Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Darko on October 26, 2021, 09:23:23 PM
-
Hello everybody, this is my first year fishing for salmon and naturally, I was very excited to get an opportunity to catch my first chum salmon this fall as I heard about what amazing fighters they are. Sadly though now it looks like with the return not even enough to reach escapement that even C&R is not allowed. This brings a couple of questions in my mind. Wasn't chum historically one of the most abundant salmon species? How have we reached a point now that they are so scarce? Also why was there a commercial net fishery allowed in the FRASER for chum when vulnerable steelhead runs are returning in the same time frame? Who knows what happened with all the bycatch trout and other species that were caught. Can we really trust they were handled carefully and survived? I have some doubts if I am honest. Also the killing of chum for their roe and throwing back the rest of the fish is a complete disgrace I have heard about happening often in the past. What can we do to prevent this sort of thing in the future? Do anglers not realize that roe is not the only way to catch salmon? Or could it be that they are being poached by boats in the ocean and exported? It's impossible to know but I would love to hear what you guys think about all this.
-
I have some confusions with the latest "No fishing for Chum salmon" fishery notice as well. How is this implemented? For example, if I go fishing in the Vedder river this weekend, I know there are Coho, Chinook and Chum in the river. How can I fish for the other species while not fishing for Chum? The setup I use could attract any of them. This doesn't really make sense to me.
What should I do to ensure that I am fishing responsibly and legally?
-
I have some confusions with the latest "No fishing for Chum salmon" fishery notice as well. How is this implemented? For example, if I go fishing in the Vedder river this weekend, I know there are Coho, Chinook and Chum in the river. How can I fish for the other species while not fishing for Chum? The setup I use could attract any of them. This doesn't really make sense to me.
What should I do to ensure that I am fishing responsibly and legally?
well, it's a little complicated because the way chum are usually targeted are by jigs or wool ties from what I know, which are also used for coho and chinook. So maybe just the type of gear or hook size? Though honestly, I wouldn't be too worried as nobody is really going to be looking through your setup and say you're targeting chum, though I am not an expert that's my opinion. Maybe someone more experienced can shed some more light.
-
chum are usually school and easy to find in slower water. If the angler is on purposely fish through the school of chum, it should be consider fishing for chum.
I am pretty sure the CO will show in Stave river. but they won't bother people fishing below Vedder crossing.
-
chum are usually school and easy to find in slower water. If the angler is on purposely fish through the school of chum, it should be consider fishing for chum.
I am pretty sure the CO will show in Stave river. but they won't bother people fishing below Vedder crossing.
I second this
-
Hello everybody, this is my first year fishing for salmon and naturally, I was very excited to get an opportunity to catch my first chum salmon this fall as I heard about what amazing fighters they are. Sadly though now it looks like with the return not even enough to reach escapement that even C&R is not allowed. This brings a couple of questions in my mind. Wasn't chum historically one of the most abundant salmon species? How have we reached a point now that they are so scarce? Also why was there a commercial net fishery allowed in the FRASER for chum when vulnerable steelhead runs are returning in the same time frame? Who knows what happened with all the bycatch trout and other species that were caught. Can we really trust they were handled carefully and survived? I have some doubts if I am honest. Also the killing of chum for their roe and throwing back the rest of the fish is a complete disgrace I have heard about happening often in the past. What can we do to prevent this sort of thing in the future? Do anglers not realize that roe is not the only way to catch salmon? Or could it be that they are being poached by boats in the ocean and exported? It's impossible to know but I would love to hear what you guys think about all this.
It seems a lot of roe guys have switched to beads from what I saw thus year in some canal runs. The demise of chums seem to start when DFO allowed chum roe commercial fishery on the Fraser for exporting to the Japanese sushi market. Same with herring roe fishery damaging herring population, chum population will be taking a hit. The endangered interior steelhead unfortunately get caught along with the chum. Why did DFO open the commercial chum roe fishery in the past, knowing full well the steelhead run at the same time, while they shut down the recreational fishermen even with the remotest chance of affecting the endangered stocks?
