Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: Rodney on October 22, 2008, 02:21:40 AM
-
One of the items discussed at the UFV SFAC meeting last night was the change of Chilliwack River's upper fishing boundary. Since it was temporarily changed, there has not really been clarified when it comes to the reason, duration, length of the closure, etc. Here's some information for readers after definitive decisions were made tonight.
The boundary change was due to the shortage of summer red chinook salmon broodstocks that the hatchery experienced in mid August. Many fish were holding at the section just below the previous boundary.
Fortunately, the hatchery just made its broodstock quota before the season ended once the boundary was changed.
Bob, the hatchery manager, provided his thoughts on how and when the boundary should be lowered. Mike from DFO's C&P provided his feedbacks on how they would like it done to make enforcement easier.
In the end, it was decided that the lower boundary would apply between August 1st and September 7th in the future, so summer red chinook brood collection would not be jeopardized. For the rest of the year (except June when the river is closed), the old boundary will be in effect. The official change should be available in next year's regulation synopsis.
-
So that means it's still closed for this year then, if I read that correctly?
Or has it opened again to the "old" boundary?
Thanks Rod!
:D
Tex
-
Yes, I was also at the meeting last night and the boundary 100 m down from the confluence of the Slesse creek and the Chilliwack river is still in effect.
-
That part wasn't clarified I think. I assume that the lowered boundary is still in effect until the resource manager makes the changes that we discussed last night, probably very soon.
-
They should leave the boundary where it is and make it permanent.
That 100 meters doesn't make a difference for the fishermen and it obviously does make a difference for the fish trying to enter the hatchery.
-
Just another example of the fishing communities unwillingness to protect fish stocks. The UFV-SFAC should give their heads a shake. I guess they all think that snagging fish at the limits
hole is an appropriate method of taking fish. Thumbs down to the SFAC.
-
I was so happy to hear the news when they closed the limit hole and I knew the good news would not last forever. I am once again dissapointed. I wish they would just keep it closed and give these fish a chance. Look what they have to put up with once they enter the river. They have to run the gaunlet of the snaggers that try to hook them, the ones that make it past that now have to worry about being snagged right by the hatchery :'( .
-
are not the fish "stacking"in the "limit hole" mostly of hatchery origin therefor put there for sports fisherman ???
-
oh well the beeks that were there just migrated to other areas and nothing was really done about them so whatever. spot closures wont solve the problems affecting that river.
-
Majority are hatchery fish, it's a good hole if people fished it properly,it spreads the people out abit more lol, Did I mention HATCHERY fish,
Enforcement up there has been alot better this year but still needs to be better.I am ok with the Reg's.
-
are not the fish "stacking"in the "limit hole" mostly of hatchery origin therefor put there for sports fisherman ???
They are not put there for the sport fishermen.
They are put there to ensure survival of the species by taking pressure of the wild fish.
Because some sport fishermen do not have any regard for the fish.
oh well the beeks that were there just migrated to other areas and nothing was really done about them so whatever. spot closures wont solve the problems affecting that river.
This is true, but the number 1 priority should be to ensure that the hatchery gets the fish they need.
So if they have to close the entire river to ensure they get enough spawning adults, that's what they should do.
-
are not the fish "stacking"in the "limit hole" mostly of hatchery origin therefor put there for sports fisherman ???
They are not put there for the sport fishermen.
They are put there to ensure survival of the species by taking pressure of the wild fish.
Because some sport fishermen do not have any regard for the fish.
oh well the beeks that were there just migrated to other areas and nothing was really done about them so whatever. spot closures wont solve the problems affecting that river.
This is true, but the number 1 priority should be to ensure that the hatchery gets the fish they need.
So if they have to close the entire river to ensure they get enough spawning adults, that's what they should do.
Hatchery is there to provide fishing/retention opportunity for anglers or when a wild spawning environment can not be established. Many scientists is against hatchery as they believe it reduces genetic pool. So rivers that are for protecting wild fish will only see closures and not hatchery program.
-
Just another example of the fishing communities unwillingness to protect fish stocks. The UFV-SFAC should give their heads a shake. I guess they all think that snagging fish at the limits
hole is an appropriate method of taking fish. Thumbs down to the SFAC.
not everyone snags fish. i don't think it appropriate to stereotype.
