19/20 slot restrictions

I just don't believe that all other area's are exempt of Fraser river fish.
No restrictions in Nanaimo (lucky for them) and they are actually closer to the Fraser
than we are.
area 19/20 are bearing the entire weight of these slot restrictions and it's plain
and simply unfair.
 
The last two trips all wild fish. 15 to 30 pounds. Hit 9 last trip and 10 the trip before. Released 4 the last trip up to 23 pounds all wild.
 
Albion numbers seem to be up now over the past few weeks, with most days netting some. 26 Chinook in the last month, compared with only 5 last year and 9 in 2012 for the same period. Going back 2 more years, it was 8 in 2011, but in 2010 the number was 48. 2009 was 28, so similar to this year. Would be interested to know what fishing (and restrictions) was like in 2009/2010, when the spawners for this years fish were coming in. Perhaps there's a possibility of changes yet.

Acknowledge that it is apparently the catch per level of effort that counts, but the graph on that is not updated with last few weeks of data.
 
Here it is...

Management measures for the recreational fishery in portions of Areas 19 and 20
are outlined below.

June 14 to July 18, 2014 management actions:

Effective 00:01 hrs Saturday, June 14 until 23:59 hrs Friday, July 18, 2014 in
Subareas 19-1 to 19-4 and Subarea 20-5 (those waters near Victoria between
Cadboro Pt to Sheringham Pt.), the daily limit is two (2) chinook salmon per
day which may be wild or hatchery marked between 45 cm and 85 cm or hatchery
marked greater than 85 cm in length. The minimum size limit in these areas is
45 cm in length.
 
I just don't believe that all other area's are exempt of Fraser river fish.
No restrictions in Nanaimo (lucky for them) and they are actually closer to the Fraser
than we are.
area 19/20 are bearing the entire weight of these slot restrictions and it's plain
and simply unfair.

I am not an expert on the migratory routes, but I believe this is a fair statement.

I also believe that the slot limit is a positive regulation that helps to protect fish stocks, although how successfully is up for debate.

That being said, why does Victoria/Sooke have to make the concessions alone?

Should other areas not also have to bear some of the weight of the conservation effort... the fish passing Victoria must be coming from somewhere.... are those areas close for the slot as well?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not an expert on the migratory routes, but I believe this is a fair statement.

I also believe that the slot limit is a positive regulation that helps to protect fish stocks, although how successfully is up for debate.

That being said, why does Victoria/Sooke have to make the concessions alone?

Should other areas not also have to bear some of the weight of the conservation effort... the fish passing Victoria must be coming from somewhere.... are those areas close for the slot as well?

Mostly just us - they use a helicopter and get dropped at Sheringham

To justify slotting us, but not 29-3 29-4 is just a croc!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Changed Again< Kidding Me!

Fishery Notice
Category(s): RECREATIONAL - Salmon
Subject: FN0486-RECREATIONAL - Salmon - Fraser River Chinook - Areas 19 and 20 - Amendment to Recreational Fishery Management Actions - June 14, 2014 - Amendment to FN0476
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Amendment to FN 0476: Update to Management Zone and appropriate management
actions. The full corrected version of the notice follows.

The Department has continued to monitor catches of chinook in the Albion test
fishery to assess returns of Fraser River Spring 5-2 and Summer 5-2 chinook.
Based on a preliminary assessment of the most recent test fishery information,
the estimated abundance of Fraser Spring 5-2 and Summer 5-2 chinook will be
between 45 and 85 thousand chinook (zone 2 management). Information on the
final in-season estimate of abundance will be provided on June 16, 2014

Management measures for the recreational fishery in portions of Areas 19 and 20
are outlined below.

June 14 to July 18, 2014 management actions:

Effective 00:01 hours Saturday, June 14 until 23:59 hours Friday, July 18, 2014
in Subareas 19-1 to 19-4 and Subarea 20-5 (those waters near Victoria between
Cadboro Pt to Sheringham Pt.), the daily limit is two (2) chinook salmon per
day of which only one (1) may be greater than 67 cm. The minimum size limit in
these areas is 45 cm in length.
 
I just don't believe that all other area's are exempt of Fraser river fish.
No restrictions in Nanaimo (lucky for them) and they are actually closer to the Fraser
than we are.
area 19/20 are bearing the entire weight of these slot restrictions and it's plain
and simply unfair.


