Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: Rodney on February 11, 2012, 10:26:07 PM
-
A couple of days ago we encountered this fish and decided to keep it as I was very confident that it was a mis-clipped hatchery steelhead (the healed scar with a small remnant).
(http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc90/fishingwithrod/2012/120212-06.jpg)
I thought I'll take a photo of it to put it up as this can probably generate quite a few opinions. ;)
What would you do when you encounter a mis-clipped? Do you agree this is a mis-clipped?
You can read the whole story of the trip here:
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/blog/2012/02/11/a-tug-erases-all-doubts/
-
it really depends on the scar. i've caught a steelie with most of its adipose gone but had the base fully intact so thinking it might have been some kind of injury, i released it...on the other hand i've kept one or two obvious miss clips where nothing but a spiny fin protruded....i've also come across a few with very small adiposes. those were also released.
your fish is legal according to a similar fish i caught a few years ago where a CO was present to confirm the hatch.
-
--No I wouldn't keep it... but also wouldn't put the cuffs on someone that did..
--The reason is the "perception" of being guilty... when you're in the business... you have to be squeaky clean... drives some of my friends nuts... as the rules apply when on my boat or fishing party.
-
I have also been curious on this subject for quite a while as it applies to both steelhead and coho fishing.
I heard on the river that if 75% or more of adipose fin is missing, then it can be assumed to be a miscliped hatchery fish.
Any basis to this 75% rule?
Are COs given any guidelines to follow on this subject?
-
This is how steelhead are clipped at the hatchery.
http://youtu.be/VzAY9DxzH-E
-
I don't have the regs at hand but I understand that unless the fin is completely removed and the wound is completely healed it is considered as non retainable. Therefore there is no such thing as a miss-clip when it comes to the retention
.
-
I don't have the regs at hand but I understand that unless the fin is completely removed and the wound is completely healed it is considered as non retainable. Therefore there is no such thing as a miss-clip when it comes to the retention
.
not true...clipping of the adipose is not infallible especially when human error comes to play.
most CO's will tell you, if you're not sure, release the fish...but if they come across a fisherman with a miss clipped coho/steelhead, they can tell from the scar if an attempt to remove the fin was made surgically...most of the time so can most experienced anglers, but like stated, if you're not sure release it, as i have in the past.
-
not true...clipping of the adipose is not infallible especially when human error comes to play.
most CO's will tell you, if you're not sure, release the fish...but if they come across a fisherman with a miss clipped coho/steelhead, they can tell from the scar if an attempt to remove the fin was made surgically...most of the time so can most experienced anglers, but like stated, if you're not sure release it, as i have in the past.
sorry, quoted from the tidal reg not freshwater.
A hatchery marked fish is a fish that has a healed scar in place of the adipose fin. The adipose fin is the fleshy appendage found on salmon located between the dorsal fin and the tail.
I'd say it is a "miss-clip" would I keep it? No.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/law-loi/salmon-points-saumon-eng.htm
in reading that, I'd say that the two jurisdictions may vary in their interpretations of what is and what is not retainable
-
I agree it's a mis-clip and I would kill it if I was in the market for a hatchery. Before the days of clipping, I don't think I ever saw a deformed adipose on any salmon or steelhead.
-
i threw back about a 14 pound coho in the vedder last year and its fin looked just like that. wasnt sure so i released it. and entil i hear something about miss clips from a CO mouth i will do it again.
-
i threw back about a 14 pound coho in the vedder last year and its fin looked just like that. wasnt sure so i released it. and entil i hear something about miss clips from a CO mouth i will do it again.
you did the right thing (in the sense of uncertainty)....i once released a coho of about 10 lbs with an adipose that was 1/10th the size it should have been...it almost looked like a re-growth of the fin (like a crab would re-grow a claw).
-
it would look like a fin to a judge....missing fin with healed scar......it says that in black and white
-
it would look like a fin to a judge....missing fin with healed scar......it says that in black and white
That looks like a healed scar of a clipped fin. Black as mud.
-
If it was my fish, I would have thrown it back. Reason being it puts the CO in a difficult spot. If he follows the regs as they read there is still an adipose fin on the fish. Unfortunately one of those grey areas that a person may run in to from time to time on the river.
-
all the reg says is a scar in place of an adipose. if there's a clean scar made from an obvious clip, there's no doubt in mind it's legal. the clipping of the fin is just a way of identifying hatchery from wild. i've never seen an injury on a fish that heals as cleanly as a precise cut made from a surgical tool and further more a cut to such a small torso that most predators couldn't even bite off without taking more than just a small flap of tissue....but with that said, if you're not sure or don't feel comfortable with the misclip just let the damn fish go!
-
I'm not a pro when it comes to catching them so I'll keep a misclipped if I catch one.
-
Ive smacked em before and Ill smack em again, especially if its pig. Anyone who normally harvests steelhead who says they wouldnt smack a 20lb hatch misclip is full of ......
I'd say your full of it , as I'd put it back. I put them all back, unless it's a no-hoper (wounded) as per request on regs!
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/docs/1113/fishing-synopsis_2011-13_region1.pdf
-
I also definitely would not bonk a 20lb misclip. The last thing I want is a trophy sized fish that where I can't show anyone the pictures ::)
-
I'd say your full of it , as I'd put it back. I put them all back, unless it's a no-hoper (wounded) as per request on regs!
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/docs/1113/fishing-synopsis_2011-13_region1.pdf
what difference would it make whether it was wounded or not? any wild steelhead has to be released regardless...are you saying misclips are hatchery only when they're hurt? ??? or are you stating you don't normally retain steelhead? please clarify.
-
how do all you pros know if the fin is just not deformed ?
oh yeah, the fish told you so ?
pretty lame some of you catch soo few you need to kill every one you catch regardless of the outcome.
pretty brave of Rodney to post that photo , most others would have been hacked to submission.
-
what difference would it make whether it was wounded or not? any wild steelhead has to be released regardless...are you saying misclips are hatchery only when they're hurt? ??? or are you stating you don't normally retain steelhead? please clarify.
I do not usually keep any fish caught (steelhead or Salmon), but were it to be a hatchery fish that was caught and it was doubtful that it would survive, then I may ( retention river) keep it as the regs states that we should do so. ( page 11, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/docs/1113/fishing-synopsis_2011-13_provincial.pdf )
IF it was a wild fish it would be released regardless.
-
how do all you pros know if the fin is just not deformed ?
oh yeah, the fish told you so ?
pretty lame some of you catch soo few you need to kill every one you catch regardless of the outcome.
pretty brave of Rodney to post that photo , most others would have been hacked to submission.
where does it state that someone feels they are entitled to kill everything? Rodney simply asked a question and people responded with some asking for clarification.
also with the number of misclips being reported are you ready to say our salmon and steelhead stock are suffering from an epidemic of genetical malformation?
-
I do not usually keep any fish caught (steelhead or Salmon), but were it to be a hatchery fish that was caught and it was doubtful that it would survive, then I may ( retention river) keep it as the regs states that we should do so. ( page 11, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/fish/regulations/docs/1113/fishing-synopsis_2011-13_provincial.pdf )
IF it was a wild fish it would be released regardless.
