Chum Daily Limit Change

[TheBigGuy]

Hell yeah! I just need a couple more stinky old chum to make a solid batch! Ooh I froze mine too and will be thawing it back out to smoke, is that bad? lol...

That is actually the best practice for food safeties sake. It is recommended that you freeze Salmon for an entire month before cold smoking. That is how long it takes to guarantee parasites are killed at home freezer temperatures. Commercial blast freezers kill them much more quickly.

 

[eroyd]

I had a coho this fall. The kidney was full of worms. Never seen that before. Fillets looked clear but it's going to be sitting in the freezer for a while.

 

[TheBigGuy]

I've seen some major infestations in Salmon meat before. Most of the time you can't see them. Better safe than sorry. Frozen Salmon absorbs the salt better anyways, so it actually helps the brining process.

Sorry for taking the thread off topic, but it's pretty important to be safe.

 

[Derby]

don't be ..to me a thread always takes a life of its own....

 

[brands51]

My experiences on local rivers is the raise in chum limits has next to no impact on chum stocks... besides FN, I have never ran into or met many people really at all who harvest there limit of chums, Im sure there are some but not that I know. Personally, ill take the odd chrome chum here and there to supplement smoking up salmon in my freezer. Ive been fishing the Cowichan river lately for Coho also, there are so many chum in there its crazy, literally almost too many. I kid you not if I wade out a couple steps, theyre swimming into my legs. Also today I was hiking through the bush, and literally in mud puddles meters a way from the river there would be live chums holding. Compared to FN waste,seine waste, and general morts, a limit of 4 per day on local rivers has next to no effect on the ecosystem. guess what im sayin is im willing to support a local fishery with a 4 per day limit that, can include some of the less fortunate who dont own a boat, and put salmon in there freezer for winter, long as its done ethically. Just my opnion,

 

[california]

From a biological/ecological perspective there is no such thing as a "surplus" of salmon returning to the streams that somehow hurts the run. Historically (like prehistorically like before European colonization) runs were much bigger in almost every river system. Additional fish will move in the the river, and utilize less optimal spawning habitat (selection takes place as the fittest fish get the best spawning spots) and later arriving fish may dig out redds of earlier fish so there are definitely diminishing returns from runs that have more fish than optimal spawning habitat. However those additional fish still provide food and nutrients to the surrounding forest and in the water, and processes we may not even understand are still going on. When DFO has an opening like the Chum one they have determined that that most good spawning habitat will be filled up, and the balance they must try to make is one of escapement AND utilization, so they make a decision that those "excess" fish can be harvested as they are not essential to the run propagation, but I don't believe its correct to call them surplus and say they are useless or even damaging. I think there should be opportunities to harvest them in such situations where runs are plentiful for sport fishing, if 4 is the right number I don't know. Personally Id have a very tough time finding 4 Chum I'd keep most outings (or often even one) , especially in November, but to each his own.

 

[Derby]

A couple of the dump piles of the 175,000 chum that returned to the big Q .....

 

[Dave]

Interesting. Most stock assessment programs, when funded properly, cut the fish in half so future enumerators don't count the same fish twice. Any idea why this was not the case here?

 

[Derby]

If that is what u chose to believe.......then it must be so....

 

[Dave]

If that is what u chose to believe.......then it must be so....

Say what? What I stated is fact. Do you have a clue how DFO conducts spawner enumerations on small - medium sized streams, like the Big Qualicum?

My guess is no.

 

[Derby]

Well you seemed to so please enlighten all of us with all your knowledge.. Dave ?

