding would simply disappear instead of being reallocated to anything else.
-
Seriously, imo the best thing to happen would be to stop steelhead production at the Chilliwack hatchery and spend the money on habitat restoration.
Unfortunately Dave, I feel like you're only thinking on a single layer with this one. Sure, reallocation of the general costs for the hatchery program to habitat restoration would be great, but what about all the lost money on the Vedder in particular?
I'd go out on a limb here and say that the money generated from the various different derbies held every year would actually be similar to the amount you get from reallocation of the funds. I'd also tend to agree with avid angler that the money would likely be directed at other enhancement activities rather than back to the chilliwack/ Vedder itself.
One thing I wondered about recently when the Quatse hatchery program got cut was eyed egg plants. You have all the brood anglers and infrastructure in place already. Why not still capture the same number of wild pairs, matrix spawn them, and then plant eyed eggs. Much cheaper than smolt production, and you eliminate hatchery growth conditions. You could even do better and do what dfo does with endangered stocks - implant with a PIT tag (assigned number), do DNA analysis, and see which fish spawned together create the best genetic diversity. You could likely get better generic diversity this way than trying to let the few fish left (in places like Thompson for example) find each other and spawn with whatever mate they can find. You would also get better survival to eyed egg by a significant margin, and could plant them in tributaries/ areas that are less susceptible to floods, etc.
-
One thing missing in all of these discussions. Actual hatchery steelhead witnessed on the spawning grounds with wild fish.
As said previously, the issue isn't even necessarily hatchery spawning with wild, it's hatchery fish spawning period. Even two hatchery spawning together would create a "wild" offspring. If any of those offspring come back, hatchery genetics are then spread to the wild population. There's a good amount of evidence that hatchery genes, even after just 1 rearing cycle in the hatchery, are passed from parents to offspring.
As for how many hatchery steelhead are actually spawning, it would be incredibly hard to know. You can't really swim during the peak spawn due to visibility and height. You can't radio tag every hatchery fish in the river just to have 80% of those killed and hopefully returned (the cost is huge and won't happen). I can tell you I got 2 hatchery kelts last spring in April in the lower and I only fished under 10 hours total, so they are obviously spawning somewhere.
At the end of the day, creel observations are being used, and they will assume that up to a certain % of hatchery fish spawn because of that 58% release rate. It's the best they can feasibly do. As much as we'd like to know, conditions in the Vedder in May don't allow for accurate spawning observations.
-
Dan, we're both dreaming in technicolor :) but I like yours better. I am a big fan of eyed egg plants but because they're so labor intensive I can't see it happening.
With volunteers it could work, just needs a champion.
Lots of good discussion ..
-
I personally believe that if the hatchery program was cut that funding would simply disappear instead of being reallocated to anything else.
What funding? The Province pays nothing for that program. All of the steelhead fish culture is paid out of the Chilliwack Hatchery budget which is also heavily stressed. That is all federal money. If that program go's away then the money will be spent on other things. The Province could give a rats my friend about steelhead and they have more than made that evident the last 30+ years. Thompson, Chilcoltin and other upper Fraser steelhead are all going bye bye. Be thank full you have decent steelhead fishery in an area that has 2.5 million people living in it. Every other lwr. mainland population has just remnant populations left.
-
Dan, we're both dreaming in technicolor :) but I like yours better. I am a big fan of eyed egg plants but because they're so labor intensive I can't see it happening.
With volunteers it could work, just needs a champion.
Lots of good discussion ..
Do you think eyed egg plants would be more labor intensive/ costly than raising smolts to release size? I feel like it's just a matter of reallocation of funding/ work hours. The awesome thing with steelhead is that they spawn far enough apart that you could simply do a few plants a day over a multi week (or even multi month) time period.
