Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rodney on May 24, 2018, 02:15:49 PM
-
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?pg=view_notice&DOC_ID=208099&ID=all
FN0404-Fraser River Spring 5(2) and Summer 5(2) Chinook - Abundance Update - May 23, 2018
This notice provides information on the current in-season abundance of Fraser River Spring 5-2 and Summer 5-2 Chinook.
The model used to predict the return of Fraser River Spring 5-2 and Summer 5-2 Chinook uses data from the standard Chinook net fished by the Albion Test fishery and does not incorporate catch from the multi-panel net (which is currently fished on alternate days). The standard Chinook net is an 8 inch (approx. 20 cm) mesh. Catch and effort data are cumulated by week, starting the first full week in May, to provide the input to the model.
In 2018, the Albion Chinook test fishery began operating on April 22. The total catch for the period of this update (May 6 to May 19) was one (1) Chinook. Based on this input, the current predicted return to the mouth of the Fraser for the Fraser River Spring 5-2 and Summer 5-2 Chinook aggregates ranges from 21,000 to 54,000 Chinook (median value of 33,850).
The next scheduled update is on May 29 and the final in-season update is planned for June 18.
Given conservation concerns for Fraser River Chinook, the Department does not plan to adjust management actions for Fraser River Spring and Summer 5-2 Chinook fisheries in-season and additional conservation actions are planned to achieve the Department's conservation objective to reduce exploitation by 25%-35% on Fraser Chinook stocks for the 2018 season. Further information on additional management actions will be communicated by separate fishery notices.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Contact your local DFO office
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/contact/regions/pacific-pacifique-eng.html
Fisheries & Oceans Operations Center - FN0404
Sent May 24, 2018 at 1307
-
"Given conservation concerns for Fraser River Chinook, the Department does not plan to adjust management actions for Fraser River Spring and Summer 5-2 Chinook fisheries in-season and additional conservation actions are planned to achieve the Department's conservation objective to reduce exploitation by 25%-35% on Fraser Chinook stocks for the 2018 season."
So what does this mean? If sockeye is open and spring is closed, and we don't get to fish neither?
-
Of course the high water this year makes getting an accurate count unreliable. Saying that I am not saying the Chinook runs are not in trouble.
-
Of course the high water this year makes getting an accurate count unreliable. Saying that I am not saying the Chinook runs are not in trouble.
I just happened to be looking at the Albion test numbers yesterday before this report came out. I noticed the last time the count was this low (1) as of this date was 2013, which is the brood year of these returning fish, right? (assuming they are 5(1) and 5(2) fish). Anyone remember how 2013 turned out for Fraser springs?
-
Between this, court decisions, and the resident killer whales we I highly doubt we will be able to fish salmon on the Fraser ever again. Or at least in decades. The BC and Canadian wildlife recovery plan is simply reduce opportunity; not increase stocks. It is truly a race to bottom, and a few on here will get their wish.
-
The 25%-35% reduction is with respect to the
Spring 4/2 Nicola
Summer 4/1 Lower Shuswap
Fall 4/1 Harrison
-
DFO’s recover method is to “hope and pray” some come back. One just needs to look at the interior Fraser coho recovery plan, which has been to watch nothing happen for 20 years now. Manage fishermen, not fish is all they do.
-
The BC and Canadian wildlife recovery plan is simply reduce opportunity; not increase stocks.
Exactly what other proven means to increase fish numbers are available?
Initiatives to increase the numbers of fish in the Fraser have a 40 year history and mostly failed. While some hatchery programs, most notably the Chilliwack have produced artificial high returns (fall white springs) where previously there was none. I can't think of a single initiative that produced a positive, repeatable long term result.
Most other interior stocks are not doing much better than springs and coho and the future for them is uncertain. There is every reason for pessimism as opposed to optimism.
A large challenge is to increase the number of adult fish now; SRKWs can't go on a starvation diet for 4 or 5 years.