 

[Cut Plug]

This is a weird yet interesting thread. I have a suggestion. Perhaps someone should ask DFO why they chose to increase the bag limit from 2 to 4? To the best of my knowledge, neither the SFAB nor any other angling group asked for this. Its odd I'll admit, and possibly precedent setting, but I really fail to see how the few additional fish that may be retained by those who choose to retain them will even make a small dent in what's out there this year. I feel blessed that I'm fortunate enough to own a boat and therefore can choose to be fussy. IMO that doesn't give me the right to judge others based on what they consider to be quality protein that is accessible to them. I really appreciate California's point about trying to achieve a balance between escapement and utilization. IMO that is the real tricky part of what DFO has to do. Getting it right is what sustainable fisheries are all about. I'm no expert, but I have a sneaky suspicion that this move to 4 per day would pass any sustainability red face test you choose to throw at it.

I really think some folks on this thread are barking up the wrong tree by attempting to vilify a small percentage of anglers for bonking a few chum in a huge return year. IMO there are WAY bigger fish to fry if you really care about salmon. I look at it this way - if no one ate salmon (including and especially First Nations) , we wouldn't have a massive gov't department "managing" them at significant taxpayers cost, would we? In fact, I really doubt many people would ever even care about them at all. Its how we work as a species. Also, when I last checked, it was recreational anglers that contributed the vast majority of the sector based funding to the PSF for its stewardship and enhancement work through the salmon stamp on our licenses. Over $1.5 million last year by a conservative estimate. I wonder how much "fish advocates" contribute to the future of salmon? Just curious.

CP

 

[Dave]

View attachment 30323 Well you seemed to so please enlighten all of us with all your knowledge.. Dave ?

Don't be such a prick Derby.
Shuswap has covered this far better than I could hope to. .. but stock assessments vary from system to system, depending stream size, biological and managerial necessities, area budgets, and available manpower.

In most systems, ie. the Chilliwack, Adams, Horsefly (and I would have thought the Big Q ) all carcasses are cut in half when encountered during stream walks by DFO, FN, or contract crews. This ensures fish found are not counted twice.

I was simply asking if you knew why this was not happening … don’t be so defensive and answer the question if you can.

 

[agentaqua]

From a biological/ecological perspective there is no such thing as a "surplus" of salmon returning to the streams that somehow hurts the run. Historically (like prehistorically like before European colonization) runs were much bigger in almost every river system. Additional fish will move in the the river, and utilize less optimal spawning habitat (selection takes place as the fittest fish get the best spawning spots) and later arriving fish may dig out redds of earlier fish so there are definitely diminishing returns from runs that have more fish than optimal spawning habitat. However those additional fish still provide food and nutrients to the surrounding forest and in the water, and processes we may not even understand are still going on. When DFO has an opening like the Chum one they have determined that that most good spawning habitat will be filled up, and the balance they must try to make is one of escapement AND utilization, so they make a decision that those "excess" fish can be harvested as they are not essential to the run propagation, but I don't believe its correct to call them surplus and say they are useless or even damaging. I think there should be opportunities to harvest them in such situations where runs are plentiful for sport fishing, if 4 is the right number I don't know. Personally Id have a very tough time finding 4 Chum I'd keep most outings (or often even one) , especially in November, but to each his own.

Yes, but...

There are density-dependent mechanisms operating on multiple levels/stages to be considered.

As Derby pointed-out earlier - there can be such a thing as "over capacity" - on the spawning beds (aka "over"escapement) where later spawners turn-up the redds of previous spawners (bioturbation). This results in a decrease in the recruit/spawner returns - as far as the salmon go - as eggs are either ruptured, left for predators, and/or left for freezing and dewatered. In addition, too many salmon close together can result in disease transfer - further reducing the recruit per spawner index.

Yes - some of that extra spawners/eggs could result in more predator (bear, bird, etc.) eating (as you mentioned) - if the predators are not saturated from eating. It is still debatable how much growth in the riparian vegetation is due from bear leaving the salmon carcasses - and what is attributable due to better drainage on the bank of the creek - and whether that increase in carbon and nitrogen actually increases the productivity of the larger forest verses the instream productivity.

But from a salmon-return focus - the egg hatching success is quite reduced when there is so-called "over"escapement.

