Darmin work for dfo??What the hell are you talking about man??Im a bait slingin gear chuckin hardcore c'mon!the hatchery takes 8 million eggs i believe for chinook so out of 14000 they should get there eggs anyway??Dont start with the wild in river spawners those were done years ago!!Its a hatchery stream that costs a crap load too run so they dont want 50000 dark boots in the river for snaggers to beat on!!Thats not why they raise these fish i wish it were!The fact you cant keep nooks now shouldnt matter what ya gonna do with an old spawner anyway darmin?
DFO screwed up again!
- Thread starter drhook
- Start date
tyeegalore
Active Member
Hey F14, I believe that most of the comments here are directed at the DFO for their allowing the Commercial fleet to take so many, at least that's the way I read the thread and certainly is where I am directing my post towards. Cheers.
tyeegalore
Active Member
Hey F14, I believe that most of the comments here are directed at the DFO for their allowing the Commercial fleet to take so many, at least that's the way I read the thread and certainly is where I am directing my post towards. Cheers.
Copper Moon
Well-Known Member
Robertson Hatchery has an open house tomorrow? The only reference I could find said it would be on the 19th
Copper Moon
Well-Known Member
Robertson Hatchery has an open house tomorrow? The only reference I could find said it would be on the 19th
D
darmin
Guest
hey Fish-Rite sorry about the D.F.O remark
and you brought up some valid points as well [^]
and you brought up some valid points as well [^]
D
darmin
Guest
hey Fish-Rite sorry about the D.F.O remark and you brought up some valid points as well [^]
and you brought up some valid points as well [^]
drhook
Active Member
I guess my problem with the way this fishery is managed is that the TAC (total allowable catch) is always overestimated and the commercials fish their percentage according to this wholy inaccurate figure. (Yes, I know, the recrationals too)
But keep in mind also that according to the law as it stands now (which I don't agree with but thats another topic) its conservation first, first nations, recrationals, and then commercials if there is anything left.
Now I don't know if 14,700 fish is enough for the hatchery but the point being if DFO (DFO scientists?) want 27,000 fish in the river then we should (hopefully) have at LEAST that many. The hatcherys roll as I see it should be to augment the wild stocks and re-seed the river, not simply produce enough so that we can all harvest fish. If the cutbacks that almost accurred (see Nog's post)
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7768
would have happened, then where would we be? We'd have a barren river and no hatchery production and ultimately no fish!
I've also included the latest updated DFO fishey results for the alberni canal.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/salmon/sc stad/SomassChinook/SomassChinook2007-6.pdf
But keep in mind also that according to the law as it stands now (which I don't agree with but thats another topic) its conservation first, first nations, recrationals, and then commercials if there is anything left.
Now I don't know if 14,700 fish is enough for the hatchery but the point being if DFO (DFO scientists?) want 27,000 fish in the river then we should (hopefully) have at LEAST that many. The hatcherys roll as I see it should be to augment the wild stocks and re-seed the river, not simply produce enough so that we can all harvest fish. If the cutbacks that almost accurred (see Nog's post)
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7768
would have happened, then where would we be? We'd have a barren river and no hatchery production and ultimately no fish!
I've also included the latest updated DFO fishey results for the alberni canal.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/salmon/sc stad/SomassChinook/SomassChinook2007-6.pdf
drhook
Active Member
I guess my problem with the way this fishery is managed is that the TAC (total allowable catch) is always overestimated and the commercials fish their percentage according to this wholy inaccurate figure. (Yes, I know, the recrationals too)
But keep in mind also that according to the law as it stands now (which I don't agree with but thats another topic) its conservation first, first nations, recrationals, and then commercials if there is anything left.
Now I don't know if 14,700 fish is enough for the hatchery but the point being if DFO (DFO scientists?) want 27,000 fish in the river then we should (hopefully) have at LEAST that many. The hatcherys roll as I see it should be to augment the wild stocks and re-seed the river, not simply produce enough so that we can all harvest fish. If the cutbacks that almost accurred (see Nog's post)
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7768
would have happened, then where would we be? We'd have a barren river and no hatchery production and ultimately no fish!
I've also included the latest updated DFO fishey results for the alberni canal.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/salmon/sc stad/SomassChinook/SomassChinook2007-6.pdf
But keep in mind also that according to the law as it stands now (which I don't agree with but thats another topic) its conservation first, first nations, recrationals, and then commercials if there is anything left.
Now I don't know if 14,700 fish is enough for the hatchery but the point being if DFO (DFO scientists?) want 27,000 fish in the river then we should (hopefully) have at LEAST that many. The hatcherys roll as I see it should be to augment the wild stocks and re-seed the river, not simply produce enough so that we can all harvest fish. If the cutbacks that almost accurred (see Nog's post)
http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7768
would have happened, then where would we be? We'd have a barren river and no hatchery production and ultimately no fish!
I've also included the latest updated DFO fishey results for the alberni canal.
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/salmon/sc stad/SomassChinook/SomassChinook2007-6.pdf
drhook
Active Member
This is a really great read and supplys a ton of information
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2006/SAR-AS2006_036_E.pdf
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2006/SAR-AS2006_036_E.pdf
drhook
Active Member
This is a really great read and supplys a ton of information
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2006/SAR-AS2006_036_E.pdf
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2006/SAR-AS2006_036_E.pdf
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
FishBoy, I'd like to politely suggest you pull your head out of you-know-where. There are MANY folks here with a LOT</u> of experience, knowledge specifically relating to the system in question, and hand in hand with that UNDERSTANDING of the travesty DFO is playing in our local waters.