Thank You for clarifying.
-
how do all you pros know if the fin is just not deformed ?
The same way you know that a fully clipped adipose is not just a deformity.
pretty lame some of you catch soo few you need to kill every one you catch regardless of the outcome.
Sorry, that you are so good at catching them that you have lost the rush, Jim. While I have only ever bonked a single steelhead in my 30+ years of steelheading on the fly (it was my first hatchery fish on the Vedder), I have never begrudged an angler for bonking a hatchery fish (that is why they are in the river). What exactly is the "outcome" you are referring to? That they are accidentally bonking a wild fish? Do you really think that the fish in Rod's photo is a deformed wild fish? Would that scar really look any different had the ladies actually clipped the whole fin off? It is most certainly a hatchery fish with a healed scar in place of a fin, it just has a remnant of the fin as well. You are free to release it if you want, but a hatchery fish is a hatchery fish, and you do not need to berate fellow anglers that bonk hatchery fish.
pretty brave of Rodney to post that photo , most others would have been hacked to submission.
You have done fine hacking him by yourself, but as he said in the original post, it was meant to start a discussion, not insults.
-
where does it state that someone feels they are entitled to kill everything? Rodney simply asked a question and people responded with some asking for clarification.
also with the number of misclips being reported are you ready to say our salmon and steelhead stock are suffering from an epidemic of genetical malformation?
it clearly says a "missing adipose"...not a partial adipose or deformed adipose.
-
You have done fine hacking him by yourself, but as he said in the original post, it was meant to start a discussion, not insults.
where did I insult Rodney ?
I mearly stated if somone else posted it it would have been a different outcome.
I have let go enough miss clips over the years..........because the law states "missing fin"
-
where did I insult Rodney ?
how do all you pros know if the fin is just not deformed ?
oh yeah, the fish told you so ?
pretty lame some of you catch soo few you need to kill every one you catch regardless of the outcome.
pretty brave of Rodney to post that photo...
Sorry Jim, I had figured you must have been including Rodney (the original poster) and Nina (who decided to kill the allegedly mis-clipped fish) in with all the "lame" "pros" who have to kill every steelhead they catch regardless of the outcome. I guess you meant to insult all the subsequent posters but spare the original poster (who actually killed the mis-clipped fish). I apologize.
I have let go enough miss clips over the years..........because the law states "missing fin"
That is great, and good on you for releasing them, but in this case the fish was missing 80% of the fin and there was a healed scar in place of the 80% missing. The only way that fin is missing with a healed scar was if it was a mis-clip at the hatchery. What a CO is looking for is if the fish in your possession has a missing fin but the scar is not healed. This would indicate it was a wild fish that you just clipped the fin off with your nail clippers. They can see that the scar on that fin was healed so it was a mis-clip at the hatchery, not a mis-clip on the stream side. It is perfectly legal and ethical to kill a hatchery fish, which this fish was. Your choice to release it is grounded in your desire to not want to have to try and prove this fact to a judge if you are stopped by a CO looking for any excuse to write a ticket (and there are plenty of those out there). However, there is nothing wrong with keeping it, since it is clearly a hatchery fish.
-
I am sure glad they included a nice visual to help us identify what a clipped or keeper should look like.
I have asked for a clarification on what if any is a grey area ie: miss clipped fish's status re: the keeping of. My thought is that should I run into one of those Conservation Officers or RCMP or FO's that may go by the book or letter of the law, I'd hate to give them a reason to confiscate my gear and vehicle and or fine as per act.
there's plenty fish, why push the envelope on the interpretation or intent of the act, It's just not worth the risk.
-
it clearly says a "missing adipose"...not a partial adipose or deformed adipose.
it actually says healed scar in place of adipose...doesn't say complete missing adipose...misclip is a misclip... i've had a CO present when i retained a coho with a misclip...he confirmed for me before i bonked the fish....NO BS.
-
it clearly says a "missing adipose"...not a partial adipose or deformed adipose.
This is why I've never killed a miss clip........however after releasing the first one that I landed a few years ago, I was checked by a CO. I asked him about the fish which had about 50% of the adipose left with a healed scar. He informed me on how they clip them at the hatchery and that if a fish is missing any part of the adipose with a healed scar it is 100% hatchery.
So it seems that there may be some subjectivity regardless of what the regs state. The concern that I would have is the simple fact that you don't get to choose your CO! So try explaining that to the next CO you meet.....who has decided that you've just killed a wild fish......maybe the guy has a bit of a napoleon complex.....maybe he is not having the greatest day.....
I am not arguing that a miss clip fish is not a Hatchery fish, just that based on the letter of the law you could be screwed depending on the CO's interpretation.
Now realistically you will not have to worry about running into a CO on the Vedder :P
-
Would you weigh in a 20lb miss clip to the Boxing Day Derby?
I would hate to be in a situation where a CO or others question the legality of a fish.
Send it back, and pull a Sock. from the freezer for dinner.
-
I have let go enough miss clips over the years..........because the law states "missing fin"
i've released more hatchery fish than i've ever retained only because i don't always feel like eating fish.
-
Would you weigh in a 20lb miss clip to the Boxing Day Derby?
I would hate to be in a situation where a CO or others question the legality of a fish.
Send it back, and pull a Sock. from the freezer for dinner.
i've weighed in a steely at Fred's before with a spiny looking thing that stuck out where the adipose should have been...not one person in the shop (with about 15 customers and 3 staffs present) questioned whether it was a hatchery or wild...that's because common sense prevailed...if anything, some of them made fun of the way the spine looked, but they all referred to it as a misclip.
no such thing as a deformed adipose when a perfectly healed cut dominates the area where the rest of the fin is suppose to be.
-
This is why I've never killed a miss clip........however after releasing the first one that I landed a few years ago, I was checked by a CO. I asked him about the fish which had about 50% of the adipose left with a healed scar. He informed me on how they clip them at the hatchery and that if a fish is missing any part of the adipose with a healed scar it is 100% hatchery.
So it seems that there may be some subjectivity regardless of what the regs state. The concern that I would have is the simple fact that you don't get to choose your CO! So try explaining that to the next CO you meet.....who has decided that you've just killed a wild fish......maybe the guy has a bit of a napoleon complex.....maybe he is not having the greatest day.....
I am not arguing that a miss clip fish is not a Hatchery fish, just that based on the letter of the law you could be screwed depending on the CO's interpretation.
Now realistically you will not have to worry about running into a CO on the Vedder :P
in the past 5 years, i've caught about 6 misclips...of those, i released 4...of the 4, two of them i wasn't sure about (the other 2, i just didn't want)....moral of the story, if you're not sure release the fish...simple.
i guess for me, i feel confident because i've had interaction with CO's and even hatchery staff who assured me that misclips are totally legal.
-
Now realistically you will not have to worry about running into a CO on the Vedder :P
Sad but so true hue-nut. Don't blame the CO's ; sometimes they can't even gas up their trucks for a roundabout; budgets are so restrained they really only respond to emergencies now ....
