Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gooey]

Just jumping in from the other thread so I dont know if this has been talked about above...

I wanted to point out that one HUGE difference in the stamp and vedder is the possible migration paths.  Stamp fish enter and exit their natal stream on the WC of Vancouver Island and head north.  I would guess that lots of the stocks from the fraser head up Georgia Straight ie the east coast of vancouver island...right past all the fish farms.  

While I don't know the migration path of Georgia basin steelhead I did read that the harrison sockeye stocks head down around the bottom of the island and then up the WCVI where as other Fraser run sockey go up the inside (ECVI).  Now correct me if I'm wrong but wasnt the harrison sockeye run quite healthy this year compared to the other fraser run stocks which were what 2 mil on and expected 12mil?  the only differnece is the water ways paralleling the island (and the fishfarms on the inside passage).  Interested to know how streams on VI feeding into Georgia Straight are doing?

 

[Rodney]

Now correct me if I'm wrong but wasnt the harrison sockeye run quite healthy this year compared to the other fraser run stocks which were what 2 mil on and expected 12mil?  the only differnece is the water ways paralleling the island (and the fishfarms on the inside passage).

The difference in returns of Mid/Upper Fraser and Harrison sockeye salmon is due to the fact that their juveniles enter the ocean in different years, therefore mortality rates of juveniles are different due to the difference in amount of feed available each each year.

[rides bike to work]

Due to the resent reaction  to my post on the other thread I wonder , is the opinion that the bait ban on island rivers is a sham, are the fishing reports from these rivers a sham?It seems to me even though the release of more steel head smolts on the vedder has not resulted in more returns .Member of the chilliwack river action commitee have even started to consider studies researching the return numbers  of steel head due to the lack of official numbers over the years  by our fisheries managers .Obviously the stocking is not working ,mabey because of ocean conditions ,mabey because of catching limits and enforcement of steel head smolts, mabey other resason that could be resolved by bait bans that have been succesful on the island ,I am open to any intelligent ideas not insults to my post  lets work towards a better future.

[Steelhawk]

Rodney I have a lot of respect for you and what you do with this forum, and you have been a gracious host. I hope I have been nice to people here except those who bashed me unprovoked. I can understand we are two different fishermen. I respect your choices of your fishing inclination and I hope you respect mine. What I post below is a self defense of my position and if I offend you, I apologize. Any how, this is my last post on your forum and it wouldn't even matter if I get banned like Cammer, for this is your private domain afterall. There is no point to post here with a mod biased against me. After a few years posting here first as Funfish and now Steelhawk, I hope I have helped the newer fishermen in some way like many others here try to do. I hope I have been generous in sharing my little fishing knowledge. It has been a fun ride here. I hope I have not been a bad influence to other members. Thanks for the experience.

To me, posters here are not perfect. The multiple rants? You must be kidding. I was only casually mentioning the poor fishing on the Vedder in views of some dire reports here compared to those fishing the Stamp. I don't think I started those threads. I only threw in one post or two and if others jump on the point it was beyond my control. I only started this thread in this Fishing Issue section, as it is where it can be debated better. If it is considered unethical and selfish by you, obviously there is a lot of hidden resentment about me as a member here. I don't need some one to give me a grade on my intelligence or ethics.  So it is time to say good bye. It is not worth all the squabble.

I try to avoid criticizing other members in my posts and I cheer others with their posted catch.  I hope I have been more known as a peace maker and not a propagander spreader. I am not the most eloquent writer as I didn't learn English until 12. All my posts on Sockeyes were about fighting back the bashing of bb fiishermen and standing up to bfers who think we bbers are threatening the fish stock. And I speak up when I see the government failing its dutiies. This is a plural country where one can differ from others in their view of the government. If this were not so, why we have so many political parties with different points of views about the same issue. They argue to no ends in various levels of government daily. Regardless of what you say, steelhead stocking has gradually reduced over the years. The Stamp is now 1/4 of its highest #, and the Vedder about 1/2. You believe that this cut back was done for science. I believe that this was because we sport fishermen are the least vocal and politically inactive group to fight back budget cut. If science was the reason, why during the EXPO 86 years stockings were consistently high. That to me was  because there was political will to use fishing as a way to promote tourism at the time. If stocking more fish would hurt fish diversity without doubt, why didn't scientists come out fighting this madness So I hope we can respectfully disagree on this.

