Print

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

[Steelhawk]

But it has been said many times nets are in the river after dark anyway. Also, by removing the eyes and ears of the sporties from the river, there will be a lot less people helping DFO to spot for illegal nets and report them. The conservation concern is for sockeye, not Chinook,  and anyone netting sockeye should be prosecuted. Native's right to food fish is ranked second to the conservation mandate of DFO. If DFO can't enforce that rule against parties who target the endangered species, then what is DFO doing as an organization? It's existence is meaningless except to use up license fees for their fat salary and pension. Again the DNA analysis is to provide for an info for the scientists. Is that going to make any difference? The run is already deemed the worst on record and DFO say every fish now counts. So why the need of the scientists is more important as if they haven't enough info to risk the stock survival? Will that info benefit anyone at this stage of the crisis?

[RalphH]

"Sporties" have become infamous by reporting nets when in fact there were none. I emphasize this is a fact.

 While some poaching may be taking place at night - likely some illegal flossing is happening as well.

I would like to see DFO justify the scientific information they get from the test fisheries in a disastrous like this one - it is the lowest on record.

Likewise I'd like to see some "Sporties" drop the pose. The value of the fishery is probably 1/10th of what some have claimed and that would be optimistic. Fact is I've looked around and there is no substantive documented support for the $100 million + per year value figure. Even if the revenue stream was that high the expenses have to be subtracted. Plus a lot of that money flows out of the country.

 We have a right to fish for sure - stop crying in your coffee and go fish somewhere else if the Fraser is closed and you're so desperate for a fix. 

[CohoJake]

"Sporties" have become infamous by reporting nets when in fact there were none. I emphasize this is a fact.

 While some poaching may be taking place at night - likely some illegal flossing is happening as well.

I would like to see DFO justify the scientific information they get from the test fisheries in a disastrous like this one - it is the lowest on record.

Likewise I'd like to see some "Sporties" drop the pose. The value of the fishery is probably 1/10th of what some have claimed and that would be optimistic. Fact is I've looked around and there is no substantive documented support for the $100 million + per year value figure. Even if the revenue stream was that high the expenses have to be subtracted. Plus a lot of that money flows out of the country.

 We have a right to fish for sure - stop crying in your coffee and go fish somewhere else if the Fraser is closed and you're so desperate for a fix.

Amen.  You would think that the same people who capture every battle or every bonked fish would be able to get some cell phone video or photos of this netting.

Anyway, considering the major closures we are facing down here in Washington, I think a temporary closure on the Fraser isn't that bad.  Nearly every coho and chinook fishery has been closed or seriously curtailed in Puget Sound this year.

[hrenya]

Ralph , SH made his point , why close river "lower" when hazard is bb "higher" , and if fraser will be open it will be for sure bait ban , so "lower" has 0 chances , and "upper" has ... In both variations "lower" is unnecessary and unjustified . I`m not talking about mouth and banana .. I want to bar fish but I can`t in both of the cases ... while some people will have opportunity to do that in "upper" ...  PLUS "lower" do less harm and it`s almost impossible to catch sox or spring here ...  So which of these points still doesn`t make sense to you ?!

[losos]

Nonsense right back at ya. Snagging is illegal, enforce the existing laws.

And how would you enforce it. If hook is in the mouth of fish and there is anything attached to the hook who is to prove that it wasn't fish biting

[RalphH]

he made his point and so did you. It is a point of some merit but it won't change the fact the river is currently closed. Maybe in future years - let's hope so.

[dobrolub]

RalphH, when you say 'lowest return on record' can you qualify what exactly you mean.

[hrenya]

And how would you enforce it. If hook is in the mouth of fish and there is anything attached to the hook who is to prove that it wasn't fish biting

snagging and flossing are 2 different things
prove me fish can bite by its fins or tail or back

[RalphH]

RalphH, when you say 'lowest return on record' can you qualify what exactly you mean.

per the PSC  Report of Aug 19th: http://www.psc.org/NewsRel/2016/WeeklyReport06.pdf

The sum of these estimates results in a total Fraser sockeye run for the season of 853,000 fish. This is the lowest run size ever estimated since
estimates began in 1893

[StillAqua]

