albernifisher
Well-Known Member
Well, it's starting to look like it will be 2 under 77cm for Barkley Sound/ Port Alberni this year...
2 under 77cm ?
- Thread starter albernifisher
- Start date
fishin_magician
Well-Known Member
A 77cm fish is anywhere from 15-18 pounds. 16-17 pounds tops.
searun
Well-Known Member
Yes, being strongly considered as a way to ensure we have the maximum number of large spawning females into the river so we have enough eggs for the hatchery. The current data is looking like we will have a lot of 3 year olds and not many 4 and 5 year old fish. The 3 year olds tend to be male, so not significant for the hatchery if we fish those. So fishing should be decent, with good numbers of teenagers and fewer numbers of large mature females from the 4 and 5 year age class. Don't think DFO has made any formal announcements just yet, but it is in the works.
Should mention that if you want larger fish, then going off shore would be best option. The Columbia run should be strong.
Should mention that if you want larger fish, then going off shore would be best option. The Columbia run should be strong.
Last edited by a moderator:
albernifisher
Well-Known Member
Will make for a very competitive salmon fest 
albernifisher
Well-Known Member
Yup, had a blast last time. Everyone was just a few ounces apart
finaddict
Well-Known Member
Too bad they will all be intercepted by other fisheries......
Peahead
Well-Known Member
Varies depending on girth of course but having done taped weights for years, I have had 77cm fish weigh 11.5-12lbs but those were unusually slender Chinook. On average a 77cm fish (generally around 19" girth ) would be 13.5 - 14.5 lbs. A very girthy 77cm "football" fatty may go 16lb.
I use the girth and length calc. ( inches) and divide by 800 - arguably more accurate than many scales and certainly more consistent fish to fish, than using multiple/varying scales.
Seaspanker
Active Member
So with a fisherperson having to go offshore to realize their dream of a big salmon , this 2 under 77 cm possible daily limit , just pushed a lot of smaller boats offshore which really should not be out there , safety wise . Hopefully if they do reduce the daily limit ? one over 77 cm and one under 77 cm would keep the inshore fisherman inshore and safer . ALSO if one lives near the coast the yearly limit of 30 springs is a lot of fish per license , but for the person traveling down from the kootenay's for that one week trip for the year , and to know you are only going to retain two under 77 cm per day and only be in traveling possession of 2 days limit , a lot simply might not go salmon fishing this year , if i was the minister of tourism bc i would know the calculated lost revenue , i would be concerned . To get this Forum screeming I propose reducing the Yearly limit from 30 chinook down to 20 , and increase the traveling possession limit from two days to three days . I believe this change would increase fishing guide and tourist activity to a large degree ,and yet not really harvest a whole lot more fish .
Aces
Well-Known Member
Meh, one has nothing to do with the other.
The only reason for these regs is to protect the 4 and 5 yr old spawners heading up the inlet.
Do you place your possession limit at a higher priority than the sustainability of a run of Chinooks that have been mismanaged and over fished into oblivion? If you do then maybe you ought to reasses your priorities.
Also, i doubt many would care if the season limit was lowered to 20 from 30.......i sure don't as i never take more than 20 myself and my boat sees hundreds every year. 3 day possession limit.......we will never see it nor would i want to, the limits are already super generous anyways.
albernifisher
Well-Known Member
Any update on the size limits yet???
searun
Well-Known Member
No official updates. I rather suspect DFO is taking a close look at all possible data sources to help ensure the decision (what ever it is) is in the best interest of both the fish and recreational fishers.
Don't also forget that a lot of our fish took a pounding up in Alaska in their commercial fishery. It will take a while to sort out how many that was, and how many fish are actually left coming south to us. We have no control over how many are whacked before they even get into Canadian waters, but we certainly have the responsibility to do the right thing with whatever run makes it south to ensure future generations of fish.
Even if this regs change is the outcome, I have to agree whole heartedly with Fishtofino..the most important element of this prospective change is to get enough spawning females into the river.
Don't also forget that a lot of our fish took a pounding up in Alaska in their commercial fishery. It will take a while to sort out how many that was, and how many fish are actually left coming south to us. We have no control over how many are whacked before they even get into Canadian waters, but we certainly have the responsibility to do the right thing with whatever run makes it south to ensure future generations of fish.
Even if this regs change is the outcome, I have to agree whole heartedly with Fishtofino..the most important element of this prospective change is to get enough spawning females into the river.
searun
Well-Known Member
77 cm is about 15 pounds for a healthy fish. Not a bad fish, and from what I understand they expect a larger return of 3 year old fish this year. So likely a decent fishery regardless and you will just have to keep the small ones and let the big ones go and spawn. Not all bad if that happens.
jeffywestcoast
Well-Known Member
This ^^^^ pretty hard to feel bad about returning a fish to a system that has been so mismanaged and over-fished...i suspect the two under 77 to be in place ..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Charter Tofino
Well-Known Member
I understand the reasoning for the reg but it does sting a bit when we know its all due to a mismanaged hatchery run...
abbyfireguy
Well-Known Member
Ministry of Tourism has nothing to do with fishing.. Sustaining the resource should always trump economic benefits. But,we all know how that works with fishery mismanagement.. I am happy if I catch my small limit on the two trips yearly out to Bamfield. The odd 25 pounder is a welcome blessing,but I am definately not going to set my hair on fire if I come home with teenagers in the box.. The slot limits can be a bit frustrating at times when big boys are inside,but, that's life. Play them and gently release them it the dude if the boat..
We will be offshore next week a few times weather permitting..Gotta be safe with a 19 foot boat..
We will be offshore next week a few times weather permitting..Gotta be safe with a 19 foot boat..
Jencourt
Well-Known Member
Pretty much my thoughts as well.
Question I have is this. If the return is upgraded to the 30ishK That the IFMP requires .Despite being made up of mostly immature fish,Does the IFMP still provide a commercial and FN economic fishery,while the 2 under is still in effect for us?
Secondly and of more importance I feel. Until targeted egg take has been reached Or it is determined that the 2 under 77 is no longer required, Will the FN Food and ceremonial Fishery be restricted to hook and line to ensure the larger fish can be released?