-
What funding? The Province pays nothing for that program. All of the steelhead fish culture is paid out of the Chilliwack Hatchery budget which is also heavily stressed. That is all federal money. If that program go's away then the money will be spent on other things. The Province could give a rats my friend about steelhead and they have more than made that evident the last 30+ years. Thompson, Chilcoltin and other upper Fraser steelhead are all going bye bye. Be thank full you have decent steelhead fishery in an area that has 2.5 million people living in it. Every other lwr. mainland population has just remnant populations left.
We’re saying the same thing.... they cut the steelhead program. That money isn’t going to be spent on steelhead.
-
As said previously, the issue isn't even necessarily hatchery spawning with wild, it's hatchery fish spawning period. Even two hatchery spawning together would create a "wild" offspring. If any of those offspring come back, hatchery genetics are then spread to the wild population. There's a good amount of evidence that hatchery genes, even after just 1 rearing cycle in the hatchery, are passed from parents to offspring.
I can tell you I got 2 hatchery kelts last spring in April in the lower and I only fished under 10 hours total, so they are obviously spawning somewhere.
[/quote/]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is why I asked if and how many hatchery steelhead are allowed to spawn in the hatchery channel. I personally have seen hatchery fish in the channel that would lead you to believe e they will be utilizing it as a means to reproduce.
I too have caught kelted hatchery fish, but have caught way more kelted wild fish leading me to "assume" the % of hatchery spawn is not anywhere near what a creel study would suggest.
In the end whatever decision is made will not change my fishing habits or views. I do hate to think these knee jerseys desicions made using sloppy science and math could lead to possible hatcherybcuts if we are not careful of what we wish for.
-
Do you think eyed egg plants would be more labor intensive/ costly than raising smolts to release size? I feel like it's just a matter of reallocation of funding/ work hours. The awesome thing with steelhead is that they spawn far enough apart that you could simply do a few plants a day over a multi week (or even multi month) time period.
Done right this could do wonders for the depressed upper river population and your'e right, would not cost more if the work was done with reallocations, with assistance from volunteers.
Like I said, it needs a champion to get things going. These are steelhead, not likely the Federal hatchery is going to supply the labor.
-
As said previously, the issue isn't even necessarily hatchery spawning with wild, it's hatchery fish spawning period. Even two hatchery spawning together would create a "wild" offspring. If any of those offspring come back, hatchery genetics are then spread to the wild population. There's a good amount of evidence that hatchery genes, even after just 1 rearing cycle in the hatchery, are passed from parents to offspring.
I can tell you I got 2 hatchery kelts last spring in April in the lower and I only fished under 10 hours total, so they are obviously spawning somewhere.
[/quote
This is why I asked if and how many hatchery steelhead are allowed to spawn in the hatchery channel. I personally have seen hatchery fish in the channel that would lead you to believe e they will be utilizing it as a means to reproduce.
I too have caught kelted hatchery fish, but have caught way more kelted wild fish leading me to "assume" the % of hatchery spawn is not anywhere near what a creel study would suggest.
In the end whatever decision is made will not change my fishing habits or views. I do hate to think these knee jerseys desicions made using sloppy science and math could lead to possible hatcherybcuts if we are not careful of what we wish for.
stsfisher that’s exactly right. A steelhead that stages in bounds on the vedder will be caught multiple times. Sooner or later chances are 1 of who knows how many people that encounter that hatchery fish will decide to retain it.
-
so legally you are not aloud to target coho on the upper pitt anymore. thats a bummer. if my memory serves me right it was just chinook that was closed.
i wonder when people are just going to play it and fish anyway. sad state of affairs.
you are not allowed to target salmon anywhere in Region 2 unless the regulations say it's open. Even this past Fall Morice creek/slough, the Harrison tributary, was closed for all salmon fishing. It was not listed has an open body of water.
