Smackdown on commercial fishery and handling of bi-catch

They cutback so much, and make openings and closings so fast, and boom that's what happens. I would personally rather have an entire trolling fleet closely monitored... These boats are just too effective at wiping out everything in there paths......Very disturbing to know that you are doing your part, and that is allowed to take place. Sickening...

Not saying sporties are any better as we all know there are bad seeds in our arena as well, but saying for those commies acting all high and mighty about cameras, monitoring, rules, blah blah blah, to then see that they have their bad seeds as well (where the effect of their poor actions on just 1 boat would mirror the effect of maybe 100 bad sport fisherman) is really disappointing.
 
They cutback so much, and make openings and closings so fast, and boom that's what happens. I would personally rather have an entire trolling fleet closely monitored... These boats are just too effective at wiping out everything in there paths......Very disturbing to know that you are doing your part, and that is allowed to take place. Sickening...

Those are seiners. How do the trollers get their by-catch back in the water?
 
High Five-- Its not the seiners that are the problem-- its the FISHERMEN that are trying to make as many sets on the tide that they can. As the video indicates, fish can be released mostly unharmed from a seine set if the will to do so is there from the skipper and deck boss.

I spent five seasons as as an observer in Johnstone Straits on seines, trollers and gillnetters. You CAN revive seine fish with a recovery box if its used properly and you can successfully release troll fish with a gaff with minimal harm--- but the real killer is the gillnetter. Even with short 1/2 hr or 1 hr soaks.. any fish at the far end of the net is DEAD!
 
Which is why 1/2 nets and 20 min soak time was regulated into the fishing plans, along with 3-5 day openings where you look at the DNA (to determine run timing of stocks at risk) before you make the next opening.

seines get way more chum because their nets are deeper, and they fish deeper than the gillnets. Their openings are usually longer than the gillnets, also.

NO fishery: nets, hooks, or dynamite has NO impacts. When trained, competent and caring fishermen use the best methods all the time - that mortality is substantially reduced, but never zero.
 
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/me...nk+salmon+fishery+industry/8794800/story.html

And surprise; the well paid industry PR machine is trying to get out in front of it by calling up there friendly contacts in the media for some damage control fluff pieces to placate the public. In this case the usual canned talking point ‘not representative and we are a responsible and careful well monitored industry’. My view; these guys new they were being video taped and yet it is so ingrained in them to do it that it was business as usual and screw the critical salmon and steelhead because we need to make a few extra dollars quick on these low value Pinks. I think their communications guy is partially correct, it is likely not representative of the industry as a whole; it is likely far worse. This crew was aware that they were being observed and videoed and still did it. Can you imagine what goes on when these boats know they are all alone and not being observed and videoed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am confused by why your confused. If we had only trollers it would be easier on the resource and have a smaller effect on by-catch. The seiners are way to effective at wiping out everything...It is not a smart way to fish especially in the times we have now.

These are not the seiners of years ago...They come loaded with everything to pinpoint/target entire runs and wipe them out.

Just re-read your first post and now see what you mean. Sorry, I misunderstood. We both agree, trolling is the way to go.
 
Seiners could be the cleanest and least harmful on fish if they had full video monitoring (like other commercial fisheries) gave them longer openings and made them slow down and release fish properly. And stiff penalties for non compliance. Any gill net should be banned. (commercial or FN) On a fish per fish basis with both trollers and seiners doing proper handling of non target species, the seiner should have the higher survival rate by percentage...just because the hook will kill a few before you have the chance to handle it. Obviously the seiner will have a higher overall mortality based on the larger volume of fish they handle.
 
Seiners could be the cleanest and least harmful on fish if they had full video monitoring (like other commercial fisheries) gave them longer openings and made them slow down and release fish properly. And stiff penalties for non compliance. Any gill net should be banned. (commercial or FN) On a fish per fish basis with both trollers and seiners doing proper handling of non target species, the seiner should have the higher survival rate by percentage...just because the hook will kill a few before you have the chance to handle it. Obviously the seiner will have a higher overall mortality based on the larger volume of fish they handle.