The only approach that has worked is to reduce harvest; commercial netting aimed at Springs was largely eliminated back in the 70s as was the troll fishery in the Strait. That helped bring back numbers in the late 80s and 90s. Since then harvest both in river and off shore has likely increased. Yet all sectors have developed expectations that match a era of high ocean productivity that has been gone for 20+ years and is unlikely to return in anyone's lifetime if at all.
If one stops to consider the rise of in river water temperatures, low water, drought, extreme fire seasons, it's clear the freshwater environment isn't doing any better. Yet so many anglers seem to think all those factors have remained static and the only thing that has changed is FN harvest allocations and the federal management regime.
-
Wow RalphH,
Very well said, Hard to argue with anything you said.
If your theory is correct about reduced harvest we should see more salmon hit our rivers this fall and that certainly is not a bad thing should they make it to spawn.
-
And yet out of all the 'studies' done on salmon populations, no one talks about 'historical' seal populations on the entire coast from Alaska to California.
There are more seals today then ever...and not just a few more....10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands more up and down the coasts than there used to be. I'm talking all types of seals.
Common sense knows how much salmon they eat...They gorge on them by the millions.
In bumper years, I can remember catching sockeye at Island 22 and Pegleg with a seal bite in the crotch with all the roe sucked out. Yes....seals love to gorge on salmon roe and leave the rest of the fish when they are plentiful. Seen it many times with my own eyes.
I honestly believe that if we had real studies on the effects of overpopulation of seals...we would have some concrete answers. Of course seals are not the only problem with reductions in salmon populations....but they are a major contributor to it...that is a fact.
At the end of the day its all irrelevant anyways because the bleeding hearts are never going to allow a seal cull....ever.
-
Maybe if they "managed" ALL fishermen things may change?
-
I honestly believe that if we had real studies on the effects of overpopulation of seals...we would have some concrete answers. Of course seals are not the only problem with reductions in salmon populations....but they are a major contributor to it...that is a fact.
have been taking place for some years and studies have been released over the last 5 years or so. yes seals eat a lot of salmon particularly sizable smolts like steelhead, spring and coho released from hatcheries. But seals eat other fish that compete with salmon so it's hard to know if our now sizable seal population is a positive, negative or neutral thing.
At the end of the day its all irrelevant anyways because the bleeding hearts are never going to allow a seal cull....ever.
Basically I agree; politically unpalatable. May not be cost effective either plus a large cull may take too long to see a big reduction in a matter of a few years.
-
In the ocean, salmon face lacking of foods due to the warming of the ocean which deprives plankton from the food chain. Then their prime food source of herring is depleted by the greedy herring roe fishery. They face predation from tuna and mackerel brought up by the warm 'blob' of water and the ever increasing number of seals which humans somehow find the justification to spare it from any harvest or cull. Then if they survive all that and when they mature and return, they face the huge havesting fleets in the open seas, and the myriads of nets (legal or illegal) along the river systems. No wonder they can't survive or thrive as stock against all these negatives. That is why the Americans are releasing a lot more fish to compensate for the increase rate of mortality in the ocean and we are doing the opposite. I still remember the wonder years of Expo 86 when they stocked and released a lot more fish a few years before Expo to generate some phenomenal fishing especially for the Cap. But in this day and age of reducing stocking, the Cap is just a ghost town now. The river eco system hasn't changed that much. So it is the lack of political will to keep up with the reality of the high mortality rate in the ocean by stocking sufficient number of fish to maintain good fishing. Honestly, does DFO and the government head honchos really care about sport fishing that much? The answer is obvious.
-
...the Americans are releasing a lot more fish to compensate for the increase rate of mortality in the ocean and we are doing the opposite.
this is false. In fact the Americans in Washington are releasing fewer fish. In fact the # of chinook about 50% since 1990. Steelhead has dropped by about 20%. Coho releases have dropped by 70%. Chum production has dropped by about 40%. Only sockeye production has increased.