-
It seems a lot of roe guys have switched to beads from what I saw thus year in some canal runs. The demise of chums seem to start when DFO allowed chum roe commercial fishery on the Fraser for exporting to the Japanese sushi market. Same with herring roe fishery damaging herring population, chum population will be taking a hit. The endangered interior steelhead unfortunately get caught along with the chum. Why did DFO open the commercial chum roe fishery in the past, knowing full well the steelhead run at the same time, while they shut down the recreational fishermen even with the remotest chance of affecting the endangered stocks?
that's exactly what I was thinking :-\
-
It seems a lot of roe guys have switched to beads from what I saw thus year in some canal runs. The demise of chums seem to start when DFO allowed chum roe commercial fishery on the Fraser for exporting to the Japanese sushi market.
do you know that has been going on for 40 years or so? The runs of chum in the 90s and into this century were huge in the Fraser Valley and were harvested for the sushi market.
-
Good to know, but why were these harvests allowed to continue in light of declining numbers and continued decline to almost extinction of an endangered species?
A) Denial of a problem?
B) Political expediency and influence?
C) Bribery and corruption?
D) No one, but a few interested stakeholders who are squabbling over the remains, gives a SH#T (not auto correct to cupcakes)?
E) All of the above.
-
Oh I don't know.
Having lived here all my life and gone fishing for most of it, I do know that in those close to 60 years everyone I ever heard talk about it said the fishing at any given time was worse than 10 years ago and that was worse than the previous 20 or 30 and in another 10 years it would all be gone yet they kept going fishing. Not much has changed other than the big one reason people pick for the current sorry state of affairs.
-
check the northen cod. until the chum stock drop to extinction, DFO won't do anything.
In one seminar, one biologist said salmon need certain number to maintain. once the population drop below certain number, the run will collapse immediately. see the Passenger pigeon extinction as an example.
-
check the northen cod. until the chum stock drop to extinction, DFO won't do anything.
In one seminar, one biologist said salmon need certain number to maintain. once the population drop below certain number, the run will collapse immediately. see the Passenger pigeon extinction as an example.
That may have been David Welch. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdq3EdrNXYg&t=50s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdq3EdrNXYg&t=50s)he talked about the diving numbers for smolt survival for all 6 species of salmon mentioned was it hit 1% of less a steep dive down the extinction cliff would follow.
In the Northern Cod collapse it's clear the advice DFO gave was ignored and the intense cod fishery continued as a result of political pressure from the commercial fishing industry. It's not clear the cod would have been better off as a result of reduced fishing since evidence is the ocean has grown too cold for cod stocks around NFLD and the Maritimes and cod declines have spread south into US waters.
No doubt the same political pressure has been driving the decline of salmon but that pressure is much broader than the Fraser Valley, the SOG or BC. The excessive artificial enhancement of salmon number, pink and chum in particular has gotten considerable attention in the last few years. Many are realizing this could be major cause of decline as salmon number overload the declining capacity of the North Pacific to feed them. BC is a bit player in this as Alaska, Russia and Japan's release of ranched salmon far exceeds our enhancement output.
The Passenger Pigeon is an interesting case. For years it's extinction was blamed on wildly proliferate, uncontrolled hunting but today it's known that destruction of much of their habitat was happening at the same time. Recent genetic work has lead some researchers to conclude the species was genetically adapted to living in huge flocks and once these numbers were destroyed extinction was inevitable;
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/conspiracy-theories-human-rat-starter-brains-the-catastrophic-extinction-of-passenger-pigeons-and-more-1.4406927/why-did-the-most-abundant-bird-in-the-world-go-extinct-in-just-50-years-1.4407018
Pacific salmon may be a similar case. The hugely prolific species are also very specialized. Lately we have been artificially making them more specialized via artificial enhancement.