-
are not the fish "stacking"in the "limit hole" mostly of hatchery origin therefor put there for sports fisherman ???
The two water bodies that flow into that area are slesse creek which fish will be heading up to the hatchery but the other is the chilliwack in which the wild fish will be heading up so it is a mixture of both. Still no excuse for snagging black chum and springs ::) used to be a good steelhead hole though but not much you can do :P
-
The CO's had the quads out today, playing with the toys. ::)
-
Just another example of the fishing communities unwillingness to protect fish stocks. The UFV-SFAC should give their heads a shake. I guess they all think that snagging fish at the limits
hole is an appropriate method of taking fish. Thumbs down to the SFAC.
Buck, while I personally wouldn't mind seeing the section closed (for two reasons, I don't fish anywhere near it due to poor tablefare of these fish so it wouldn't bother me, and I do not condone the general practices that take place in the area), I agree with what my colleagues' thoughts on this issue at the meeting. The main reason for the section closure has been to ensure broodstock number is met at the hatchery. At the meeting, Bob provided the information on by half of the hatchery. He said the problem has been obtaining summer red chinook broodstocks due to a combination of factors (low water level that causes fish to stage there, low fish number and high fishing pressure due to a lack of summer fishing opportunities elsewhere). When asked if there is a problem on obtaining broodstocks for fall runs, he said that has not been an issue. Based on this information, members of the UFV SFAC then advise the resource manager that we should keep the section closed during the period when summer red chinook salmon would stage there so the hatchery can ensure that their broodstock requirement is met.
We also wanted to make sure the closure is not based on poor fishing practices. If it was the case, then where does one draw the line? Enforcement is the solution for violations. When drivers speed on the freeway, you do not close the freeway for all, instead the police enforce the speed limit. If we are to close down a section of the Chilliwack River due to poor fishing practices by certain individuals, then we should close down the entire river, or actually all rivers in BC. 100 meters of additional closure may not seem much, but it simply shifts the problem downward. Do we close another 100 meters below it next year, and another 100 meters the following year? Once fishing access is lost, it is rarely gained back.
At the same time, no one wishes to turn a blind eye on the increase of violations that we are seeing. Mike from DFO's C&P presented his observations on the Chilliwack River from this season. He provided the most common problems and the type of anglers who tend to be involved in these infractions. These problems are always discussed at the SFAC meetings and solutions are always being brainstormed. An increase of enforcement is obviously on top of the list, but we also recognize that there has to be a better way to educate new anglers.
The sad reality is that we are losing more fisheries in the Lower Mainland each year due to poor returns. The removal of one fishery simply results in another burden on the Chilliwack Hatchery as more anglers flood to the Chilliwack River to do what everyone else wants to do - to catch fish. This past summer's limited chinook and sockeye salmon fishing on the Fraser River is a good example. Current hatchery production cannot sustain this spike of demand on the Chilliwack River. If anglers wish to enjoy the same quality (quantity) of fishing experience on the Chilliwack River, then some may want to start pressuring your MPs to bring back the DFO fundings that have been cut by Ottawa over the years.
-
Rodney
Although I agree with what you have said at what point do we start to become advocates for fish. The "Limits Hole" is a stagging area for salmon before entering the hatchery.
These fish are very vulnerable at this point and should not be harassed to the extent that they are. No one wants to take responsibility and make a decision that may upset
the fishing community. Unfortunately members of the UFV- SFAB do not have to witness the mayhem that takes place daily. We were asking members of the fishing community
to support a recommendation for a complete closure of the limits hole. This did not happen and a number of staff members were shocked to say the least. Once again the fish are
the losers
-
They have the fish counter lady at the slab all day why not have a CO posted at limit?? Is it money?? the snag factor would go way down....Cammer it still is a good steely hole..
-
are not the fish "stacking"in the "limit hole" mostly of hatchery origin therefor put there for sports fisherman ???
They are not put there for the sport fishermen.
They are put there to ensure survival of the species by taking pressure of the wild fish.