In Oregon total salmon & steelhead releases in 2017 were pretty much the same as in 2007 yet total coho returns in 2017 were about 20,000 vs 50,000 in 2007, chinook returns were about the same at 50,000 and steelhead returns in 2017 were 25,000 vs 56,000 in 2007.
In many ways US salmon programs have adopted the same approach as what is used here in Canada; wild fish are the priority, hatchery production is limited to appropriate situations and hatchery fish are marked.
see:
http://hatcheryreform.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Hatchery-reform-in-Washington-state-for-WA-BC-AGM-3-16-18.pdf
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/hatchery/docs/2017_Fish_Propagtion_Annual_Report.pdf
-
this is false. In fact the Americans in Washington are releasing fewer fish. In fact the # of chinook about 50% since 1990. Steelhead has dropped by about 20%. Coho releases have dropped by 70%. Chum production has dropped by about 40%. Only sockeye production has increased.
In Oregon total salmon & steelhead releases in 2017 were pretty much the same as in 2007 yet total coho returns in 2017 were about 20,000 vs 50,000 in 2007, chinook returns were about the same at 50,000 and steelhead returns in 2017 were 25,000 vs 56,000 in 2007.
In many ways US salmon programs have adopted the same approach as what is used here in Canada; wild fish are the priority, hatchery production is limited to appropriate situations and hatchery fish are marked.
see:
http://hatcheryreform.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Hatchery-reform-in-Washington-state-for-WA-BC-AGM-3-16-18.pdf
https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/hatchery/docs/2017_Fish_Propagtion_Annual_Report.pdf
In January of this year their was a proposition in the Washington State Legislature to increase hatchery Chinook production by 10 to 20 million going forward. The idea was brought forward by Washington F&W, has the support of the Governor and so far all parties. Now this is being done to address the express concerns over the Killer Whale populations but it will surely have an affect on Spring Stocks as well.
As for your earlier post about reducing fishing opportunities being the only proven means of population recovery, I would beg to differ. Opportunities have been continually slashed for the last 25 years. Populations have never continued to decline. Even the DFO's own scientists stated that the reducing fishing opportunities, while having some impact, would be the least effective of all the possible options.
You asked what other proven means to increase fish numbers are available? The answer is easy! HABITAT!!! There are several smaller systems across BC that have come from being void stretches of water in the 80s to remarkable little salmon streams in their own right today. What do almost all of these systems have in common? The habitat has been restored. Spawning grounds were created. Riparian zones were replanted. Culverts were daylighted.
But huge problems still exist. The number of seals that exist today is not abnormally high compared to historical numbers; the problem is rather,the lack of cover. The estuaries used to be filled with drift wood, huge logs, sediment. In other words, places for the juvenile fish to hide. Today they are as barren as the Sahara. Can anyone tell me one beach in the lower mainland that has a healthy population of seaweed/eel grass/kelp? I remember refusing to go into tide pools as a kid 30 years ago because they were so dense with it was stuggle. Heck, I even remember taking my exgf on a date to White Rock and walking through the eel grass picking up crabs (that would of been only about 15 years ago). Go to White Rock now; nothing but sand as far as the eye can see! This massive loss of eel grass has also cost had a huge impact on herring population. Combined with the excessive kelp harvest there is simply not enough spawning areas for the herring numbers to rebound.
Now, many of these concerns are being addressed. But not by the Federal Government or the DFO but concerned citizens. In the DFO and the Minster's announcement to protect the SRKWs they said they were committing 9.5 million towards 8 projects across BC, or about 1.2 million per project. I would hazard a guess that many of the smaller, community driven groups would each spend close to the equivalent each year annually** for years before any real change is seen and the government hopes that 8 projects done once will stem the tide? I am at a loss. People say that fisherman expect to much... I say we know what the rivers and oceans are capable of producing and expect those that make the decisions should focus on achieving those number; not taking away ours!
