Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Randog on December 02, 2004, 03:32:52 PM
-
The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (WALP) is contemplating introducing a policy which will designate more than 600 streams in B.C. as either Hatchery augmented or "Wild" . As I recently attended two meetings on this policy, one in Nanaimo and one in Burnaby, I have mixed feelings on this policy. To me it seems like WALP is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Plese read this proposed policy and post your comments. I'll elaborate on my thoughts latter in the thread. ;D
http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/fw/documents/steelhead_stream_class.pdf
-
Wow, 74 reads, and nobody has any comments? If your and avid steelhead angler, please read this policy. It may affect your angling oppertunities for steelhead. I don't want to voice my views on this policy yet, but would love to hear what others think. Please take a minute to read it.
-
Read it (can't believe I am reading it on a Saturday night! ::) ). How does it differ to the current management strategy?
-
Well, here's my take. It sounds to me like a cost cutting measure. If they class a whole bunch of streams as "wild", they don't have to spend any money or effort to stock them with hatchery fish. They can simply leave them alone, or close them to fishing if they get lazy and/or the steelhead numbers decline. But due to the wild designation, enhancing those streams would not involve hatchery fish.
It looks like even small local volunteer-run hatcheries would be out of the question unless the stock gets close to extinction.
I expect it would lead to many smaller streams being closed to fishing, but perhaps better fishing on the hatchery-augmented streams as they would be able to focus their resources. This is the same as the permanent "red tide" closure on the north coast, which has nothing to do with actual PSP presence but is strictly a result of lack of money for coastwide monitoring. The same thing would happen with steelhead fishing.
Better to NOT cut the $4 million from the salmonid enhancement budget. Then they might not have to consider policies like this.
-
Well, here's my take. It sounds to me like a cost cutting measure. If they class a whole bunch of streams as "wild", they don't have to spend any money or effort to stock them with hatchery fish. They can simply leave them alone, or close them to fishing if they get lazy and/or the steelhead numbers decline. But due to the wild designation, enhancing those streams would not involve hatchery fish.
Cost cutting measures? Maybe,but I don't think thats the reason for this policy. Could it possibly be that GBSRP has a hold of WALPS ear and has convinced them that steelhead returns should only be from "Wild" origins? Now that the Fresh water fisheries society gets 1/2 of every dollar from angling lisc. sold to joe public in B.C. , should'nt they be thinking of ways to introduce new anglers to the already crowded streams and lakes in B.C. to increase cash flow? Let's smell the coffee here, what happens if this policy dosen't work? What if WALP dosen't see their projected end result? Will they let the remaing "wild" reurn of steelhead vanish, and never replace them?
Let me ask this, why are we experiencing such low steelhead returns from central B.C. south to the 49th? Poor ocean survival? Overharvesting? Ocean temps?
We here on the West Coast of B.C. have the highest concentration of fish biologists in Canada and NONE of them can seem to figure it out! :o
-
i am not a english major or a philly lawyer, but i get the same type of message as reach does. no matter what they do it will cost a load of money and guess who is going to pay.soon only the rich will be fishing this province.
what the h_ll is the difference between conservation fish culture program and the traditional production hatchery program????ones clipped and the other not or is it more. can someone explain that.
-
You meant highest concentration of unemployed fish biologists. ;)
Because of my lack of background on steelhead management, I will only comment on a few things about the policy. After one glance, from a biologist's point of view, I find it quite sounding with maybe the odd questionable approaches. From an angler's point of view, I can see our opportunities being downsized. Oh well, the fish comes first anyway right? :)
Possible reasons of low steelhead returns
Again, I'll offer a few suggestions that may have impacted the return as I am not as updated on the current situation as others.
One thing to keep in mind is that ocean productivity is irregularly cyclic. One prime example that indicates this trend is the pacific and atlantic herring fisheries (I do not have the graphs of historical harvest and returns, will post if I find them). Historically, fishermen in Japan or East coast of NA have had seasons when hardly any herrings returned during spawning seasons, while other years their allowable harvests well exceeded the average. Why do such occurances take place, no one really knows. One possible hypothesis is climatic fluctuation. Ocean temperature is a major precursor of productivity of planktons, which acts as the base of the food web. This may possibly impact the salmonid populations after their ocean phase as they spend more than 50% of their lifespan in the ocean and sit on a higher trophic level. Ocean temperature and other climatic components can impact the spawner return size, the question is how much? I shall cease discussing this idea at this point before embarrassing myself in front of my colleagues as I simply do not have information to continue further.
