Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Draconian Fisheries Closures  (Read 21731 times)

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2684
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #120 on: May 29, 2019, 09:15:45 AM »

I think you  mean extirpated.

Hatcheries on the east coast of the Island did not stop the decline in many streams. Enhancement on some local streams like Norrish and Kanaka did very little. Many streams that were the target of hatchery enhancement historically had marginal runs in terms of fishing success in any event. Many other streams are doing so so to pretty good without hatchery enhancement. Hatchery enhancement is also expensive. The dollar value simply is not there.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 02:43:02 PM by RalphH »
Logged
...even the hero gets a bullet in the chest...

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #121 on: May 29, 2019, 09:35:34 AM »

Enhancement on some local streams like Norrish and Kanaka did very little.

coho and chum? Before the hatchery was put on Kanaka it never had a chum or coho run. Now it has a decent run for both given its size. It actually also had a decent run of pinks before they decided to kill them off.

Or steelhead? it seems there is a big difference between species on how they respond to hatchery enhancement.

How about whonnack creek?  Dispite no pressure and no hatchery enhancement its steelhead population has crashed.

I get it your a steelhead guy so all hatchery are bad, that has been the motto coming out of the steelhead camp for years. 

The upper Fraser Chinook has not seen much enhancement and most of its hatchery programs were stopped years ago, by your account it should be beaming with fish now that the hatchery are gone.  What gives?

You also did not answer my question how are we going to bring back Chinook populations to some of the upper Fraser river tributaries without hatchery support or transplants. Your solutions seems to be do nothing?
Logged

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #122 on: May 29, 2019, 09:59:28 AM »

I think rivers like the Smith in California, the Rogue in Oregon and to an extent the Cowichan where there is a hatchery,

https://www.cheknews.ca/volunteers-race-to-save-salmon-in-drying-cowichan-river-564508/

Where would cowichan be without the hatchery as a backup?  is it still going to be the star child in 4 years?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 10:03:20 AM by wildmanyeah »
Logged

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2684
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #123 on: May 29, 2019, 11:50:57 AM »

this isn't unique to the Cowichan. In fact it happens on almost all west coast spate streams. I have often taken the time to catch fry etc trapped in small puddles as water receeded and return them to the stream.

As to your question; what would the Cowichan be like without wild salmon and only a hatchery? Is that where we want to go?

For me hatchery fish can't replace wild fish. I'd prefer a world without hatchery fish if it were possible. However I am also sure we will never see a world where every river and stream get hatchery supplements for chinook, coho and steelhead. It's only practicable to do this for a small %.

Quote
coho and chum? Before the hatchery was put on Kanaka it never had a chum or coho run. Now it has a decent run for both given its size. It actually also had a decent run of pinks before they decided to kill them off.

Why did I see coho and chum there in the early 70s before the hatchery? Why did the local published fishing guides describe Kanaka as having good coho and jack fishing in the fall?

Big swings in fish returns is common. I don't believe Whonnock ever had a large population of steelhead.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 11:54:22 AM by RalphH »
Logged
...even the hero gets a bullet in the chest...

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #124 on: May 29, 2019, 01:25:10 PM »

Kanaka got seeded before 1970, 1970's is tho when they killed off all the pinks tho.

Early 1900's kanaka was only know for its rainbow trout fishing. Where's that now?

Thats the hatchey's fault a suppose?

I am not saying we need to replace wild fish, no we need to keep wild runs stong, However I am saying the runs that are gone, or now experiencing genetic bottle necking because in the past they have been over fished and there is so few fish back.

That we now need to look at hatchery enhancement to bring fish back.

What is your solution to get rid of all the hatcheries and do nothing?  How do we bring back some of these runs that have so few fish? hope and pray?

You also say big swings are common? so then its not the hatcheries causing declines?  Or are we just still reading the steelhead weekly magazines that say everything about hatcheries is bad.

They have been taking eggs for sublimating to salmon stocks for over 100 years yet you say only 40 years? You old Ralph but I guess not that old.

