Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified  (Read 27294 times)

liketofish

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 702
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2010, 04:58:41 PM »

  And now that I'm here, when the DFO were doing creel surveys on the scales bar in Hope early in the years of the onset of bottom bouncing it was adding up to 1000 springs per week, so maybe one man with one rod doesn't make a difference but guaranteed 3000 men with 3000 rods on evdry hot bar in the river will deffinately make a difference. I'm just as avid a fisherman as anybody but there comes a time to take a step back for conservation purposes.
  If the natives are allowed to fish so be it, I cannot do anything about that but there is no denying that shutting down the commercial and sport fishery will allow a greater escapement of springs to the spawning beds and that has to happen before we kill every fish in the river.

There goes the bouncing debates again. Hmmm, 1000 fish per week? Perhaps the bar rods should go there for a week and see how many they can catch & witness the pitiful scenes of skunked bottom bouncers most of the time. I have bounced for decade plus there and never seen that kind of number. That would mean 150 fish per day at the scale. That is just a silly joke. 3000 men? Where do we find the parking with the pitiful parking space at the Scale?  :D ;D
Logged

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13944
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2010, 11:32:45 AM »

Good news as the chinook run in the Fraser at this time seems to be doing OK, as a friend watched one drift this morning here in Chilliwack, he counted 7 chinooks with one close to 30 pounds.  ;D

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13944
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2010, 11:36:14 AM »

 Chinook test fishery is not too shabby either, note 25 chinook on July 2.


Jun 22 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0
Jun 22 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1
Jun 23 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
Jun 23 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
Jun 24 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0
Jun 24 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Jun 25 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Jun 25 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0
Jun 26 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0
Jun 26 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1
Jun 27 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
Jun 27 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0
Jun 28 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0
Jun 28 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0
Jun 29 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
Jun 29 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Jun 30 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Jun 30 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
Jul 01 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1
Jul 01 2010 1 2 Albion 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0
Jul 02 2010 1 1 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 Jul 02 2010 1 2 Albion 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
2010 Vessel 1 Totals  1 0 0 0 0 251 0 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
2010 Totals  1 0 0 0 0 251 0 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Totals for selected date range (Jun 3 2010 to Jul 3 2010):  1 0 0 0 0 251 0 8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13944
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2010, 11:45:23 AM »

Totals up from last 5 years.

2005 218, 2006 251, 207 53 but they did not start until June 18, 2008 125, 209 264 and this year 304.

rainman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #34 on: July 03, 2010, 02:51:04 PM »

The DFO is protecting the early sockeye runs.

All the flossers catch and release sockeye and the adams, stewart and the other early sockeye rivers runs get hammered by the betty flossers going after chinook.
the 'nook runs are fine.
that is the justification for closure of the entire river for salmon.
the red chinook will still be there
Logged

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13944
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #35 on: July 03, 2010, 03:12:48 PM »

The DFO is protecting the early sockeye runs.

All the flossers catch and release sockeye and the adams, stewart and the other early sockeye rivers runs get hammered by the betty flossers going after chinook.
the 'nook runs are fine.
that is the justification for closure of the entire river for salmon.
the red chinook will still be there
Not to get in the flossing debate as we have covered it well over many seasons but you are correct, I know from my sources the BB take a lot of chinook, especially more than when we just barfished and fished the creek mouths. The turbid waters have a big effect on bar fishers as it limits success. Of course the incidental catch of low returns of sockeye also causes some concern as well to FOC.

No easy answer on this but fishing methods will determine fishing opportunities on the Fraser River in the future, we have seen that the last while.

If people would just curtail BB until and if they open sockeye things would be for the better but I unfortunately I do not see that happening. I guess the good part is more fish will get to the spawning grounds as we sit on the bank for a longer period of time that we did at one time. Personally I do not like doing this more than the rest of this forum  but conservation of all fish stocks should be important to all of us or should be.


Darn I have hijacked this thread after all, maybe Rod should lock it now. :o ???