Then there are also instream density-dependent mechanisms - esp for coho. Often, density-dependent mechanisms are functioning in a lake when there is a large sockeye escapement. Then there are marine density-dependent mechanisms - often not well understood - often from all the hatchery-produced fish - such as chum.

This was a very good chum year - esp for Southern BC chum stocks. I doubt if anyone really knows why. I don't think we are anywhere close to being able to predict returns well-enough to have watershed-based, biological harvesting rules - esp for chum. So, it is a very arbitrary process as to how DFO comes-up with daily limits for chum - or most every other salmon for that matter.

 

[Derby]

Hahaha.. okay Dave ... pretty sure if I went Black you would go white..... the answer your question..I`m not 100 percent sure is.. theses fish are dead pitched out of the weirs in the spawning channel ... they have 2 or 3 sections in the channel which they can open up or close off to the fish to spawn in.....when die they are cleaning them out the weir so they don't dam or plug the weir up.. they pitch them into a truck and dump them and pretty sure they are counted..........The fish cut in half are the fish that are counted the walking counts along the streams....

 

[SpringVelocity]

This is a weird yet interesting thread. I have a suggestion. Perhaps someone should ask DFO why they chose to increase the bag limit from 2 to 4? To the best of my knowledge, neither the SFAB nor any other angling group asked for this. Its odd I'll admit, and possibly precedent setting, but I really fail to see how the few additional fish that may be retained by those who choose to retain them will even make a small dent in what's out there this year. I feel blessed that I'm fortunate enough to own a boat and therefore can choose to be fussy. IMO that doesn't give me the right to judge others based on what they consider to be quality protein that is accessible to them. I really appreciate California's point about trying to achieve a balance between escapement and utilization. IMO that is the real tricky part of what DFO has to do. Getting it right is what sustainable fisheries are all about. I'm no expert, but I have a sneaky suspicion that this move to 4 per day would pass any sustainability red face test you choose to throw at it.

I really think some folks on this thread are barking up the wrong tree by attempting to vilify a small percentage of anglers for bonking a few chum in a huge return year. IMO there are WAY bigger fish to fry if you really care about salmon. I look at it this way - if no one ate salmon (including and especially First Nations) , we wouldn't have a massive gov't department "managing" them at significant taxpayers cost, would we? In fact, I really doubt many people would ever even care about them at all. Its how we work as a species. Also, when I last checked, it was recreational anglers that contributed the vast majority of the sector based funding to the PSF for its stewardship and enhancement work through the salmon stamp on our licenses. Over $1.5 million last year by a conservative estimate. I wonder how much "fish advocates" contribute to the future of salmon? Just curious.

CP

Great response.

 

[agentaqua]

Great response.

X2

 

[Derby]

> Category(s):

> COMMERCIAL - Salmon: Gill Net,

> COMMERCIAL - Salmon: Seine

>

>

> Fishery Notice - Fisheries and Oceans Canada

>

> Subject: FN1276-COMMERCIAL - Salmon: Chum - Gill Net - Area E and

> Seine - Area B Closure for the season Nitinat - Areas 21, 121

>

> The following Management Areas will close at 23:59 hours Friday,

> November 11,

> 2016 for commercial salmon fishing for chum by seine and gill net for

> the balance of the 2016 salmon season:

>

> 1. Areas 20 and 21 (Nitinat),

>

> 2. Area 121.

>

> The total preliminary Nitinat chum return is estimated at just over 1

> million pieces. The escapement requirements to Nitinat Lake and River

> are a minimum of

> 225,000 and a maximum of 325,000. To date the escapement to the area

> is approximately 585,000 chum. The total commercial catch to date is

> 406,000 chum of which Area E Gill Nets caught approximately 137,000

> pieces and Area B Seines caught approximately 269,000 pieces.

>

> The Nitinat Hatchery chum egg target range is from 20 to 30 million

> eggs. The egg take for this year is complete and the total taken was

> 33 million chum eggs.

>

 

[Whitebuck]

Isnt this the cycle that chum retention was closed for sportys and almost zero commercial interception that year?