Good post. I think the most important part of it is the "stiff penalties for non-compliance". Those involved in the commercial fishery (from deckhand to captain to owner) will change their behavior if it means making more $ or losing less $ (fines). It's no different than most every other business/industry out there. It's also no different in that this industry has been lobbying gov't for decades upon decades and are very much involved in the rules of the game. Will be tough to make all the changes that are needed, especially when 1 guy dominates the industry and also happens to dominate the province as well :)
 
Here's an interesting report I came across on the topic of gillnet mortalities. Would be interesting to compare estimates of mortalities among gear types:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Improving the Chances of Survival for Bycatch Fish

Patricia Gallaugher*, Anthony Farrell and Richard Routledge
Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby
British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6

One quarter of the world’s total commercial catch is discarded because it is not the right species or size (Cook 2001). It is generally assumed that, depending on species and fishery, most of these discarded fish do not survive after capture and release. However, recent experiments conducted in various locations on the British Columbia coast indicate that it is possible to revive commercially captured non-target salmon and significantly improve their chances of long-term survival after release.

In 1998, in response to conservation concerns regarding coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the west coast of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada established a policy for Selective Fisheries, defined as “the ability to avoid known, non-target species and stocks or, if encountered, to release them alive and unharmed” (Anon 1999).

However, very little information exists with regard to whether it is possible to release commercially captured fish so that they are indeed ‘alive and unharmed’. Hence, over the course of three summers, a unique partnership of academic and government scientists, commercial fishermen, First Nations, members of the fishing industry, coastal communities and Fisheries and Oceans Canada collaborated on experiments to test how to improve the chances of survival of salmon when released after capture by the commercial fishing fleet.

Experiments on board gillnet vessels (Farrell et al., 2000, 2001; Buchanan et al., 2001, Gallaugher 2001), were funded both by the fishers themselves through a percentage of the Total Allowable Catch, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the province of British Columbia, and Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. A number of different physiological parameters of muscle metabolism and post-capture stress were measured as indicators of recovery and delayed mortality following capture. The results showed that the use of a laminar flow revival box on board the vessels promoted significant recovery as indicated by improved values for the physiological indicators, good swimming ability and low long-term mortality rates, even for fish that were observed as asphyxiated and considered to be ‘dead’. When combined with modifications in handling techniques, soak times and gear the result was a very significant reduction in mortality rate (ie., from 60% to < 10%). Measured swimming velocities of the recovered fish after release suggested that these fish could swim well enough to avoid predators and successfully complete migration and reproduction. Similar experiments with the seine fleet using an adaptation of the gillnet laminar flow revival tank demonstrated significant reductions in long-term mortality rates for captured coho salmon after release (Berry et al. 2001). As well, experiments with salmon captured by the troll (hook and line) fleet have demonstrated near zero mortality when fish recover while slowly swimming alongside the vessel in a cage (Farrell et al. 2001).

To follow up on these findings, fishers took the initiative, and facilitated by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, developed and implemented a number of technology transfer workshops along the British Columbia coast prior to the 2001 fishing season. This led to the ‘buy in’ of more fishers. Those who complied by using these conservation-friendly methods were recognized by Fisheries and Oceans Canada through increased fishing opportunity in the 2001 British Columbia salmon fishing season.

These findings bring into question the practices of all commercial fisheries globally with regard to the treatment of bycatch and stress the importance of experimenting with methods that could increase the chances of the long-term survival of non-target, non-retention fish following release after capture. We suggest that if we are able to demonstrate significant improvement in survival for salmonids following capture and release, species known to be particularly sensitive to capture and handling, then there is significant room for improvement in fishing practices for many other species in global fisheries with regard to bycatch. In fact, recent experiments in Johnstone Strait, British Columbia, which examined the return of non-target quillback rockfish, Sebastes maliger, showed encouraging results with regard to release techniques that can reduce rates of mortality (Berry 2001).

References
Anon. 1999. A Policy for Selective Fisheries in Canada’s Pacific Fisheries. Fisheries and Oceans Canada http://www-comm.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/english/selective.

Berry, M. 2001. Area 12 (Inside) Rockfish Selective Fishery Study. Final Report prepared for Fisheries Renewal BC and Science Council of BC. (http://www.icnrc.org).