Because some sport fishermen do not have any regard for the fish.
oh well the beeks that were there just migrated to other areas and nothing was really done about them so whatever. spot closures wont solve the problems affecting that river.
This is true, but the number 1 priority should be to ensure that the hatchery gets the fish they need.
So if they have to close the entire river to ensure they get enough spawning adults, that's what they should do.
Hatchery is there to provide fishing/retention opportunity for anglers or when a wild spawning environment can not be established. Many scientists is against hatchery as they believe it reduces genetic pool. So rivers that are for protecting wild fish will only see closures and not hatchery program.
No, hatchery is not there to provide an opportunity for anglers. That's a misconception.
Hatcheries are there to save what would otherwise be completely destroyed.
Hatcheries do work and as a matter of fact there is a good article about it in the newest BC Outdoors issue. Read it.
Let the scientist disagree, in the mean time, if it weren't for hatcheries, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
-
I feel that they should have closed this area permanently. No, not all such areas can be closed, but this one is right next to the current boundary. From what I have ssen closing it would be no loss to sport fishermen.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Exactly Cam....
-
No, hatchery is not there to provide an opportunity for anglers. That's a misconception.
Hatcheries are there to save what would otherwise be completely destroyed.
Hatcheries do work and as a matter of fact there is a good article about it in the newest BC Outdoors issue. Read it.
Let the scientist disagree, in the mean time, if it weren't for hatcheries, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You're only correct for hatchery function in the past. Before International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission was dissolved many hatcheries were there for the purpose of restocking/re-establish salmon runs. But since then, government has taken side with scientists recommandation hatcheries does not help wild fish. Many hatcheries have since then been closed. The remaining hatcheries it's main goal is to continue restocking of heavily utilized and habitat distructed river sytems (Capilano, Stave, Vedder, Allouete...) Rivers that are to protect wild fish, habitat reconstruction, spawning channel, rearing habitat, lake nutrient enhancement projects are initiated instead of hatchery.
-
if/when they get there quota for red springs it should also be opened instantly, they are hatchery fish anyways, but ethics police should be on hand for the festivities
The boundary change will be from August 1st to September 7th, not until when the hatchery obtains its broodstocks. My understanding is that (Buck can correct me if needed) the hatchery collects broodstocks beyond the number that is required because holding mortality occurs at times and hatchery staff also want to select their broods. Also, any in-season closures/openings would only cause more confusions and work for both anglers and enforcement staff.
Although I agree with what you have said at what point do we start to become advocates for fish. The "Limits Hole" is a stagging area for salmon before entering the hatchery.
These fish are very vulnerable at this point and should not be harassed to the extent that they are. No one wants to take responsibility and make a decision that may upset
the fishing community. Unfortunately members of the UFV- SFAB do not have to witness the mayhem that takes place daily. We were asking members of the fishing community
to support a recommendation for a complete closure of the limits hole. This did not happen and a number of staff members were shocked to say the least. Once again the fish are
the losers
I would like to be convinced by you and a few others but having a hard time to find the permanent boundary shift justified. There are two separate issues here. If the hatchery is able meet its broodstock requirement during the fall fisheries, what would be the reasoning behind closing the section? On the other hand, if we are talking about wild stocks staging and spawning in the section, then we should be advocate for them and revisit the issue at the next meeting. The poor fishing practices being witnessed would not be put to an end if the section is closed permanent, they would simply move to other well known locations where fish also stage (eg. Tamahi, the crossing, KWB, etc). This problem can only be tackled by two solutions - Enforcement and education.
The solution needed is almost identical to how street racing has been dealt with. Everyone remembers that street racing was common just several years ago. Through aggressive enforcement and education, which has made it into a social stigma, plus strengthened punishment, the problem has been reduced significantly.
We can certainly use more enforcement and higher fines for violations, but an aggressive education program needs to be developed. As stated in another thread, we need pamphlets that clearly illustrate what is and is not acceptable in river fisheries for new anglers, which could be distributed by retail stores and officers. We need information kiosks/boards with the same information, as well as fish id photos, in-season fishery notices and RAPP numbers, at heavily accessed fishing spots. We need to have more river fishing seminars offered to new anglers. We need anglers to join their local angling affiliations so we are more organized and quicker when actions are needed. There are so many positive initiatives that can begin changing our fisheries. If everyone just takes on one initiative, then... I better stop or I'd be too excited and unable to sleep tonight. :-\
They have the fish counter lady at the slab all day why not have a CO posted at limit??
