Poll - Sport Fishing and Salmon Stocks

Well if my lively hood depended on guiding I would be up in arms about this and raising hell to stop this. Those guides are not only taking salmon illegally from our waters but also taking food off your families table. What a sad state of affairs.
 
Sorry to hijack this thread. I think maybe we should start another topic of this guiding issue. Just one thought to add first, if it was stopped the government would realize alot more tax money form local guides and the sport fishing community would get a lot more reorganization to the money it puts in to the economy from fishing.
 
I think you are kidding yourself if you think any of the options in your poll will save salmon runs.

Global warming and continued damage to salmon spawning grounds are the real problem. I also believe the governement shold ban the seine boat fisheries, commercial troll caught fish are worth more and have less impact on runs. Also like most here I also feel Native river fisheries which are using modern fishing technologies and are really difficult to regulate are also damaging our salmon runs. I rather see first nations being given more access to commercial Troll Fishery licenses. Also we still can't discount the impact or potential impact of salmon farms.

The lack of funding for salmon habitat revitalization and support of salmon hatcheries leads me to my proposed solution (all be not well thought out). Have a head tax on all Chinook and Coho caught (commercial, sport, and native), the money generated going directly to supporting hatcheries and salmon habit revitalizaion. That way the more you catch the more you pay, which seems fair.
 
Sooo... could cutting back on the herring catch not substantiate a lot of the results being sought here? If you start at the beginning, doesn't it cascade through the whole chain? (more bait food means "fatter" salmon and even some satiated salmon predators, which means commercials hit their pound quota quicker, lower wild mortality rate, etc. etc. until we simply end up with more salmon - might be naive on my part as I am not very informed in this regard, but sometimes the best solution is the most obvious) Then quotas and stocking progress begin to have their future carrying intent that they start with...
 
This poll is an excellent tool. It starts intelligent discussion and creates common understanding of the problem. Well done.

As to sources of the problem, the commonly held belief amongst fisheries research, conservationists, sport anglers and majority of the voting public that have an opinion is that sport harvest is not the problem...not even by a long stretch. Sport Harvest kills nearly zero Salmon relative to all the other major factors responcible for the decline of Salmon.


Real Sources of Salmon Decline
Poor Habitat, commercial over harvest, commercial over harvest of bait stocks, and hydro-electric dams, urban growth, polution, and variable ocean conditions are the sources of our Salmon declines.

1. We need to curb commercial over fishing of Salmon and bait stocks from Alaska to Southern Oregon to realize recovery.
2. Logging kills salmon spawning habitat with silt clogging spawning gravel and raising summer water temps that kill juvenile salmon smolts before they can begin their migration to the salt.
3. Urban growth pollutes habitat and raises summer river temps.
4. Hydro-electric dams kill a huge majority of ocean bound smolts each year via their ingestion into turbines.
5. Once in the ocean our salmon find critically low bait and food levels further pressuring their existence.
6. Then over harvest in the ocean further reduces returning adults, and
7. Finally we harvest adult spawners in or near their rivers.

As commercial fishing and commercial logging have the largest single impacts where dams do not exist, we need to start there. To date we have left the Salmon cookie jar with the children to decide reasonable harvest levels - all reasonableness is thrown out the window each year in favor of person and political greed. We need to lobby the process, demand non-commercial interests to have a vote in the harvest level meetings and process. That starts with individuals taking small - local actions and steps.

Your Vote Counts
As to our voice not having impact, hogwash! It starts small but builds momentum quickly by discussing, forming sport fishing and conservation associations, and finally lobbying governmental officials and legislative processes. Grass-roots individuals banding together can accomplish much more than any of us can imagine but it requires real action and less bitching/finger pointing.

Work to reduce commercial fishing of salmon and bait fish first. Favor sport harvest on the basis that sport caught salmon contribute 9-10x the dollars per fish harvest to the local economies as commercial fishing. Lobby Harvest Limits meetings and officials. Educate fellow anglers and general public.


Blue Print for Action - Striper Wars
For examples of success, web search Dick Russell's "Striper Wars". Dick Russell played a lead role in pressuring the politicians and fishery managers of the 1970's to end the over-harvest of striped bass, an undertaking that he has labeled “Striper Wars.”

Dick recounts the political maneuvering against a host of players, ranging from industrial polluters and ruthless real estate developers, to commercial fishermen whose self-centered concerns ignored the welfare of the striped bass. The dirty politicians are there, along with commercially oriented fishery bureaucrats who somehow – never fully explained to me by anyone – seemed to end up in the back pocket of the harvesters.

Baby Steps - Action is not Optional
Something as simple at bumper sticker on every angler's cars stating "I fish and I vote" gets people to take notice and is one of many simple steps that have impact. Rally together, form associations of like minded individuals, support conservation organizations, and get out the word. Educate yourself and fellow anglers. Lobby policticians. Demand regulatory and legislative changes. Bird-dog enforcement and finally, reduce your impact to the major factors of decline.


It's not easy but change can and will happen if you try - we own it to our children and grand children.
 
Your/our problem is there is NO real voice for the saltwater anglers.
Of the groups out there.BCWF.BCFDF,BCFFF,they do not talk on behalf of the Canadian residents.

There is a need for a group to LOBBY the government's on behalf of the Canadian residents.

( I am lead to believe that a group is being developed now due to the frustrations as noted above)

Will advise when I get more news.
 
About 3000 members on this board...3000 letters to the provincial, federal and state governments on the topic should get a little attention if directed to the right place.[?]
 
Ok... if it takes a little action (and we all seem to like typing) then lets start with letters. Rather than a group of ranting letters or waiting for another "official organisation" to step up to the plate, perhaps we should just take our own leadership. And if we had similar structure in the letters (your wording but with the same message and look), then they can be tied together as a more commonly held view and credible. I like 5-SF's last posting with respect to the contributors to salmon decline but we must be concise and not just shotgun everything that needs fixing (else it will get lost in "assessment"). I suggest picking the top three things as alternatives to sportfishery adjustments.