If ocean survival is to blame, then is it simply out of our hands since we can not control natural trend? The answer is not entirely yes. Most salmonids fail to survive in the ocean soon after smoltification. Smoltification is a juvenile phase between the river and the ocean. Survival rate of smolts depends on several factors. These include the presence of predators and ability to feed. If a smolt is too small, it can not feed as fast as others, its chance of being eaten is much larger (especially during warm years when higher populations of mackerel and other pelagic species are further north).
One factor that cannot be neglected is smolt size. If the smolt is bigger, survival rate is higher. How does a juvenile salmonid achieve the optimal weight before smoltification? By rearing in a healthy stream where food is abundant. Abundance of food means higher population of insects. Healthy stream (http://fishingwithrod.com/crac/pic/habitat1.jpg) means shady pools created by overhanging trees, well oxygenated water and sufficient amount of gravel.
Anyways, I'm trying to say.... Better spawning and rearing habitat brings back more fish. ;)
Saturday night.... ::)
-
Thanks for posting this Randy. Am sort of burnt out from yesterday's meeting so will read and comment later. Will want to discuss with my MLA if things look hay wire on this report
A side thought if they are so bent on this wild policy thing as the FED'S are also seeming to be leading too maybe we should be banning fish farms. They are hatchery raised fish, atlantic and some chinook, numbers of them escaping into the wild, polluting the ocean floor, sea lice problems ect.
One of the first Nation presenters yesterday said it made him cry to see all the chum and pink fry covered with sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago the last while.
Sorry if I hijacked this thread but will bring it back tomorrow when I read the complete report.
-
... what happens if this policy dosen't work? What if WALP dosen't see their projected end result? Will they let the remaing "wild" reurn of steelhead vanish, and never replace them?
Yes, I expect that's what they would do. They would point to this policy and say "our hands are tied - we can't add hatchery fish to a wild stream." Unless the stock is singled out by SARA or the Accord for Protection of Species at Risk, whatever that is, as needing a Recovery Program, the policy as written says they will do nothing except control fishing effort and work on habitat. And we all know how much enhancing habitat costs, so being a bit of a cynic, I doubt any real habitat work would happen.
But that brings up the question - what SHOULD they do in that case? Is the status quo an option? The only other option I see would be allow small hatchery programs on streams that are in trouble, along the same lines as the current programs (must use wild brood stock, must not "high grade" when selecting brood stock, hatchery fry must not be more than 30% of total released, etc.) Any other ideas? Maybe your steelhead license should require some number of hours of "volunteer" work in habitat improvement/enhancement? (That's probably not practical, but hey, I'm brainstorming.)
-
Reach/Smiley, I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that introduction of this policy well require buckets if cash? The policy says nothing about closing hatcheries, it just wont allow hatcheries on streams that have been classifies as wild, or won't reopen any hatcheries that are not currently functioning. Even though the hatchery was introducing "Hatchery augmented" fish into a stream and some of the progeny of those "Hatchery" fish will have hatchery genes and no doubt spawm with the so called "wild" fish. Will the hatchery/wild fish be of pure 'Wild" strain?
What happens if a run of "Wild" steelhead is decimated by a human error, i.e. chemical spill, land slide etc. How will WALP rebuild that return? Hatchery, I bet. This policy is quite convoluted and it is very easy to misconstrue its meaning. I have probably read the policy at least 20 times and still find holes in it and can't see how it will cost or save any revenue.
-
Randog, I didn't say it would require cash. I said it would save cash, as it restricts the amount of hatchery work they can do. It would limit the options when it comes to hatcheries and give the green light to focus all the budget they have on the few streams designated hatchery-augmented. If a wild run gets into trouble, the only management options for wild streams would be improve habitat (sorry, no budget for that...) or shut them down.