You will however meet a few keen Fishery Officers out there, and thanks for that :)
-
Sad but so true hue-nut. Don't blame the CO's ; sometimes they can't even gas up their trucks for a roundabout; budgets are so restrained they really only respond to emergencies now ....
You will however meet a few keen Fishery Officers out there, and thanks for that :)
let's not forget the RCMP also have jurisdiction maybe it's time they expanded their duties to help with the short comings of the local fishery.
-
let's not forget the RCMP also have jurisdiction maybe it's time they expanded their duties to help with the short comings of the local fishery.
haha I think their time is better spent trying to control Chilliwack's "questionable" citizens. If they can't seem to catch some of the car thieves along the river my dollar says they aint gonna be investigating a potential wild fish kill
-
haha I think their time is better spent trying to control Chilliwack's "questionable" citizens. If they can't seem to catch some of the car thieves along the river my dollar says they aint gonna be investigating a potential wild fish kill
Maybe it's because of their lack of presence that make it easy for thieves to break into cars and slash tires...ever think of that? and who's to say that poachers wouldn't think twice if they knew the police did periodical spot checks on licenses and retained fish?
"Chilliwack's questionable citizens?" LOL.... i think the questionable citizens you're referring to are busy breaking into cars and slashing tires along the vedder. :D
-
posting two replies that I have recieved from MOE those replies give no doubt to the reasons that this topic became so heated with seemingly polar oposits on interpretation.
an also brings to question that also became another heated debate a couple of years ago and to me reinforces the need to simplyfy the regs. As follows:
Hello George,
Thank you for your email dated February 21, 2012, regarding the definition and retention of hatchery fish. Your enquiry has been forwarded to me for response.
The definitions of various species of hatchery fish are provided below:
“trout” means brook trout, brown trout, cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, lake trout, rainbow trout or steelhead.
“hatchery trout” means a trout of any kind that has a healed scar in place of the adipose fin.
“hatchery chinook salmon” means a chinook salmon that has a healed scar in place of the adipose, pelvic or pectoral fin, or in place of a maxillary.
“hatchery coho salmon” means a coho salmon that has a healed scar in place of the adipose, pelvic or pectoral fin, or in place of a maxillary.
There is no reference to “mis-clipped” fish in the regulations, as such it is likely up to the discretion of a Conservation or Fisheries Officer, and possibly the opinion of a judge to determine whether or not a specific mis-clipped fish was legal to retain or not.
My interpretation of this regulation is that the adipose fin must be completely removed and replaced with a healed scar. My rational for this is that the regulation does not state that a healed scar must be in place of “the adipose fin or a portion of the adipose fin”.
Regards,
Stephen MacIver|Policy & Regulations Analyst|Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Branch|Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations|Phone (250) 387-9767|Email: stephen.maciver@gov.bc.ca
From: doonhamer252@shaw.ca [mailto:doonhamer252@shaw.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:47 PM
To: Conservation Officer Service ENV:EX
Subject: miss clipped steelhead
I noted a rather lengthy discussing on on of the web sites ( Fishing With Rod) regarding the legality of keeping a “mis-clipped fish.
Pictures are accompanying the story.
http://www.fishingwithrod.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29419.0
my feeling is that unless there is a completely missing adipose fin and a healed scar it is not a keeper, yet several anglers tell us that they are keeping them as the mis-clipped. Some are claiming CO officers have told them it was OK and in one case the CO was present as the fish came to hand (a miss-clip) and told the angler it was OK to kill it.
Please clarify this situation so as we may get back to our full contact angling on the Chilliwack\Vedder.
regards
George (Sandy) Vernon
and the other reply:
George Vernon
The intent of the clip fin is to allow the retention of hatchery fish. Sometimes at the hatchery the fin is not completely removed or is cut long . The fish, if it has the presence of a healed over scar is a hatchery fish and can be harvested.
Conservation Officer Paul McFadden/
Fraser Valley Zone/Conservation Officer Service/
Ministry of Environment/Box 3010, Cultus Lake, B.C.V2R 5H6/
Phone: 1-800-731-6373/Fax: 604-824-2319
So there you have it , A definitive answer ::) ??? ???
have at it!
-
lol Sandy, even the staff cannot agree within the ministry. ;)
While I personally think a mis-clipped is definitely a keeper and am very confident about the legality of my action, this issue may need to be revised by the ministry so the precise wordings are added into the regulations to avoid this situation. The same may also need to be done at DFO for hatchery-marked coho. I'll bring it up at the next SFAC meeting.
-
fully agree Rod, Almost needs to be down to single sentence and bullet points. You may keep a fish............. providing the ....fin is completly removed and a healed scar is in it's place.
My point in this whole debate is that: I would not take the chance that when the interpretation of the reg is left up to whomever. This not to question the qualifications or motives of that person, it simply means that the cost too both sides may be great or potentialy could be so should another differ in it's intention. How can we expect a CO to enforce the legislation if his own co-workers or managers differ on what they in field feel is or should be the correct interpretation?
Perhaps as you said a change in wording or a directive posted? but... lesser experienced anglers may make mistakes in identifiying what is a miss-clip and what is just a damaged fin. Very easy with hindsight to say what is what, but in the heat of the moment, especialy so for the inexperienced?
personaly I,d copy and print those replies, Ifin you intend to keep what is identified as missclip.... just in case.
-
"Chilliwack's questionable citizens?" LOL.... i think the questionable citizens you're referring to are busy breaking into cars and slashing tires along the vedder. :D
did you think I meant otherwise?
-
McFadden's response mirrors my own, that the purpose of clipping the fin is to allow anglers to retain the fish and so it really doesn't matter if 100% of the fin was removed (or only 80% because the hatchery staff did not double check to see if they got it all), the bottom line is they clipped it at the hatchery (we know this because the scar healed over) so why not keep it? Whereas, the analyst MacIver's response was pointing out the weakness in the language of the regulations that could cause individuals (fishers and COs) some trouble, so if you want to play it safe and avoid the possibility of having to defend your killing of a fish that had only part of its fin clipped off, then release it. However, you do not have to feel like you are being unethical if you retain a fish that came from a hatchery when it was purposefully (if unskillfully) clipped so you would be able to keep it.
-
McFadden's response mirrors my own, that the purpose of clipping the fin is to allow anglers to retain the fish and so it really doesn't matter if 100% of the fin was removed (or only 80% because the hatchery staff did not double check to see if they got it all), the bottom line is they clipped it at the hatchery (we know this because the scar healed over) so why not keep it? Whereas, the analyst MacIver's response was pointing out the weakness in the language of the regulations that could cause individuals (fishers and COs) some trouble, so if you want to play it safe and avoid the possibility of having to defend your killing of a fish that had only part of its fin clipped off, then release it. However, you do not have to feel like you are being unethical if you retain a fish that came from a hatchery when it was purposefully (if unskillfully) clipped so you would be able to keep it.
Well said Sandman.
-
--my argument is that it is a grey area thus a professional should not take the chance as they must not be perceived to be guilty.