**I am basing this on personal experience and opinion. For example, if the society I am volunteer had to pay my hourly wage that would probably work out to close to $25,000+ a year. Now, there are about 12 members who are as active (or more so than I am). Add in dozens of other volunteers who spend less, but equally important, hours helping out and labour alone would be over half a million annually. Add in operating costs, incurred expenses, or any supplies that may be donated that the government would have to purchase and the 1.2 million annually is not far off.
-
Amen Tylsie,
As to hatchery fish production in Washington - the counting of hatchery production isn't so straightforward. Some hatcheries are desperately working to supplement wild stocks as best they can - they don't mark these as hatchery fish because they don't want them available for harvest. Some stocks like the South Fork of the Nooksack have been restored from the brink of extinction by using closed system hatchery production, where the fish are raised for a generation entirely in freshwater, just to increase the amount of fertilized eggs for the next generation. The South Fork fish are still struggling due to habitat loss and the fact that the South Fork is not glacier fed, so it is much more susceptible to dangerous temperature spikes in summers like the last couple we had.
As to seal-hiding habitat - historical records show that both the Nooksack and Skagit rivers in their unaltered states had huge log jams at their mouths - in the case of the Skagit it was more than 2 miles long. These were destroyed to make the rivers navigable, and the channels were dredged and consolidated from a fan down to a single channel. This lower river habitat gave the Skagit historically huge Chinook runs from the Spring to the Summer, with something like 7 separate stocks returning to various tributaries and sites in the mainstem to spawn. The state has just started to acknowledge the importance of this habitat has and begun a lower river restoration project on the Skagit.
Yes, in the short term, ocean conditions have sucked. They have sucked broadly and universally, so much so that Alaska systems with pristine systems have had disappointing returns as well. But at least for now, ocean conditions are still cyclical, and I believe things will get better for years to come and we will be surprised with the returns in some years to come.
As to Sockeye for this year, there is going to be a very strong demand for a commercial opening this year, as the first Alaska sockeye returns have been way below forecast and they have already had to cancel some openings. Let's hope the Pacific Salmon Commission doesn't get pressured into pretending the returns are there just to have them be disastrously over-harvested by all users.
-
Interesting & good stuff Tylsie. Just to clarify I didn't say reduced fishing opportunities I said reduced harvest. I also pointed out that Fraser Chinook stocks recovered after harvest was reduced only to decline recently.
Whatever is proposed in Washington for the future is irrelevant to the fact that hatchery production there has declined in the last 30 years or so.
******************
Also wanted to comment that habitat improvements are expensive, require many years if not decades for large scale results ad may yield little or no return if ocean survival rates stay low or decline further.
Most evidence is that ocean survival rates will not recover to what was seen in the late 70s and into the 80s but will remain several times lower than those rates as they have for some years.
-
Interesting & good stuff Tylsie. Just to clarify I didn't say reduced fishing opportunities I said reduced harvest. I also pointed out that Fraser Chinook stocks recovered after harvest was reduced only to decline recently.
Whatever is proposed in Washington for the future is irrelevant to the fact that hatchery production there has declined in the last 30 years or so.
******************
Also wanted to comment that habitat improvements are expensive, require many years if not decades for large scale results ad may yield little or no return if ocean survival rates stay low or decline further.
Most evidence is that ocean survival rates will not recover to what was seen in the late 70s and into the 80s but will remain several times lower than those rates as they have for some years.
Thanks Ralph, I was probably a bit... blunt... shall we say; I am just tired of all the doom and gloom. I, unfortunately, agree. We will never see the return numbers in the 70s into the 80s. But I believe we could get close, say early 90s? Those were fun years to. The only reason we won't, and you are absolutely right, is that it is expensive.
But not just in a initial monetary outlay for projects such as eel grass planting, or estuary restoration. We must consider what and who would be affected if the government got serious about salmon. Take a look at who owns a significant portion of the kelp and Spawn-on-Kelp licenses. A distinct issue, but a one that will have play a large role going forward and be difficult to resolve. Then there is the rise in the drift wood market. Even remote estuaries are being harvested now. Is the government willing to destroy an entire industry for the sake of salmon? The list goes on.