-
Quote from: bigblockfox on January 06, 2021, 02:53:21 PM
so legally you are not aloud to target coho on the upper pitt anymore. thats a bummer. if my memory serves me right it was just chinook that was closed.
i wonder when people are just going to play it and fish anyway. sad state of affairs.
you are not allowed to target salmon anywhere in Region 2 unless the regulations say it's open. Even this past Fall Morice creek/slough, the Harrison tributary, was closed for all salmon fishing. It was not listed has an open body of water.
DFO officers stated in a meeting with reps that they won't be enforcing it on the pitt.
-
A friend who does not post here has suggested a solution to removing hatchery steelhead from the system, and keeping the daily retention at one .... increase the annual limit to 20 from 10. What do you think?
-
I've never understood why we even have an annual quota for hatchery steelhead actually. Perhaps this was implemented when wild steelhead could still be retained? I don't know, I'm not that old like some of you. ;) Why wouldn't it be just like hatchery coho, where annual quota doesn't exist. They are hatchery fish after all, need to be removed, so I don't see the point of putting a cap on them. It makes sense for chinook salmon, since current fisheries are targeting a lot of wild/unclipped fish. Plus, the paper recording method is silly, compliance can't be very high.
-
for sure. the hole system needs a 21st century revamp. especially the fresh water synopsis.
as for the paper method, print, print, print. especially in the salt.
-
Quote from: bigblockfox on January 06, 2021, 02:53:21 PM
so legally you are not aloud to target coho on the upper pitt anymore. thats a bummer. if my memory serves me right it was just chinook that was closed.
i wonder when people are just going to play it and fish anyway. sad state of affairs.
DFO officers stated in a meeting with reps that they won't be enforcing it on the pitt.
is this because it is so remote? whats the reasoning? kinda weird dfo would make a rule change and than tell people they wont enforce it.
-
I've never understood why we even have an annual quota for hatchery steelhead actually. Perhaps this was implemented when wild steelhead could still be retained? I don't know, I'm not that old like some of you. ;)
I think that's mostly it. The first annual limit was 40 steelhead a year :o with a 3 fish daily bag limit. Then it was reduced. Then wild steelhead were put on no retention and hatchery fish set at 10. Perhaps the idea was to make sure there was some to go around for all anglers and not just the sharp hawks that fished virtually everyday of the season.
I am sure the whole sequence is listed in Bob Hooton's book Day's of River Past.
-
So, you're assuming that people are lying to creel surveyors then?
"Analysis of 2018-19 creel survey revealed that approximately 58% of hatchery steelhead landed were released, 50% of which were released specifically because the angler wanted to continue angling that day. In addition, 25% of respondents who claim to routinely release hatchery"
I know a number of people that release hatchery fish near the start of a day to keep angling, but would gladly retain that same fish after a few hours out/ near the end of the day. The 2/ day has existed on the island for a long time without issue.
Once again, for the last time, biologists often will make decisions based on creel. The question should be, "would you rather allow this regulation change, or potentially lose the program (that isn't being "utilized") outright?"
Honestly I don't care what the creel surveys say. Like others have stated if that is all we have to go on then we are in trouble. How many times does or can a fish bite in a day? How many people catch the same fish over and over sometimes within minutes or hours or days in the same run or stretch of river. Its happened to me more times than I can count. Maybe some people like to stroke their own ego say they hooked 2 hatchery steelhead that day releasing 1 hatchery when its the same fish.Or somebody comes along in the afternoon and kills that fish. bottom line fishermen like to tell a story .
Many of these catch and release anglers you speak of including members of this forum will likely account for a very small percentage of the total number of anglers. As well as only a small percent of those anglers will account for a large catch rate per person .
Too many variables to put total faith in creel survey. the 2 fish a day thing honestly wont bother nor affect me. I would just like to see more people especially beginners with opportunity to catch fish. I don't think changing the rules will affect the outcome. There is enough pressure on the C/V that somebody else would likely catch that second fish regardless of a 1 or 2 bag limit. the yearly limit would be better to increase as many anglers can easily catch that many hatchery fish monthly from January or at least February on.