 Maybe I will be banned from the forum. :-\
« Last Edit: July 03, 2010, 03:14:21 PM by chris gadsden »
Logged

chris gadsden

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13944
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #36 on: July 03, 2010, 03:29:05 PM »

I re-post this article below that I wrote to the Vancouver Sun but they did not run it but the Chilliwack Progress did. This is why are fish stocks in most cases are in trouble in my view. As Rafe Mair said in his recent book. He says "What seems like relatively minor abuses of our environment by government and others in time these relatively minor abuses add up in time to a catastrophe" He also writes our oceans did not become close to fishless because of minor environmental sins but by the accumulations of many. I cover some of them them in my letter such as fish farms, loss of habitat, gravel mining, IPP's, overfishing by all sectors, loss of funding by government fisheries ministries, that causes improper stock assessment on smolt migration and returning adults to their natal streams etc..

Re article by Scott Simpson, 'Poor ocean survival blamed for  returns', Vancouver Sun, August 15,

In the article by Scott Simpson "Poor ocean survival blamed for returns', it is true that Mother Nature has had a hand in the poor return of Sockeye salmon to the Fraser River and their natal streams to date in 2009.  I, however  believe Nature is not the only cause. I now believe all fishing sectors, Commercial, First Nations and Recreational anglers have had effect as well as the Federal and Provincial Governments which have not helped matters now and in the past.

Commercial fishing at one time had many many openings in the Fraser River from the Fraser River Estuary right up to Mission. Were too many of the previous generations of Sockeye allowed to be harvested then, to sustain the runs?
Some First Nations fishers fish illegally during closed times with set and drifts nets often under darkness and some people think there has not been proper enumeration of fish taken then and during their sanctioned openings. Fish are often sold outside economic opportunities during food, social and ceremonial only fisheries.

Recreational anglers last week were asked by FOC to fish selectively and were asked not to Bottom Bounce (flossing) where the interception of sockeye happens regularly. Many anglers complied, but others, as of Saturday, night did not. This caused the river from the Agassiz Rosedale Bridge to the Hope Bridge to be closed by FOC to salmon fishing for the recreational sector as of midnight Sunday night, August16.

The Provincial and Federal Government do not get passing marks in my books either. Both governments allow Atlantic fish farms to continue and still issue licenses for more to be built, even after Alexandra Morton has provided evidence time after time of the damage sea lice are doing to sockeye and other salmon species. It appears both the Provincial and Federal government allow monetary and international concerns to come before the well being of out wild stocks

For the last few years both levels of government have allowed gravel mining to go on in the Fraser River main stem around Chilliwack that affect salmon rearing and habitat areas. The Provincial Government sells this to the public in the guise of flood protection while many know it is about the revenue to be gained by gravel companies to be used for British Columbia Gateway projects and other construction projects that need the gravel for fill, concrete and asphalt.

For example in 2006 a well publicized news story saw millions of pink alveins killed due to a causeway being built across a Fraser River side channel. This caused the channel to de-water suffocating the millions of alveins still in their redds giving them no chance to emerge and migrate to the ocean to begin their 2 year life cycle. Where was the Provincial Environmental Minister asking for an investigation into this devastation? There was no investigation that I know of, nor were charges ever laid.

Financial cut backs to Fisheries and Oceans Canada budgets over the last years has, according to some, seen the lack of proper assessments of out going smolts and fry. Also, the monetary and staff cut backs have negatively affected the counting of the returning salmon to their natal streams.

I feel it is time to stop blaming just nature, but all user groups need to look at themselves to see what they can do to reverse this trend of decreasing sockeye salmon and other species of salmon. After all, we owe it not only to our future generations, so they too can witness each year the marvelous return of our precious salmon--a renewable resource--to our rivers, but most importantly, we owe it to our fish to do so. They, the salmon are counting on us, and if they could talk they would say "get on with it"

liketofish

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 702
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2010, 03:38:06 PM »

July 2 and 3 both with about 30 fish, and July 4 had 45 fish. Yeup! the run is in trouble. Believe it.  ;)