"The Pacific salmon fishery and salmon stocks have been actively managed since the late 1800s. In the early days harvest rates in some cases reached unsustainable levels. Salmon hatcheries were one method to support harvest while sustaining natural stocks; however, due to funding pressures during the Great Depression, all federal salmon hatcheries in B.C. were shut down and did not return until the 1960s"
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 02:00:00 PM by wildmanyeah »
Logged

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2684
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #125 on: May 29, 2019, 02:42:42 PM »

Your posts are often (such as in this case) riddled with such bad syntax and spelling it's hard to understand what you mean precisely.

I have a few comments:

- 'rainbows' ( as in 1900) could mean cutthroat or it could mean steelhead smolt or it could mean both. Mis-identification of species is common today let alone over 100 years ago.

- exactly where did you find evidence Kanaka was 'seeded' with whatever prior to 1970?

- who 'killed off' Kanaka's pink salmon population in the 70s? Are saying there was a determined effort to wipe them out?

- hatchery enhancement has not worked that well. There is good evidence that it leads to degraded genetics for both wild and hatchery fish. It also leads to increased exploitation of wild fish. I am certainly not suggesting all hatcheries be closed down. However suggesting hatcheries are the way back to wild salmon abundance is contra to the best evidence available today and counter intuitive.

- hatcheries are subject to disasters and serious mistakes that can result in the loss of large numbers of fish. In 2017 the Big Qualicum Hatchery lost almost all it's coho stock during a power outage. (https://www.pqbnews.com/news/qualicum-hatchery-loses-thousands-of-fish-in-storm/) In the 70s the Capilano Hatchery lost all it's collected brood stock when chlorinated water was erroneous diverted to the hatchery water intakes.

- Early Federal hatcheries (say before WW2) were also not successful. They also did not enhance any species other than sockeye. There was never any evidence they increased fish returns in any event and were also quite primitive. Fry were not fed nor was there an attempt to use broodstock from the same race of fish. Hatcheries were mostly operated hundreds of miles away from the fishes natal streams. Mostly they were raised close to Vancouver (there was a hatchery in New Westminster and there is archival material available) and fry dumped directly into the lower Fraser.

- I didn't say hatcheries were causing declines. I never suggested closing them all down. You'll never win a debate by putting words in a person's mouth or using strawman arguments.

- I don't read 'steelhead weekly'. I don't think I have ever seen a copy.

Up a  few posts ago I pointed out that the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund is focused on wild salmon not hatchery enhancement hence that probably explains why no applications to the fund were successful. Of course someone has to spin this out to 'Ralphie' is opposed to all hatcheries.

Hatcheries do one thing well - they increase the survival rate of egg to fry dramatically. After that it's at best a mixed bag with some serious long term short comings.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 06:35:36 PM by RalphH »
Logged
...even the hero gets a bullet in the chest...

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #126 on: May 29, 2019, 02:51:18 PM »

Your posts are often (such as in this case) riddled with such bad syntax and spelling it's hard to understand what you mean precisely.

I have a few comments:

- 'rainbows' ( as in 1900) could mean cutthroat or it could mean steelhead smolt or it could mean both. Mis-identification of species is common today let alone over 100 years ago.

- exactly where did you find evidence Kanaka was 'seeded' with whatever prior to 1970?

- who 'killed off' Kanaka's pink salmon population in the 70s? Are saying there was a determined effort to wipe them out?


Just what the hatchery manager told me, They killed off all the pinks because they thought they competed with more valuable stocks. He said in the early 2000's they started to return again and in 2015 kanaka had over 100 pinks return. Largest on recorded record.

As far as some of my other information it comes from "Sessional Papers of the Dominion of Canada" .



Up a  few posts ago I pointed out that the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund is focused on wild salmon not hatchery enhancement hence that probably explains why no applications to the fund were successful. Of course someone has to spin this out to 'Ralphie' is opposed to all hatcheries.

Hatcheries do one thing well - they increase the survival rate of egg to fry dramatically. After that it's at best a mixed bag with some serious long term short comings.

