Preliminary 2018 salmon outlook/Forecast/Management Measures

Let’s not go down that rabbit hole, went down it last night and it did not lead anywhere good. Lots of great info in this thread thread that took hours to put togeather.

Bring awareness of the issues and share. Some people will never agree on certain topics not because they are worng but because each person has been exposed to the issues in different ways.

The Draft IMFP went out and their was not that
Much pain for recs this year. The final Draft is due soon so will wait and see.

However it has become painfully clear that us recs need to come together coast wide it should also be painfully clear we are in a down cycle for salmon and that reductions will happen.

I think what bothers us most is we know DFO will continue to manage the stocks to a downward death spiral to were at the point where the FN are the only ones fishing at it will only be for FSC. Won’t be for a few years and if stocks have higher ocean survival rates it may not happen in the next 10.

I have no answers on how we prevent that from happening that would leave all groups on the water.

South of the border they may have a fairer/unfair model but it’s not bringing stocks back their and the rec areas that are not close down are reduced to 1 day fisheries.

Hopefully we get meaningful answers out of the PSF Salish sea project.
 
Nog[/QUOTE]
I never said that, nor insinuated anything of the kind.
In fact, if you had paid any real attention, or had any real cognitive skills, you might actually recognize that fact.

Two words at this point. You might be able to fathom what they are...

Nog

Don't have to insult me personally Stabler. Just like everything there are things I can disagree with you on, and vice versa. Many of your posts I agree with. This one I just don't think the sky is falling for rec sector. We have done that for months on here and we are still fishing.
 
Remember that we are waiting for the Minister to advise us of the new allocations.
We are waiting to see what areas will be closed and for what?
We are waiting for DFO to tell us what the 35 % reduction will look like.
Lots to wait for.


Let’s not go down that rabbit hole, went down it last night and it did not lead anywhere good. Lots of great info in this thread thread that took hours to put togeather.

Bring awareness of the issues and share. Some people will never agree on certain topics not because they are worng but because each person has been exposed to the issues in different ways.

The Draft IMFP went out and their was not that
Much pain for recs this year. The final Draft is due soon so will wait and see.

However it has become painfully clear that us recs need to come together coast wide it should also be painfully clear we are in a down cycle for salmon and that reductions will happen.

I think what bothers us most is we know DFO will continue to manage the stocks to a downward death spiral to were at the point where the FN are the only ones fishing at it will only be for FSC. Won’t be for a few years and if stocks have higher ocean survival rates it may not happen in the next 10.

I have no answers on how we prevent that from happening that would leave all groups on the water.

South of the border they may have a fairer/unfair model but it’s not bringing stocks back their and the rec areas that are not close down are reduced to 1 day fisheries.

Hopefully we get meaningful answers out of the PSF Salish sea project.
 
What are the odds that it will mostly be the rec sector that takes a hit? Some rec are still fishing but for less and smaller fish, did you forget the Fraser, slot limits, hali mess, yellow eye. Not including the rumors of worse next year. Yes I had some fishing, just did 2 days on anchor for derby. Just how much can we loose before we loose sport fishers? What gets me is we give while others continue as normal. My trust in Ministers and DFO is going the way of rec hali.

HM
 
What are the odds that it will mostly be the rec sector that takes a hit? Some rec are still fishing but for less and smaller fish, did you forget the Fraser, slot limits, hali mess, yellow eye. Not including the rumors of worse next year. Yes I had some fishing, just did 2 days on anchor for derby. Just how much can we loose before we loose sport fishers? What gets me is we give while others continue as normal. My trust in Ministers and DFO is going the way of rec hali.

HM
Who else is going to take the hit? The area G guys have already been shoved out.
 
The IFMP work is still in process. Don’t count your eggs just yet. There will be impacts or changes coming to your Chinook fishery depending on location.

The allocation policy won’t hit us until next season at the earliest. The parties will be back in court arguing about either 1 or 2 years to implement the court ruling.

Time will tell where we land issues like allocation, SRKW, Chinook Conservation measures in the IFMP etc. Buckle up it’s about to get interesting.
 
The IFMP work is still in process. Don’t count your eggs just yet. There will be impacts or changes coming to your Chinook fishery depending on location.

My chinook Fishery is where the opening are and I'm sure there are lots on this forum that do the same. I know in 2014 there was a large group of the same fishermen that followed the sockeye down from Hardy, to CR, to vancouver.

CR chum derby, Port Alberni sockeye, The Big Bank Chinnok fishery all have BC wide participants. Less time fishing local waters mean more money for trips to find the fish.

Sports fishermen adapt always have always will, People may fish less/some may even sell their boats but the good spots that have fisheries will see 10X more boats.

This will effect everyone in some manner, Your area might not get close down but it may turn into a bumper boat combat derby for peek timing.
 