I agree with 100 percent of what you speak including the egg planting or re organizing hatchery programs to put more time into such things. these hatchery fish are there too be killed period. But regardless of bag limits many hatchery fish will still be shooting through the system unhooked or unlanded. Total loss of a program would be shitty for sure as unlikely as that seems. I don't know if this has been said as I have not read through this whole thread but the seals at the mouth of the river are as big of a problem as the hatcheries not being bonked. When the number of pairs being seen spawning in the upper sections year after year has been declining as it has, every seal culled at or near vedder mouth would have a very positive affect for wild populations.
-
How long has the steelhead hatchery program been implemented on the chilliwack? Just how "wild" are these fish now, to begin with? Still many fine specimens of both "wild" and hatchery fish defying all odds to come back into the system. To me, a returning fish in today's river and ocean conditions has proven itself worthy of carrying on their genes.
Also, what kind of impact is the ongoing clear cutting in the upper reaches effecting spawning habitat I wonder.
2 a day means significantly more wilds being caught, inevitably leading to more mortality. Closing above tamihi means those "problematic" hatchery fish have zero chance to be taken out of gene pool who continue above the bridge..either way I don't see how either proposed changes significantly impacts the goal of..what is the objective of the proposals again?
I think 1 per day, 20 per year should be considered.
-
shifting the topic away from hatchery fish for a moment.
If the objective is to protect and increase the population of wild fish, then I think there should be new thinking on what "bait" is allowed. Especially considering that steelhead continue to live on after spawning. Keep in mind what is being done re. lead shot and bird hunting.
* There is evidence of steelhead being caught that have multiple baits in their gut
* Borax and some other bait cures have been proven to be poisonous to fish (especially in the concentrations that exist in 'cured': egg, deli-shrimp, and Ghost Shrimp)
* although steel hooks have been known to dissolve in a fishes system, many synthetic: worms, eggs, shrimp, and other artificial baits will not
I see an opportunity for either: an additional regulation, or peer agreement by those fishing the river, to not use baits that will harm fish that swallow that bait and either: shake the hook, or get released.
Also and opportunity for someone, or some company, to develop and promote successful baits that do not harm steelhead. (maybe even benefit their health )
-
if there is one this I have gotten out of this discussion is the difficulty there is in making good decisions on such a limited knowledge base. Most everything that's been said makes sense but do we know enough to make policy and regulations that benefit wild steelhead? We don't know to what extent wild and hatchery steelhead interactions may have affected the wild steelhead in the river. We don't even have genetic base data to determine if the wild fish of 2021 have been significantly alternated since 1970 (to pick a date). We don't even have much of a grasp to what extent hatchery fish spawning naturally in the river are contributing to returns of wild fish.
There has been little or no serious study of steelhead for 20 years or more and most of what took place before that was pretty basic and quite possibly now out of date.
-
if there is one this I have gotten out of this discussion is the difficulty there is in making good decisions on such a limited knowledge base. Most everything that's been said makes sense but do we know enough to make policy and regulations that benefit wild steelhead? We don't know to what extent wild and hatchery steelhead interactions may have affected the wild steelhead in the river. We don't even have genetic base data to determine if the wild fish of 2021 have been significantly alternated since 1970 (to pick a date). We don't even have much of a grasp to what extent hatchery fish spawning naturally in the river are contributing to returns of wild fish.
There has been little or no serious study of steelhead for 20 years or more and most of what took place before that was pretty basic and quite possibly now out of date.
Another good post Ralph.
I agree we have limited data to make decisions - buck and I have been saying it for years. I said in an earlier post it's time to do another telemetry study, with a few add ons. I know the provincial people would be all over this idea, as they know the bottlenecks. The trick is going to be finding funds for a multi year study, so as in most things governmental, some group has to take the lead and champion the idea.
-
I personally think finding the funds and volunteers are the easiest tasks to execute these needed projects. It comes down to having the right person to lead the initiatives. You build it, people will come.