--I think it would be a tough call for a guide if a client wanted to bonk it... they should recommend against bonking it... they should tell the client up front before a fish is caught what the call will be.
--Whenever there is discreation and advice ministry staff should be presenting to the public black and white... no portion of adipose and healed scar... as there is no wording or illustration in the regs that indicates a mis-clipped is OK to keep. Discreation does not mean YES it's OK
--Even though the concensus seems to be that mis-clipped feature is likely a hatchery fish and in most cases hatchery fish are intended to be kept within quota and season it does not make it OK unless the defenition is changed.
--Even adding a definition of mis-clipped... how MISed would it have to be 1/2, 1/4, elongated flap etc. would likely end up with similar resulting discussion.
-
Sandman, I think you've pointed out the glaring difference between the letter of the law and the actual intent. I had never remotely considered that intent would be a consideration in the application of the regs. They may as well put a caveat saying you that may come across what appears to be a malformed adipose fin, if so you can keep the fish as it probably is a mis-clip.
not fair to those who return the fish and worse so if it was a prize fish, not fair to those who have not had the benefit of a CO's input on what is and what is not. also not fair to those who were in the know, but are placed under a cloud by others ( me included )who thought they were in the right.
Unfortunately hard fought for budgets will have to pay for bureaucrats to sort this out, with definitive wording.
Mind Boggling
edit
and Skaha , I agree, I think this will have far wider implications than the Vedder fishery.
-
Thanks Sandy for taking the time to communicate with DFO...at least now members of this forum have a reference and record of a written request for information pertaining to this topic.
After looking into other jurisdictions, ie. Oregan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Washington State, it is noted that fishermen there also have had debates over miss clipped fish...in some cases the regulations were reworded so no confusion arose. "hatchery fish is the absence of the adipose fin in it's entirety".
other states have adopted the Adipose Fin Clip Recognition which refers to the process as a simple way to identify hatchery-reared fish...included in their regulation booklet is a diagram chart which show in detail what is deemed legal vs illegal and the different scenarios of acceptable miss clipped identification markings.
-
Sandman, I think you've pointed out the glaring difference between the letter of the law and the actual intent. I had never remotely considered that intent would be a consideration in the application of the regs. They may as well put a caveat saying you that may come across what appears to be a malformed adipose fin, if so you can keep the fish as it probably is a mis-clip.
not fair to those who return the fish and worse so if it was a prize fish, not fair to those who have not had the benefit of a CO's input on what is and what is not. also not fair to those who were in the know, but are placed under a cloud by others ( me included )who thought they were in the right.
Unfortunately hard fought for budgets will have to pay for bureaucrats to sort this out, with definitive wording.
Mind Boggling
edit
and Skaha , I agree, I think this will have far wider implications than the Vedder fishery.
Yes, I am definitely not advocating you kill the fish (especially if you are a guide) as there is no guarantee how the judge will rule it with the wording the way it stands. I personally would not mind you release it, so that I might catch it the next day. What I am saying is that you need not feel bad if you choose to kill it, as the partially clipped fin is still an indication that it originated in a hatchery and was put in the river for you to kill.
-
Yes, I am definitely not advocating you kill the fish (especially if you are a guide) as there is no guarantee how the judge will rule it with the wording the way it stands. I personally would not mind you release it, so that I might catch it the next day. What I am saying is that you need not feel bad if you choose to kill it, as the partially clipped fin is still an indication that it originated in a hatchery and was put in the river for you to kill.
--Same for me.. the intent was to mark hatchery fish.. thus something that looks like mis-clipped.. probably is hatchery. Just saying it is bad PR if as a professional in the business you are charged even if you win the case in court ( or doesn't even make it to court) there is a cloud of suspicion on your activities. The old if there's smoke there's fire... others have mentioned the perception of conflict.. that is fisheries or hatchery or volunteer staff feel they can identify with confidence a mis-clipped hatchery fish which is intended to be retained.
--Government workers especially cannot be perceived to benefit from their knowledge of the system.
-
The CO service will be attending show, so maybe someone going might pose this question to a CO, better yet maybe Rodney can show the CO his photo and get the word from the man either writing he ticket or saying nice fish.
-
The CO service will be attending show, so maybe someone going might pose this question to a CO, better yet maybe Rodney can show the CO his photo and get the word from the man either writing he ticket or saying nice fish.
Damn! I totally forgot to ask.
-
--What if the guys says no and puts the cuff on him with the evidence presented.
-
I'm told (OFR) that a clarification and a directive is going to be issued by Victoria in near future after the legal begals give their say. No preview of content was given.
Rod was in the right to keep the fish as he was told it was local practice to keep what appears to be a miss-clipped fish. I think the problem may be that others in other jurisdictions may have been charged and or convicted for the same.
-
Well guys, i am going to mention another scenario as presented by a CO i came across while fishing the river. He point out a "Missing Adipose Fin" is just that "Missing" not partially missing but entirely missing with a healed scar in place of the fin. He mentioned that in past years there were cases of fishermen cutting off the adipose fin with a knife in one quick swish and then releasing the fish back into the river. Now we all know these fish spawn and return again the next year, so what happens to the cut off adipose fin? It scars over CO states, now what happens if the entire fin was not removed with the swipe of the unethical fishers blade?
I would not be keeping any fish unless the entire adipose fin was missing and a healed scar was in its place. I cannot remember which post had the definition in about a hatchery fish. It reads a missing adipose fin and a healed scar in its place not two thirds or three quarters missing.
We need some major clarification on this so it is very clear for all to understand in black and white.. Just my humble opinion..
I have run into the odd over zealous CO while out fishing and i would not want to be the guy he makes an example of ! ::) ::)
Happy fishing guys
-
Well guys, i am going to mention another scenario as presented by a CO i came across while fishing the river. He point out a "Missing Adipose Fin" is just that "Missing" not partially missing but entirely missing with a healed scar in place of the fin. He mentioned that in past years there were cases of fishermen cutting off the adipose fin with a knife in one quick swish and then releasing the fish back into the river. Now we all know these fish spawn and return again the next year, so what happens to the cut off adipose fin? It scars over CO states, now what happens if the entire fin was not removed with the swipe of the unethical fishers blade?
sorry to tell you this, but you can't correlate an obvious criminal offense with an act of good faith or intent, based on the premise of "what could be" as a result of "what might have happened".
just like having a person illegally introduce a ferrel species of fish into a local body of water then have some unsuspecting fishermen catch it only to release it because he/she could not identify the fish...then having DFO charge them with the very same crime.
if it's black and white you're looking for then "a healed scar in place of an adipose fin" is exactly what it says...where a digit was once in place no longer exist, but in it's stead the markings or 'scar' showing where it was removed.
Judicial Interpretation
The Plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts.[1] The other two are the “mischief rule” and the “golden rule.”
The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise. In other words, the law is to be read word for word and should not divert from its ordinary meaning
if a scar is in existence where a fin should be then it is an identification that indicates a hatchery reared fish...."a scar in place"... doesn't say "in part" nor "in whole" or "in it's entirety".... just the existence of a scar to identify the fish.