Then we need to know who specifically we should all campaign upon (rather than having to trust particular MLAs or MPs to carry the campaign on our behalf). One or two names specifically.

Thoughts?
 
SalmonAddict...good points. Focusing on issues is important...if I were to pick 3 they would be hatchery programs, enforcement, and stream restoration. That's still kind of broad.
 
I guess if we are to poll this question, then I should state my preference on priorities:

1.) Commercial/Aboriginal Quotas - if there is a substantial problem, then we might as well address the big sticks. Little adjustments here make substantial overall changes.
2.) Streambed Management and restoration - if there are logging silt problems, then a third party contractor cleaning it up with a bill sent to the originating logger should suffice in correcting much of this.
3.) Baitfish Moratorium - might as well start at the head of the food chain to cascade best effect. I would imagine that a herring moratorium may be an easier political sell than some of the other alternatives.

I would not suggest touching Hydro, Urban Growth, or Pollution as these already have environmental assessment processes that have had rigorous review, so convincing any change in this regard will be a mountain. And as for global warming, since mankind only contributes 0.28% of CO2 and we are coming out of the last mini-ice-age, the temperature of the earth is going up no matter what we do - I suggest leaving this one to the bandwagon Politicians and Chaos-theory Environmentalists, and try to focus on something we may have a better chance of realising change and effect upon...

And on that note, I step down off my soapbox...
SA
 
Natives will be one of your biggest allies in the fight so my advice is to enlist their support. Outside of the commercial interests, they have effected the only real major changes to fisheries management in the past 50-years. It has worked for us in the states. You definately do not want Native fishing working against your cause.

Baitfish Moratorium is an excellent major goal. that alone can have major impact and net real results in the a short period. Next is to ban net fishing in the ocean, inlets and rivers.

As to logging, something as simple as a 200-300 meter logging buffer from all streams and rivers. The no-logging buffer zone helps filter runoff silt and provides much need shade to keep river temps down during the spring and summer.

Those three major goals will be easiest to get a handle on, provides plenty of scientific support data, and easiest to gain public support.

I will take time to realize your goals (15-20years) but no better time to start than now.

Final thought:- We need a regulatory body that manages harvest levels California to Alaska with representation from all stake holders. This body must have regulatory oversight in both Canada and US without exception. It's no secret that lower 48 fish are harvested in BC and Alaska waters; Canadian fish are harvested in Alaska and the Lower US. Without coastal wide regulatory oversight all will continue to point fingers, all the while hiding behind the bickering so they can continue to destory what little remains... Alaskan's will continue to pilfer BC fish and so on and so on. It's time we get a Pacific Fisheries Management Group with teeth and enforment abilities in both countries.
 
We need a regulatory body that manages harvest levels California to Alaska with representation from all stake holders. This body must have regulatory oversight in both Canada and US without exception. It's no secret that lower 48 fish are harvested in BC and Alaska waters; Canadian fish are harvested in Alaska and the Lower US. Without coastal wide regulatory oversight all will continue to point fingers, all the while hiding behind the bickering so they can continue to destory what little remains... Alaskan's will continue to pilfer BC fish and so on and so on. It's time we get a Pacific Fisheries Management Group with teeth and enforment abilities in both countries

It has been in place for years.
 
Of your list C.
I used to fish the rivers but won't anymore because of the abuse that I saw on the Nitnat a few years ago. At least make it catch and release and you will lose 90% of the guys fishing. Probably the 90% that are snagging fish, dragging them to the beach and kicking the unwanted back in the water. Not to menetion the litter left behind. Don't get me started on this!!

I am also for lowering the annual limit and having more spot closures.

More enforcement is a great idea but won't happen due to funds or should I say fund allocations.

Tips
 
quote:Originally posted by 5-Salt Fever

..... pilfer BC fish and so on and so on. It's time we get a Pacific Fisheries Management Group with teeth and enforment abilities in both countries


....Originally posted by OldBlackDog

It has been in place for years.

True enough - but it still has no real effect or teeth.

There is currently a law suit in Canadian Courts intiated by a Washington State Sportman's Fishing association to force Canadian Officials to enforce/abide by the regulations and treaties in place between US and Canada. When regular folks like you and me, through a sport-anglers group(NW Steelheaders) have to launch a lawsuit in a foriegn court system to force compliance then we do not really have anything in place.

The reason the Canadians will not comply to date - they're pissed about Alaskans over harvesting, in US waters, Canadian salmon. They should be pissed and as such they allow BC commercial fishermen to overharvest Washington and Oregon returning adults as they head south to their home rivers.

The lawsuit will better serve all interests because in brings the issues into the public eye and forces change. Next step will be for the Canadians to file suite against the Alaskan/US officials to force compliance and reduced over harvest.

And while the NW Steelheaders law suit may be a bit short sided, they, like you and me, where sick and tire of seeing this continued distruction out Salmon Stocks and decided to take action. I say bravo....somebody finally got off their collective asses to force those critical first steps forward - baby steps yes, but forward progress none the less.

Amazing what membership dues and a couple of fund raising dinner/auctions can accomplish when sport-anglers band together.


It is a cumbersome, slow, and ulgy...but effective process.

5-Salt


PS....I am not 100% positive if it was NW Steelheaders or NW Sportanglers Asso. or NW Anglers Coalition who filed the suit.
 
If you were wondering why there is a need for groups to work on this and other subjects just note that this thread has not been touched in 5 days.

Just proves that people have lives and need to have a group they can trust and have input into to follow up on things like this.
 
Back
Top