Sounds like a great retirement project for you Dave. ;D
-
I appreciate your confidence in me, and 5 years ago I would have jumped at this ... but I don't have the energy now to be the lead :(
You're right Rod, the money would come if enough people pushed for it and I would be happy to assist someone, anyone, to take this on.
-
shifting the topic away from hatchery fish for a moment.
If the objective is to protect and increase the population of wild fish, then I think there should be new thinking on what "bait" is allowed. Especially considering that steelhead continue to live on after spawning. Keep in mind what is being done re. lead shot and bird hunting.
* There is evidence of steelhead being caught that have multiple baits in their gut
* Borax and some other bait cures have been proven to be poisonous to fish (especially in the concentrations that exist in 'cured': egg, deli-shrimp, and Ghost Shrimp)
* although steel hooks have been known to dissolve in a fishes system, many synthetic: worms, eggs, shrimp, and other artificial baits will not
I see an opportunity for either: an additional regulation, or peer agreement by those fishing the river, to not use baits that will harm fish that swallow that bait and either: shake the hook, or get released.
Also and opportunity for someone, or some company, to develop and promote successful baits that do not harm steelhead. (maybe even benefit their health )
I agree. I remeber seeing a study not that long ago ( came out of Washington ) that talked about thr negative effects of cured baits on resident trout. I'm all for a bait ban myself. I think it'll really help native trout and Char populations that's for sure. Everyday fishermen lose their chemical roe to the river OR just simply chuck it in only to uave it go down stream and inhaled by other species. I know that the bait ban argument for the Chilliwack river doesn't recive a welcoming discussion but I'd definitely like to see some detailed science behind a bait ban and any positive effects it may have.
-
I agree. I remeber seeing a study not that long ago ( came out of Washington ) that talked about thr negative effects of cured baits on resident trout. I'm all for a bait ban myself. I think it'll really help native trout and Char populations that's for sure. Everyday fishermen lose their chemical roe to the river OR just simply chuck it in only to uave it go down stream and inhaled by other species. I know that the bait ban argument for the Chilliwack river doesn't recive a welcoming discussion but I'd definitely like to see some detailed science behind a bait ban and any positive effects it may have.
Short floating roe has been highly promoted as an alternative method to snagging. The use of snagging techniques would probably increase with a bait ban.
-
Short floating roe has been highly promoted as an alternative method to snagging. The use of snagging techniques would probably increase with a bait ban.
I think that's a knuckle dragging argument. Ban roe and everyone will snag. Totaly not the case. Its a sort of threat. Many areas of the province have implemented bait bans with great success.
-
* Borax and some other bait cures have been proven to be poisonous to fish [i
the state of Oregon already did this study and forced bait cure companies like Pro Cure and Pautzke's to reformulate their products to cause less harm and be deemed safe (or safer) for fish in general. it happened maybe 5 years ago or so.
-
It's sodium sulphite cures that have that issue. I don't know how that was addressed but in Oregon the recommendation was to remove sulphites from eggs cures altogether. They did find that the maximum safe concentration of sulphites per kg of eggs is 12 grams which still would have about a10% mortality among salmon smolts if ingested. I haven't bought commercial cures in years but recall they never mentioned on the label what was in the cure and in what concentrations.
More info here: https://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/commission/minutes/11/09_sept/Exhibit%20D_Attachment%202_Memo%20to%20Egg%20Cure%20Industry%20from%20B%20McIntosh_072911.pdf
-
I think that's a knuckle dragging argument. Ban roe and everyone will snag. Totaly not the case. Its a sort of threat. Many areas of the province have implemented bait bans with great success.
Fair enough but I don’t no if any examples in bc where a bait ban has made a lick of difference in the stocks status. Typically a bit ban is followed by a complete closure years down the line.
-
Fair enough but I don’t no if any examples in bc where a bait ban has made a lick of difference in the stocks status. Typically a bit ban is followed by a complete closure years down the line.