Berry, M., Gallaugher, P., Farrell, A.P., Buchanan, S. and Pike, D. 2000. A Comparison of the standard recovery box and a re-designed laminar flow box in the recovery of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) caught with commercial seine gear: Mortality rates and swimming performance. Report to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 14pp.http://www.sfu.ca/cstudies/science/selective.

Buchanan, S., Farrell, A.P., Fraser, J., Gallaugher, P., Joy, R. and Routledge, R. 2001. Dramatic Reductions in Gillnet Mortality for Incidentally Caught Coho. Under Review. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag.

Cook, Robin 2001.The magnitude and impact of by-catch mortality by fishing gear. In Proceedings of the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Reykjavik, Iceland. October 1-4, 2001. 18pp.

Farrell, Anthony P., Patricia E. Gallaugher and Richard Routledge. 2001. Rapid recovery of exhausted adult coho salmon after commercial capture by troll fishing. Submitted.

Farrell, A.P., Gallaugher, P.E., Fraser, J., Pike, D., Bowering, P., Hadwin, A.K.M., Parkhouse, W. and Routledge, R. 2001. Successful recovery of the physiological status of coho salmon on board a commercial gillnet vessel by means of a newly designed revival box. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 192-1946.

Farrell, A.P., Gallaugher, P., Clarke, C. Delury, N., Kreiberg, H., Parkhouse, W. and Routledge, R. 2000. Physiological status of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) captured in commercial nonretention fisheries. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1157-1162.
 
Here's on on Troll mortality on coho:
---------------------------------------------------------
Area H Troll Mortality and Gear Comparison Study (TRGSC12)

Presented by Project Proponent: Mike Griswold, Gulf Trollers Association

Objectives
1) to compare the mortality rate of coho released at the waterline to taking fish on board and using a revival tank prior to release.
2) to assess whether the use of “red gear” would be effective in reducing the encounter rate of coho.

Fishing Methodology and Gear Tested
The study was conducted over a four month period with three separate tests.
Test 1: Coho mortality rate and gear tests, during sockeye fishery in Area 12-16 (Johnstone Strait), for five days, July 18 to July 22.
Test 2: Gear test, sockeye fishery, Area 13-32 (Johnstone Strait) for one day, August 5
Test 3: Coho mortality rate and gear tests, chum fishery, Area 13-23, 13-26, for five days, Sept. 29 to Oct. 3.

During the 11-day test period, eight vessels participated in the study. Four vessels participated in Test 1 and four vessels in Test 3. Eight vessels took part in the gear comparison Test 2.

In the coho mortality experiment (tests 1 and 3), two vessels were equipped with two revival tanks each and two vessels with a suspended cage towed alongside the vessel. The cage consisted of an enclosed metal cage (with a lid) attached near the stern of the vessel, with the opening close to the waterline. Cages were towed at trolling speed. The tanks on board the two vessels were capable of receiving a constant flow of seawater and equipped with a tight fitting lid. Coho were taken from the revival tanks and cages and released into a net pen and held overnight before being released the following morning.

For gear comparisons, vessels fished with either traditional coho gear or red gear. Total fishing time, number of hooks used, depths, and speed often varied between vessels and for the various test period. During Tests 1 and 3, one cage vessel and one tank vessel fished traditional coho gear and the other vessel with red gear. During Test 2, only one of the eight vessels was equipped with coho gear, the others with red gear. Gear restrictions limited vessels to six lines.

Total fish captured in the three tests: 615 sockeye, 2,252 coho, 617 pink, 930 chum and 806 chinook.

Results
§ Revival tank mortality: of the 952 fish caught and placed in tanks, 13 died prior to release to the net pen and 107 died during the overnight holding period. Overall mortality for coho place in revival tans was 120 fish (12.6%).
§ Cage mortality: of the 992 fish caught, 11 died prior to release and 90 died during the overnight holding period. Overall mortality rate for coho placed in cages was 101 fish (10.2%)
§ Gear comparison: red gear proved to be more effective for catching sockeye, pink and chum salmon, but did not seem particularly effective in reducing coho catch. While coho catch was reduced somewhat by vessels using red gear compared to those coho gear, the figures were not significant.
§ The actual catch rate of coho seemed to be related to the area fished rather than gear.
§ High trolling speeds resulted in higher coho bycatch.