Then there is the overarching question! What are salmon worth?
-
Also wanted to comment that habitat improvements are expensive, require many years if not decades for large scale results ad may yield little or no return if ocean survival rates stay low or decline further.
I agree it's unrealistic to expect out government to spend Billions of dollars to restore degraded habitat. It would take billions at this point,
However it's far cheaper to create regulation to protect the current habitat we do have. Human development is the biggest concern and large green ways created for streams and rivers would help. This is where our provence severely falls down and thanks to the Harper government the situation got very bad. An economic recession resulted in having the prov libs and the fed conservatives sell out our environment.
-
And meanwhile, nets are already popping up on the Fraser River (believe it or not)
Just below the Agassiz Rosedale bridge, on the east side, just at the end of the small island where the current is slower. They have been there before. They were pulling up fishes earlier this morning.
This is not the first time, same thing last year, and I remain anxious to see if DFO will bother after being advised of the ongoing situation. So discouraging, considering all the issues around this fishery. I am not an expert, but would it not be the spawning spring coming up river right now.
-
there is not money in saving habitat. there is money in developing readily accessible land.
-
And meanwhile, nets are already popping up on the Fraser River (believe it or not)
Just below the Agassiz Rosedale bridge, on the east side, just at the end of the small island where the current is slower. They have been there before. They were pulling up fishes earlier this morning.
This is not the first time, same thing last year, and I remain anxious to see if DFO will bother after being advised of the ongoing situation. So discouraging, considering all the issues around this fishery. I am not an expert, but would it not be the spawning spring coming up river right now.
Lots of fn openings since the middle of april. I’ll post the links in a bit. Most of you will be very surprised at what is considered acceptable numbers of harvested Chinook. We would all be even more surprised if we knew the actual numbers killed. Not the reported numbers
-
Lots of fn openings since the middle of april. I’ll post the links in a bit. Most of you will be very surprised at what is considered acceptable numbers of harvested Chinook. We would all be even more surprised if we knew the actual numbers killed. Not the reported numbers
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/HTMLs/CommunalOpeningTimes.html
-
I am not sure where to look and search, but maybe someone can tell me;
Has there been FN openings for retention of salmon on the non-tidal Fraser River??????????????
And if so, well I am surprised that the DFO was not aware of this yesterday when I called in for the suspicious net activity on the river.
-
I am not sure where to look and search, but maybe someone can tell me;
Has there been FN openings for retention of salmon on the non-tidal Fraser River??????????????
And if so, well I am surprised that the DFO was not aware of this yesterday when I called in for the suspicious net activity on the river.
Yes.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/HTMLs/CommunalOpeningTimes_Previous.html
-
I am not sure where to look and search, but maybe someone can tell me;
Has there been FN openings for retention of salmon on the non-tidal Fraser River??????????????
And if so, well I am surprised that the DFO was not aware of this yesterday when I called in for the suspicious net activity on the river.
already over 20 openings....
-
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/HTMLs/CommunalOpeningTimes_Previous.html
Archived openings since feb
-
catch reports:
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/PDFs/ChinookKeptCatch.pdf
-
catch reports:
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/PDFs/ChinookKeptCatch.pdf
Oh boy, you just went and stired the pot, I’m getting my popcorn for this
-
I didn't stir anything. Anyone who thinks FN fisheries aren't already underway are living in La La land.
FN fisheries are an unavoidable fact.
-
Apparently FN people have been banned from grocery stores which is why they can fish for stocks that are nearing extinction.
-
I didn't stir anything. Anyone who thinks FN fisheries aren't already underway are living in La La land.
FN fisheries are an unavoidable fact.
I was more referring to the authenticity of the reported catch numbers.
-
I have heard it straight from their mouths that they are told to/do lie about their catch reports so they get more openings. Their is little truth in what is reported
-
'whose mouths'?