I may not be a well informed and connected guy like you on fishing stats and regulations, but I believe I have much more actual experiences on fishing Vedder steelhead than you, and you don't even lower yourself to floss sockeye as we have on the sockeye bars. It is easy to criticize when it is not your favourite fishing. How do you criticize the heart and desire of Vedder steelheaders when you seldom participate? Likewise, I cannot criticize your intent in regards to spinning for bull trouts in Richmond. If you think that wishing catching a few more steelhead per trip or per season is a sin, then do we question your joy when you had a great day with the bulls and do we criticize you when you return against the next day wishing to repeat the same success. All fishermen like actions, yourself included. While your favoured fishing is mostly nearby your home, for catching our prize, most Vedder steelheaders need to drive long and spend $$$ on gas for an experience to connect with their target. What is wrong  for them wishing to have better fishing if they have been skunked times after times on exhausting days of fishing, each of which can push the body to the limit of 8 to 10 hours, and mostly in unfriendly elements all winter through. Whoever thinking of 20+ day in the Vedder must be insane. It is only used to illustrate the point comparing with some American rivers. The reality is if they can have one hook up per day or every few trips it is already rewarding. Multiple hookups are only for dreamers nowadays. But it is not a sin for any fishermen to hope for this to happen, you included.

Your implication that these steelheaders are some greedy fishermen pushing their agenda of personal satisfaction while risking the steelhead resource is based on what? If the government can prove that the Vedder wild fish will be in trouble if we go back to former level of stocking, most steelheaders would not mind. Have you done some interviews on Vedder steelheaders with enough sample to say that we are a ruthless, selfish bunch? So isn't your attack on  us based on your speculation too? I can tell you most conscientious steelheaders don't need a lecture about their attitude towards steelheading. Most know it is a hard battle for one bite in days and accept that.  So far. Most including me appreciate the chance just to go to the outdoor in the thick of winter. Most would not do anything to risk hurting the wide stock. What have I done about fighting the government policy which may hurt the wild steelhead resource? This is a thread going on in fishbc where I related what I have done:
                       http://fishbcforum.com/index.php?showtopic=56873&st=0

As any good steelheaders will do, you chat with others about the fishing resullt to gauge where the hot actions are, and very often the dismal pictures emerged times after times. What is wrong to expect better fishing? Do you have to pound on them to death for such desire and give them the weight of the world that such desire may mean dire consequence to wild steelhead?  If you don't mind me to be personal about your steelhead fishing, how often you have been there for the winter steelheads? How often you put in 8 to 10 hours per day bush walking the vedder just for one bite? This is not a fishing your are inclined to participate so it is easy to stand a distance to criticize those wishing to have better fishing. If bait ban is imposed on the Vedder, I am positive that most short floaters with bait would lobby the government with whatever reasons they can come up with. It is just the nature of man that when his favourite thing is threatened, he will do his best to fight or question it. So why bash Vedder steelheaders who think fishing should be enhanced better?

I hope I have not offended you. It is not my intent. I only try to defend my position and I apologize my past postings have been so offensive to you. I hope you have the big heart to not delete this post of mine, so others can understand my position. Good bye and thanks for running this great forum without much appreciation.

By the way, isn't the big show in town something? Proud to be a Canadian. Go Canada Go.

[Rodney]

is the opinion that the bait ban on island rivers is a sham, are the fishing reports from these rivers a sham?

Which riverS on the island are reported to be productive beside the Stamp River, where bait is allowed in part of the system? Which reports are you referring to?

For comparison on stock status and trend, here is a list of rivers. The first is the Chilliwack River, the rest are all rivers from the east coast of Vancouver Island. The information is obtained from the Greater Georgia Basin Steelhead Recovery Plan (you can read the more detailed information by clicking on the region 1 and 2 maps in the main body of the website). Please point out which rivers seem to be doing better than the Chilliwack River.

River	Stock trend	Stock status
Chilliwack (Vedder) River	Stable	Routine Management
Keogh River	Relatively Stable at a Low Level	Extreme / Conservation Concern
Cluxewe River	In Decline	Conservation Concern
Nimpkish River	Relatively stable at a low level	Extreme / Conservation Concern
Kokish River	In Decline	Special Concern
Tsitika River	Stable at low level	Special Concern
Eve River	Likely Declining	Conservation Concern
Salmon River	Stable with some recovery	Routine Management
Amor de Cosmos Creek	Stable at a Low Level	Conservation Concern
Campbell River	In Decline	Extreme Conservation Concern
Quinsam River	In Decline	Conservation Concern
Oyster River	In Decline	Extreme Conservation Concern
Black Creek	In Decline	Extreme Conservation Concern
Puntledge River	In Decline	Extreme Conservation Concern
Trent and Tsable River	In Decline	Extreme Conservation Concern (Extirpated?)
Big Qualicum River	Relatively Stable at a Low Level	Extreme / Conservation Concern
Little Qualicum River	Relatively Stable at a Low Level	Extreme / Conservation Concern
Englishman River	Relatively Stable at a Low Level	Extreme / Conservation Concern
Nanaimo River	Relatively Stable at a Low Level	Extreme / Conservation Concern
Chemainus River	Relatively Stable at a Low Level	Extreme / Conservation Concern
Cowichan River	Relatively Stable at Moderate Abundance	Conservation Concern
Koksilah River	Relatively Stable at a low level	Conservation Concern

It seems to me even though the release of more steel head smolts on the vedder has not resulted in more returns... Obviously the stocking is not working ,mabey because of ocean conditions...

