Herring roe fishery

[Salmonholic]

Years before many, I sat in on SFAC...it's a great way to start to understand how things work. It is also a gateway to greater things and connections if you so wish...google is a **** tone of crap that may or may not be valid. If you truly care, sit in on both SFAC and SFAB meetings. Catch some connections and use valid science...baffle gab emotional pleas mean nothing. Emotional pleas unsubstantiated and battled by peer reviewed science is truly the bane of our world. Snow storms melt away...honest science and cycles are real. Stop the blah, blah, BLAH...sit in on SFAC and SFAB. Be real. If you truly wish to continue spreading fake BS...well then, I guess you won't be part of the process then will you. Science first.

I am not sure of whom you are pointing at with this post. I have been struggling thru 100 plus pages of info from dfo sites about herring fishery from 1888 to present. Taking 25 to 50 million fish still seems to me like a sizeable impact on our local stocks.

 

[searun]

This years sog food and bait fishery has been down graded to 6000 short tons . So 6000 •2000 lbs •2 fish per lb = 24 million fish. Does this not impact our local stocks or am I missing something ? And 2 fish per lb is on the large side .

Math is a little out for 2020.....the total seine bait and food is 600 tonnes for SoG. 500 is bait.

 

[fogged in]

Lots of interesting info in this old DFO link supplied by Terrin
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/10026.pdf
Including this information about a question I had earlier.

“RECOGNITION OF HERRING POPULATIONS
British Columbia herring form two main types of populations, major migratory populations providing the greatest proportion of the catch, and minor local or resident populations, generally of relatively little commercial importance. “

Some on this forum are of the opinion migration covers a very small area.
Is there any science that supports the opinion that the “Denman Island (91 miles of spawn” Herring do migrate to the north end and, or south end of Vancouver Island or is their migration limited to this relatively small area?

 

[wildmanyeah]

You should follow your own advice

I think we best educate our selves with more recent data.

You also just finished saying how the herring have completely disappeared in your area, Are you now saying that they migrate through your area? and if so when have you observed this?

 

[fogged in]

You should follow your own advice
You also just finished saying how the herring have completely disappeared in your area, Are you now saying that they migrate through your area? and if so when have you observed this?

Why would anyone be surprised at this post from Wildman?
As often is the case you have it all wrong Wildman.
I asked a simple question and was hoping for an answer.

 

[Salmonholic]

Math is a little out for 2020.....the total seine bait and food is 600 tonnes for SoG. 500 is bait.

Ya wow!!! Just got a call back from dfo , you are correct about the food and Bait fishery for sog will be about 500 ton . Thats less than 10% of last years tac of 6000 short tons . Shows we definitely are not at historic levels that dfo keeps saying. But my math of 24 million + fish taken from local stocks was in the ball park for last years food and Bait fishery. What happened?

 

[Salmonholic]

1955/1956 catch of herring was 250,960 ton . That seems more like historic levels.

 

[terrin]

1955/1956 catch of herring was 250,960 ton . That seems more like historic levels.