DFO's reason to shut down the recreational sector at this stage of the sockeye run is really unnecessary and unjustified. They are saying that even a single sockeye lost by the sporties is not worth risking so they shut down the entire creational fishing for that. Yet at this late in the game of sockeye run where they already know this is a low cycle, the test nets are continuing. Just the Albion nets alone have 50 sockeyes killed in the last few days together and 560+ since August 1st. Be real. Considering that the mortality rate is so low, 1 in more than 100, sporties will have to hook 50,000 sockeyes accidentally as a by catch in the last few days and 500,000+ sockeyes since August 1st to equal to what a single test net is doing to the stock. That is too far fetched a number of sockeye hooked by sporties, even taking into bb activity. So why it is more important for science at this late stage where it is already decided to have no fishing at all by all sector to risk killing more sockeye. Are the nets and whatever meaningless result of statistics (because it is already fact we have a low run) that more important to the scientists than risking sinking the sport fishing industry which according to Fred is worth 100s of millions to the economy and many related businesses are being hurt? Shut down all the darn nets now if DFO is really down to not risking one more sockeye for their so called conservation concern. There is still the sonar at Mission Bridge and the fish ladders at Hell's Gate to help them gauge the run. There is no need for more killings by test nets. If they just shut down one test net, it will be enough sockeye saved to justify opening the Chinook fishery which has next to nothing impact on the sockeye stock.

It's because the biological sampling is trivial as far as it's impact on the run but it is essential to understanding what's gong on with migrating salmon. The Fraser is a highly complex mixed species, mixed stock, mixed age fishery and X fish past a sonar station tells you nothing about the species and stocks of origin, timing and spawning destinations, abundance of different age classes, genetics, health and disease loads, and a myriad of other data that tissue samples can yield with a reasonable sample size. As an extremely low return year, it's a valuable data point in the timeline. Virtually every well managed fishery in the world depends on similar data.

[hrenya]

It's because the biological sampling is trivial as far as it's impact on the run but it is essential to understanding what's gong on with migrating salmon. The Fraser is a highly complex mixed species, mixed stock, mixed age fishery and X fish past a sonar station tells you nothing about the species and stocks of origin, timing and spawning destinations, abundance of different age classes, genetics, health and disease loads, and a myriad of other data that tissue samples can yield with a reasonable sample size. As an extremely low return year, it's a valuable data point in the timeline. Virtually every well managed fishery in the world depends on similar data.

where is any info about that "data" ? for every single fish they caught ... I want to see that data ... show it to me ....

[StillAqua]

where is any info about that "data" ? for every single fish they caught ... I want to see that data ... show it to me ....

Are you directing your data request to me or DFO? I would suggest the latter with a Freedom of Info Request. I only have a fishing rod.

One of the interesting DFO websites I monitor is their Environmental Watch research site http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/habitat/frw-rfo/index-eng.html
that collects and uses some of the biological data and monitors in-season migration conditions (such as is the Fraser to hot or high flow for sockeye) to provide fisheries management advice during the season. It tells me the Fraser is currently too hot for migrating sockeye so there will be en-route migratory losses. There are lists of scientific publications and collaborators that use the data there as well.

[dobrolub]

We are through August, that means I can post a final graph for the month. Numbers don't look bad.

[armytruck]

It's because the biological sampling is trivial as far as it's impact on the run but it is essential to understanding what's gong on with migrating salmon. The Fraser is a highly complex mixed species, mixed stock, mixed age fishery and X fish past a sonar station tells you nothing about the species and stocks of origin, timing and spawning destinations, abundance of different age classes, genetics, health and disease loads, and a myriad of other data that tissue samples can yield with a reasonable sample size. As an extremely low return year, it's a valuable data point in the timeline. Virtually every well managed fishery in the world depends on similar data.

So ,I believe these 20 some odd new scientists will figure it out , just keep the Albion raking up lots of lab rats to keep them busy every day right  !. Take the testy boat and park it .

[DanL]

If hook is in the mouth of fish and there is anything attached to the hook who is to prove that it wasn't fish biting

It currently doesn't matter. Under the regs right now there is nothing requiring the fish to actively bite. As long as it was hooked in the mouth, then by definition is is not snagged.

Interestingly certain jurisdictions like Oregon, Washington, and California have implemented anti-snagging rules that require the fish to willingly take the hook into its mouth and therefore flossing is not a legal technique. Ironically, BC used to have similar wording like that in our regs many years ago, but was changed some time ago to what we have now, and here we are. I dont know the history of when/why/how it was changed but its interesting to see what has developed since then.