-
News flash for you. It won't save any money as the Federal govt is picking up the tab for most of the steelhead enhancement. All the hatchery steelhead in the Vedder, Chehalis and Stamp are all paid for by the federal govt. As DFO is forced by the Ottawa bureacrates to cut costs, you can be sure that the steelhead programs are going to disapear. These are Provincial programs and the BC govt has not paid for any of them. They put $1 million into SEP when it was formed in the late 70's and no money since. Their money is long gone. Classifing streams wild / hatchery is just another classic move by the Province to rearange the deck chairs on the Titanic and then tell us that everything is under control. Look around at the Provinces track record in southern BC when it comes to steelhead. Pretty poor. We need a whole new group of senior people in WLAP with some new ideas or steelhead are going to disapear in a lot of the south coast areas. Think I'm wrong. Look at the Squamish. When was the last time anyone raved about this steelhead fishery. It used to be the 2nd best fishery in Region 2. It's in horrible shape now. After 20+ years of doing nothing and hopeing for the best we now have at best, under 400 fish. Good job guys. Their plan is soon comming to a river near you. God help us all. They are always underfunded, yet BC has a large surplus and the senior people can't even get $4 Million dollars for Georgia Straight Steelhead Recovery programs. Time for some heads to roll.
-
Well said BKK, at the rate WALP is proceeding, I think I might blow the dust off the ol' golf clubs. You say that the Feds. are sponsering the steelhead programs? Where did you get this info? Specifics please.
-
Common knoweldge. Talk to Bob Stanton at Chwk hatchery or Robin Dickson at Capilano and they will tell you what it costs. No provincial money. It's all comming out the DFO budget to run these facilities.
-
On the Vedder the majority of the brood stock ( Wild ) Steelhead are captured by volunteer anglers. They are then transported to the Chilliwack River Hatchery by their staff where they are keep in condominums until they are ready to be spawned in the Spring.
After the eggs are hatched they are raised at the hatchery to smolt stage and are picked up by the Abbotsford Trout Hatchery staff in their tanker trucks and put into the lower part of the Vedder River in May the following year.
ABH coordinate the volunteer anglers, number of brood to be taken etc.
Am not sure what the cost sharing between FOC and Province is if there is one but could find out but someone else on the board most likely knows.
-
From what I see in this policy, there dosen't appear to be any underlying cost savings agenda to it. I think WALP is just hell bent to see so called "wild" steelhead in most of the rivers on B.C. period. You can put any kind if spin on it you like, (make the stock wild so that it's all catch and release, same fish gets hooked over and over again, more anglers on the flow = more Provincial revenue through lisc. sales) I could probably dream up 20 more hair brained ideas along the same line that I would'nt put past Walp to concider. The problem is this, WALP see's "wild" fish as a steelhead that has'nt spent it's life in a hatchery facility and has an adipose fin intact. Thats the diffinition that I recieved from Al Martin at the Nanaimo workshop on this policy on Oct. 16/04. Having said that, is it possible that two "hatchery" steelhead could stray into a wild classified stream and spawn and then basterdize that run of fish by introducing inferior hatchery genes to the "wild" strain? WITHOUT DNA samples in would be impossible to tell. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see our streams in B.C. flourishing with wild steelhead stocks, reality = ain't gonna' happen. I'd hate to see the last two "wild" steelhead swim up the stream to spawn (especially if they're males) :o :o
-
Funding of the steelhead program at the Seymour Salmonid Hatchery is also provided by FOC.
-
bkk, since you are working at the hatchery up that way and more familiar with the system than everyone else on this board, do you have any suggestions on what needs to be done to improve the returns of steelhead in Squamish and its tributaries? Few of us often comment on how much habitat there is for the fish, yet it's baffling to see low returns. Is the habitat as good as it seems? Would it be better to leave the current environmental state as it is? Is the return so low that a hatchery program is the only solution to see a rebound in numbers? Lastly (you gotta be hating my questions by now with the ones you get in emails and all ;D ), what is the major cause of siltation after each high discharge in that river (it seems to take quite a long time for the water to clear up after each heavy rainfall)?
Ok, really, lastly, under the proposed policy, would Squamish be classified as a wild or hatchery augmented stream?
