Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: positive Action re. Marked Selective Fishery  (Read 2376 times)

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1596
Re: positive Action re. Marked Selective Fishery
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2021, 12:56:27 PM »

Not a sideswipe at all. If you know anything about me at all it's that I advocate for fish, not fishing.
Imo there should be zero fishing or harvest on these endangered Fraser chinook stocks.

are you saying industries are not allowed minimal harm to these stocks?
Logged

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3299
Re: positive Action re. Marked Selective Fishery
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2021, 01:39:42 PM »

are you saying industries are not allowed minimal harm to these stocks?

No, I'm not talking SARA because I know that will never happen.
Logged

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1596
Re: positive Action re. Marked Selective Fishery
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2021, 02:06:58 PM »


No, I'm not talking SARA because I know that will never happen.

haha you are going where i'm going with this i can't get you.  The in river net fishery accounts for well 90% of the exploitation but for the same reason as Sara thats not going anywhere. Most of the 5-2 exploitation is now occurring where is over laps timing with the summer 4-1. Since the summer 4-1 is about the only "healthy" stock left to get a good amount of FSC from. The dynamics change is is enough fraser sockeye to get FSC from.  I asked Jamie how much sockeye FSC do they need before the department would reduce FSC chinook fisheries and he said fsc need for sockeye is 1 million. for fraser river first nations.  So currently they are only getting what they require for FSC once every 4 years.

Thats not a return of 1 million but having enough return so they can harvest 1 million for FSC.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2021, 02:09:06 PM by wildmanyeah »
Logged

Dave

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3299
Re: positive Action re. Marked Selective Fishery
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2021, 02:47:20 PM »

haha you are going where i'm going with this i can't get you. 
;) We know each other well.
I sure don't have the answers but any chinook in a FN net is dead and any sports caught released chinook has a (pick your %) chance of dying.
I do believe some coastal lakes and systems below Big Bar could be enhanced for sockeye production but doubt there is enough time to get them to the point of FSC needs. Sad state of affairs..
Logged

RalphH

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3772
    • Initating Salmon Fry
Re: positive Action re. Marked Selective Fishery
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2021, 07:30:32 AM »

Not a sideswipe at all. If you know anything about me at all it's that I advocate for fish, not fishing.
Imo there should be zero fishing or harvest on these endangered Fraser chinook stocks.

how can anyone argue with that?
Logged

wildmanyeah

  • Old Timer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1596
Re: positive Action re. Marked Selective Fishery
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2021, 10:01:52 AM »

how can anyone argue with that?

Its like Seaspiracy, How can you argue that the reason why stocks are depleted is because we killed them and continue to kill them. You can't but all the experts seem to want to try. 

https://www.vox.com/2021/4/13/22380637/seaspiracy-netflix-fact-check-fishing-ocean-plastic-veganism-vegetarianism

Daniel Pauly is a marine biologist, fisheries scientist, and professor at the University of British Columbia and a member of the board of directors of Oceana.

Logged