Print

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

[Rodney]

Nice to see a lengthy discussion on this as I had expected when I decided to post this. It gets people talking and identifying some key problems that may need to be looked at. I dispatched this fish with full confidence that we would not be fined, because we are fit and can outrun any CO... No, actually it's because we've worked closely with the hatcheries and COs in this area, so we know what the expectations are when it comes to what are legal and illegal. Skaha does bring up a good point, and it's something I practice constantly. For this website's information to be credible, I have to make sure that the decisions I make are correct, or at least do our best anyway (occasionally we slip up ). Overall I wanted to know what other anglers' decisions would have been and Sandy has gone further to obtain a few opinions from the ministry. IMO, even though we retained this fish, I am in full support of only allowing the retention of fish with the adipose fin removed completely to avoid similar scenarios.

[Sandy]

@ Sandy i take it you had a chat with a CO recently? Seems he is getting a little tired of answering the same question .. and has a bit of an attitude. Yes what we need is clarification and i have a feeling there will be a small change that states the whole adipose must be removed and in its place a healed scar, that's where they will go with that one. Too bad we are getting these mixed messages from the agencyy that we rely on to enforce blatant violations, but i guess up until this time they feel what they have in writing is sufficient. I totally disagree with this and its too bad they can let their personal feelings and attitude influeance their enforcement decsions.

@ Sandman thanks for the clarification about the point blaydRnr was trying to make. I just wanted to share a less than pleasan  experiance i had with a CO while i was out fishing and asked him the question about a mis clipped fin. He made me feel like i was asking a silly question even after i said i wanted some clarification on the regs and i was a bit of a bother by asking, he even said how do i know it is not a deformed fin???  We all know what a healed scar is. It sounds like Sandy had a similiar experiance, and maybe Rod is lucky he didnt run into the CO i was speaking to or the one Sandy spoke to.

We do need a clarification on this and we need our enforcement team to come together and make uniform decsions.. I myself personally think these are mis clipped hatchery fish and meant to be bonked if so desired but i wont be taking one should the opportunity arise thats for sure. Be just my luck i would run into the same CO that i spoke with.

and as I was told yesterday, "don't let me catch you with one" and if you are having difficulty understanding the written stuff ,there are a couple of diagrams to look at. I got the feeling this very nice fella   was tired of the question. I for one will be glad when a clarification comes forth, whatever it is.




100% agree with you Blacktail.

[Sandy]

Nice to see a lengthy discussion on this as I had expected when I decided to post this. It gets people talking and identifying some key problems that may need to be looked at. I dispatched this fish with full confidence that we would not be fined, because we are fit and can outrun any CO... No, actually it's because we've worked closely with the hatcheries and COs in this area, so we know what the expectations are when it comes to what are legal and illegal. Skaha does bring up a good point, and it's something I practice constantly. For this website's information to be credible, I have to make sure that the decisions I make are correct, or at least do our best anyway (occasionally we slip up ). Overall I wanted to know what other anglers' decisions would have been and Sandy has gone further to obtain a few opinions from the ministry. IMO, even though we retained this fish, I am in full support of only allowing the retention of fish with the adipose fin removed completely to avoid similar scenarios.

I suspected that's what you were up to Rod. Remember you only need to outrun Nina , works for bears too.

I have heard rumours of this and kinda questioned the logic. I will say this my concern is and was that wild Steelhead may bonked due to missidentification as being mis-clipped but really accidentally or Adipose fins. What happens when this precedent is then taken to other fisheries and species?
 We end up with valuable resources tied in a litigious system. All for the want of a very few an precise words : COMPLETLY MISSING  and HEALED SCAR. This not open to interpretation and I am pretty sure that the regs of a decade or two back made this very point.

I blame no-one, as this to me appears to be a problem that evolved through a system that is broken, in that communication from the field is not being processed and acted upon by the Ministries adviser's in Victoria and or direction from Victoria is not being acted upon in the field. We hear much about simplification of the regs , but all this does is infact complicate everything.

I can tell you this, I got into a spot reglarty trouble years ago. I worked in the a particular area closely watched by ministry staff and police. I then moved to work in another area doing exactly the same job of with the same methodology, then I found out that what was being doing under guidance was not cosher. I knew what I was doing was questionable but trusted that the Authority at site knew better.
Almost cost me all I owned, but fortunately a "staffer" was able to reason things to a satisfying end, with a "you should have read the regs and act" cost me nothing but a wack of ego.



appologies for butcher job !

[bigblue]

Nice to see a lengthy discussion on this as I had expected when I decided to post this. It gets people talking and identifying some key problems that may need to be looked at. I dispatched this fish with full confidence that we would not be fined, because we are fit and can outrun any CO... No, actually it's because we've worked closely with the hatcheries and COs in this area, so we know what the expectations are when it comes to what are legal and illegal. Skaha does bring up a good point, and it's something I practice constantly. For this website's information to be credible, I have to make sure that the decisions I make are correct, or at least do our best anyway (occasionally we slip up ). Overall I wanted to know what other anglers' decisions would have been and Sandy has gone further to obtain a few opinions from the ministry. IMO, even though we retained this fish, I am in full support of only allowing the retention of fish with the adipose fin removed completely to avoid similar scenarios.

I hope Rodney's comments would bring to rest this topic and prevent over eager fisherman from interfering with harvest of hatchery fish on Vedder River. Last month a fishing buddy of mine had to let go of a mis-clipped hatchery as one of the guys on the flow insisted that retention of a mis-clipped was illegal. I personally believe that nothing good can come from a hatchery (or suspected hatchery fish) breeding with a wild fish on the Vedder as it does have a large and stable population of wild fish present. 