I'll prob get shot for saying this as I'm likely a bit naive and looking at this rather simplistically. I think if what we all want is for the salmon stocks to replenish all over the board so that they don't get wiped out, then there simply needs to be non-retention of any salmon species by anyone for something like 5 years, commercial and native included. Straight catch and release. Maybe then we will actually see if they have a possibility of bouncing back.
catch and release is NOT zero mortality. In fact, I think that rules should be changed that C&R is illegal. If its a legal fish you have to bonk it. Once you get to your limit you are done. This is especially true in hatchery only fisheries. We kill way too many natives as we try to sort. It won't ever happen though.
 
Not every Rec angler is willing or able to shift locations. So whatever choices being made have to take into account the impacts to local niche fisheries. Or rather if we want to be fair minded about how we approach making these decisions, I’m hoping fairness is one of the considerations
 
Not every Rec angler is willing or able to shift locations. So whatever choices being made have to take into account the impacts to local niche fisheries. Or rather if we want to be fair minded about how we approach making these decisions, I’m hoping fairness is one of the considerations

I sure hope that's true but the politics of rec anglers passing harrison river fish down the coast only to have area 29 rec fishermen catch them at sandheads may not sit well with some fishing groups up and down the coast especially if thoes closures pass some of their own local stocks.

Judging how the Halibut decision went with the the various groups on the SFAB, I would say that groups up north may have swayed that decision.

No easy answer, I don’t envey anyone that has to try to make thoes decisions.
 
I sure hope that's true but the politics of rec anglers passing harrison river fish down the coast only to have area 29 rec fishermen catch them at sandheads may not sit well with some fishing groups up and down the coast especially if thoes closures pass some of their own local stocks.

Judging how the Halibut decision went with the the various groups on the SFAB, I would say that groups up north may have swayed that decision.

No easy answer, I don’t envey anyone that has to try to make thoes decisions.

The Area 29 and other SOG and approach areas (19/20) will be part of the mix, and discussion around Chinook mgmt measures. Unlike halibut, we are able to use the catch data (CWT & DNA) to more accurately model/predict where/when Chinook runs requiring conservation effort make the most sense to apply Mgmt measures. Short answer = Area 29 isn't about to get a free pass to harvest fish saved by other areas.

Another consideration is one Fraser stock of concern - Harrison - does not generally range (move up) beyond North Vancouver Island. We are looking to apply a more surgical approach, not a broad brush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: abl
Searun, has there been any progress made regarding the virtual total closure of Area 18 affecting local Pender Island residents ?
 
That issue came up today as a discussion point in the SRKW Committee. Some groups take great umbrage to fisheries in the proposed closure areas, including the proposed exception areas advanced by the SFAB. We are strongly in support of these exceptions, along with a avoidance and awareness measures such as the 200 - 400 m bubble exclusion zone with best practice of stopping fishing and slowly leaving the area if SRKW are present. We think this is a reasonable measure that achieves a strong balance between protection and opportunity. Time will tell if the Department accepts those arguments. There were others on the committee that strongly take exception because SRKW are known to use the exception areas as key forage zones.
 
Searun, has there been any progress made regarding the virtual total closure of Area 18 affecting local Pender Island residents ?

Thanks for asking that.

Just to add since is my direct area. I will also be again voicing my strong objection to closing that area as all Cowichan Bay and Mill Bay fisherman will have zero opportunities after July. After July that area gets locked down to protect the Cowichan fish. Even though river had good year last year the anglers in area wont even allowed to fish anything, so nearly everyone heads to Pender in August. I hope this has been clear to the department.

Area 18 is very highly restricted area ( its worse than areas 19/20) vs others, so if we are going to close down an area for SKRW than why cant we tweak restrictions so anglers can fish another area? Also if you live on Pender you basically cant fish there. Anyways I am probably just re stating what has been said.
 
Thank you both for coming back.As may be obvious, I have been a resident for the last five years on Pender Bluffs and so take the DFO proposal there just a little bit personal. The SFAB proposal to keep the Bluffs open is only about 20% of the total proposed DFO closure all the way to Active Pass. The whales, when they pass through, forage throughout that whole area. The bubble exclusion zone for fishing when they appear would be acceptable and easy to do as the whales always approach from the SW up Haro Strait, and the armada of whale watching boats escorting them, is visible from 2 miles away... When the whales approach and pass through, the fishing is done for the day. A lot of the locals have small boats which precludes them from traveling anywhere else so I hope a little common sense prevails. Thanks for your efforts on our behalf. Standing by.
 
Don't have to insult me personally Stabler. Just like everything there are things I can disagree with you on, and vice versa. Many of your posts I agree with. This one I just don't think the sky is falling for rec sector.

You of course are entitled to your opinion.
And although I rather strongly disagree with your assessment, I would not personally insult you over that.
Perhaps a little ridicule, but not insults.