The 'lick of difference' may be correct but not the bait ban being typically followed by a complete closure down the line. All summer run steelhead rivers on the Island have a bait ban and have for many years. Almost all have remained open to fishing. Ditto with many streams in the Skeena Region and the Squamish. The Thompson bait ban had zip to do with saving the saving the steelhead . It was about the only river in BC with an important summer run steelhead run that didn't have a bait ban.
-
https://youtu.be/H0lwCihC_uc
I know it’s not stealhead , I know it’s not in Canada , but I’m sure it’s enough proof that salmonids hatchery and wild spawn together , others might think otherwise , but I believe same happens in our waters with stealhead , look closely lots of hatchery in there
-
The 'lick of difference' may be correct but not the bait ban being typically followed by a complete closure down the line. All summer run steelhead rivers on the Island have a bait ban and have for many years. Almost all have remained open to fishing. Ditto with many streams in the Skeena Region and the Squamish. The Thompson bait ban had zip to do with saving the saving the steelhead . It was about the only river in BC with an important summer run steelhead run that didn't have a bait ban.
this is where the problem lies with some of the proposed regulation changes now and in the past.
First thing that happens will be something like the proposed closure of the Kitimat river to fishing from Dec.1 to March 15.
it's already a single hook , bait ban catch and release fishery for all species.
the closure if to protect over wintering cutthroat trout that very few people actually fish for.
So in a couple of years all of region 6 will be closed to fishing in the winter "to bring it all in line" with the closure on the Kitimat.
When you read all of the proposals many are to bring what ever changes they are going to do in line with the rest of the region. They are not managing specific fisheries but managing complete regions with a one solution fits all.
-
the kind of information needed for tailoring regulations requires research and research requires money. Money for research into steelhead and cutthroat fisheries isn't easy to come by. For what is available there is always the question of how likely is a particular piece of research to yield finding from what in known from similar published research or what is available anecdotally.
FWIW the closure on the Kitimat is based on specific research and it's not an attempt to bring it into line with regional norms. Just read the rational:
https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/regulation-changes-kitimat-river
There are likely numerous CCT populations right here in region 2 that would benefit from winter and even summer closures (to protect rearing juveniles) as many of these streams much in the way of angling opportunities. Most of our cutthroat streams that lack any sort of winter steelhead opportunities could easily bear a bait ban.
-
this is where the problem lies with some of the proposed regulation changes now and in the past.
First thing that happens will be something like the proposed closure of the Kitimat river to fishing from Dec.1 to March 15.
it's already a single hook , bait ban catch and release fishery for all species.
the closure if to protect over wintering cutthroat trout that very few people actually fish for.
So in a couple of years all of region 6 will be closed to fishing in the winter "to bring it all in line" with the closure on the Kitimat.
When you read all of the proposals many are to bring what ever changes they are going to do in line with the rest of the region. They are not managing specific fisheries but managing complete regions with a one solution fits all.
One would go further and read into United Nations Agenda 2030 and say fishing/hunting will be banned in our lifetime. Here's a thought, just go out and fish. Enjoy what ya got now.
-
I'll say it one last time for those of you reading who care to listen. Rejecting this change would be a huge mistake.
If the biologists deem that hatchery fish are being released, and that you're unwilling to make a change that could increase retention, they can make recommendations to cut or reduce the program further.
It happened on the Cowichan. The last 2 years on the island another 2 of the last 3 remaining hatchery programs have been cut. Chehalis summers cut. Something to think about...
I think Every Day raised a very good point. I think we may very well need to bite the bullet and accept the “2 fish limit” and also make a sustained effort as individuals to harvest hatchery fish without releasing them for sake of further enjoyment. Our failure to make this simple sacrifice may very well lead to a future without steelhead fishing as we have known and enjoyed. I personally don’t like the proposed 2 fish limit and I do also release hatchery fish as a season progresses, but I think that is a luxury we can no longer afford under the circumstances.
