Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
The Qualicums and the Puntledge for starters do NOT clip all their coho releases
Belly up: Researchers studying effects of catch-and-release tournaments on fish
- Thread starter agentaqua
- Start date
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Puntledge.
Campbell and big q. Do not mark all their stock.
They used to, but stopped years ago.
No one cared enough to make a big deal about it, so they did it.
Campbell and big q. Do not mark all their stock.
They used to, but stopped years ago.
No one cared enough to make a big deal about it, so they did it.
G
gone fishin
Guest
Was just told by the manager of the Chilliwack hatchery that indeed all Federal facilities mark all their coho ... QUOTE said:
tincan
Well-Known Member
I think part of the debate here has to do with semantics guys. There are 3 types of hatcheries/enhancement facilities that I am aware of:
1) Major DFO facilities - http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sep-pmvs/hatcheries-ecloseries-eng.html
2) CEDP's (Community Economic Development Program)
3) PIP's (Public Involvement Program)
From what I gather it's the Community Advisor (CA) who is the licence holder (see link below) in all of the 3 types and CA's work for DFO so it can argued that all facilities are DFO facilities (save a few who might be FN license holders). In reality the operations and ongoing funding of most of the non-major facilities are not through DFO and if you've visited many of these facilities they (the operators & volunteers) certainly don't consider themselves DFO. At any rate, the clipping of adipose fins at all of the facilities is inconsistent as others have mentioned. The smaller facilities especially don't have the time and resources to clip all fish and apply coded-wire tags. I have visited probably 20 hatcheries in the last 5 years and have heard from most of them that they don't clip the majority of their fish, although I have mostly visited the smaller PIP's.
"Salmon hatcheries play a key role in the Salmonid Enhancement Program’s efforts to conserve weak salmon stocks; provide recreational, commercial and Aboriginal fishing opportunities; and support stock assessment. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) operates 23 hatchery facilities and spawning channels, which release hundreds of millions of juvenile salmon every year to supplement wild stocks and sustain British Columbia fisheries. First Nations and community groups also operate hatcheries under contract with DFO, while volunteers run community hatcheries – all working to enhance salmon stocks on local rivers and streams."
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/licence-permis/hatcheries-ecloseries-eng.html
1) Major DFO facilities - http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sep-pmvs/hatcheries-ecloseries-eng.html
2) CEDP's (Community Economic Development Program)
3) PIP's (Public Involvement Program)
From what I gather it's the Community Advisor (CA) who is the licence holder (see link below) in all of the 3 types and CA's work for DFO so it can argued that all facilities are DFO facilities (save a few who might be FN license holders). In reality the operations and ongoing funding of most of the non-major facilities are not through DFO and if you've visited many of these facilities they (the operators & volunteers) certainly don't consider themselves DFO. At any rate, the clipping of adipose fins at all of the facilities is inconsistent as others have mentioned. The smaller facilities especially don't have the time and resources to clip all fish and apply coded-wire tags. I have visited probably 20 hatcheries in the last 5 years and have heard from most of them that they don't clip the majority of their fish, although I have mostly visited the smaller PIP's.
"Salmon hatcheries play a key role in the Salmonid Enhancement Program’s efforts to conserve weak salmon stocks; provide recreational, commercial and Aboriginal fishing opportunities; and support stock assessment. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) operates 23 hatchery facilities and spawning channels, which release hundreds of millions of juvenile salmon every year to supplement wild stocks and sustain British Columbia fisheries. First Nations and community groups also operate hatcheries under contract with DFO, while volunteers run community hatcheries – all working to enhance salmon stocks on local rivers and streams."
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/licence-permis/hatcheries-ecloseries-eng.html
Science Advisory Report 2016/049
Review and Evaluation of Fishing-Related Incidental Mortality for Pacific Salmon
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_049-eng.html
Review and Evaluation of Fishing-Related Incidental Mortality for Pacific Salmon
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_049-eng.html
saw that, too - or more accurately - didn't...All about "Properly accounting for fishing-related incidental mortality (FRIM)" using a risk assessment tool. They did say: "Additional publications from this meeting will be posted on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science Advisory Schedule as they become available". Hopefully - that's coming soon..
TheBigGuy
Well-Known Member
I would be very interested to see any new study results and the survival statistics. Especially the survival statistics pertaining to in water release vs landing/netting and air exposure.
I think the time is long overdue for our regulations to be changed. Washington State and Alaska both have regulations making it illegal to remove a fish that is to be released from the water. It is time we joined the 21st century and modified our fish handling/release practices. Getting a photo is a poor reason to justify harming a fish's chance at survival.
