Print

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

[Sir Castalot]

Intereting thread here.

The numbers in 1913 were around 30 million.
1914 - Hell's Gate slide.
1941 - Fish ladders and new spawning beds constructed to help save the salmon runs from collapsing.

Now, up to the the Hell's gate slide, commercial fishing was easily supported by this river. They were obviously fishing before 1913, otherwise how would they know that 30million was the largest ever, up to that point. So commercial fishing ins't the only, OR the main reason for the low numbers in the past.

People forget that for years, DFO and the Fish processors have been seeding the lakes with macrozooplankton to feed the lake fry, for good returns. So really, these numbers are kinda artificial. But definitely large enough to support a commercial opening or 5.
If you haven't been to the Adams river to witness the Sockeye return. I encourage you all to go see. You'll realize why 25 million fish returning to the beds would be a disaster. They weren't meant to hold this many. And with the lack of other spanwning areas in different systems, that is wy the lake seeding has gone on.

Why the big numbers? Who Knows:
Is it the lack of commercial and recreational openings over tha last few years?
The Aboriginal fishery has had heavy pressure on the river for the last for or MORE years, and that doesn't seem to have an affect.
What has happened in the ocean for these fish?

They only have 100 years of kowledge but, you have to let DFO manage the fishery. They know more than you Robert.

[alwaysfishn]

I think someone posted that in 1913 they estimated 38 million sockeye and they harvested 31 million that year....  Apparently the only way they had to monitor the numbers at that time was to count the number of fish that were processed by the canneries.

[Robert_G]

What I know is that the Sockeye got along just fine before DFO came along...even on big run years.

[Sir Castalot]

What I know is that the Sockeye got along just fine before DFO came along...even on big run years.

Wow.............soooo blind.

Are you just pissed that it may take you an extra hour to floss a sockeye so you can get your limit?

Go get informed, ie: read something, then come back and ADD some good info to the forum. Nothing you have said is educational or informational.
Sounds like you're just spewing info you've heard through other people down the line........... Same thing you do on the Fish BC forum.

[jon5hill]

What is with the notion that there can be too many fish on the spawning grounds?

This makes little to no sense to me. If there are fish that die before spawning because there are simply too many trying to get to the spawning area, then that is simply selecting for the stronger, fitter individuals. People think it's a "disaster" if there are too many fish on the spawning beds? I suppose this disaster never occurred before human intervention, right? The exact appropriate quantity of fish arrived each and every year and they didn't fight one another, they patiently waited in line for their spot on the spawning grounds, spawned and died in peace...

The cold hard reality of the natural world is that it is a race. This is the mechanism by which natural selection operates. Humans are ridiculous, thinking we are supposed to be correcting something, or that there is something wrong with the natural processes that occur. Why do you think they have developed insane kyped mouths, big humps, and are aggressive as hell? Would you rather we have weaker genetics in the stock and have the fish be completely maladaptive? I understand the reduction in spawning area that has occurred in the past, however that is something humans have done. You don't have to go and cull 5 million fish to avoid a traffic jam on the spawning beds.. this would void natural selection and the genetic strength of the Sockeye population.

[chris gadsden]

What is with the notion that there can be too many fish on the spawning grounds?

This makes little to no sense to me. If there are fish that die before spawning because there are simply too many trying to get to the spawning area, then that is simply selecting for the stronger, fitter individuals. People think it's a "disaster" if there are too many fish on the spawning beds? I suppose this disaster never occurred before human intervention, right? The exact appropriate quantity of fish arrived each and every year and they didn't fight one another, they patiently waited in line for their spot on the spawning grounds, spawned and died in peace...

The cold hard reality of the natural world is that it is a race. This is the mechanism by which natural selection operates. Humans are ridiculous, thinking we are supposed to be correcting something, or that there is something wrong with the natural processes that occur. Why do you think they have developed insane kyped mouths, big humps, and are aggressive as hell? Would you rather we have weaker genetics in the stock and have the fish be completely maladaptive? I understand the reduction in spawning area that has occurred in the past, however that is something humans have done. You don't have to go and cull 5 million fish to avoid a traffic jam on the spawning beds.. this would void natural selection and the genetic strength of the Sockeye population.

Excellent post and also I might add that all the dead sockeye in their natal streams even though they may not have spawned successfully provide excellent nutrients as the offspring will feed on their relative's dcaying flesh when they emerge from their redds in the Spring.