If you compare the numbers - 156 vs 1 fish caught in the Albion test fishery, the numbers seem reasonably sound. Same if you look at last years chinook vs sockeye vs previous years.
You think they count every fish caught accurately in the commercial fishery? Sport anglers don't even report. All this FN lie or don't report smacks of enormous hypocrisy.
-
The fn told me personally.... RalphH when was the last time you have even fished the Fraser for any species or spent any time on the river. You sound like a washed upped bored old man with nothing better to do then harp on fishing forums
-
And FYI I’m 100% against the management of the commercial fishery as well
-
The fn told me personally.... RalphH when was the last time you have even fished the Fraser for any species or spent any time on the river. You sound like a washed upped bored old man with nothing better to do then harp on fishing forums
Ha Ha! - I fish it regularly. I can see out my kitchen window. What are doing spending so much time bitching on fishing forums... aren't you one to talk.
The FN? One guy? does he fish the Fraser?
Cheers AA - enjoy your day.
-
Okay let just assume the reported number is accurate, In 2014 they caught 10 times as much over the same period.
That would mean that this years run so beyond critically low and their should be no fishing period for these endangered Chinook.
How is a run ever going to recover? being constantly netted at low numbers? same goes for the Thompson Steel head. This netting needs to stop.
-
Ha Ha! - I fish it regularly. I can see out my kitchen window. What are doing spending so much time bitching on fishing forums... aren't you one to talk.
The FN? One guy? does he fish the Fraser?
Cheers AA - enjoy your day.
Because it bothers me reading this ignorant garbage about why the runs in the Fraser are failing. There’s literally people posting on this thread unaware any netting is going on at all. I actually have personal relationships with many fn and the story is all the same. If you really feel the nets inside the Fraser aren’t a major reason for the decline and you actually fish it regularily then your opinion is an anomaly. The cupcakes that goes down also doesn’t go down in Maple Ridge... For those wondering what happens with a lot of these early fish a big part of the market is sturgeon guides buying them for bait.
-
WMY the lower Fraser 2014 catch by the end of may in 2014 was about 2.5 times this year's
Is the current FN harvest a hazard to Chinook numbers? Maybe - but that's opinion and not terribly informed, except by moral panic.
Honestly I don't know...I'd greatly prefer that there was no netting except perhaps for 1st salmon ceremonies. Anyway this is the political and cultural situation we have made. The self serving and widely bigoted sport fishing community is as much to blame as any in my opinion.
I think most people who do know the Fraser fishery know netting takes place on the spring chinook run. It's no big secret.
-
How is the sports fishing community as much to blame. Even with a may-October opening we would struggle take even .5% of the returning fish. From a numbers what you say makes no sense. There’s a lot of factors. There was probably more fish in 2014. However this years high water would be a major factor as well as the changing river. The channel pushes more fish towards the derby reach side now meaning less fish in the path of the Albion.
-
Thank you, Rodney, for the listing of FN fisheries.
that is a lot of openings. Must be hard with the high water and increased flow.
Now, I am not sure why not be totally familiar with this fishery, that makes me a citizen of la la land. Weird.
-
Well I was referring to something else. Maybe read what I wrote again.
As far your 0.5% estimate, out to lunch.
Creel survey estimates are available on DFO if you know where to look. The Fraser has 2 (remaining) major chinook natural spawning populations; the late summer Shuswap and the fall Harrison run. When the river is open most angler effort gets concentrated on the summer and late summer component. Exploitation rates per the creel surveys typically runs several thousand to over 10,000 on a run that probably is not much more than 100 to 120k which means in river exploitation may run up to 10%. That doesn't include tidal fisheries that run longer and cover a much wider area.
Cheers
-
I’m talking non tidal fishing only. Your out to lunch if you think sports guys can harvest over 10 000 Chinook in a summer. Majority of the Chinook caught were from scale bar and peg and those bars are shadows of what they used to be. If it was actually bar fishing only you would see even less.
-
Well I was referring to something else. Maybe read what I wrote again.