Which part of stocking is not exactly working? The objective is not to increase the steelhead population of the Chilliwack River watershed, the Ministry of Environment does not wish to see cross spawning between hatchery and wild strains. Is hatchery steelhead return on a downward trend? Not really, catch results have varied from year to year. While this year appears to be poor, anglers have reported excellent results in some recent years. Has catch per unit effort gone down for some anglers? Most likely, as it should not be a surprise when angling effort has increased while stocking amount has not.

What are the objectives of a bait ban in a hatchery augmented steelhead fishery?

Here is a temporal comparison of catch and effort in the Chilliwack River: http://www.bccf.com/steelhead/pdf/chilliwack-sha-2002.pdf

Here is a temporal comparison of catch and effort in the Squamish River, where bait ban is implemented: http://www.bccf.com/steelhead/pdf/squamish-sha-2002.pdf

Catch rates from both systems are neither increasing or decreasing. These data are up to 2002 and those who travel to the Squamish River to target steelhead such as myself would tell you that the solitude is very enjoyable but the catch numbers are dismal in recent years.

Stock size aside, stocks of all of these systems in the Greater Georgia Basin has one similarity. They are either stable or declining. Is bait ban a management measure that could effectively recover a stock?

What exactly is the "problem" with the Chilliwack River? It remains one of the most productive streams in this province. It also receives the highest fishing pressure in the province, but what does one expect when it is the most productive hatchery steelhead stream that has open access to over 2 million residents in Metro Vancouver?

If a bait ban is implemented while the stock remains augmented by the hatchery, then I can assure you that fishing pressure would remain the same and the usage of questionable fishing methods would be on the rise.

If a bait ban is implemented and hatchery augmentation ceases, then you would create a quality fishery where angling pressure would sharply decline because the fishery becomes catch and release only. At the same time, expect a sharp decline in the sale of steelhead conservation surcharge. Lower Mainland anglers would lose another fishery that provides them the opportunity to occasionally harvest a fresh fish or two to consume in the winter. Meanwhile, would the Chilliwack River wild steelhead population benefit? Perhaps, if capture rate drops, but without creating more suitable habitat for spawning and juvenile rearing (results of projects that are funded by steelhead conservation surcharge), then the stock status may just be stable.

I don't see myself as an advocate of bait usage because personally I at times enjoy fishing in rivers where a bait ban, catch and release are implemented because the lack of fishing pressure is very enjoyable. I also enjoy participating in the Chilliwack River fishery at times even though it is highly competitive and most of the time I end up empty handed due to a lack of experience and time.

This type of discussion is good, but one should realize that regardless how hard anglers try, there will always be some bias when they are making suggestions on how a fishery should be managed. This entire thread demonstrates that, including mine. This is why we have resource managers, who work with data, not assumptions.

[Rodney]

.

Like I said earlier, my intent is not to judge yours or others' intelligence or ethics. My only problem with what has been posted is the argument is based on speculations rather than concrete facts, which are used to paint a false picture on how fisheries are managed in this province.

If my concern on the forum is loss of readership and membership, then I'd just be quiet, edit and delete when it is necessary. Instead I will challenge one's opinion when I strongly believe it is wrong. If one chooses to leave when being challenged, that's fine. On a discussion forum where face to face interaction is absence, there's nothing personal. The information is presented, whether one chooses to believe one or the other, is beyond my control. As a moderator, I'm not here to sway opinions, but occasionally I want to participate too.

Cheers.

[VAGAbond]

The chart shows ~15000 steelhead per year from the Chilliwack.  Wow.  I would have guessed more like 30/day for 120 day season resulting in <4000 as a maximum.

Rodney, your information on the VI rivers situation is very interesting. I often want this sort of information and can seldom find it.   Could you post similar information on some of the other VI rivers:  Caycuse, Nitinat, Quatse, Gold,Tsolum, Nahmint, Muchalat, Heber?