[ricer]

Seems to me fish are doing ok right now - this run anywas - up to 30 million!  Again, over the last 8 years this cycle has been the only run that had multiple openings.  I'm not saying fishing helps runs but this article seems to suggest it does.

interesting article on Friday's Richmond News talking about :

Want more fish? Kill more fish
 
Not enough salmon being harvested: UBC professor
 
BY NELSON BENNETT, RICHMOND NEWSAUGUST 27, 2010
 
 
If the Department of Fisheries and Oceans wants to increase wild salmon stocks, it should let fishermen harvest more fish, says a UBC fisheries expert.

Dr. Carl Walters, who recently sat on the science panel advising the Cohen Commission, says DFO's current escapement targets are too low.

"The real big story here isn't so much that it's such a big run, it's that it's not being harvested at the rates it could be," says Walters.

It's an argument Conservative MP John Cummins has made over the years: Allowing too many fish to return to spawn is actually bad management. However, it's an argument that is hard to sell to the public or even DFO because it seems to defy common sense.

But Walters, whose expertise is in fish population dynamics, said there is compelling evidence that allowing too many fish to spawn has a deleterious rebound effect.

"If you put too many fish on the spawning grounds, it will come back to haunt you," said Walters, a professor at UBC's Department of Zoology.

The haunting comes in what Walters calls "delayed density dependence," and he said there is now 15 years of evidence to support that the 30 per cent exploitation rates embraced by DFO is a failed experiment.

"It doesn't seem like anyone in government realizes it was an experiment in the first place," Walters said.

DFO used to allow fishermen to harvest up to 80 to 90 per cent of returning salmon. But in 1995, fisheries managers decided to lower the exploitation rate to 30 per cent.

The assumption was that allowing more salmon to return to spawn would result in more fish hatching, returning to the ocean and coming back in four year's time.

"The evidence is now very clear that that didn't happen," Walters said.

Allowing too many salmon to return to spawn results in a boom in predators and parasites, Walters said.

Fish may not be the only species hurt by DFO's current escapement policies -- so are commercial fishermen. Walters said the commercial fishing sector has lost $300 million needlessly since 1995. While he agrees the commercial fishery needs to be shut down when stocks are drastically low -- as they were in 2009 -- he thinks DFO made a mistake in keeping the commercial fishery largely closed in 2007 and 2008.

© Copyright (c) Richmond News

How does Robert know that fish got along just fine before DFO came along?

[BBarley]

John Cummins can blow it out his @$$.

Easy to criticize DFO's management practice when your pocketbook depends on it.....

Humans are not god's gift to the world, we're an overpopulated species that has evolved like everything else. We were not designed to manage the world, that's why we have natural flaws like greed. There is nothing about harvesting more salmon to enhance future runs that makes any sense. I bet if I was slipped a few thousands bucks for me studies from the Fisheries Workers Union I could come up with some bull#^$@ that would sound like Dr. Walters report.

[Robert_G]

Wow.............soooo blind.

Are you just pissed that it may take you an extra hour to floss a sockeye so you can get your limit?

Go get informed, ie: read something, then come back and ADD some good info to the forum. Nothing you have said is educational or informational.
Sounds like you're just spewing info you've heard through other people down the line........... Same thing you do on the Fish BC forum.

Sounds to me like you're spewing out a bunch of anger. Interestingly enough coming from a brand new member with no information in his profile.
Perhaps you should read what Jon5hill just said.
I'll say it again....The sockeye did just fine before DFO and commercial fisheries ever existed.

[Sir Castalot]

Yup, a brand new member here. I was reminded about Rodney's page the other day, so I decided to join the fray.
Well done Rod. Excellent site.
A new member here, but a founding member on Fish BC.

There's no anger in my statements, just perplexed at your posts that don't offer anything. Bring something to the table......

Up until 1913 the salmon runs supported the commercial fishery just fine. After Hell's Gate, it took 28 years of fishing, logging, habitat destruction, and environmental changes to realize the fish need our (Canada fisheries, and US fisheries) help to survive.

Yes Jon5hill makes some good points but the problem is "The exact appropriate quantity of fish arrived each and every year....." is just that. It isn't the exact appropriate quantity. It's an artificial quantity. Those particular spawning beds can't hold those numbers. Back in 1913 there were many more spawning beds over different areas that the fish would go to. SInce then an ever increasing loss of habitat pormpted DFO and Fishing companies to increase survival rate of fry in particular lake systems, to make up for the loss.