Nothing to see here move along. Don't look at historic levels of abundance to understand how we got here. Here is a little history of progression in this fishery up to 1960. (1) From 1 877 to 1 900 the catch , m ainly by drag seines, i ncreased slowly from about 75 tons to 500 tons. The main centers were near Vancouver and on the cast coast of Vancouver I sland from N anaimo south. Small quanti ties were taken in the Queen Charlotte I slands and on Vancouver I sl and from Comox north. (2) From 1 900 to 1 909 the catch increased to about 30,000 tons. The opening of the Oriental market for dry-salted herring in 1 904 was largely responsible for this development. The bulk of the increase was borne by the lower east coast population. Small quantities (less than 50 tons) presumably for local consumption or bait, were taken in the Queen Charlotte I slands, n orthern, upper and middle cast coast, and lower west coast subdistricts. (3) From 1 909 to 1919 the catch varied from 1 5 ,000 to 35,000 tons a year. D uring the first worlel war the dry-salting ind ustry declined but canning increased to m eet war needs. The lower cast coast was the main center of production providing from 1 0,00] to 20,000 tons a year. Landings of between 1 000 and 3000 tons each were made from the northern, lower west coast and District 1 populations from 191 1-1 2 onward and of 500 to l OOO tons from the lower central and middle cast coast populations. Small landings continued to be made in the Queen Charl otte Islands until 1 9 14, when the fishery there apparently ceased . (4) From 191 9 to 1 927 the catch rose from 30,000 to 85,000 tons as a result of the expansion of the dry-salting industry. Canning decreased during this period . The lower cast and lower west coasts of Vancouver I sland subd istricts were the main centers of the fishery. Catches in each varied from 1 5 ,000 to 38 ,000 tons a year. Catches fro111 District 1 (the Fraser River estuary and H owe Sound) declined to less than l OOO tons annually and were about the same size as those from the lower central and middle east coast subd istricts. Catches in the northern subdistrict varied from about l OOO to 3000 tons. In 1 926-2 7 fishing on a large scale expanded on the west coast of Vancouver I sland to areas north of Barkley Sound. (5) From 1927 to 1 934-35 the annual catch dropped from 85,000 to 30,000 tons, due to the loss of the dry-salt market. The lower east coast catches were less affected than those in other subdistricts. (6) In the period fro111 1934-35 to 1 93 7-38 the annual catch increased to about 1 00,000 tons as the result of the development of the reduction industry, fi rst established in 1 924. This increase was marked by the expansion of huge-scale fishing operations to the northern and central subdistricts about 1 936-3 7. From 1 938-39 to 1 945-46 the annual catch fluctuated around 1 1 0,000 tons a year. lVl arket conditions were good , particularly in the la tter part of the period , both for oil and meal and for canned herring. The greater-than-average catch of 1 939-40 resulted from high catches in the northern and central subdistricts, while the below-average catch in 1 942-43 was the resul t of poor catches in these same regions. From 1 938-39 to 1941-42 significant ca tches were made in the Queen Charlotte I slands. 66 In 1 939-40 the upper east coast and middle east coast subdistricts were first fished extensively. (7) After the end of '\Torld \;Var II catches increased sharply and between 1 948-49 and 1 95 1-5 2 averaged 1 8 7,740 tons. In the period from 1 953-54 to 196 1-62 (the 1952-53 and 1957-58 seasons, marked by industrial disputes, are omitted), the catch has averaged 201 , 700 tons, fluctuating beween a low of 1 69 ,430 tons in 1 954-55 and a high of 251 ,000 tons the succeeding year. The greatly i ncreased catches have resulted from more intensive exploitation, aided by the development of more efficient methods of fishing, of all British Columbia herring stocks except the Queen Charlotte I slands stocks. Although these latter stocks have not been fished every year, the degree of exploitation has been as heavy as in other stocks in the years when they have been fished. As has already been discussed , the fl uctuations in catch in post-war years were primarily the result of variations in the abundance of the contributing year-classes. Economic factors were, however, responsible for the small catches of 1 952-53 and 1 95 7-58. It now appears virtually certain that no unexploited stocks of any size remain in British Col umbia waters, except perhaps on the west coast of the Queen Charlotte I slands.

 

[wildmanyeah]

over 800k chinook were harvested in the SOG annually by all sectors in the 1970's that number has fallen today to as low 20k.

Perhaps we should stop fishing and wait for those numbers to rebound.

 

[Dave]

Ah, what does Beamish know? After all, he's pro fish farms

 

[wildmanyeah]

Getting so tired arguing with the same people that just want everything shut down.

 

[Derby]

Remember ... to look at who is actually asking the questions

 

[searun]

Ya wow!!! Just got a call back from dfo , you are correct about the food and Bait fishery for sog will be about 500 ton . Thats less than 10% of last years tac of 6000 short tons . Shows we definitely are not at historic levels that dfo keeps saying. But my math of 24 million + fish taken from local stocks was in the ball park for last years food and Bait fishery. What happened?

Actually that is not what DFO and the MSE process has been saying at all. The numbers have shown there is a significant declining trend coming associated to natural mortality. This trend has been evident for a few years, and is no surprise. Has nothing to do with harvest.