-
No need to be sorry blade! I was out fishing on the weekend and ran across a CO so i thought i would ask. His response was the regs state a hatchery fish has its adipose fin missing and a healed scar in its place period. He states a fish with a partial adipose fin is not considered a hatchery fish and is considered wild and goes on to explain a deformed fin etc, it was quite a lecture. He stated exactly what the rules say in the regs and that is what he enforces. I suppose it depends on the CO , what kind of day he is having etc as to whether he writes a ticket or not.
It is clearly written in black and white, missing adipose and a healed scar. There is no in between written in the regs. So as i mentioned earlier there needs to be some work done on this and i think we all know which way its going to end up when the legal beagles get ahold of this, the rules will probably stay the same or even enhanced saying the whole fin must be removed and a healed scar in its place. It cant get any clearer than that.
you say this (if it's black and white you're looking for then "a healed scar in place of an adipose fin" is exactly what it says...where a digit was once in place no longer exist, but in it's stead the markings or 'scar' showing where it was removed. ???) We are talking about a partial fin in place and the balance a scar, you are sounding like the whole fin is missing here. I think a judge would say that if there was a partial fin there the fin is not missing it is partially missing just like cutting the tip of ones finger off.
Just wanted to share the CO'S opinon, not mine. So i would nt be bonking one, really how much risk is one willing to take for a fish its not worth it to me to lose all my gear and get a ticket.. ::)
-
don't get me wrong. i release more than i bonk. i'm merely stating what is written in the legislation and it's up to the individual to decide what's right for them.
hopefully in the near future, they will make amends with the wording of the regulations.
-
He states a fish with a partial adipose fin is not considered a hatchery fish and is considered wild and goes on to explain a deformed fin etc, it was quite a lecture. He stated exactly what the rules say in the regs and that is what he enforces. I suppose it depends on the CO , what kind of day he is having etc as to whether he writes a ticket or not.
deformity of the adipose fin? with all the report of miss clips... is this CO suggesting there's a genetic abnormality running through our steelhead stock? maybe this guy needs to talk with his colleagues because as stated on page 3 they can't seem to agree on the definition and interpretation of their own regulation.
-
No need to be sorry blade! I was out fishing on the weekend and ran across a CO so i thought i would ask. His response was the regs state a hatchery fish has its adipose fin missing and a healed scar in its place period. He states a fish with a partial adipose fin is not considered a hatchery fish and is considered wild and goes on to explain a deformed fin etc, it was quite a lecture. He stated exactly what the rules say in the regs and that is what he enforces. I suppose it depends on the CO , what kind of day he is having etc as to whether he writes a ticket or not.
It is clearly written in black and white, missing adipose and a healed scar. There is no in between written in the regs. So as i mentioned earlier there needs to be some work done on this and i think we all know which way its going to end up when the legal beagles get ahold of this, the rules will probably stay the same or even enhanced saying the whole fin must be removed and a healed scar in its place. It cant get any clearer than that.
you say this (if it's black and white you're looking for then "a healed scar in place of an adipose fin" is exactly what it says...where a digit was once in place no longer exist, but in it's stead the markings or 'scar' showing where it was removed. ???) We are talking about a partial fin in place and the balance a scar, you are sounding like the whole fin is missing here. I think a judge would say that if there was a partial fin there the fin is not missing it is partially missing just like cutting the tip of ones finger off.
Just wanted to share the CO'S opinon, not mine. So i would nt be bonking one, really how much risk is one willing to take for a fish its not worth it to me to lose all my gear and get a ticket.. ::)
The point blaydRnr was making regarding the "plain meaning" rule is that just as the regulations do not say a "partially removed fin" neither does it say an "entirely removed fin." It refers to the presence of a healed scar in the place of a fin. If you look at Rod's photo, even though the fin is not entirely removed, the part that is removed is replaced by a healed scar. To suggest that a partially removed fin with a healed scar (this is NOT a deformity, it is a scar), is not a hatchery fish is just trying to make an excuse to write a ticket (they get to write so few of them). Once again, I assert that the mis-clipped fish is indeed a hatchery fish and so you need not feel bad if you kill it (it was bred for you to do so), however, I would not suggest you do so, as you could find yourself having to defend your decision in front of a judge who may or may not agree with you. What we really need is someone to be charged and take it to the Supreme Court to have the precedent set. If you are ever charged, I would be happy to act as your defense council. My will to continue teaching is being drained these days.
-
and as I was told yesterday, "don't let me catch you with one" and if you are having difficulty understanding the written stuff ,there are a couple of diagrams to look at. I got the feeling this very nice fella ;D was tired of the question. I for one will be glad when a clarification comes forth, whatever it is.
-
@ Sandy i take it you had a chat with a CO recently? Seems he is getting a little tired of answering the same question .. and has a bit of an attitude. Yes what we need is clarification and i have a feeling there will be a small change that states the whole adipose must be removed and in its place a healed scar, thats where they will go with that one. Too bad we are getting these mixed messages from the agencyy that we rely on to enforce blatant violations, but i guess up until this time they feel what they have in writing is sufficient. I totally disagree with this and its too bad they can let their personal feelings and attitude influeance their enforcement decsions.
@ Sandman thanks for the clarification about the point blaydRnr was trying to make. I just wanted to share a less than pleasan experiance i had with a CO while i was out fishing and asked him the question about a mis clipped fin. He made me feel like i was asking a silly question even after i said i wanted some clarification on the regs and i was a bit of a bother by asking, he even said how do i know it is not a deformed fin??? We all know what a healed scar is. It sounds like Sandy had a similiar experiance, and maybe Rod is lucky he didnt run into the CO i was speaking to or the one Sandy spoke to.
We do need a clarification on this and we need our enforcement team to come together and make uniform decsions.. I myself personally think these are mis clipped hatchery fish and meant to be bonked if so desired but i wont be taking one should the opportunity arise thats for sure. Be just my luck i would run into the same CO that i spoke with.
and as I was told yesterday, "don't let me catch you with one" and if you are having difficulty understanding the written stuff ,there are a couple of diagrams to look at. I got the feeling this very nice fella ;D was tired of the question. I for one will be glad when a clarification comes forth, whatever it is.
-
Thank you Sandman for clarifying what i was trying to relay. My goal was not to promote Steelhead as a meat fishery, but to point out the legality of harvesting fish that is intended to be 'marked brood stock' as part of the hatchery program. Semantics should not play a role or be used to misconstrued the intent of identification where human error has proven time and time again to affect the outcome. Common sense obviously has not prevailed, that's why in some States they use the Adipose Recognition Program and in others, they simply reworded the regulation.
-
Nice to see a lengthy discussion on this as I had expected when I decided to post this. :) It gets people talking and identifying some key problems that may need to be looked at. I dispatched this fish with full confidence that we would not be fined, because we are fit and can outrun any CO... ;D No, actually it's because we've worked closely with the hatcheries and COs in this area, so we know what the expectations are when it comes to what are legal and illegal. Skaha does bring up a good point, and it's something I practice constantly. For this website's information to be credible, I have to make sure that the decisions I make are correct, or at least do our best anyway (occasionally we slip up ;D ). Overall I wanted to know what other anglers' decisions would have been and Sandy has gone further to obtain a few opinions from the ministry. IMO, even though we retained this fish, I am in full support of only allowing the retention of fish with the adipose fin removed completely to avoid similar scenarios.