The last few years, I have rarely seen a sockeye accidentally caught by the bouncers before July 15 in Scale and other bars I fished. And even if caught and released, the sockeye survival test showed 2% mortality rate. So in the big pictures of the total sockeye run, what impact can this do to sockeye in early season compared to the mighty drift nets? Well, obviously DFO felt the pressure from the bar fishing sector to shut the bouncers down, so they probably conveniently shut all sporties down now regardless of method. If this is the real reason for the delayed opening, then too bad. But the numbers are strong and delaying the opening for chinook is not justified based on the stats. Like I said before, why even bother killing over 100 chinooks over the last 3 days in the test nets if DFO already made up its mind about July 15 opening? That is not conservation. Stop those nets from killing more fish now...
« Last Edit: July 05, 2010, 03:41:27 PM by liketofish »
Logged

buck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2010, 04:24:07 PM »

Liketofish
That 2% survival rate that you keep quoting doesn't mean much. It does not translate into only a 2% loss on the spawning grounds. Once handled and released into some of the warm water conditions that we have experienced over the last number of years is deadly. Try holding the same fish for 10 -14 days and see what survival rates you get. I'll bet you would be shocked.
That being said, it is frustrating watching all the drift netting and set nets that are being used and we as sport anglers have to stand by and watch.
Logged

ynot

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 582
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #39 on: July 05, 2010, 04:55:07 PM »

They should have opened chinooks middle of june untill middle of july then closed it to protect the early sockeye run.if the summer run sockeye is good they could open
it for springs and sockeye.Regarding water temp in the past years has been warm in aug. but we are told that enough fish made it to the spawning grounds.
Logged

Sterling C

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1901
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #40 on: July 05, 2010, 05:15:01 PM »

Liketofish
That 2% survival rate that you keep quoting doesn't mean much. It does not translate into only a 2% loss on the spawning grounds. Once handled and released into some of the warm water conditions that we have experienced over the last number of years is deadly. Try holding the same fish for 10 -14 days and see what survival rates you get. I'll bet you would be shocked.

Couldn't agree more. These catch and release studies undertaken by the snagger apologist groups are seriously flawed. Factor in the sand shimmy and the attempted field goal kick that we regularly see at most snagging sights and you'll see your survival rate plummet. 
Logged
Actions speak louder than words.

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3397
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #41 on: July 05, 2010, 06:59:11 PM »

The sockeye mortality study on the Fraser River is a multiyear and evolving program.  Baseline data has been obtained and as most agree, much more information is needed.  To address this, I understand this summer sockeye will be radiotagged and followed throughout the watershed.

Totally agree with Buck – give these snagged/stressed fish 10 days in 18-20° C water and a trip through Hell’s Gate.  Then check mortality rates.  Shocking is right.
Logged

Sterling C

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1901
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #42 on: July 05, 2010, 07:31:01 PM »

The sockeye mortality study on the Fraser River is a multiyear and evolving program.  Baseline data has been obtained and as most agree, much more information is needed. 

Unfortunately, bad science is worse than no science.
Logged
Actions speak louder than words.

BwiBwi

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1959
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2010, 10:44:04 PM »

I think "bottom bouncing" study is a joke! The fish are held in a pen for 24 hours I believe and the checked for dead ones. For this study to have any credibility shouldn't these fish be radio tagged and released immediately. Then set up radio monitoring stations on their natal rivers and see what the survival rate really is. My .02

At least there is a study   ;D

Unlike any other fishing method, have you seen studies done on them?   ;)
Logged

liketofish

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 702
Re: DFO's chinook clousre is not justified
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2010, 01:44:15 PM »

If a sockeye pulling a little betty will not make it through Hell's Gate (how do you know, may I ask?), then imagine it pulling a lb of lead slab by the other fishing group. You bet every one of them is a dead meat before they even make the canyon area.  ;D Their claimed lesser number of incidental catch will surely make up with the much higher mortality rate.  ;) I applaud DFO that, if there is a closure for us sporties, both groups should be off the river when it comes to protecting sockeye run.

Gentlemen, this is not a flossing debate. Please keep to the subject of why DFO is justfied when they use test fishery for opening & closure in the past and yet they close/delay the fishery in face of much better test number and other areas reporting a good return year. Please make your argument based on more facts than exageration or bias about fishing method. We may not change the outcome this time, but at least we can voice our concern that DFO may be functioning on fear of public opinion in ordering closure than their test fisheries. If so, why even bother with the test nets? Save those hundreds' or even thousands of fish killed in the test nets.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 01:49:09 PM by liketofish »
Logged