Many areas have been closed to harvest for something close to a decade, and those stocks have not recovered. There are other reasons, and as suggested by Fish4all, some include competition for food from other species etc. So before we go about labelling cause and effect to the easy target (commercial harvest), the MSE process actually more closely examines other contributing factors within the ecosystem itself along with harvest to determine a viable limit reference point that helps assign responsible levels of harvest that move up or down.

BTW, I'm not claiming to be an expert here, just myself starting to become more familiar with the MSE process. I was formerly convinced that the commercial herring fishery was poorly managed and needed to close down. After spending some time becoming more familiar with the management approach, I've since come to realize that there can be a balance struck to achieve a sustainable harvest in a responsible way. I do think however, that the MSE process and particularly the actual simulation run model needs to be updated to take into proper account the ecosystem requirements of Chinook and Coho for example, as it is abundantly clear that they have very close dependencies upon herring as a prey source, and in turn are a prey source for apex predators such as SRKW.

As you say, big decrease in the bait fishery...and for a reason, supported by the MSE process (science).

 

[Salmonholic]

Actually that is not what DFO and the MSE process has been saying at all. The numbers have shown there is a significant declining trend coming associated to natural mortality. This trend has been evident for a few years, and is no surprise. Has nothing to do with harvest.

Many areas have been closed to harvest for something close to a decade, and those stocks have not recovered. There are other reasons, and as suggested by Fish4all, some include competition for food from other species etc. So before we go about labelling cause and effect to the easy target (commercial harvest), the MSE process actually more closely examines other contributing factors within the ecosystem itself along with harvest to determine a viable limit reference point that helps assign responsible levels of harvest that move up or down.

BTW, I'm not claiming to be an expert here, just myself starting to become more familiar with the MSE process. I was formerly convinced that the commercial herring fishery was poorly managed and needed to close down. After spending some time becoming more familiar with the management approach, I've since come to realize that there can be a balance struck to achieve a sustainable harvest in a responsible way. I do think however, that the MSE process and particularly the actual simulation run model needs to be updated to take into proper account the ecosystem requirements of Chinook and Coho for example, as it is abundantly clear that they have very close dependencies upon herring as a prey source, and in turn are a prey source for apex predators such as SRKW.

As you say, big decrease in the bait fishery...and for a reason, supported by the MSE process (science).

Thanks searun for your constructive input .

 

[OldBlackDog]

And it begins.
https://thenarwhal.ca/feds-called-o...qCg9qvMAl3OlAOIfm6-d0dJ46rKhrJ8wOU5IVi_tW6PrE

 

[fogged in]

So lets consider this....
According to Salmonholic
"1955/1956 the catch of herring was 250,960 ton"
The biomass likely was 1,000,000 tons or more.
Albeit that's all of BC
According to OldBlackDog's post
In 2020 DFO predicts the population biomass in the Strait of Georgia will drop to just 54,200 tonne."
According to Searun
the 2020 total seine bait and food is 600 tonnes for SoG. 500
That's about 10%
What's left for the SOG 2020 Commercial Harvest????
Could this information be correct and if so what might be the outcome for the 2020 season??

 

[terrin]

By comparison to what action is taken in similar circumstances. https://www.kqed.org/news/11740344/...nia-this-year-due-to-steep-population-decline

 

[searun]

So lets consider this....
According to Salmonholic
"1955/1956 the catch of herring was 250,960 ton"
The biomass likely was 1,000,000 tons or more.
Albeit that's all of BC
According to OldBlackDog's post
In 2020 DFO predicts the population biomass in the Strait of Georgia will drop to just 54,200 tonne."
According to Searun
the 2020 total seine bait and food is 600 tonnes for SoG. 500
That's about 10%
What's left for the SOG 2020 Commercial Harvest????
Could this information be correct and if so what might be the outcome for the 2020 season??

