Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: Rodney on March 09, 2015, 11:03:32 AM
-
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2013-2017/2015FLNR0026-000296.htm
-
Finally . Now they need to clean up Translink.
-
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2013-2017/2015FLNR0026-000296.htm
Great news :D Hopefully the Chilliwack Vedder will see some of this new money for stock assessments and nutrient enrichment.
-
3 million isn't much money. 10 million for an entire province is kind of sad. Good to hear though as thats a significant increase (43%) :). Do you think there will be any noticable difference in the lowermainland given that this is a 3 million dollar increase spread across the province?
I doubt government would part with money if it was significantly more than 3 million.
-
3 million isn't much money. 10 million for an entire province is kind of sad.
Want more money? Get more people to buy fishing licences. :)
-
How would people feel about a modest price increase? IMHO an annual license is already an incredible deal if not a bit out of whack with the one and eight day licenses. Now that I know that 100% goes back into improving the resource I would be ok with paying a bit more. A 10% increase could mean an extra million bucks.
We always go on about more enforcement, better education, etc but not often suggestions on how to pay for it.
-
Maybe the Lib's are starting to realize that fishing generates millions of dollars in revenue to them by the spin off effect of fishing that gives them a great amount of tax revenue, more than LNG at this time. ;D
-
Hopefully hatcheries get some help.
As I understand many hatcheries including Chilliwack's aren't run at close to full capacity and issues involving water temperatures and fish size at release can be addressed.
-
Hopefully hatcheries get some help.
As I understand many hatcheries including Chilliwack's aren't run at close to full capacity and issues involving water temperatures and fish size at release can be addressed.
I'd like to see most hatcheries go the way of the dodo bird, rather than have more money uselessly put into them. It's been demonstrated they do absolutely nothing in recovery of wild runs, and that they actually harm wild runs in the process. I'd rather see money go towards stock assessment, figuring more out about life history of fish, doing more ocean survival, etc. Money would be better spent on research than pumping rivers full of hatchery fish. Money would also be better used fixing habitat we've destroyed so we can at least improve freshwater survival - the only thing we can actually do something about.
I really hope they follow through with the stock assessment and enforcement side of things that were stated in that release. We need more stock assessment and restoration. It would be cool to see that shift away from government (who keep cutting it), and over to a society who would actually be able to do it AND put it to use. Plus, we could always use more enforcement. It would be cool to see the money from the ticket they write go back into FFSBC as well...
-
Anglers in Alberta are going to be paying more on the licenses for increased enforcement. I would like to see a similar thing happen here.
http://alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=378066CA86D9D-ADA1-01C9-2C557979363BE095
-
Three Million is a lot more than 0. None of this will go to enforcement as that's outside FFSBs mandate. Hatcheries like the Chilliwack is a Federal operation though perhaps they'll be some more money to fund hatchery steelhead (all the other species are outside what FFSB does) in that specific hatchery but why? There is a lot of fish both wild and hatchery.
Improving steelhead and cutthroat fisheries in other parts of the FV & Lower Mainland should have a higher priority. Cutthroat programs were chopped from what they were 20 to 30 years ago. Providing opportunities away from the one or 2 rivers with big hatchery returns could be a priority. But they can't also go dumping hatchery smolts etc here and there - what if it doesn't work? That'd be like throwing money away. Likewise steelhead on the Vanisle East Coast need attention
I'd bet a lot of the money will go to fisheries promotion. There's some sense in that given the current low Cdn$ but it doesn't help fish much or make for better fishing.
-
Rather than an increase in Liscense's I'd prefer to have people pay per fish they keep. Itd be pretty easy to do on the current set up. Just have the slots added at $5 a slot for each fish where chinook get recored. Since its online and printed extra slots can be added easily enough. That would increase the funds pretty quick. Especially during Sockeye season where a lot of people already pay $10-15 a fish.
-
Hi Everyone,
I just wanted to provide more clarity around the recent news that the Society will be receiving the remaining 30% of licence revenues.
First, there are no plans to stock more lakes. In fact, in partnership with Ministry fisheries biologists we have been stocking fewer lakes over the past 5-8 years. Some of the lakes that were historically stocked did not make any sense from both a biological and a geographical perspective. We have been investing resources to enable us to make stocked lake fisheries better.
The new funding is going to be used for a variety of initiatives. These initiatives will be focused on both wild and stocked fisheries as the new funding is allowing FFSBC to expand its investments beyond stocked fisheries. The most prominent initiative is to fund the three Provincial technical committees. Currently there is a small lakes, large lakes, and a rivers committee that helps guide fisheries management decisions in the Province. The committee membership is made up of representatives from each regional office, the Victoria F&W office, and FFSBC biologists. The rivers and large lakes committees have not been receiving the resources required to implement good fisheries projects. These committees (mainly staffed by Ministry biologists) will now have significant resources to invest in stock assessment, angler access initiatives, habitat restoration and other projects that will be beneficial to BC freshwater fisheries.
The funding is also going to be used to increase compliance and enforcement through a partnership with the COS Service. In addition, there are a number of other initiatives we are going to be working on with our Ministry partners that will be beneficial to BC's Freshwater Fisheries resource and its stakeholders.