[typhoon]

I hope Rodney's comments would bring to rest this topic and prevent over eager fisherman from interfering with harvest of hatchery fish on Vedder River. Last month a fishing buddy of mine had to let go of a mis-clipped hatchery as one of the guys on the flow insisted that retention of a mis-clipped was illegal. I personally believe that nothing good can come from a hatchery (or suspected hatchery fish) breeding with a wild fish on the Vedder as it does have a large and stable population of wild fish present. 

How did you get that from Rod's comment or the rest of this thread?
I read that the word of the regulations is clear - the adipose must be MISSING with a healed scar - but that the interpretation of an individual CO may let it slide.
Several posters on this thread feel that they law does not apply to them because it is their OPINION that any marked adipose is a legal hatchery fish.
Also I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that there are true wild genes in any wild fish on the Vedder.

[Sandy]

How did you get that from Rod's comment or the rest of this thread?
I read that the word of the regulations is clear - the adipose must be MISSING with a healed scar - but that the interpretation of an individual CO may let it slide.
Several posters on this thread feel that they law does not apply to them because it is their OPINION that any marked adipose is a legal hatchery fish.
Also I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that there are true wild genes in any wild fish on the Vedder.

Dave might be able to help us with that one. I understand that there is residual wild stock in the upper reaches, as for their purity I heard their was a DNA study done on some in the last several years. I have no idea how baselines for comparison would be established, unless there is genetic or other samples available that were taken before the establishment of the hatchery to campare with. I don't know ,maybe Dave or others in the know can answer.

[blaydRnr]

How did you get that from Rod's comment or the rest of this thread?
 
Several posters on this thread feel that they law does not apply to them because it is their OPINION that any marked adipose is a legal hatchery fish.
 

Likewise with you, Where did you get the idea that anyone is suggesting the law does not apply to them? This thread is about clarity of the regulation and people's interpretation of what the officials themselves can't seem to agree on. Like you mentioned people are giving their opinions based on research and communications with the ministry. No one thus far has promoted or advocated doing anything that would suggest otherwise. Remember, there's a difference between giving an opinion and making out right accusations.


In response to this never ending debate, I too have emailed the Ministry of Fisheries to try and get some clarity on this topic... My little part in doing more than just talking.... Hopefully, I will receive some form of feedback because calling the DFO hotline is like trying to get through Shaw Cable.

[bigblue]

Likewise with you, Where did you get the idea that anyone is suggesting the law does not apply to them? This thread is about clarity of the regulation and people's interpretation of what the officials themselves can't seem to agree on. Like you mentioned people are giving their opinions based on research and communications with the ministry. No one thus far has promoted or advocated doing anything that would suggest otherwise. Remember, there's a difference between giving an opinion and making out right accusations.

X2. Unless regulation is amended to make it more clear, both fisherman and COs will continue to make their own interpretations.

[Dave]

Dave might be able to help us with that one. I understand that there is residual wild stock in the upper reaches, as for their purity I heard their was a DNA study done on some in the last several years. I have no idea how baselines for comparison would be established, unless there is genetic or other samples available that were taken before the establishment of the hatchery to campare with. I don't know ,maybe Dave or others in the know can answer.

DNA samples are being taken regularly now but as you mention Sandy, there is scant baseline data to compare this to.  No doubt there are old scale samples archived somewhere but if their storage was not optimal they may be useless for accurate comparisons. 
Are there still pure wild steelhead in the Chilliwack?  I don't think anyone can say for sure but I can tell you this - the fish we observe spawning during our enumerations certainly act as wild as any other salmonids we have seen. 

[typhoon]

I don't think anyone can say for sure but I can tell you this - the fish we observe spawning during our enumerations certainly act as wild as any other salmonids we have seen. 

Were you expecting the hatchery fish to act all privileged?
"This place is filthy. I'm not spawning until you clean up that gravel" 

[troutbreath]

I guess that's the kicker they were "acting".  Trying to fool people.

[Dave]

Were you expecting the hatchery fish to act all privileged?
"This place is filthy. I'm not spawning until you clean up that gravel" 

Sorry, I suppose I should have been more explicit for a few readers – but I was on my way out fishing The people I count these fish with are good at it – between us we have about 100 years of experience.  We all agreed the steelhead we counted last spring were more wary than other salmon we had experience with; perhaps because steelhead are not programmed to die after spawning they are indeed so; who knows?  What we saw several times was fish able to detect us far sooner than we expected.  Understand, they did not see us but still were able to detect something amiss.  Most times, but not always adipose fins (especially in aggressive males) are visible.  I have never observed an adipose clipped steelhead on these enumerations.
We watched them pair off, defend mates, chase off other males and smaller resident trout, and spawn.
That's what I meant by acting wild.
My personal opinion is if a Chilliwack River hatchery steelhead that is just one generation away from wild is spawning, as it should be, gametes from that union rearing, as they should be, that's just fine.

[typhoon]

My personal opinion is if a Chilliwack River hatchery steelhead that is just one generation away from wild is spawning, as it should be, gametes from that union rearing, as they should be, that's just fine.

Sorry are you saying that a hatchery steelhead that spawns produces offspring that are "as good" as wild?

[Dave]

Well, you define good

[typhoon]

? Are you saying that only wild fish (missing adipose) spawn and that the offspring of two hatchery fish behave as wild?

bigblue's comment was that we should kill misclips to prevent the hatchery fish from reproducing and harming the wild genetic pool.
For the number of years that stocking has occurred simple statistics would say that there are no true wild fish left in the river.