Conclusions and Recommendations
1. The study showed a lower overall mortality rate for fish released at the waterline (cages) 10.2%, in comparison to those brought onboard and placed in revival tanks (12.6%) The study was conducted in a controlled environment and what needs to be addressed is how this will differ from an actual commercial fishery. There were factors occurring as a result of the test fishery that were thought to cause an increase in coho mortality in comparison to a regular fishery. These included wind (causing stress to fish in cages) and a diesel spill at the net pen site.
2. Recovery tanks may have a place in the recovery of bycatch but it may be on a reduced level where only fish assessed as condition 3 or 4 are actually place in tanks. For these fish it may be worth the time and effort to attempt to improve fish condition prior to release.
3. The most effective method of reducing coho encounters is to adopt area selective fishing strategies that will avoid those areas with high coho concentrations. To do this, it would be necessary to have pre-fishery knowledge as to what stocks are present in the area of fishing operations.
4. Determine realistic and acceptable limits on coho mortality.
5. Continue studies using revival tanks, focussing on effectiveness on fish assessed as a specific condition.
6. Allow flexibility in release procedures for prohibited species. Waterline release should be permitted under certain conditions; i.e. fish in good condition, no predators in the area.
 
Here's one on marine recreational mortality:
-------------------------------------------------------
1999 Coho Catch and Release Studies: Summary of Results (Preliminary)

North Coast British Columbia

Presented by Stephen Cox-Rogers, Don Anderson: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Objectives
§ To determine short-term (24 hour) mortality rates for coho captured on similar gears fished in different locations.
§ Gather data on factors affecting mortality, such as hook location, fish size, fish condition.

Fishing Methodology and Gear Used

a) Dundas Island (Area 3) July 26-30. Three boats with the same anglers on each boat fished each day. Observers were
also placed on each boat. Fish were caught on:

§ motor-mooched cut-plug herring
§ trolled cut-plug herring (downriggers)
§ trolled artificial lures (downriggers)
§ all tandem or single barbless 4/0-5/0 hooks.

b) Stevens Island (Area 4) August 12-18
Six boats with different anglers fished each day. The gear was rotated among boats. Observers were on board each. Fish were caught on:

§ motor-mooched cut-plug herring
§ trolled herring (downriggers)
§ trolled artificial lures (downriggers)
§ primarily tandem or single 4/0 to 5/0 barbless hooks.

c) Langara Island (Area 1) August 23-30

Part A: Observers accompanied anglers in boats(skiffs). Volunteer anglers. Four lodges participated. Fish captured on motor-mooched cut-plug herring and tandem barbless 4/0-5/0 J hooks.

Part B: Observers in retrieval zodiacs. Volunteer anglers in skiffs. Four lodges participated. Fish were captured on motor-mooched cut-plug herring and tandem barbless 4/0-5/0 J hooks.

Fishing Handling and Holding
The majority of the fish were netted at the side of the boat with a special soft-mesh net supplied by FOC. The observers recorded hook location and associated data for each fish upon landing. The fish were transferred into holding tubes held at side of the boat for pick up (5 to 15 minutes). A zodiac picked up each fish, applied a floy tag, and returned the fish to a holding site 2 to 10 minutes away. At the holding site, each fish was measured, bio-sampled, sexed and transferred into one of six holding tanks, aboard a 53’ holding vessel, or into a floating net pen held along side the holding vessel. Daily holding goals set at 30 fish per day minimum, 60-100 fish per day maximum. Mortalities were counted and survivors released the next morning following a maximum 24 hr. holding period.