Again, having a officer stationed at one location simply moves the problem elsewhere. It is unrealistic and not as effective as most believe.
Is it money??
Yes.
Currently there are 8 DFO officers who are responsible for Mission/Chilliwack area. Beside attending recreational sportfishing infractions on the Fraser, Stave, Norrish, Chilliwack, Harrison, Chehalis Rivers, they also deal with bigger issues such as illegal netting by First Nations, illegal purchases of fish at restaurants (three were charged this summer. Out of all restaurants checked, 50% reported that they have been approached by illegal sellers), habitat infractions.
-
The limit hole and 95% of the "fishing" that goes on there is a disgrace...during red spring season, I saw a line of flossers, one of which has his float upside down with the bright orange cap underwater. Unfortunately, this represents the majority of fishing going on everywhere else on the vedder and many other rivers too. We are now living with the aftermath of Fraser's sockeye fishery and I think maybe a good place to start is the banning of bottom bouncing on the fraser...PERIOD.
Shifting boundaries only changes things for that one small section of river and as previously noted, it just shifts the problem elsewhere.
What we need is regulation aimed at reducing flossing; mainly leader length restrictions but also a better definition of for snagging/fair hooked fish would help. I hope one day that we will see a return to the type of river/fishing etiquette that was commonplace when i was learning to fish.
-
Bottom bouncing has nothing to do with the low returns of fraser sockeye.........
-
The limit hole and 95% of the "fishing" that goes on there is a disgrace...during red spring season, I saw a line of flossers, one of which has his float upside down with the bright orange cap underwater. Unfortunately, this represents the majority of fishing going on everywhere else on the vedder and many other rivers too. We are now living with the aftermath of Fraser's sockeye fishery and I think maybe a good place to start is the banning of bottom bouncing on the fraser...PERIOD.
Shifting boundaries only changes things for that one small section of river and as previously noted, it just shifts the problem elsewhere.
What we need is regulation aimed at reducing flossing; mainly leader length restrictions but also a better definition of for snagging/fair hooked fish would help. I hope one day that we will see a return to the type of river/fishing etiquette that was commonplace when i was learning to fish.
LOL.LOL> Float upside down. Im sorry but thats too funny!lol. what a donkey!
-
Yes, it's funny but it happens more often than you think.
-
Hey my float is all green ;D
Flossing flossing flossing, when would this get old...
Leader restriction yap, you know flossing with a spinner is actually ALOT more effective. Hey 0" leader length. Try banning that!!!
-
Hey my float is all green ;D
Flossing flossing flossing, when would this get old...
Leader restriction yap, you know flossing with a spinner is actually ALOT more effective. Hey 0" leader length. Try banning that!!!
im sorry but i dint understand your comment. can you clarify?do you mean you floss fish witha spinner?
-
the color side is suspossed to be up on a float?
yes.and fish are suppesed to be beached by yanking their tail.
-
River etiquette,
I do not beleive there is such a thing anymore, There was a time when consideration and respect on the river was common place. You could meet new people on the river and fish with them all day then part ways with a mutual respect for each other. On recent trips I have witnessed fist fights over a boot spring that I would not feed to my cat, People I will not call them fishermen wadding into the run to retrive a float and them a hook. I left my spot to land a fish, returned to have two guys in my spot then they act like I am moving in on them. I don't go as often as I use to these days I wonder why...
-
Hey my float is all green ;D
Flossing flossing flossing, when would this get old...
Leader restriction yap, you know flossing with a spinner is actually ALOT more effective. Hey 0" leader length. Try banning that!!!
im sorry but i dint understand your comment. can you clarify?do you mean you floss fish witha spinner?
I'm saying there's more ways than one to floss. Leader restriction will not solve anything.
-
Hey my float is all green ;D
Flossing flossing flossing, when would this get old...