I cannot comment on where the $3 million dollar budget reduction will come from because I do not know, but I do know it is not coming from a reduction in capacity of F&W staff or the COS service.
I hope this helps clear up any confusion.
Sincerely,
Adrian Clarke
Vice President, Science
Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC
-
Thanks for the extra information :) I for one am happy more emphasis will be put on rivers.
-
There is a lot of fish both wild and hatchery.
Interesting comment RalphH ... guess it depends on one's definition of lots. What's yours?
-
From what I know & have read the number of hatchery fish in the system has been more or less the same number as wild fish over the long term.
I wouldn't measure "a lot" on the basis of some people's desire to catch several fish per outing.
How many more hatchery fish than wild fish do you want given the concerns about hatchery/wild fish interaction and potential damage to the gene pool of wild fish? How many rivers on the south coast have a population of steelhead that measures in the thousands? By any relative measure the Chilliwack systems steelhead stocks are in good shape.
from a values perspective I'd prefer to see the river managed as a wild only fishery - including salmon but politically I believe that won't fly.
Improvements to habitat or license structure that can stabilize and increase fish numbers and improve the angling experience make more sense to me.
-
Out of curiosity would it not be cheaper or even more efficient in the long term to put in artificial spawning beds like Logan Lake, Inga lake etc have instead of raising and stocking fish? The limit on the local 'city' lakes was reduced to two so maybe the hatchery can not keep up? or is it because of money or space? Then they could stock non sterilized trout and they could spawn and stock the lakes that way... or is there another reason?? I am just sort of curious...
-
Out of curiosity would it not be cheaper or even more efficient in the long term to put in artificial spawning beds like Logan Lake, Inga lake etc have instead of raising and stocking fish? The limit on the local 'city' lakes was reduced to two so maybe the hatchery can not keep up? or is it because of money or space? Then they could stock non sterilized trout and they could spawn and stock the lakes that way... or is there another reason?? I am just sort of curious...
The trout we stock, in many cases are a non-native fish, especially to the system. Their concern is the accidental release (through feeder stream, flood, or otherwise) of non-sterilized fish into water ways like the Fraser.
Another reason is many of the lakes they stock turn into dead zones in very hot summers. Water temp's get extremely high, and the bottom is anoxic, so the fish die. It would be useless to try to establish a spawning population.
I'm sure the hatchery can "keep up," but more fish = more money needed. They've mostly lowered limits, in my belief, to make the fish they put in last longer and provide more opportunity to people just starting out, etc. Before hand there would be individuals going down and taking out 2-3 limits of 4 fish right after the stocking. With only 500-1500 fish going in at a time, that depletes it quick.
-
The trout we stock, in many cases are a non-native fish, especially to the system. Their concern is the accidental release (through feeder stream, flood, or otherwise) of non-sterilized fish into water ways like the Fraser.
Another reason is many of the lakes they stock turn into dead zones in very hot summers. Water temp's get extremely high, and the bottom is anoxic, so the fish die. It would be useless to try to establish a spawning population.
All the put and take fish are now sterilized. I was told this by a MOE biologist after I reported (with photo) catching what looked like a farm raised rainbow of about 3lbs from the Harrison River. He said the fish in question was likely from Lake Erroch & they had stopped stocking that lake due to concerns of stocked fish moving into the Harrison & competing with cutthroat.
Any example of lakes that are stocked even though the fish will die in summer? Here they stopped stocking Latimer Lake precisely because water quality meant stocked fish would likely die over the course of the year.
-
I'd like to see most hatcheries go the way of the dodo bird, rather than have more money uselessly put into them. It's been demonstrated they do absolutely nothing in recovery of wild runs, and that they actually harm wild runs in the process. I'd rather see money go towards stock assessment, figuring more out about life history of fish, doing more ocean survival, etc. Money would be better spent on research than pumping rivers full of hatchery fish. Money would also be better used fixing habitat we've destroyed so we can at least improve freshwater survival - the only thing we can actually do something about.
I really hope they follow through with the stock assessment and enforcement side of things that were stated in that release. We need more stock assessment and restoration. It would be cool to see that shift away from government (who keep cutting it), and over to a society who would actually be able to do it AND put it to use. Plus, we could always use more enforcement. It would be cool to see the money from the ticket they write go back into FFSBC as well...
Many small lakes have little to no natural recruitment. If you eliminate these hatcheries you won't have a fishery on these lakes.
-
One key point that most have missed is that sterile trout are used for stocking to maintain a quality fishery. It is difficult to manage non-sterile trout and their recruitment. For urban lakes in Region 2, they also don't have the nutrients to sustain such recruitment. Current stocking practice lets managers know exactly how many fish are going into the lakes and how many should be stocked in the future once angling effort has been taken into consideration. Stocking of sterile trout also avoid any introgression with wild stocks in the same system. Finally, the quality of fish being stocked is also just better if they are triploid.
-
Finally, the quality of fish being stocked is also just better if they are triploid.
To enhance this point. The quality is better as triploid fish do not put energy into reproduction, instead focusing on growth. This leads to stronger, larger fish compared to a diploid of the same age