[Rodney]

The chart shows ~15000 steelhead per year from the Chilliwack.  Wow.  I would have guessed more like 30/day for 120 day season resulting in <4000 as a maximum.

Rodney, your information on the VI rivers situation is very interesting. I often want this sort of information and can seldom find it.   Could you post similar information on some of the other VI rivers:  Caycuse, Nitinat, Quatse, Gold,Tsolum, Nahmint, Muchalat, Heber?

I don't have much information on rivers other than the ones I listed above since I just retrieved them from that website. I'm sure it is available somewhere. I receive emails on a regular basis from various organizations that wish to have their projects posted, so it is a bit easier for me to obtain information without spending too much time searching for them.

Recently I was at the Ministry of Environment conference and one of the challenges that was recognized is the lack of information available to the general public. While there is plenty of work being done to address anglers' concerns, most are not being made aware of. This could be due to a variety of reasons. There lacks services which would deliver such information to anglers. There is a will to change that. One of the initiatives is to possibly work with private online resources such as this one as a channel where information can be delivered or questions could be answered. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, particularly in Region 2, is already quite involved in making information available on here due to my involvement on the SFAC and few other projects. My hope is that the same relationship would be developed with MoE in the years to come so we are not just promoting angling interest, but educated angling interest.

[Dave]

Hi Bederko.  Earlier in this thread you asked for a few ideas on how to improve the C-V steelhead fishery experience.
Thankyou for this opportunity. 
First thing we as anglers, environmentalists, and concerned citizens need to decide is what we want for this system – more hatchery fish or a quality, less crowded catch and release fishery.  IMO, the cheapest ( a concept so important to governments nowadays) and arguabably, the best for wild steelhead would be to stop all hatchery steelhead enhancement.  Make the C-V strictly catch and release for all RBT; adipose clipped adults, adipose clipped juveniles included.  Let all present and future returning hatchery fish spawn naturally.  Reinvest the estimated cost if raising the yearly juvenile output (100k) into a long term stock monitoring program and habitat restoration.
 
Yeah, in my dreams.

OK, here’s another thought.  Present Chilliwack hatchery/MOE protocols call for the collection of 35 M and 35F, raise them for one year, then release them, smolting or not, in the lower river, so as not to compete with wild steelhead juveniles.  With normal holding mortalties, the total  number of wild Chilliwack steelhead collected for the broodstock program is closer to 75- 80 fish .    When sexually mature the females are airspawned (air is forced into the body cavity, expressing the eggs) allowing the fish to be released alive later.  This sounds well and good but unfortunately, air spawning invariably leaves 500-800 eggs behind in the body cavity.  This could be 20% or more eggs, per fish, that are not available for rearing.  Using a round number of 500 eggs left behind per female (35 x 500) shows app 17,500 eggs not available to this program.  With a fecundity of app 3000-3500 eggs, this is equivalent to 5 wild steelhead.  I propose in future all female steelhead be killed and spawned using standard hatchery procedures.  The increased production from these “extra” eggs would easily offset the number of returning prespawned fish.  And it would not cost a penny to implement. 

[liketofish]

Too bad to lose a senior member like steelhawk. He has shared his insights on steelhead fishing quite generously over the years. Oh well, if the language on both side can be tuned down, it may not come to this.

If the Vedder is closed to hatchery stocking, perhaps the Stave should be enhanced to replace it. Otherwise, perhaps we should ban steelhead fishing all togehter to preserve the wild stock. We can all save spending on the steelhead stamp. We can also stay home all winter wondering what to do. 

[bederko]

Hey Dave,

I know this topic has flown around the "long table" many times over the years, I thought it would be interesting to see what the guys on here might think.   I'd be all for your pipe dream of C&R on the Vedder, it would mean alot less pressure for those of us who live near the river... Would this mean that the river would open above Slesse? Somehow I don't think it will happen soon though.  I would think there would be more chance of hatchery production being stopped on some of the less used rivers in the region. 

As for the air spawning... I believe the fecundity on Chilliwack fish is closer to 4500 eggs. I know I've airspawned over 6000 eggs out of a single Chilliwack doe.  To my knowledge, air spawning is mainly to allow for the release of these fish.  This is  a public perception thing and it will be interesting to see what some of the members here would think about 35 wild females being killed at spawning rather than 25 or so being released afterwards (there are some fish that are not in good enough shape to release post-spawn, I'm guessing it's near 10). 

My question, and I think this is yours too, is should we be continually taking 75-80 fish out of this river when we really have not been monitoring the population size?  As you know, currently the only method of evaluating the run size is with the "angler survey" which leaves much room for error.  Maybe we would be better off to cut the numbers down to 25 pairs and lethally spawn every egg out of each female.  This would leave 10 more does in the river to spawn naturally.  I don't know the answer but I do enjoy hearing opinions on the subject.