As far your 0.5% estimate, out to lunch.
Creel survey estimates are available on DFO if you know where to look. The Fraser has 2 (remaining) major chinook natural spawning populations; the late summer Shuswap and the fall Harrison run. When the river is open most angler effort gets concentrated on the summer and late summer component. Exploitation rates per the creel surveys typically runs several thousand to over 10,000 on a run that probably is not much more than 100 to 120k which means in river exploitation may run up to 10%. That doesn't include tidal fisheries that run longer and cover a much wider area.
Cheers
Ralph, isn't there a population spawning in the lower Fraser?
-
Fraser River estimated salmon catches between 1984 - 2010:
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/pac/fraser/docs/rec/creelsurveyPDFs/FraserSummary.pdf
-
I’m talking non tidal fishing only. Your out to lunch if you think sports guys can harvest over 10 000 Chinook in a summer. Majority of the Chinook caught were from scale bar and peg and those bars are shadows of what they used to be. If it was actually bar fishing only you would see even less.
Me too. See Rod's link which believe supports what I said.
*****************
back 10 years or so, tagged chinook smolts were released from the Spius Hatchery (Nicola Watershed) and estimates of exploitation rates (harvest) were based on retrieved tags. In river (Fraser and Thompson) sport estimates were 17% 2007/07 (total for all 49%), 3% for 2008 (total 34%) 20.5% 2009 (total 53.7%)
link: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/fraser/docs/abor-autoc/2011FrasRvrChkInformDoc.pdf pgs 22- 25
-
I’m talking non tidal fishing only. Your out to lunch if you think sports guys can harvest over 10 000 Chinook in a summer. Majority of the Chinook caught were from scale bar and peg and those bars are shadows of what they used to be. If it was actually bar fishing only you would see even less.
X2. Those catch surveys were only estimates. For those of us actually fishing it at the major bars, we just don't see how the sport harvest is that high. Peg and Scale are really shadows of the old days. Assuming the season is open for 30 days (which has hardly been), each day the bars will have to produce 330 fish together to reach that number. Hello? That would be nice if we could have that type of result on the bars. If there are 5 major productive bars, each will need to product 50+ fish per day consistently. That is pure pipedream made up by those who didn't spend the time actually fishing at the bars.
-
Well I gotta admit that I don't have the stomach to fish places like Peg Leg or the Scale Bar. I'd also say that it doesn't take much power of observation to see that given the increased use of boats and fishing directly from them, there is a great deal of fishing activity other than those 2 places. There are also other bars that attract large number of anglers. You just don't go there.
Estimates, the creel survey data certainly are but at least they are based on some verifiable data and observation.The 0.5% convenient guess that was offered is anything but an estimate or verifiable. The Spius creek data in fact suggest in river angling can take a much higher % of fish than the creel survey data indicates.
Restricting the entire consideration to in river angling is unrealistic and self -serving as well. Ultimately conservation demands consideration of all means of exploitation as DFO does. In river anglers always face that conundrum; last in line and for the most part lowest generator of economic value.
-
X2. Those catch surveys were only estimates. For those of us actually fishing it at the major bars, we just don't see how the sport harvest is that high. Peg and Scale are really shadows of the old days. Assuming the season is open for 30 days (which has hardly been), each day the bars will have to produce 330 fish together to reach that number. Hello? That would be nice if we could have that type of result on the bars. If there are 5 major productive bars, each will need to product 50+ fish per day consistently. That is pure pipedream made up by those who didn't spend the time actually fishing at the bars.
Finally thank you. The group of regular lower mainland fisherman is a tight knit group who all communicate regularily. So when the Fraser is open you typically know someone in most of the productive bars. Besides old school scale bar it’s VERY rare to hear of more then a half dozen Chinook killed in a day at any given spot. It’s a lot more common to hear of nothing from most places. Over 90% of places on the Fraser now are very unproductive for Chinook fishing. It’s just the way it is. If you took bottom bouncing out of the equation it would cut the numbers down even further