Thanks for clarification


- Early Federal hatcheries (say before WW2) were also not successful. They also did not enhance any species other than sockeye. There was never any evidence they increased fish returns in any event and were also quite primitive. Fry were not fed nor was there an attempt to use broodstock from the same race of fish. Hatcheries were mostly operated hundreds of miles away from the fishes natal streams. Mostly they were raised close to Vancouver (there was a hacthery in New Westminster and there is archival material available) and fry dumped directly into the lower Fraser.


So how do we even no whats "wild" if we have poor records of what they did, were they enhanced, how stocks were moved around ect...When it comes to chinook reading old books there was not a lot of wild runs.  Yet today we have 100's of enhanced chinook runs. Not to metion all the tradition old chinook fishing runs were all dammed, Campbell river, seymour ect? what are we to do there remove the hatches? what would be left?  all the good habitat is behind a dam
« Last Edit: May 29, 2019, 02:59:59 PM by wildmanyeah »
Logged

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2684
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #127 on: May 29, 2019, 03:57:45 PM »

here is some information on early hatcheries from Pacific Salmon by RJ Childerhouse p29

Quote
During the period 1875 to 1925 hatcheries proliferated in North America...with experience it was realized that ff fry were protected longer and fed or fed and released at a larger size more would survive. Early diets consisted of ground fresh fish, salt fish, beef liver or hearts In some cases carion was suspended over ponds so that maggots would drop into the ponds...Attempts at rearing fish led to other problems, primarily disease [still a big problem]. When the mortality rate rose dramatically, the fish would be released before anymore died on site. The fish so produced were of poor quality and most failed to survive.

The practice of large egg takes and hatchery rearing continued into the 1930s. Then investigations by biologists of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada showed the annual release of millions of hatchery bred fry was making no detectable contribution to the catch of sockeye salmon nor was there any noticeable increase in the numbers of spawners returning to their home streams.

The section goes on to briefly describe how in Washington, Oregon and California some fish culturalists continued to refine hatchery methodology. After WW2 the introduction of improved hatchery diets and anti-biotics reduced fish mortality. By the 1960s hatcheries were "producing spectacular results with coho and chinook". Plus steelhead I presume.

Not talked about too often in this context is the role of anti-biotics and I think most people are aware of the issues around liberal use of such drugs.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 06:52:13 AM by RalphH »
Logged
...even the hero gets a bullet in the chest...

TNAngler

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 365
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #128 on: May 30, 2019, 08:55:04 AM »

Not to get in the middle of whatever this is but I do have a unique insight into hatcheries.  For the most part, the hatchery system itself is horrible.  However, if done correctly, hatcheries can be a huge benefit to a system.  I have seen pretty much no gov't hatcheries that are run correctly though.

For history, my dad ran a private hatchery in Washington for a number of years raising coho.  There were many differences between what we did and what the state run hatcheries did.  First and foremost, it was a labor of love and not a job.  My two brothers and I and my dad would go out three or four times a day, cleaning the eggs out.  If there was one moldy egg, it got removed.  If you look at the state hatcheries, they just let that one egg die but then the mold spreads to all the other eggs around and you lose a bunch of eggs.

Second, we raised them in boxes until the egg sacks were gone.  We did not however then transfer them to concrete pools after this.  We transferred them to numerous ponds that drained into the creek system.  We would still feed them for a couple weeks after transferring, a little less each day but before too long, they were finding their own food, used to predators, and growing.

When they migrated out of the creeks and started their trip downstream, they were probably 3 times the size of the same fish raised at the state hatchery.  When they came back, they were as big and strong as wild salmon.  10-12 pounds easily.  And there were a bunch that made it back to the entrance to the creek.

Sadly, there was a net placed across the mouth of the creek and so we only got to see the fruit of our labor getting caught in the net and no spawners made it back that we found although we were told some people saw some spawning at some point.