What do you think about increasing hatchery production on the Stave to redirect some pressure over that way?  It is much closer to the population centers.  The broodstock is not hard to collect and the rearing really shouldn't cost an arm and a leg...

[Rodney]

We talked about the Stave River at that meeting a few weeks ago when you went fishing for cutties instead of showing up. Raising hatchery production would certainly ease off angling pressure on the C-V system, but most likely not too significantly? Shore access keeps the demand down I think, however It'd be great for anglers who have access to a boat.

Secondly, does supply on the other systems currently exceed demand? The amount of pressure that the C-V system receives dwarfs all the other systems, possibly because people simply do not know what hatchery productions are done at the other systems. We continuously mention the broodstock target for the C-V system, but most are probably not aware of how many pairs of fish are spawned for other systems, or how many hatchery raised juveniles are released. This information should be more readily available to anglers, who then have a list of angling options. I still have the raw video footages of the steelhead production that we did last year, still need to be edited, hopefully released this spring. Some of this information is available in those footages.

With the C-V system, there really should be more work done on yearly spawner and juvenile sampling so we can establish some kind of estimate and trend over time. Without that information, it seems to be irresponsible to have a static target number for broodstock collection. Perhaps we are collecting too many wilds during a low returning year, perhaps we could be collecting more during a banner year. The broodstock target should perhaps be a percentage of the expected return of wild population.

What is the post-spawn mortality of those that are released after air-spawn? Some concrete data for that would be nice too by telemetry study, tagging, etc. If the post-spawn mortality is up there, it may just be better to collect less spawners and dead spawn them instead as mentioned above.

The Seymour River is probably the most sampled river in the last decade when it comes to its winter and summer runs in the Lower Mainland. This is due to the Seymour Salmonid Society, which has a strong volunteer base. I've always wondered why such volunteer-based projects do not exist on the C-V system, considering the amount of  usage that it receives. It's never too late to start, as long as fish are stil coming back.

[Dave]

Good replies Bederko and Rod.  It seems that increasing Stave steelhead numbers is a no brainer as this system is comprised of hatchery fish and is managed for that purpose.  Rod, you make a valid point of attempting to quantify numbers of retuning adults, including previously spawned fish.  If I recall, very few studies have been done on this but what I do remember is systems closer to the ocean have higher return rates of repeat spawners.
I am basing my comments on the quality of these fish after airspawning .... these fish have been held in the dark (they are held in small continers to stop them injuring themselves) for up to 3 months.  My guess is this lack of photoperiod causes physiological damage, and is also perhaps the reason males tend to produce less than optimum amounts of milt.  Also, because they are alive when spawned there is a much greater chance of injury to these fish when being handled. 
Another advantage to killing the females is the carcasses could be reintroduced into selected areas in the watershed. 
I hope other forum members offer their opinions on this subject.

[Jonny 5]

I read some of this thread and a bit of the last one, and decided to wade in (no pun intended) with a bit of science-y mumbo jumbo... And keep in mind this is total speculation on my part as I don't know much about the vedder river or the steelhead that live there; to start, a couple of points from other peoples posts:

1. There are not as many fish caught now as there were in the past. (for arguments sake, lets assume this is correct)

2. There are approximately the same number of fish released every year (and that is a lot of fish)

3. Fishing pressure on the vedder is huge. (no question about that)

These three points reminded me of a study that showed high angling pressure in lakes results in significantly altered fish behavior, such as angler avoidance, in a short period of time (like decades, not millennium).  I couldn't find the paper I was looking for, but this one is close enough and also pretty interesting IMO:

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/umrsmas/00074977/v70n2/s17.pdf?expires=1266379161&id=55058344&titleid=10983&accname=Guest+User&checksum=0C757F63B919FDD4B2B2C1007E34AED7

I can't imagine a reason why vedder river steelhead would be exempt from evolution, as there is ample pressure on biters and it would therefore be massively beneficial for the spawning fish to avoid getting caught by not biting...  Of course if you don't believe in evolution, then it could just be gods will.  

Also for comparison sake, it might be interesting to know a bit more on how american rivers get their brood fish.  Are they wild caught or are they raised?  If they are raised, it could be argued that the "avoidance" is not there and likely never will.

---

As an interesting side note, when I did a spell check on this email, I was surprised to see that "vedder" is not in the dictionary.  

[troutbreath]

Vedder over here is defined as "arguing over fish" No need for a dictionary. First nation defintion of course.