Without this, there would be no fishing at all. There simply would be not enough fish.

[cutthroat22]

Back in 1913 there were many more spawning beds over different areas that the fish would go to.

I think this part is overlooked a lot.

[ricer]

I think Jon5hill makes a good point but not a contradictory point to what we have been saying.  I don't think that we "need" to harvest to have strong stocks but i think we can and still have strong stocks.  No one argues that there is a maximum capacity that a river can sustain.  When this capacity is exceeded or if the not enough fish meet it than stocks may be reduced for a cycle until #'s can recoup.  But this is the beauty of nature, if we can find the maximum sustainable amount that ensures continued stocks will be strong than we can have recreational and commercial openings and have enough fish to spawn - is that too much to ask

The problem continues to be the complexity of it all - which has been my push all along.  There are so many factors that are yet to be discovered and new factors that may be conjjoured.  Last year's stocks had great returns four years prior - that is why they estimated 10million to return but they didn't.  They don't know if the problem was in the hatch, the fry stage, the juvinille stage, the migration or the open ocean stage.  We don't know if there were man made causes or natural causes or as is likely a combination of both.

The Pacific Salmon foundation is attempting to research all these stages to determine the 2009 collapse  - BC outdoors sports fishing Mag.

 

[skaha]

--it is easy to set and manage targets after the run has occurred... until we get reliable numbers on returning fish and where they are going how can we possibly set catch targets.

--I think the escapement targets have more to do with the lack of confidence in the return predictions than it has on what appropriate targets should be.

--Also am concerned with the number of small tributary spawn stream.. (not the main know areas) that have disappeared over the years ( urban development,lack of water etc). My money on the health of the population and ability to rebound from disaster would be on the many small tributaries where fish arrive in small numbers at different times than the main runs.

--What is going to happen if a tank truck with toxic waste plows off the bridge on the Adams or the hells gate slide type event, remember recent slide on the chilcotin that blocked the river for a few days.. these catastrophic events continue to happen.
--I am wondering if there is any significant correlation between sockeye rebound and seemingly similar rebound of Okanagan kokanee populations that have in recent years also been on the recline.. Maybe our scientists are taking to much credit for what is a naturally occurring cycle.  We may not be as significant a factor as we think,,  I agree we can destroy a population, not sure we are actually the ones who are the significant factor in rebuilding it.
   

[jon5hill]

... the problem is "The exact appropriate quantity of fish arrived each and every year....." is just that. It isn't the exact appropriate quantity. It's an artificial quantity. Those particular spawning beds can't hold those numbers. Back in 1913 there were many more spawning beds over different areas that the fish would go to. SInce then an ever increasing loss of habitat pormpted DFO and Fishing companies to increase survival rate of fry in particular lake systems, to make up for the loss.

Without this, there would be no fishing at all. There simply would be not enough fish.

Considering most stocking programs and artificial enhancement select fish from a narrow range of the gene pool, it makes sense to let selection act on these monocultures as much as they can. The Alaskan Sockeye fishery manages for diversity. By reducing the mean variation in genetic composition among our Sockeye by artificial enhancement, we are effectively promoting boom and bust cycles. If we want a healthy, predictable, and harvestable fishery, we should be managing for diversity, rather than artificially enhancement - waiting for a boom year, and then harvesting the crap out of the run. In an eye opening paper published in Nature in March of this year, leading Salmon biologists (Schindler, Hilborn, Quinn, and others) demonstrate how stability is gained from increased biodiversity in the Alaskan Sockeye fishery. The Fraser Sockeye run has never been managed for diversity, and as such the remaining fish are likely less adapted for their particular systems than Alaskan Sockeye are for their respective systems. If we think that the spawning beds are saturated and we need to harvest more to allow 'appropriate numbers', then natural selection will not operate maximally on these huge boom cycles of fish. The operation of natural selection on any population always maximizes diversity, and if we want to take a page from a properly managed fishery that is sustainable and predictable, we should adapt management practices that maximize natural selection and thus manage for enhanced diversity within and between Sockeye runs on the Fraser.

[ricer]

Another great theory and plan that came to a screeching halt this salmon year in Alaska when they had a bust of a year.  There still is no full proof plan and i don't think there ever will be.  But Alaska has been the most consistent over the last while so they must be doing something right.