Leader restriction yap, you know flossing with a spinner is actually ALOT more effective. Hey 0" leader length. Try banning that!!!
im sorry but i dint understand your comment. can you clarify?do you mean you floss fish witha spinner?
I'm saying there's more ways than one to floss. Leader restriction will not solve anything.
Are you sure you didnt mean there is more than one way to snag ::) Have you seen the wall at the fish hatchery with all the hooks that have been taken out of the fish coming through. It seems all you need to catch fish there days is a spark plug and a treble hook on a trout rod ::) >:(
I don't like the change... it should stay closed. I have gone up there on weekends and just sat there watching for a long time just laughing (because you can't do anything else) about how people can fish there. It's horrible to see all these boot springs being landed in the tails and sides, many of them end up dying anyways because the biggest problem I have seen with this group of anglers is NO ONE REVIVES THE FISH. I came across quite a few fish this year, lying in the shallows on their sides trying to catch a breath.. I was able to revive a few but many went back to the seagulls :'(
-
And you seriousely think by moving them else where they'll revive fish released? Dreamer!!!
-
Rodney
Although I agree with what you have said at what point do we start to become advocates for fish. The "Limits Hole" is a stagging area for salmon before entering the hatchery.
These fish are very vulnerable at this point and should not be harassed to the extent that they are. No one wants to take responsibility and make a decision that may upset
the fishing community. Unfortunately members of the UFV- SFAB do not have to witness the mayhem that takes place daily. We were asking members of the fishing community
to support a recommendation for a complete closure of the limits hole. This did not happen and a number of staff members were shocked to say the least. Once again the fish are
the losers
I was at the meeting as an observer only and did not have a vote on this issue but when there was a vote call I put my hand up as opposing the motion anyway. There is no easy answer to all the problems we have, I know that, but as Buck says we have to start thinking more about our fish than ourselves.
Then there was a presentation about the sockeye mortality study this season but that is another topic for another day. I was so upset that many at the meeting still seem to think this sockeye fishery on the Fraser River is just great, I could not listen any longer and left the meeting at the break. It seems the economics of this sockeye fishery and the type of activity we have on so many of our rivers including the Chilliwack Vedder rules over anything else these days. Very sad.
-
You could probably improve things quite a bit by making Chums, springs and pinks all catch and release. I know it may not be too popular with some people, but it would get rid of those that are only after meat at all costs. It wasn't that long ago that the only thing you could keep on the Vedder was coho and hatchery steelhead. Also maybe see if the hatchery could bump up production of coho at the expense of white springs. There seem to be quite a few chums in the river for nutrients anyways.
-
Rodney
Although I agree with what you have said at what point do we start to become advocates for fish. The "Limits Hole" is a stagging area for salmon before entering the hatchery.
These fish are very vulnerable at this point and should not be harassed to the extent that they are. No one wants to take responsibility and make a decision that may upset
the fishing community. Unfortunately members of the UFV- SFAB do not have to witness the mayhem that takes place daily. We were asking members of the fishing community
to support a recommendation for a complete closure of the limits hole. This did not happen and a number of staff members were shocked to say the least. Once again the fish are
the losers
I was at the meeting as an observer only and did not have a vote on this issue but when there was a vote call I put my hand up as opposing the motion anyway. There is no easy answer to all the problems we have, I know that, but as Buck says we have to start thinking more about our fish than ourselves.
Then there was a presentation about the sockeye mortality study this season but that is another topic for another day. I was so upset that many at the meeting still seem to think this sockeye fishery on the Fraser River is just great, I could not listen any longer and left the meeting at the break. It seems the economics of this sockeye fishery and the type of activity we have on so many of our rivers including the Chilliwack Vedder rules over anything else these days. Very sad.
From what I hear now it appears the Limit Hole area will be closed year round which I, Buck and some others supported. Wait for the offical notice in the new regulations that come out in the Spring.
-
Guess they'll just have to find another limit hole.
-
Guess they'll just have to find another limit hole.
Embutment :'( I guess a plus side to that is the embutment is a more public area, way easier to call infractions in and maybe the public will open their eyes and see what is actually going on since it is now right in their face :-\
-
Guess they'll just have to find another limit hole.