The geologic record is full of extinct species. Few species last more than few million years. We are undeniably in the midst of a great extinction driven by anthropomorphic factors. Pacific Salmon is just one cluster of species at serious risk let alone those already gone in the last 100 years. How can we think they can survive in the face of rising population levels, increasing economic consumption and demands for high protein healthy fat food sources and a absolute failure of an international economic system to control their exploitation?
I think saying that such a decline as we've seen in chum returns is due to one factor is pointless as there are so many other factors at play. Since they have been kept, catch records show there have been similar years of bad returns. First nations oral history reports much the same. There were years where salmon numbers just disappeared and people starved for lack of food.
-
That may have been David Welch. In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdq3EdrNXYg&t=50s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdq3EdrNXYg&t=50s)he talked about the diving numbers for smolt survival for all 6 species of salmon mentioned was it hit 1% of less a steep dive down the extinction cliff would follow.
In the Northern Cod collapse it's clear the advice DFO gave was ignored and the intense cod fishery continued as a result of political pressure from the commercial fishing industry. It's not clear the cod would have been better off as a result of reduced fishing since evidence is the ocean has grown too cold for cod stocks around NFLD and the Maritimes and cod declines have spread south into US waters.
No doubt the same political pressure has been driving the decline of salmon but that pressure is much broader than the Fraser Valley, the SOG or BC. The excessive artificial enhancement of salmon number, pink and chum in particular has gotten considerable attention in the last few years. Many are realizing this could be major cause of decline as salmon number overload the declining capacity of the North Pacific to feed them. BC is a bit player in this as Alaska, Russia and Japan's release of ranched salmon far exceeds our enhancement output.
The Passenger Pigeon is an interesting case. For years it's extinction was blamed on wildly proliferate, uncontrolled hunting but today it's known that destruction of much of their habitat was happening at the same time. Recent genetic work has lead some researchers to conclude the species was genetically adapted to living in huge flocks and once these numbers were destroyed extinction was inevitable;
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/conspiracy-theories-human-rat-starter-brains-the-catastrophic-extinction-of-passenger-pigeons-and-more-1.4406927/why-did-the-most-abundant-bird-in-the-world-go-extinct-in-just-50-years-1.4407018
Pacific salmon may be a similar case. The hugely prolific species are also very specialized. Lately we have been artificially making them more specialized via artificial enhancement.
The geologic record is full of extinct species. Few species last more than few million years. We are undeniably in the midst of a great extinction driven by anthropomorphic factors. Pacific Salmon is just one cluster of species at serious risk let alone those already gone in the last 100 years. How can we think they can survive in the face of rising population levels, increasing economic consumption and demands for high protein healthy fat food sources and a absolute failure of an international economic system to control their exploitation?
I think saying that such a decline as we've seen in chum returns is due to one factor is pointless as there are so many other factors at play. Since they have been kept, catch records show there have been similar years of bad returns. First nations oral history reports much the same. There were years where salmon numbers just disappeared and people starved for lack of food.
True but nobody will starve now if the Chum fishery is closed. I saw nets in the river again above the GE bridge yesterday. I'm in the Stave on a regular basis and we haven't hooked a single Chum in the Coho water this year. The lack of fish is even worse than 2-3 years ago yet the nets are out. Mind numbing. I know many people will go to the toilet bowl and see a bunch of Chum and say there are lots of fish. Just not true.
-
Boom and Depression: 1919-39
In British Columbia after the First World War, the demand of veterans for employment ended "limited entry" (licence limitation) in the salmon fishery, at least for white people. Restrictions remained for some time on Aboriginal people and Japanese-Canadians; meanwhile, white fisherman gained clear dominance in the fishery. With gillnetting still strong, the purse-seine and troll fisheries grew. The salmon industry, with more than 70 plants at the beginning of the century, began to consolidate in the late 1920s (as it did again in the 1950s and the late 1970s). The 1923 Halibut Treaty between Canada and the US was Canada's first independently signed treaty. Under its auspices, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, a pioneering venture in international management, regulated and improved the Pacific halibut fishery, partly through conservation quotas.