If hatcheries acted as just a place to hatch eggs and then released them into the wild, I think the result would be much different.  You get fish that are prepared for predators and eating, not being fed.  Also, if it gives any indication, the state run hatchery our last year raised roughly 1.5 million at quite a cost.  We raised 750K at no cost to the state other than the cost of the eggs and a bag of food.  Yes, we paid a cost in time, equipment (egg boxes, totes, airators, etc) but it was nowhere near the cost the hatchery had.
Logged

CohoJake

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #129 on: May 30, 2019, 09:16:16 PM »

Looking at a system where governments have tried to solve the problem with hatcheries, it doesn't look good:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/chinook-bust-on-the-columbia-spring-returns-worse-than-forecast-on-northwests-largest-river/

Spring Chinook returns on the Columbia system are at 30% of the 10-year average.  There are concerns that brood stock goals won't be met on some tributaries even with an almost complete shut-down of all fishing.  The returns of Jacks are way down as well, which means that next year isn't expected to be any better.

On the local Skagit tributary that I fish for spring Chinook that opens on June 1, there are only 100 fish at the hatchery so far when normally there are 250 or more by now.  The broodstock origin is native, so you can bet the wild fish are suffering as badly. 

Every indicator I have seen tells me these shut-downs are warranted.  The hatchery marked fish that are being caught and released off of Vancouver Island and near Vancouver are mostly headed for the Columbia and other Washington rivers, where broodstock goals may not be met.  In Washington, when returns are iffy, we don't get a catch-and-release season, we get a complete closure (such as when quotas are met on winter Chinook fishing). 

The Fraser has some habitat degradation, but it is nowhere near having 8 dams for salmon to cross 2 times in their lives.  Not to mention having seals and sea-lions stack up at fish ladders on the lower dams making a huge dent in the up-river returns. 

Hey, for what it's worth, the Albion test net has 9 chinook so far, last year at this date it had 1.
Logged

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #130 on: May 31, 2019, 01:42:46 PM »

Looking at a system where governments have tried to solve the problem with hatcheries, it doesn't look good:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/chinook-bust-on-the-columbia-spring-returns-worse-than-forecast-on-northwests-largest-river/


Every indicator I have seen tells me these shut-downs are warranted.  The hatchery marked fish that are being caught and released off of Vancouver Island and near Vancouver are mostly headed for the Columbia and other Washington rivers, where broodstock goals may not be met.  In Washington, when returns are iffy, we don't get a catch-and-release season, we get a complete closure (such as when quotas are met on winter Chinook fishing). 


Should probably tell that to your fellow country men in South East Alaska , The SEAK commercial troll fishery got an increase in quota this you and they fish mostly WCVI and Southern US bound fish.
Logged

CohoJake

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #131 on: May 31, 2019, 02:23:20 PM »

Should probably tell that to your fellow country men in South East Alaska , The SEAK commercial troll fishery got an increase in quota this you and they fish mostly WCVI and Southern US bound fish.

Link please?  Last I saw SEAK was very restricted - but that was a couple months ago.  Also, I agree Alaska fisheries are part of the problem.
Logged

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1119
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #132 on: May 31, 2019, 02:28:47 PM »

Link please?  Last I saw SEAK was very restricted - but that was a couple months ago.  Also, I agree Alaska fisheries are part of the problem.

"The harvest breakdown calls for 112,000 chinook salmon in areas outside of Southeast Alaska. The catch for the Southeast troll fleet, which is determined by a treaty with Canada, will be 101,300 kings, or an increase of 5,600 fish."



http://www.alaskajournal.com/2019-04-10/fish-factor-salmon-harvest-projection-takes-big-leap-2018

FISH FACTOR: Salmon harvest projection takes big leap from 2018
Logged

Rodney

  • Administrator
  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13541
  • Where's my strike indicator?
    • Fishing with Rod
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #133 on: June 05, 2019, 01:28:24 PM »

ribolovac02

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
Re: Draconian Fisheries Closures
« Reply #134 on: June 06, 2019, 07:56:20 AM »

Great video
Logged