-
@ Sandy i take it you had a chat with a CO recently? Seems he is getting a little tired of answering the same question .. and has a bit of an attitude. Yes what we need is clarification and i have a feeling there will be a small change that states the whole adipose must be removed and in its place a healed scar, that's where they will go with that one. Too bad we are getting these mixed messages from the agencyy that we rely on to enforce blatant violations, but i guess up until this time they feel what they have in writing is sufficient. I totally disagree with this and its too bad they can let their personal feelings and attitude influeance their enforcement decsions.
@ Sandman thanks for the clarification about the point blaydRnr was trying to make. I just wanted to share a less than pleasan experiance i had with a CO while i was out fishing and asked him the question about a mis clipped fin. He made me feel like i was asking a silly question even after i said i wanted some clarification on the regs and i was a bit of a bother by asking, he even said how do i know it is not a deformed fin??? We all know what a healed scar is. It sounds like Sandy had a similiar experiance, and maybe Rod is lucky he didnt run into the CO i was speaking to or the one Sandy spoke to.
We do need a clarification on this and we need our enforcement team to come together and make uniform decsions.. I myself personally think these are mis clipped hatchery fish and meant to be bonked if so desired but i wont be taking one should the opportunity arise thats for sure. Be just my luck i would run into the same CO that i spoke with.
and as I was told yesterday, "don't let me catch you with one" and if you are having difficulty understanding the written stuff ,there are a couple of diagrams to look at. I got the feeling this very nice fella ;D was tired of the question. I for one will be glad when a clarification comes forth, whatever it is.
100% agree with you Blacktail.
-
Nice to see a lengthy discussion on this as I had expected when I decided to post this. :) It gets people talking and identifying some key problems that may need to be looked at. I dispatched this fish with full confidence that we would not be fined, because we are fit and can outrun any CO... ;D No, actually it's because we've worked closely with the hatcheries and COs in this area, so we know what the expectations are when it comes to what are legal and illegal. Skaha does bring up a good point, and it's something I practice constantly. For this website's information to be credible, I have to make sure that the decisions I make are correct, or at least do our best anyway (occasionally we slip up ;D ). Overall I wanted to know what other anglers' decisions would have been and Sandy has gone further to obtain a few opinions from the ministry. IMO, even though we retained this fish, I am in full support of only allowing the retention of fish with the adipose fin removed completely to avoid similar scenarios.
I suspected that's what you were up to Rod. Remember you only need to outrun Nina , works for bears too.
I have heard rumours of this and kinda questioned the logic. I will say this my concern is and was that wild Steelhead may bonked due to missidentification as being mis-clipped but really accidentally or Adipose fins. What happens when this precedent is then taken to other fisheries and species?
We end up with valuable resources tied in a litigious system. All for the want of a very few an precise words : COMPLETLY MISSING and HEALED SCAR. This not open to interpretation and I am pretty sure that the regs of a decade or two back made this very point.
I blame no-one, as this to me appears to be a problem that evolved through a system that is broken, in that communication from the field is not being processed and acted upon by the Ministries adviser's in Victoria and or direction from Victoria is not being acted upon in the field. We hear much about simplification of the regs , but all this does is infact complicate everything.
I can tell you this, I got into a spot reglarty trouble years ago. I worked in the a particular area closely watched by ministry staff and police. I then moved to work in another area doing exactly the same job of with the same methodology, then I found out that what was being doing under guidance was not cosher. I knew what I was doing was questionable but trusted that the Authority at site knew better.
Almost cost me all I owned, but fortunately a "staffer" was able to reason things to a satisfying end, with a "you should have read the regs and act" cost me nothing but a wack of ego.
appologies for butcher job !
-
Nice to see a lengthy discussion on this as I had expected when I decided to post this. :) It gets people talking and identifying some key problems that may need to be looked at. I dispatched this fish with full confidence that we would not be fined, because we are fit and can outrun any CO... ;D No, actually it's because we've worked closely with the hatcheries and COs in this area, so we know what the expectations are when it comes to what are legal and illegal. Skaha does bring up a good point, and it's something I practice constantly. For this website's information to be credible, I have to make sure that the decisions I make are correct, or at least do our best anyway (occasionally we slip up ;D ). Overall I wanted to know what other anglers' decisions would have been and Sandy has gone further to obtain a few opinions from the ministry. IMO, even though we retained this fish, I am in full support of only allowing the retention of fish with the adipose fin removed completely to avoid similar scenarios.
I hope Rodney's comments would bring to rest this topic and prevent over eager fisherman from interfering with harvest of hatchery fish on Vedder River. Last month a fishing buddy of mine had to let go of a mis-clipped hatchery as one of the guys on the flow insisted that retention of a mis-clipped was illegal. I personally believe that nothing good can come from a hatchery (or suspected hatchery fish) breeding with a wild fish on the Vedder as it does have a large and stable population of wild fish present.
-
I hope Rodney's comments would bring to rest this topic and prevent over eager fisherman from interfering with harvest of hatchery fish on Vedder River. Last month a fishing buddy of mine had to let go of a mis-clipped hatchery as one of the guys on the flow insisted that retention of a mis-clipped was illegal. I personally believe that nothing good can come from a hatchery (or suspected hatchery fish) breeding with a wild fish on the Vedder as it does have a large and stable population of wild fish present.
How did you get that from Rod's comment or the rest of this thread?
I read that the word of the regulations is clear - the adipose must be MISSING with a healed scar - but that the interpretation of an individual CO may let it slide.
Several posters on this thread feel that they law does not apply to them because it is their OPINION that any marked adipose is a legal hatchery fish.
Also I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that there are true wild genes in any wild fish on the Vedder.
-
How did you get that from Rod's comment or the rest of this thread?
I read that the word of the regulations is clear - the adipose must be MISSING with a healed scar - but that the interpretation of an individual CO may let it slide.
Several posters on this thread feel that they law does not apply to them because it is their OPINION that any marked adipose is a legal hatchery fish.
Also I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that there are true wild genes in any wild fish on the Vedder.
Dave might be able to help us with that one. I understand that there is residual wild stock in the upper reaches, as for their purity I heard their was a DNA study done on some in the last several years. I have no idea how baselines for comparison would be established, unless there is genetic or other samples available that were taken before the establishment of the hatchery to campare with. I don't know ,maybe Dave or others in the know can answer.
-
How did you get that from Rod's comment or the rest of this thread?
Several posters on this thread feel that they law does not apply to them because it is their OPINION that any marked adipose is a legal hatchery fish.