The pilchard (California sardine) fishery developed in the late 1920s and suited the purse seine and "reduction" fishery, which reduced fish flesh and bones into fertilizer or fish meal. It boomed in the 1930s but failed in the 1940s when the resource declined. Pacific coast fishermen continued to organize more than Atlantic fishermen, and their organizations had long-lasting influence. One, the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Co-operative Association, took hold in the 1930s and became one of the world's most successful fishermen co-operatives, dominating the northern BC fishery for several decades.
Though continuing to regulate extensively for conservation, federal fisheries management showed little vigour or innovation between the wars. In 1922 the federal government allowed Québec to manage its own fixed-gear fisheries, or that part of the industry using stationary equipment such as traps and longlines anchored to the bottom of the ocean. In 1928, following a court decision, it yielded control of processing plants to the provinces. In 1930 it allowed the Prairie provinces to manage their own fisheries and separated the Department of Fisheries from the Department of Marine.
Later in the 1930s, the fisheries department set up a Salt Fish Board to regulate and subsidize exporters, a move overtaken by the events of the Second World War. The war hiked prices and incomes, and the board vanished into the general wartime system of controls. The fisheries department ended the purse-seine ban in the 1930s, and began to remove restrictions on trawlers, as the war sparked a new emphasis on productivity and development.
The Age of Development: 1945-68
In BC, federal fisheries officials developed a superb corps of salmon managers after the war who kept stocks fairly stable, despite increasing pressure from the fishing fleet and from the encroachment of an urban-industrial society on fish habitats. The department led public opinion in a struggle that held back potential damage to salmon stocks from hydroelectric dams. BC fishermen's organizations such as the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union (UFAWU) and processor organizations actively influenced fishery management. The UFAWU pushed for licence controls to improve prospects for conservation and incomes; this came about in the late 1960s. Meanwhile, vessel ownership by processors decreased. The BC fleet became more independent and the salmon-canning industry increasingly consolidated. Still concentrated on salmon, herring, and halibut, the BC fishery had fewer resources and a far smaller fleet than did the Atlantic’s. But its fishermen tended to be better educated, and made more money. On both coasts and inland, many part-time fishermen supplemented their income with other work.
Comprehensive Management Begins: 1968-84
In this period, major fisheries on both coasts went through booms and crises, the latter usually stemming from overexpansion in an industry of fluctuating resources and markets. Key measures included limits on the number and size of vessels, and, especially on the Atlantic, use of fishing quotas and zones, encouragement of fishermen's organizations, and the establishment of many industry-government advisory committees. In 1979, the government created the stand-alone Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), responsible for fisheries management and research, oceanography, hydrography, and small craft harbours.
Moving Forward
British Columbia has traditionally had better-educated, better-organized, and more highly urbanized fishermen. Salmon landings and overall fishery values were high in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even so, BC fishermen felt they were losing influence to the recreational and the small but growing Aboriginal fishery, and were being robbed by America’s failure to fully comply with the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty. The latter issue was addressed by a new agreement in 1999. Meanwhile, salmon landings took a drastic decline in the mid-1990s. Half a century earlier, regulations had let most boats fish nearly every day of the season, but by 1997, controls brought on by the strong fleet and weak stocks kept many boats tied up for 10 or 11 months of the year, with chinook and coho salmon showing serious signs of decline. Besides fishing pressure and habitat loss, oceanic changes affecting survival seemed to be a key cause.
Other BC fisheries such as herring, halibut, other groundfish including sablefish, and shellfish proceeded well enough for the most part. Many were gaining in value, helped in some instances by ITQs. But the salmon fishery had struck not only a resource but a market disaster. Prices plunged as aquaculture poured more supplies into the world market. Though still small compared to leading countries, Canadian aquaculture was growing fast. By 2002, production value reached $639 million, mostly from farmed Atlantic salmon, which even Pacific fish farmers had taken up. BC provided more than half of Canada's aquaculture value.