There would be an added bonus to updating our regulations. Our halibut TAC is reduced by an amount that is supposed to reflect release mortalities. If we change to in water release practices our TAC should be raised as release mortalities will be lowered.
Perhaps Searun can comment on the Halibut morts with regard to the IPHC. Changing the regs would actually lead to us being able to keep a higher percentage of our halibut TAC.
Changing the regs is long overdue.
I think the time is long overdue for our regulations to be changed. Washington State and Alaska both have regulations making it illegal to remove a fish that is to be released from the water. It is time we joined the 21st century and modified our fish handling/release practices. Getting a photo is a poor reason to justify harming a fish's chance at survival.
There would be an added bonus to updating our regulations. Our halibut TAC is reduced by an amount that is supposed to reflect release mortalities. If we change to in water release practices our TAC should be raised as release mortalities will be lowered.
Perhaps Searun can comment on the Halibut morts with regard to the IPHC. Changing the regs would actually lead to us being able to keep a higher percentage of our halibut TAC.
Changing the regs is long overdue.
Last edited:
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
I would like to see the statics on in water releases as well before any discussions of changing the rules.
No computer estimates, only real facts .
Salt water only.
Then and only then should the discussion be held.
By the way I think one was done on rock fish by DFO. Terry Gerness I believe did it.
No computer estimates, only real facts .
Salt water only.
Then and only then should the discussion be held.
By the way I think one was done on rock fish by DFO. Terry Gerness I believe did it.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Synopsis
Acute stressors are commonly experienced by wild animals but their effects on fitness rarely are studied in the natural environment. Billions of fish are captured and released annually around the globe across all fishing sectors (e.g., recreational, commercial, subsistence). Whatever the motivation, release often occurs under the assumption of postrelease survival. Yet, capture by fisheries (hereafter ‘‘fisheries-capture’’) is likely the most severe acute stressor experienced in the animal’s lifetime, which makes the problem of physiological recovery and survival of relevance to biology and conservation. Indeed, fisheries managers require accurate estimates of mortality to better account for total mortality from fishing, while fishers desire guidance on strategies for reducing mortality and maintaining the welfare of released fish, to maximize current and future opportunities for fishing. In partnership with stakeholders, our team has extensively studied the effects of catch-and-release on Pacific salmon in both marine and freshwater environments, using biotelemetry and
physiological assessments in a combined laboratory-based and field-based approach. The emergent theme is that postrelease rates of mortality are consistently context-specific and can be affected by a suite of interacting biotic and abiotic factors. The fishing gear used, location of a fishery, water temperature, and handling techniques employed by fishers each can dramatically affect survival of the salmon they release. Variation among individuals, co-migrating populations, and between sexes all seem to play a role in the response of fish to capture and in their subsequent survival, potentially driven by pre-capture pathogen-load, maturation states, and inter-individual variation in responsiveness to stress. Although some of these findings are fascinating from a biological perspective, they all create unresolved challenges for managers.
We summarize our findings by highlighting the patterns that have emerged most consistently, and point to areas of uncertainty that require further research.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...val_of_Pacific_Salmon_after_Catch-and-Release
Acute stressors are commonly experienced by wild animals but their effects on fitness rarely are studied in the natural environment. Billions of fish are captured and released annually around the globe across all fishing sectors (e.g., recreational, commercial, subsistence). Whatever the motivation, release often occurs under the assumption of postrelease survival. Yet, capture by fisheries (hereafter ‘‘fisheries-capture’’) is likely the most severe acute stressor experienced in the animal’s lifetime, which makes the problem of physiological recovery and survival of relevance to biology and conservation. Indeed, fisheries managers require accurate estimates of mortality to better account for total mortality from fishing, while fishers desire guidance on strategies for reducing mortality and maintaining the welfare of released fish, to maximize current and future opportunities for fishing. In partnership with stakeholders, our team has extensively studied the effects of catch-and-release on Pacific salmon in both marine and freshwater environments, using biotelemetry and
physiological assessments in a combined laboratory-based and field-based approach. The emergent theme is that postrelease rates of mortality are consistently context-specific and can be affected by a suite of interacting biotic and abiotic factors. The fishing gear used, location of a fishery, water temperature, and handling techniques employed by fishers each can dramatically affect survival of the salmon they release. Variation among individuals, co-migrating populations, and between sexes all seem to play a role in the response of fish to capture and in their subsequent survival, potentially driven by pre-capture pathogen-load, maturation states, and inter-individual variation in responsiveness to stress. Although some of these findings are fascinating from a biological perspective, they all create unresolved challenges for managers.
We summarize our findings by highlighting the patterns that have emerged most consistently, and point to areas of uncertainty that require further research.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...val_of_Pacific_Salmon_after_Catch-and-Release