-
Rod;
I will try and answer your question as clearly as I can:
1) We need the habitat restoration projects to continue to restore and improve habitat. The problem with this is that it's expensive to work in the main river areas. A lot of the "easier" projects have been done (ie: Shovelnose Creek) so we are now forced to work in the more dynamic areas of the river. With very small to non -existent Provincial budgets, I don't see how this is going to work in the short term. And the problem we have is now critical short term. Runs are very low, just rement amounts in some of the stocks. A lot of the habitat seems to be underutilized, especialy in some of the newer habitat restoration projects. I would suggest that we need to combine these projects with some steelhead enhancement out of a hatchery. I think that we could release unfed steelhead fry and outplant them into this underutilized habitat. The fry would be released straight out of incubation at the same time the wild fry are emerging. There would be no size diference between the fish that had protected incubation and the fish that were born in the stream. The big gain is the amount of fry that could be released per adult steelhead spawned. In the Squamish system with it's dyamic flood and glacial runoff events, egg to fry survival is low 1- 20 % ( as a rule). With hatchery incubation, you should get minimum 60 - 80%. This should produce fish to smolt as well as the river spawned fish. I would then hope that they would return in sufficent numbers to then seed the habitat on there own. With the Oylmpics and the District of Squamish expecting to double in the next 15 years, we can't affort to wait another 20 years to see what WLAP has in store for recovery. We just don't have that luxury if we want fishable numbers of steelhead to be here.
2) The Squamish clears slowly after a major rain or storm primarly due to geography. Mountains are steep, rugged and glacier capped. As most people are aware, glaciers have receded significantly in our liftimes. As they recede they leave behind, sand, silt, gravel and glacial flour ( very fine sediments). With the rains and non-freezing events, this just flows downstream and ends up in the river. This is why the river clears much quicker once the snow line drops. All of the sediment freezes up for the winter and then comes down the following spring and fall.
3) It my understanding that the Province is going to class the Squamish system as wild only. Or so I hear. It might be better to class the upper river that and try some enhancement on the Mamquam or Cheakamus. That along with more restoration on both of those rivers. At any rate that is what I would do if I were King for a day. I 'm sure some of the purists won't agree with my plan, but tough. Is this about ideals or about saveing a once great river. If we don't break out of the way we have been doing steelhead bussiness for the last 25 years, then the next 25 look pretty grim in my part of the world.
-
randog you could be right on 2 hatcheries making a wild unless they are born missing the adipose fin.bkk do all your hatchery fish get clipped before being release.the reason i ask is i know some people that work as clippers say they never clip all the fish.just to many to do.they have worked at the cowichan,nitinat,nanaimo,robertson and the rest of the major hatcheries on the island.they have a quota to do in a certain time frame then the rest just get released into the system.the ones that don't get clipped are not wild fish they just look wild.could randogs theory be right maybe all our rivers are already bastardsized. also from what i have been reading on other post it sound like we are heading into centralized hatcheries.fish from the veddar being raised in the chilli.hatch.must be a cost saving management thing. i know on the island we have nitinat taking fish from a number of different rivers and streams and raising them.here is a thought is it possible that some of these fish could be released into the wrong river from where they were taken from. i do not know where the h_ll i am going with this post just like i do not know where that policy is going.
-
Just my $0.02 on hatcheries - I don't like big centralized hatcheries. They may be more efficient. But the temptation is there to restrict the gene pool, and the capital and labour costs are significant.
I like the way it was in Pender Harbour when I was living there. (It may still be running this way; I'm not sure.) There was a small hatchery on one of the streams feeding Anderson Creek. All the labour to build it and run it was from local volunteers, except for the one guy from DFO (Grant McBain) who supervised. Occasionally DFO would kick in a little bit of money for capital costs, but the labour was free. A whole bunch of people from all walks of life - commercial fishermen, sports fishermen, naturalists - would get together for the big chum egg takes, take turns walking the creeks checking the traps for coho, monitoring the hatchery water conditions, clipping smolts, releasing fry, etc. It brought the community together, preserved local genetics, and cost almost nothing for DFO.