Likewise with you, Where did you get the idea that anyone is suggesting the law does not apply to them? This thread is about clarity of the regulation and people's interpretation of what the officials themselves can't seem to agree on. Like you mentioned people are giving their opinions based on research and communications with the ministry. No one thus far has promoted or advocated doing anything that would suggest otherwise. Remember, there's a difference between giving an opinion and making out right accusations.
In response to this never ending debate, I too have emailed the Ministry of Fisheries to try and get some clarity on this topic... My little part in doing more than just talking.... Hopefully, I will receive some form of feedback because calling the DFO hotline is like trying to get through Shaw Cable.
-
Likewise with you, Where did you get the idea that anyone is suggesting the law does not apply to them? This thread is about clarity of the regulation and people's interpretation of what the officials themselves can't seem to agree on. Like you mentioned people are giving their opinions based on research and communications with the ministry. No one thus far has promoted or advocated doing anything that would suggest otherwise. Remember, there's a difference between giving an opinion and making out right accusations.
X2. Unless regulation is amended to make it more clear, both fisherman and COs will continue to make their own interpretations.
-
Dave might be able to help us with that one. I understand that there is residual wild stock in the upper reaches, as for their purity I heard their was a DNA study done on some in the last several years. I have no idea how baselines for comparison would be established, unless there is genetic or other samples available that were taken before the establishment of the hatchery to campare with. I don't know ,maybe Dave or others in the know can answer.
DNA samples are being taken regularly now but as you mention Sandy, there is scant baseline data to compare this to. No doubt there are old scale samples archived somewhere but if their storage was not optimal they may be useless for accurate comparisons.
Are there still pure wild steelhead in the Chilliwack? I don't think anyone can say for sure but I can tell you this - the fish we observe spawning during our enumerations certainly act as wild as any other salmonids we have seen.
-
I don't think anyone can say for sure but I can tell you this - the fish we observe spawning during our enumerations certainly act as wild as any other salmonids we have seen.
Were you expecting the hatchery fish to act all privileged?
"This place is filthy. I'm not spawning until you clean up that gravel" :P
-
I guess that's the kicker they were "acting". ::) Trying to fool people.
-
Were you expecting the hatchery fish to act all privileged?
"This place is filthy. I'm not spawning until you clean up that gravel" :P
Sorry, I suppose I should have been more explicit for a few readers – but I was on my way out fishing :) The people I count these fish with are good at it – between us we have about 100 years of experience. We all agreed the steelhead we counted last spring were more wary than other salmon we had experience with; perhaps because steelhead are not programmed to die after spawning they are indeed so; who knows? What we saw several times was fish able to detect us far sooner than we expected. Understand, they did not see us but still were able to detect something amiss. Most times, but not always adipose fins (especially in aggressive males) are visible. I have never observed an adipose clipped steelhead on these enumerations.
We watched them pair off, defend mates, chase off other males and smaller resident trout, and spawn.
That's what I meant by acting wild.
My personal opinion is if a Chilliwack River hatchery steelhead that is just one generation away from wild is spawning, as it should be, gametes from that union rearing, as they should be, that's just fine.
-
My personal opinion is if a Chilliwack River hatchery steelhead that is just one generation away from wild is spawning, as it should be, gametes from that union rearing, as they should be, that's just fine.
Sorry are you saying that a hatchery steelhead that spawns produces offspring that are "as good" as wild?
-
Well, you define good ;D
-
? Are you saying that only wild fish (missing adipose) spawn and that the offspring of two hatchery fish behave as wild?
bigblue's comment was that we should kill misclips to prevent the hatchery fish from reproducing and harming the wild genetic pool.
For the number of years that stocking has occurred simple statistics would say that there are no true wild fish left in the river.
-
For the number of years that stocking has occurred simple statistics would say that there are no true wild fish left in the river.
I don't argue that statement.
Of course hatchery fish spawn (they are the ones with a missing adipose btw ;))
And yeah, I do believe if 2 hatchery fish spawn in the wild their offspring will behave as wild fish. If they don't they will die, just as some pure wild (but you aren't sure they exist?) would. Survival of the fittest and which fish is missed by the merganser.
-
I don't argue that statement.
Of course hatchery fish spawn (they are the ones with a missing adipose btw ;))
And yeah, I do believe if 2 hatchery fish spawn in the wild their offspring will behave as wild fish. If they don't they will die, just as some pure wild (but you aren't sure they exist?) would. Survival of the fittest and which fish is missed by the merganser.
kinda like; how long does it take to be considered a local.
Then there is the issues with residualisation or a wild male doing the dirty with a hatchery fish. In my question I was meaning is there a section of river above the hatchery that was left to nature-ish?
Do some Hatchery fish by-pass the hatchery and head on up river to spawn?
Dave has hatchery stock been transplanted above foley creek ?
my questions are in no way meant to cause argument just simple education and polite debate.
BTW Dave ,watching sheep doing he wild thing is a way warmer or there is also cable TV, but what ever does it for you, but glad you share the knowledge gained. :)
-
BTW Dave ,watching sheep doing he wild thing is a way warmer or there is also cable TV, but what ever does it for you, but glad you share the knowledge gained. :)
Sorry Sandy, I'm not into sheep :D but have made a life I love from fish.
Hatchery parr are released below the Vedder Crossing bridge. This release strategy does a reasonably good job of keeping "wild" and hatchery marked fish apart while rearing. In the perfect world for steelhead that existed about 200 years ago, we wouldn't be discussing this but this 2012.
The C-V is an hour away from 2M people. Considering that, and the fact this system still functions as well as it does, speaks well of something … perhaps the closed to angling area, and it's protective environment for the fish that make it that far; most definitely the wise decision to use only adipose intact fish for hatchery broodstock … but I think what keeps adipose intact fish returning to this, the most heavily fished steelhead river in BC, is the off channel habitat available in the upper river along with the ongoing nutrient replacement program administered by the BCCF.
-
Next question....would the hatchery accept these so called mis-clipped/deformed adipose steelhead into their brood stock program on the basis that they still have their fin partially intact? because according to some CO's they are adamant about them being considered wild.
Just thought I would take it to a different angle of approach.
-
Next question....would the hatchery accept these so called mis-clipped/deformed adipose steelhead into their brood stock program on the basis that they still have their fin partially intact? because according to some CO's they are adamant about them being considered wild.
Just thought I would take it to a different angle of approach.
Give them a call at 604-858-7227 and ask.
-
Next question....would the hatchery accept these so called mis-clipped/deformed adipose steelhead into their brood stock program on the basis that they still have their fin partially intact? because according to some CO's they are adamant about them being considered wild.
Just thought I would take it to a different angle of approach.
I believe a miss-clip is classified as "half wild" so it wouldn't qualify for the "all wild" hatchery brood program..... ;)
-
What the hatchery does with its brood stock really has nothing to do with this discussion.
I would hope that they filter the unclipped fish that they use - i.e. a deformed fish would not be used even if it successfully reached the river.
Thus it is perfectly valid for them to filter a misclip even if it is considered "wild" for angler retention purposes.
What we should take from this is that the hatchery should be more careful in clipping so we don't have this problem.
Perhaps all of us could volunteer to help in this process. I'm certainly willing.