In BC's wild-salmon fishery, strict conservation policies in the late 1990s including fishing cutbacks and gear modifications helped reduce pressure on chinook, coho, and salmon in general. Starting in 1996, federal programs and industry conditions reduced participation in the BC fishery. The number of licensed fishermen and fishing craft in the industry dropped. Although major corporations remained, some even taking a stronger ownership position in the salmon fleet, the number of large, industrial salmon canneries declined to a handful. The processing and marketing sectors became less industrial and more entrepreneurial.
At century's end, despite discouraging short-term prospects for salmon and herring and some uncertainty in coastal communities, the resilient BC fishery had hopes of continuing as a dynamic industry. The freshwater fisheries also seemed at least halfway stable, with many participants using IQs or ITQs, and with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation still strong on the Prairies.
At the beginning of the new century, co-operation and co-management seemed to be increasing, and incomes were reasonable in many areas. As modern technology strengthened fish-catching skills, other factors loomed larger in fishermen's fates, namely their abilities in business, in representation and in acquiring the right licences. On both coasts, the fishery, despite its complex, contentious, and crisis-filled history, retained a special pull. Even in bad times, many fishermen not only had no way but also no desire to get out of the occupation that had shaped their families, communities and culture. Despite all the troubles, many still find it a satisfying business. Working alone on the water, the fisherman lives with challenges and perceptions largely unknown to the rest of us.
-
Oh I don't know.
Having lived here all my life and gone fishing for most of it, I do know that in those close to 60 years everyone I ever heard talk about it said the fishing at any given time was worse than 10 years ago and that was worse than the previous 20 or 30 and in another 10 years it would all be gone yet they kept going fishing. Not much has changed other than the big one reason people pick for the current sorry state of affairs.
your probably one of the only posters on sport fishing forums that recognize that salmon have gone through boom and bust periods in our past.
-
True but nobody will starve now if the Chum fishery is closed. I saw nets in the river again above the GE bridge yesterday. I'm in the Stave on a regular basis and we haven't hooked a single Chum in the Coho water this year. The lack of fish is even worse than 2-3 years ago yet the nets are out. Mind numbing. I know many people will go to the toilet bowl and see a bunch of Chum and say there are lots of fish. Just not true.
those fisheries are authorized as FSC openings - in light of the low returns one has to ask why. The sport fishery in the SOG closed on Wednesday - that's about 2 weeks after the closure in the Fraser Valley. Again why is a valid question.
-
Shared on FB, reposting here.
(https://i.imgur.com/blzEjZn.jpg)
This Friday’s flashback photo is a welcoming sight which we’ve always taken for granted until it’s not here. I took this photograph several years ago when the Fraser River chum salmon return was a bit better than what we are experiencing this year.
I have been getting numerous messages asking the same thing - How do we avoid catching chum salmon while targeting other salmon species. The answer is that you cannot avoid it completely, but you can certainly minimize encounters by adjusting fishing techniques, avoiding certain setups and moving away from waters where you are likely to catch chum salmon. This means avoid float fishing with a jig which chum salmon love, don’t fish through waters where chum salmon can be seen schooling up.
Currently, recreational fishing for chum salmon is closed in all tributaries of the Lower Fraser River. This includes the practice of catching and releasing. Would you get in trouble if you are seen landing a chum salmon and releasing it? No. Would you get in trouble if you are seen catching and releasing chum salmon repeatedly without making an effort to move or adjust your technique or setup so you are not intentionally targeting them? Yes. The purpose of this current closure is to reduce the amount of incidental by-catches and the mortality associated with it so as many chum salmon can spawn successfully as possible.