Unfair yes..but we should not be throwing other area's under the bus ...:)
 
No bus throwing, but if these slot closures are in fact necessary for the Fraser fish
the same rules should apply to any area where they are intercepted.
 
I agree with Craven, all Areas impacting these stocks should contribute to their conservation. I, likewise, cannot believe that many of these large Chinook in the Strait of Georgia are not Fraser fish. The burden of conservation should not fall only on Victoria/Sooke anglers.
 
I agree with Craven, all Areas impacting these stocks should contribute to their conservation. I, likewise, cannot believe that many of these large Chinook in the Strait of Georgia are not Fraser fish. The burden of conservation should not fall only on Victoria/Sooke anglers.[/QUOTE

You and Craven ask many hard and probably justified questions. I'm thinking this is a political issue because quite frankly if what you believe to be true was believed by DFO and acted on- then the commercial troll fishery on the WCVI would definitely have to come into the equation and that ain't going to happen.

I think the helicopter theory of salmon migration into area 19/20 has the upper hand with DFO at the moment!!
 
No bus throwing, but if these slot closures are in fact necessary for the Fraser fish
the same rules should apply to any area where they are intercepted.

Talk to Chris and he explain this ......again unfair yes..closing more area to spread the pain every where ..way wrong... if u go the SFAC meeting you would under stand why.. not trying to pick a fight here, just stating a fact.... cheers
 
I don't see this as "spreading the pain everywhere".If, in fact,these stocks are in trouble,then I believe it's all our
responsibility to protect them wherever they may be migrating through.That run is pathetically low in numbers and as
I see it every fish counts.And I don't want to hear the old "what's the point,the FN's nets will just get them anyway"
excuse either.It's just a cop out as far as I'm concerned!
 
Get involved in your SFAC and SFAB and then perhaps you would get a better picture of what it really about... over and out...:)
 
Do the SFAC and SFAB publish the minutes of their meetings? Not to marginalize these organizations, but shouldn't DFO be explaining their decisions, they make the call?
 
The questions being asked and the perceptions of why DFO are managing these stocks in the manner they do, show that there is so little knowledge of what is actually going on with Fraser stream-type Chinook management. Derby is correct, individuals interested to know the fine details should visit an SFAB meeting and meet people who know the facts. It's complex and not easy to write in a few sentences.

Is this a conservation issue? Yes, but ... don't forget FN from the lower Fraser have by far the largest impact on these Fraser stream-type Chinook stocks when they are migrating and confined in the river. The mixed stock fisheries in the open ocean and approach waters have minimal impact. Back in 2007 the RDG, at the time, put a bullseye on back of Juan de Fuca because of some historic coated wire tag data showing Fraser Chinook catch from that area. As a result, Juan de Fuca was one of several areas chosen as the fatted calf for slaughter on the DFO altar. Area G and Area F troll plus the lower river sport fishery too. Now Juan de Fuca has a 67 cm Chinook slot from March to mid-June and if the Fraser Spring and Summer 5-2 Chinook are estimated to be in low abundance then from mid-June to mid-July the hated 85 cm slot as well. We're all trying to save Nicola 4-2 and Fraser Spring and Summer 5-2. Note that the great DFO hasn't done a jot to improve or restore the habitat of these fish. Also of interest, the fisheries management measures put in play in Area 19 and 20 have resulted in a 65 - 85% drop in impact already, so JdF anglers are clearly doing their part.

The implication by some on the forum is: if there is a conservation concern then we should all do our part. Noble under normal circumstances, but ridiculous if the fishery is managed on politics. Here's an example ... if Juan de Fuca fished in Zone 1 (the dreaded 85 cm slot) this year as opposed to the current Zone 2 (2 Chinook per day of which only one may be greater than 67 cm) the difference in impact on the returning adult Chinook is 120 fish. That is just 120 Chinook on an anticipated total return of 42,250 Fraser stream-type Chinook. So we would get a crappy 85 cm slot when 42,250 Chinook are migrating through. All for 120 fish. Hardly a massive impact there, right? Let's not guilt trip ourselves into thinking our fishery is killing the last surviving Fraser Chinook. It is not! And this is certainly not a conservation requirement to curtail the JdF fishery even more.

The real irony that always makes me chuckle is that our Juan de Fuca Chinook fishery wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Chinook from Washington State hatcheries. We manage Canadian salmon fisheries by cutting back harvest, where as US produces fish to protect the important fisheries.
 
Back
Top