Unfortunately there is many Limit Holes on most of our rivers. ::)
-
Guess they'll just have to find another limit hole.
Unfortunately there is many Limit Holes on most of our rivers. ::)
So true
-
What about a fishing adaptation of the Ski Patrol?
Have some interested and concerned fishers getting organized to be out on the river and watch for bad practices. Extend the eyes & ears of the CO's.
Get them all similar, noticable jackets/hats.
-
What about a fishing adaptation of the Ski Patrol?
Have some interested and concerned fishers getting organized to be out on the river and watch for bad practices. Extend the eyes & ears of the CO's.
Get them all similar, noticable jackets/hats.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/contact_e.htm
Please let us know their thoughts of your ideas when you receive a response.
-
What about a fishing adaptation of the Ski Patrol?
Have some interested and concerned fishers getting organized to be out on the river and watch for bad practices. Extend the eyes & ears of the CO's.
Get them all similar, noticable jackets/hats.
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pages/contact_e.htm
Please let us know their thoughts of your ideas when you receive a response.
"Their thoughts"????
Why doesn't this community build it and voluntarily support DFO? Show them we support their efforts, want a better fishery, and are prepared to walk the talk.
If the Rec fishery fades away so does FishingwithRod.com
-
Why doesn't this community build it and voluntarily support DFO? Show them we support their efforts, want a better fishery, and are prepared to walk the talk.
No idea what you're talking about in the last post.
You have an idea, possibly a good one. I provided a link of contact where you could share that idea with to get things rolling. Share their responses to others on the forum so maybe they also want to get involved. You can also share your concerns on the Lower Fraser First Nations fisheries while consulting with them.
Anyway, let us know.
Regarding the boundary update, here's a C&P of the recent update Chris and I both received.
Hey everyone, the department has reviewed the issue of the temporary closure of the "limit hole" on the Chilliwack River (100M downstream of the confluence with Slesse Creek) that was implemented late this summer and following is an update.
At the fall meeting the hatchery manager (Bob Stanton) requested a permanent closure of the area for the entire year as this is a staging area for most salmon prior to their entry into the hatchery. This was supported by our Conservation & Protection Officer who indicated that there were significant compliance issues with the area closure and the difficulty the encountered enforcing a temporary closure. During our discussions Bob advised that, for the purposes of chinook broodstock collection, he could support a shorter closure and as you know, the UFV SFAC recommended the department continue with the closure on a temporary basis each year from August 1st to September 7th annually.
While this motion is currently working it's way thru the SFAB process to become formal advice to the Department I wanted to advise you that after considering all the information the department will be implementing a permanent year round closure of this area on the Chilliwack River. I have spoken to your Chair, Frank Kwak, about this issue and thank him for his views which of course support implementing your original motion. If you have questions or concerns please contact me either by email or at the number noted below. This change will be announced via a Notice to Industry, included in the 2009-11 Sport Fishing Guide and on our website.
I thank you for your advice and hope to continue to work with you to provide effective management of fisheries that will lead to strong stocks that allow for stable and predictable opportunities.
-
One must wonder why we all seem to discuss issues that when we look at the situation from the fishes perspective we seem to want to enforce our own needs with little regard for the fish. The reality is this is the last major staging hole in the river before fish commit to continuing into the closed area or entering the hathery. We have had open access to these fish from the far reaches of the Pacific up to this one little area and we seem to wonder why are we being shut out on a productive pool. Give the fish a break, Let them stage into either area in peace and accept that on most hatchery rivers the last staging pool in usually off limits to anglers. I think it makes sense to leave it closed. We have had a good run on them up to this point.
Lets work on the bigger issues with respect to fishing with honor and integrity. Each of us has it in us to recognise right from wrong. I always smirk when we talk about the need for more enforcement. I would hope everyone would agree the key ingredient is money to hire more enforcement. I witnessed the discord over a sturgeon fee to help with issues related the them and wonder how many os us would step forward with increased fees for more enforcement on issues we face in areas like the limits hole or any fish trap pool where ethics and honor are replaced by the need to feed in many cases.
-
Heard today FOC is presently reviewing their decision to implement a permanent closure at the Limits Hole.
Meetings will be held to discuss this early in 2009.