The Fraser River chum salmon return is expected to be low this year (median estimate is around 481,000 fish). The escapement requirement, which is the number of spawning adults needed for the recruitment of the stock, is 800,000 fish. Because this number will not be met, all recreational and commercial fishing for chum salmon is closed.
Then there is the big elephant in the room, what about those gill nets in the Lower Fraser River? The current IFMP (Integrated Fisheries Management Plans) allow some First Nation FSC (food, social and ceremonial) harvest when the return is up to 500,000 fish. Less than 10% of the return is allocated to this harvest. This year, that allocation is 42,000 fish. That said, the harvest will most likely be much lower than this target for two reasons - The reduced fishing times due to the Interior Fraser steelhead conservation window, and the obviously low return of chum salmon.
This past week, I and my colleagues in the Sport Fishing Advisory Committee have been communicating with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, expressing some of our concerns regarding this inconsistency. If the number of adult fish required for spawning is 800,000, and only close to 50% of that required number is expected to show up, then conservation is indeed a concern. Why are we emphasizing so much on the fact that every fish counts so mortality in catch and release is an issue, but on the other hand allocating 10% of the 50% of the required spawners for harvest, with no clear reasonings other than that the IFMP says so?
If you have been following these posts, I have been vocally supporting sustainable harvest in all sectors, particularly the priority of First Nation fisheries, but we must put conservation ahead of all of us during years of low returns. Prior to this fishing closure when catch and release was still allowed, I have had a lengthy discussion with others whether we should be producing an episode on chum salmon catch and release fishing this season. In the end, we chose not to do so because that would have simply encouraged others to do the same, putting more pressure on the few fish we are seeing. Realistically, the amount of chum salmon harvested in these FSC fisheries will unlikely to be very much, but this inconsistency in management approaches is not a sound solution.
Lastly, there is also the lucrative market of chum salmon. The demand for chum salmon and their roe is higher than ever. Anyone who has tried to purchase some would know how ridiculously expensive it is now. With fishing closures and limited FSC fisheries which cannot be sold, the sale of chum salmon by individuals will pop up at places like Facebook Marketplace and Craigslist in the coming weeks. I encourage all of you to report these sales by phoning the ORR line at 1-800-465-4336.
Now, before anyone comments that there is no hope for these fish and the decline will simply continue, this simply is not true. Historically, chum salmon populations, like other species in the Pacific, have fluctuated due to many environmental reasons. Yes, fishing is a factor, but it is not the sole factor. When returns are low, we need to conserve or stop our harvests, but that alone is not going to make the populations rebound. Good freshwater and estuary habitats would increase the survival of juveniles, giving them a fin up once they reach the Pacific Ocean. If 7 or 8 out of 10 juveniles survive instead of 2 or 3 out of 10, then we would see a significant difference in return numbers several years later.
Anyway, this is your Friday afternoon rambling. Have a great weekend! :)
-
Great post Rodney. Thank you.
I'd like to add that in light of this chum closure, it makes me happy to have witnessed a shift away from roe to artificials among some anglers. More and more people are challenging themselves and leaving fishing with roe to kids and beginners.
For me, it wasn't an easy transition when I stopped using roe 10 years ago, but today, after years of experimenting and learning the properties of different lures and other numerous and varied artificials, my hookup ratio is (IMO) quite satisfactory. I have landed 20 coho this season in maybe 9 or 10 outings. I have distance-released many more.
If I could do it, everybody can.
Disclaimer: I don't oppose fishing with roe; it's just another weapon in the arsenal for most. But I have seen many people using only roe or roe sacs all day, until they run out.
I don't get it. What's the challenge?
-
I'm 62 and fished my whole life. I have never used roe for any other fish but Sturgeon.
Never had a desire and there are so many other alternatives to roe that are as effective if not more effective. When I saw and heard the Chum numbers I didn't bother fishing Chum this year.
Luckily I saved some Chum roe from last year to get me through my Sturgeon season this year. Hopefully if i get checked they will believe me.