That's why that $4 million cut is so stupid. If they cut Grant McBain, or the tiny amount of money to buy Heath trays or plastic pipe or oxygen equipment for transporting fry or whatever, then they lose countless hours of volunteer labour. The SEP money can be multiplied many times over if the community is involved. It raises awareness about salmonid issues, which will never happen without community involvement.
Anyway, that program has way too much bang for the buck so I guess it's got to go. >:( Sorry for the hijack. I'll shut up now as I don't really know much about steelhead.
-
to all who have written or read this post.i think we are all on the same side of the fence. it is just so fusstrating when you have some number cruncher or policy maker deciding our recreation activities.i think all of us here want to maintain and sustain our recreation and lively hood whether it be salmon, steelhead,trout and what ever else. it sounds like a lot of us do some sort of volunteer work to try and enhance our oceans, rivers and streams and all we get is a noose around our neck for our efforts. i will continue to do volunteer work as many of you will and i guess time will tell if we get noticed. thats my spew for the day.
-
A lot of the habitat seems to be underutilized, especialy in some of the newer habitat restoration projects. I would suggest that we need to combine these projects with some steelhead enhancement out of a hatchery. I think that we could release unfed steelhead fry and outplant them into this underutilized habitat. The fry would be released straight out of incubation at the same time the wild fry are emerging. There would be no size diference between the fish that had protected incubation and the fish that were born in the stream. The big gain is the amount of fry that could be released per adult steelhead spawned.
Thanks for posting that. Interesting proposal of reducing egg to juvenile mortality and I like it. What other hatchery programs have conduct this (releasing fish right after incubation)?
Does the logging further up have an effect on siltation as well?
-
My understanding is upper Squamish river steelhead can never come back to historical #s...the reason being is they spawn in small tributary creeks that usesd to come off the moutains and meander along the main steam squamish before joining.Some of these creeks used be 7 to 15 km in length and now are only 2 to 5 km in length so that means less spawning grounds for steelhead..the creeks are shorter now due to flooding wich is caused by logging....
-
My understanding is upper Squamish river steelhead can never come back to historical #s...the reason being is they spawn in small tributary creeks that usesd to come off the moutains and meander along the main steam squamish before joining.Some of these creeks used be 7 to 15 km in length and now are only 2 to 5 km in length so that means less spawning grounds for steelhead..the creeks are shorter now due to flooding wich is caused by logging....
But are these existing tributaries are fully utilized during the returns? I highly doubt any system in the Lower Mainland will see historical returns, but how about just work on getting a "good"return for now? ;)
-
Answers to a couple of questions in regard to Squamish fish:
Smiley: All of the coho smolts from the Tenderfoot stock ( Cheakamus River) get adipose clipped. The other stocks ( Mamquam, Ashlu and Squamish ) are not clipped because a directed harvest is not wanted on these stocks. These stocks are helping to rebuid some of the stocks on those rivers. The Tenderfoot stock returns in sufficent numbers to saturate the habitat in Tenderfoot Lake many times over so this stock can handle a marked kill fishery. The chinook stock in this system is not marked . This was done as a cost saveing measure a few years ago. There is no sport fishery inriver for adult chinook anyway.
Rod: Some of the few hatcheries that still release chum and pinks generally release them as unfed fry. In regard to Squamish logging, it hasen't helped the situation.
Troy B: The only trib in the upper Squamish that is 7 - 15 km long is the Ashlu. A good part of the lower Ashlu did indeed disapear in last falls (2003) huge flood. Most of the other creeks are indeed very small and do meander on the floodplain. These streams are quite small but do contain some of the best steelhead habitat in the valley. Unfortunetly there are not many of these streams. The best stream in the upper Squamish is Shovelnose Creek on the east side. It has seen $ 500 000 worth of work since the mid 90's and most likely produces the most fish in the upper river. In the 80's when the Provincial boys actually spent some time up here working with steelhead, they found that a lot of the steelhead spawned in the groundwater / riverwater mixed side channels in the floodplain. The trib creeks were also used but there was more habitat in the flood plain.
-
yes you are right about shovelnose creek being the main producer of the around 250 fish in the upper squamish on a good year now...but what iam saying is all those smaller creeks used to be alot longer which would make more spawning grounds and make up for the other fish that are lost...