For Instance:
- NOTHING, repeat NOTHING is decided in your alluded to meeting. DFO comes up with a computer generated model to determine what numbers MIGHT return on any given year (called an estimate). The various catch levels that get assigned to each sector follow a prescribed ratio based upon that return estimate, again for each sector. Then yes, meetings are held to discuss the estimate and the ensuing quotas, but nothing can change the ratio. No amount of fist pounding on the table anyway (there is some reason to believe that the Jimmy P's of the world may actually have something of an influence on the harvest rate they are assigned, but that is beyond the scope of this particular discussion).
- Your comment "comercial fleets only took what they are allowed to take" is however unfortunately true. And the gist of the problem lies right there "what they are allowed to take". Sticking to a computer generated run estimate, when that completely flies in the face of on-the-ground observations is more than ludicrous, it is completely</u> irresponsible, and directly places trhe stock at risk (by management decision no less).
RVP: Drunk again Laddie, or just attempting to stir the pot?
OK then, how's this for a suggestion: Put the required number of escapement on the grounds BEFORE declaring the annual bloodbath open to commercial/FN operations. OOPS, might make TOO MUCH sense! Alternatively, while monitoring catch data (ongoing & inseason) ADJUST the bloody estimate according to what those catch numbers indicate, INSTEAD of madly sticking to some forlorn and fleeting hope the "estimated" numbers will somehow magically appear.
In this particular instance, NO-ONE is at all interested in headed to the flow to pound away at black springs in their final spawning and death throws. DFO is absolutely aware of that. BUT this closure does allow them to save face as it were, in that down the road when the shortfall hits, they can indeed say We Did Something. Let's put in more understandable terms: While we aren't about to admit we made an error, we may now suggest Housten, there MIGHT be a problem.
Gimme a Break! Accountability is lacking, and as long as they collect their paycheck and keep a roof over their heads (and make somewhat certain their "job" has somehow been justified, then all is well.
Sorry, but I must cry BULL****! Far too little FAR too LATE!
PO'd
Nog
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
FishBoy, I'd like to politely suggest you pull your head out of you-know-where. There are MANY folks here with a LOT</u> of experience, knowledge specifically relating to the system in question, and hand in hand with that UNDERSTANDING of the travesty DFO is playing in our local waters.
For Instance:
- NOTHING, repeat NOTHING is decided in your alluded to meeting. DFO comes up with a computer generated model to determine what numbers MIGHT return on any given year (called an estimate). The various catch levels that get assigned to each sector follow a prescribed ratio based upon that return estimate, again for each sector. Then yes, meetings are held to discuss the estimate and the ensuing quotas, but nothing can change the ratio. No amount of fist pounding on the table anyway (there is some reason to believe that the Jimmy P's of the world may actually have something of an influence on the harvest rate they are assigned, but that is beyond the scope of this particular discussion).
- Your comment "comercial fleets only took what they are allowed to take" is however unfortunately true. And the gist of the problem lies right there "what they are allowed to take". Sticking to a computer generated run estimate, when that completely flies in the face of on-the-ground observations is more than ludicrous, it is completely</u> irresponsible, and directly places trhe stock at risk (by management decision no less).
RVP: Drunk again Laddie, or just attempting to stir the pot?
OK then, how's this for a suggestion: Put the required number of escapement on the grounds BEFORE declaring the annual bloodbath open to commercial/FN operations. OOPS, might make TOO MUCH sense! Alternatively, while monitoring catch data (ongoing & inseason) ADJUST the bloody estimate according to what those catch numbers indicate, INSTEAD of madly sticking to some forlorn and fleeting hope the "estimated" numbers will somehow magically appear.
In this particular instance, NO-ONE is at all interested in headed to the flow to pound away at black springs in their final spawning and death throws. DFO is absolutely aware of that. BUT this closure does allow them to save face as it were, in that down the road when the shortfall hits, they can indeed say We Did Something. Let's put in more understandable terms: While we aren't about to admit we made an error, we may now suggest Housten, there MIGHT be a problem.
Gimme a Break! Accountability is lacking, and as long as they collect their paycheck and keep a roof over their heads (and make somewhat certain their "job" has somehow been justified, then all is well.
Sorry, but I must cry BULL****! Far too little FAR too LATE!
PO'd
Nog
The bottom line is DFO scientists may know what is actually going on out on the water, but Ottawa gives them direction and what they want (politicians) is what comes down for us to suck on.
If you do want action start by hammering your local MP and let him know just how pissed we at their mismanagement as an election is in the near future.
They count votes not fish.
If you do want action start by hammering your local MP and let him know just how pissed we at their mismanagement as an election is in the near future.
They count votes not fish.
The bottom line is DFO scientists may know what is actually going on out on the water, but Ottawa gives them direction and what they want (politicians) is what comes down for us to suck on.
If you do want action start by hammering your local MP and let him know just how pissed we at their mismanagement as an election is in the near future.
They count votes not fish.
If you do want action start by hammering your local MP and let him know just how pissed we at their mismanagement as an election is in the near future.
They count votes not fish.