Where you crossed the line was suggesting I am racist:

I am not going to start a 10 page back and forth just because you believe FN sucks in every form.

And as I am pretty bloody far from that, I took that as a direct insult to my own character.

Reap what you sow...

Nog
 
You of course are entitled to your opinion.
And although I rather strongly disagree with your assessment, I would not personally insult you over that.
Perhaps a little ridicule, but not insults.

Where you crossed the line was suggesting I am racist:



And as I am pretty bloody far from that, I took that as a direct insult to my own character.

Reap what you sow...

Nog

You interpreted wrong. If I was going going to call you a racist I would say it directly to you out of this forum. You took it the wrong way. This year is the most challenging issue for our fishery everyone anyone has seen, and it is showing with everyone. I am sure you saw the halibut thread. I try to keep on optimistic view rather than stay in the negative.

Carry on...
 
Thank you both for coming back.As may be obvious, I have been a resident for the last five years on Pender Bluffs and so take the DFO proposal there just a little bit personal. The SFAB proposal to keep the Bluffs open is only about 20% of the total proposed DFO closure all the way to Active Pass. The whales, when they pass through, forage throughout that whole area. The bubble exclusion zone for fishing when they appear would be acceptable and easy to do as the whales always approach from the SW up Haro Strait, and the armada of whale watching boats escorting them, is visible from 2 miles away... When the whales approach and pass through, the fishing is done for the day. A lot of the locals have small boats which precludes them from traveling anywhere else so I hope a little common sense prevails. Thanks for your efforts on our behalf. Standing by.

Yes, we totally agree on that! The Area Closures are not in my personal view a measure that will demonstrate the desired benefit. For me the spatial exclusion zone afforded through a strongly enforced and supported bubble zone would better match protection with opportunity to fish or pursue other activities. I think the 200 m in place across on the US side is not enough - 400m is better protection for acoustic disturbance. Our bubble strategy is linked to other best practices such as turning off sounders, radio communication between vessels to warn of whale movements, moving slowly and carefully out of the area when whales are present etc. Bottom line is whales are highly mobile and an area closure is frankly over-kill when/where they are not present. Whales in area = get out; no whales = business as usual.

Secondly, the proposed study as designed is badly flawed in that it allows other vessel users to be in the closed areas being assessed, and even more poorly designed - allowing the other vessels into areas being assessed as high use rec fishing zones where we hope to quantify impacts. How on earth do the researchers hope to obtain scientific data that purely measures rec fishing impacts? We desperately need to have a clear study that establishes if there are impacts and how significant (if at all) those impacts actually impede prey acquisition?? These area closures are nothing more than someone's fantasy. The are not science based, or at least not yet without a proper study to conclusively verify impacts to feeding success and behaviors.

I still maintain however, that rec fishers must do their part to eliminate those impacts, even if others such as the whale watching, or commercial crabbing users do nothing to step up.
 
Yes, we totally agree on that! The Area Closures are not in my personal view a measure that will demonstrate the desired benefit. For me the spatial exclusion zone afforded through a strongly enforced and supported bubble zone would better match protection with opportunity to fish or pursue other activities. I think the 200 m in place across on the US side is not enough - 400m is better protection for acoustic disturbance. Our bubble strategy is linked to other best practices such as turning off sounders, radio communication between vessels to warn of whale movements, moving slowly and carefully out of the area when whales are present etc. Bottom line is whales are highly mobile and an area closure is frankly over-kill when/where they are not present. Whales in area = get out; no whales = business as usual.

Secondly, the proposed study as designed is badly flawed in that it allows other vessel users to be in the closed areas being assessed, and even more poorly designed - allowing the other vessels into areas being assessed as high use rec fishing zones where we hope to quantify impacts. How on earth do the researchers hope to obtain scientific data that purely measures rec fishing impacts? We desperately need to have a clear study that establishes if there are impacts and how significant (if at all) those impacts actually impede prey acquisition?? These area closures are nothing more than someone's fantasy. The are not science based, or at least not yet without a proper study to conclusively verify impacts to feeding success and behaviors.

I still maintain however, that rec fishers must do their part to eliminate those impacts, even if others such as the whale watching, or commercial crabbing users do nothing to step up.

Searun can you confirm that all the area closures are about pray acquisition. At our local Sfac meeting the Pender bluff closure came up and the DFO biologist said that the Pender bluff closure was for a UBC study. That area 20 was for prey acquisition and the the area 29
Closure was for something else and he would get back to us. Maybe he just did not really no what he was talking about.

Also said it was unlikely that closures would get reversed as they are asking for reductions and any areas openings would go against that.

Witch I thought was a bit odd.

To be fair he was a biologist for the Fraser river harvest committee so maybe he just was unsure about the ocean closures to do with SRKW. Tho it did sound like they were counting on saving some chinook in their SRKW closure areas.
 
Back
Top