-
What the hatchery does with its brood stock really has nothing to do with this discussion.
well considering the Vedder/Chilliwack is open to retention of hatchery marked fish, it has everything to do with them because it all starts with them...if it was a non retention fishery then this whole discussion would all be irrelevant...wouldn't it?
-
What we should take from this is that the hatchery should be more careful in clipping so we don't have this problem.
Perhaps all of us could volunteer to help in this process. I'm certainly willing.
I agree to an extent, but because they rely on much needed volunteer work, i would be hard pressed to criticize nor magnify the flaws in their methods. I would rather see an adaptation of the Adipose Recognition Program which is now in place in some States.
-
Sorry Sandy, I'm not into sheep :D but have made a life I love from fish.
Hatchery parr are released below the Vedder Crossing bridge. This release strategy does a reasonably good job of keeping "wild" and hatchery marked fish apart while rearing. In the perfect world for steelhead that existed about 200 years ago, we wouldn't be discussing this but this 2012.
The C-V is an hour away from 2M people. Considering that, and the fact this system still functions as well as it does, speaks well of something … perhaps the closed to angling area, and it's protective environment for the fish that make it that far; most definitely the wise decision to use only adipose intact fish for hatchery broodstock … but I think what keeps adipose intact fish returning to this, the most heavily fished steelhead river in BC, is the off channel habitat available in the upper river along with the ongoing nutrient replacement program administered by the BCCF.
agin Dave , very much appreciated. And I get it!
-
I agree to an extent, but because they rely on much needed volunteer work, i would be hard pressed to criticize nor magnify the flaws in their methods. I would rather see an adaptation of the Adipose Recognition Program which is now in place in some States.
were there perhaps an inordinate amount of miss-clipped parr released in past cycles, or are the numbers "parr" for the course? Sorry ;D
-
I agree to an extent, but because they rely on much needed volunteer work, i would be hard pressed to criticize nor magnify the flaws in their methods. I would rather see an adaptation of the Adipose Recognition Program which is now in place in some States.
Can you provide some more information on the Adipose Recognition Program?
BC could consider adopting an already working policy.
My web search came up empty.
-
racking my brains out trying to remember which fishery website i came across with this specific program, but here's another discussion forum that mentions and posts the chart (which some are debating). the chart itself is legit because i've come across it many times before and i believe it's origins were from the ODFW booklet from the 1980's.
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=114552
-
racking my brains out trying to remember which fishery website i came across with this specific program, but here's another discussion forum that mentions and posts the chart (which some are debating). the chart itself is legit because i've come across it many times before and i believe it's origins were from the ODFW booklet from the 1980's.
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=114552
It pretty much mirrors this thread. I think we have agreed that a fish like Rod's is a misclip but that even in Oregon you could still be cited for it as a wild fish.
Here is the chart for those not clicking through:
(http://gallery.flybc.ca/albums/Pinks/misclip.jpg)
Note that only (A) is considered legal in Oregon.
-
With that you are absolutely correct. I do believe at one point our Regulation Booklet also had this chart as a guideline for identifying a hatchery marked fish (using diagram A as the norm). I remember as a young teen seeing something like this in the late 70's / early 80's. Maybe someone who was as an adult at that time can recall.
Thanks for posting the chart...for some stupid reason i couldn't post it through the reply page...this is the reason I don't post photos under the Report Section. ::)
-
If you can click onto the discussion forum which was dated back in 2006, you'll come across a gentleman cited for a mis-clip salmon (photo included) who was getting ready to go to court, but before he had a chance, the trooper who cited him decided to revoke his citation. Why?.... probably because the department was advised they would lose in court and could face a civil law suit for fining the gentleman and making him pay bail to get out of jail.
-
It pretty much mirrors this thread. I think we have agreed that a fish like Rod's is a misclip but that even in Oregon you could still be cited for it as a wild fish.
Here is the chart for those not clicking through:
(http://gallery.flybc.ca/albums/Pinks/misclip.jpg)
Note that only (A) is considered legal in Oregon.
For the record, I personally wouldn't keep anything other than diagram A and B....I would even think twice over diagram 'C' (only because of the controversy revolving this issue).
If I were to give any advice... Make damn well sure, you have a case of high probability on your side.
-
how frustrating. >:(
after several emails to DFO Canada and several request (by them) for more information on specifics like region, city, river system, etc. and a detailed account of the nature of the debate and confusion, they directed me to contact our local jurisdiction for clarification...WTF??? I already told them of my contacts, but it seems they don't want to take accountability...It's like trying to get a dog to stop chasing it's tail!
Bulk of the Email....
Thank you for your email dated 08 March 2012, requesting information on fishing regulations relating to hatchery marked steelhead in the Pacific region.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Recreational Fishing - Pacific Region program provides information on recreational fishing regulations, seasons and area openings and closures, including closures due to red tides and paralytic shellfish poisoning in British Columbia and the Yukon.
In addition, the program administers tidal waters sport fishing licences and salmon conservation stamps for a network of vendors, who sell them to the public.
The program also provides information on Rockfish Conservation Areas.
The program issues freshwater sport fishing licences for the Yukon.
Please contact the office for more information:
Recreational Fishing - Pacific Region
Douglas Jung Building, Suite 200
401 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 3S4
Tel.: 604-664-9250 (Richmond) 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Pacific Time
Tel.: 1-800-663-1660 Information on recreational licensing only 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 8:30 a.m. - 4 p.m. Wednesday 12 p.m. - 1 p.m. Closed
Tel.: 1-866-431-3474 Information on openings and closures 24/7 Recorded Information
Fax: 604-666-1847 (Vancouver)
E-mail: opscentre@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca Information on recreational fishing
E-mail: pflu@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca Information on recreational licensing only
Information on the Recreational Fishing - Pacific Region program is available at the following URL:
www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/recfish/default_e.htm
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require additional information.
Sincerely,
General inquiries / Renseignements généraux
613-993-0999
facsimile / télécopieur: 613-990-1866
TTY/ATS: 613-941-6517
info@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Fisheries and Oceans Canada | 200 Kent Street Station 13228 Ottawa ON K1A 0E6
Pêches et Océans Canada | 200 rue Kent Station 13228 Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0E6
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
-
LOL...what a waste of time...They wouldn't even respond to a request I made for their best opinion and advice dealing with this matter.
What they sent me was a crock...nothing more than a directory page.
-
LOL...what a waste of time...They wouldn't even respond to a request I made for their best opinion and advice dealing with this matter.
What they sent me was a crock...nothing more than a directory page.
ditto!
-
DNA samples are being taken regularly now but as you mention Sandy, there is scant baseline data to compare this to. No doubt there are old scale samples archived somewhere but if their storage was not optimal they may be useless for accurate comparisons.
Are there still pure wild steelhead in the Chilliwack? I don't think anyone can say for sure but I can tell you this - the fish we observe spawning during our enumerations certainly act as wild as any other salmonids we have seen.
Apologies for bouncing this thread around but the paper at the following link is relevant to issues brought up by Dave and others ... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00198.x/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00198.x/full)