-
FWIW the closure on the Kitimat is based on specific research and it's not an attempt to bring it into line with regional norms. Just read the rational:
https://apps.nrs.gov.bc.ca/ahte/content/regulation-changes-kitimat-river
My point is this closure will happen if it's required or not and in a couple of years no one will remember why or how.
Then in a couple of years somewhere else or the rest of the region will be closed to bring it in line with this closure.
Right or wrong there is little will to manage specific waters nowadays but instead manage regions or the complete province.
There are many examples of the province doing this over the years.
Just look at the 2 fish retention on the Chilliwack/Vedder being discussed. It's being done to make the entire region the same and not to really manage specific fisheries.
-
I think it is managed to a specific need which is to increase the harvest of hatchery fish on the V/C and the Chehalis.
Improving the regional consistency is another issue they have dropped in there and overall it is part of an objective that's come out demands of anglers themselves - to simplify & improve the intelligibility of the regulations.
If you read some of the other changes you'd note they are also some eliminating fly only regulations on specific waters as well as c&r only regulations on waters that don't naturally have self sustaining fish populations (ie Kidd Lake).
-
With current freshwater licences and the current 20/21 synopsis about to expire on the 31st in less than two weeks, is the new 21/22 synopsis available anywhere yet to see what if any changes will be coming into effect?
-
New synopsis available at Chilliwack Dart and Tackle. Changes for Chilliwack/Vedder - Revised No Fishing boundaries and closure times in the areas of Slesse Creek, the Tamahi Rapids bridge and Vedder Crossing bridge. Increase daily quota for hatchery steelhead from one to two
-
New synopsis available at Chilliwack Dart and Tackle. Changes for Chilliwack/Vedder - Revised No Fishing boundaries and closure times in the areas of Slesse Creek, the Tamahi Rapids bridge and Vedder Crossing bridge. Increase daily quota for hatchery steelhead from one to two
Did they change the upper boundary?
-
I believe the change is a closure starting April 1 from Tamihi bridge to the boundary at Slesse Creek. Basically allowing steelhead to stage and spawn unmolested, this is something we have been pushing for years, great news.
-
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/sports-recreation-arts-and-culture/outdoor-recreation/fishing-and-hunting/freshwater-fishing/region_2_lower_mainland.pdf
-
Here is the info that is specific to the C/V
No Fishing upstream from a line between two fishing boundary signs on either side of the Chilliwack River 100 m downstream of the confluence of the Chilliwack River and Slesse Creek
No Fishing downstream of a line between two fishing boundary signs on either side of the Chilliwack River 100m downstream of the confluence of the Chilliwack River and Slesse Creek to Tamihi Rapids Bridge, Apr 1-June 30
No Fishing downstream of Tamihi Rapids Bridge to Vedder Crossing Bridge, May 1-June 30 No Fishing downstream of Vedder Crossing Bridge, June 1-June 30
Hatchery rainbow trout of any length 50 cm or less: daily quota = 4, July 1-Apr 30
Downstream of Vedder Crossing Bridge: (a) fly fishing only, bait ban, hatchery rainbow trout release (50 cm or less), and hatchery cutthroat release, May 1-31; (b) No Fishing June 1-30; (c) hatchery rainbow trout of any length 50 cm or less: daily quota = 4, July 1-Apr 30
Also ...
Copied from the full synopsis..
Chilliwack/Vedder Rivers:
• Revised No Fishing boundaries and
closure times in the areas of Slesse Creek, the Tamihi Rapids bridge, and the Vedder Crossing bridge.
• Increase daily quota for hatchery steelhead from one to two.
....Two Hatchery Steelhead retention as of APR 1st 2021
-
Does the annual retention of steelhead remain at 10 per year?
-
Yes
Annual catch quota for all B.C.: 10 steelhead per licence year