Absolutely, early simulation runs peg the various harvest options as significantly reduced over prior years as evidenced by the seine bait harvest allocation. There's been a declining swing in the data, so I would be very surprised if 2020 harvest is anything other than quite modest. Think we have to trust the science approach, and help point ways it can improve over time. I believe everyone wants the same thing, which is a healthy sustainable herring stock. If that means not harvesting when science tells us it isn't a wise choice, then so beit. Not good news for harvest, but the right thing to do for sustainability. Over-harvesting isn't good for the long-term future of the commercial fishery nor is it good for the ecosystem.

 

[fogged in]

Absolutely, early simulation runs peg the various harvest options as significantly reduced over prior years as evidenced by the seine bait harvest allocation. There's been a declining swing in the data, so I would be very surprised if 2020 harvest is anything other than quite modest. Think we have to trust the science approach, and help point ways it can improve over time. I believe everyone wants the same thing, which is a healthy sustainable herring stock. If that means not harvesting when science tells us it isn't a wise choice, then so beit. Not good news for harvest, but the right thing to do for sustainability. Over-harvesting isn't good for the long-term future of the commercial fishery nor is it good for the ecosystem.

My concern is what DFO considers "sustainable"
Clearly the 2019 SOG Commercial Harvest took the Herring bio mass to an all time low.
Do you, DFO or the "science" have an opinion on what the ideal bio mass should be to meet the needs of all that depend on it?
My uninformed and some would say ignorant opinion is it should be in the area of 10 times the level of last season before the Commercial Harvest.
Just look at the lack of Herring in areas other then the Denman Island 91 mile strip, all the way from Nanaimo to Sooke and probably at the north end as well.

 

[searun]

And it begins.
https://thenarwhal.ca/feds-called-o...qCg9qvMAl3OlAOIfm6-d0dJ46rKhrJ8wOU5IVi_tW6PrE

I agree with much of what Ian from Wild Pacific says regarding the stock and importance of getting the data right. Ceasing all harvest isn't the answer necessarily unless of course if the stock falls or is projected to fall below the Limit Reference Point (LRP). Also under provisions of the recently proclaimed Bill C-68, if stock assessment indicates the stock will drop below the LRP, then by law DFO will have to develop a re-building plan within 2 years that the Fisheries Minister must review and sign off on. So there are other new protective measures in law that bring even greater urgency to the Department to get it right.

Here are relevant sections of Bill C-68, which came into effect June 21, 2019.....this is the new way of doing business that we all need to pay close attention towards:

Fish Stocks

Measures to maintain fish stocks

6.‍1(1)In the management of fisheries, the Minister shall implement measures to maintain major fish stocks at or above the level necessary to promote the sustainability of the stock, taking into account the biology of the fish and the environmental conditions affecting the stock.

Limit reference point

(2)If the Minister is of the opinion that it is not feasible or appropriate, for cultural reasons or because of adverse socio-economic impacts, to implement the measures referred to in subsection (1), the Minister shall set a limit reference point and implement measures to maintain the fish stock above that point, taking into account the biology of the fish and the environmental conditions affecting the stock.

Publication of decision

(3)If the Minister sets a limit reference point in accordance with subsection (2), he or she shall publish the decision to do so, within a reasonable time and with reasons, on the Internet site of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Plan to rebuild

6.‍2(1)If a major fish stock has declined to or below its limit reference point, the Minister shall develop a plan to rebuild the stock above that point in the affected area, taking into account the biology of the fish and the environmental conditions affecting the stock, and implement it within the period provided for in the plan.

Amendment

(2)If the Minister is of the opinion that such a plan could result in adverse socio-economic or cultural impacts, the Minister may amend the plan or the implementation period in order to mitigate those impacts while minimizing further decline of the fish stock.

Endangered or threatened species

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply if the affected fish stock is an endangered species or a threatened species under the Species at Risk Act or if the implementation of international management measures by Canada does not permit it.

Publication of decision

(4)If the Minister amends a plan in accordance with subsection (2) or decides not to make one in accordance with subsection (3), he or she shall publish the decision to do so, within a reasonable time and with reasons, on the Internet site of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Restoration measures

(5)In the management of fisheries, if the Minister is of the opinion that the loss or degradation of the stock’s fish habitat has contributed to the stock’s decline,