Results: (Preliminary)
§ Landing rates (all species):
§ were highest for trolled gear, and lower for motor-mooched herring.
§ barbless hooks may have affected landing rates; no data to substantiate this.
§ Mortality rates:
§ similar for all gears tested at Dundas and Steven Islands (E.G. 5% - 17%).
§ Mortality rates were highest at Langara Island for motor-mooched cut-plug herring (E.G. 22%).
§ Mortality rates were highest for hooks located in the critical deep mouth area:
§ Hook location in the landings and mortalities varied by gear type.
§ For trolled gear, the outer mouth and outside mouth were common hook locations.
§ Deep mouth mortalities typically exhibited tearing or puncture wounds to the gills, throat, or internal organs (heart, liver, etc.)
§ Outer mouth and outside mouth mortalities typically exhibited puncture wounds to the tongue, isthmus, eye and brain.
§ Motor-mooched herring at Langara Island resulted in higher overall mortality rates because more fish took the baits deeply compared to coho captured at Dundas or Stevens Islands. This might be because fish were larger and observed to be more aggressive at Langara Island.
§ The larger fish (more than 65cm) captured on motor-mooched herring had higher mortality rates compared to large fish captured on trolled gear.
§ Larger fish tended to ingest motor-mooched baits more readily than trolled baits or lures and exhibit high mortality because of it.
§ Bleeding was associated with mortality:
§ A high proportion of the mortalities, for all gears tested, were bleeders.
§ Fish hooked in the deep mouth area exhibited higher rates of heavy bleeding than fish hooked in the outer mouth or outside mouth areas. 54.3% of all heavy bleeders died, while only 4.5% of all light bleeders died.
§ Handling/Holding Effects were felt to have been small influence, as most fish that died exhibited critical hooking injuries, and died within the first few hours of holding.
§ Tanks versus net pens: this was only evaluated at Dundas and Stevens islands. There were no significant differences in mortality rates between the two.

Conclusions
1. Landing rates for barbless hooks were in the 40% to 70% range for the gear types tested. Given the high proportion of fish lost, drop-off mortality could be an important component of total mortality for coho captured and released in the North Coast marine recreational fisheries.
2. Short-term mortality rates for coho captured on trolled herring or lures were very similar (5% to 17%) at two different study locations assessed in 1999 (Dundas and Stevens Island).
3. Short-term mortality rates for coho captured on motor-mooched cut-plug herring were significantly higher (22%) at Langara Island compared to Dundas and Stevens Island (less than 10%).
4. Mortality rates were associated with hook location. For all gear types tested, fish hooked in the critical deep mouth exhibited the highest mortality rates, a finding consistent with other studies (NRC 1999).
5. Bleeding was associated with mortality: a high proportion of all mortalities (>80%) exhibited bleeding when landed. Mortality rates were highest for heavy bleeders (>50%). Most heavy bleeders were those fish hooked in the deep mouth.
6. Factors other than gear and method, such as stage of maturity, fish size, and fish behaviour (reaction to the gear) may influence mortality in different ways and at different times of the year. The stability of mortality rates throughout the season in different fishing locations is not clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Successful recovery of the physiological status of coho salmon on board a commercial gillnet vessel by means of a newly designed revival box
A.P. Farrell, P.E. Gallaugher, J. Fraser, D. Pike, P. Bowering, A.K.M. Hadwin, W. Parkhouse, and R. Routledge
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58: 1932–1946 (2001)

Abstract: Successful application of fish-revival techniques in commercial fishing prior to release of nontarget species requires clear evidence that recovery devices do indeed improve physiological status and minimize postcapture delayed mortality. This study provides such evidence for a newly designed recovery box (Fraser box) that assisted gill ventilation. Immediately after capture by gillnet, adult coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) were in a state of severe metabolic exhaustion and stress, based on a comprehensive analysis of plasma and muscle tissue. However, when placed in a Fraser recovery box for 1–2 h, both lethargic and vigorous fish showed significant metabolic recovery and their ability to swim was also quickly restored. An emphatic demonstration of the benefit of the Fraser box was the successful revival of >90% of fish that appeared dead at capture. Furthermore, postcapture delayed mortality was only 2.3% after a 24-h observation period. Therefore, in the context of commercial salmon gillnet fishing, revival of nontarget coho salmon in a Fraser box, in combination with a soak time (total time the gillnet is in the water) £70 min and careful fish handling to minimize physical trauma,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1270–1275, 2002
Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2002

Reducing Gill-Net Mortality of Incidentally Caught Coho Salmon

SEANA BUCHANAN AND ANTHONY P. FARRELL
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada

JAKE FRASER
Rural Route 1, Site 11B, C-11,
Madeira Park, British Columbia V0N 2H0, Canada

PATRICIA GALLAUGHER
Continuing Studies in Science, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada

RUTH JOY AND RICK ROUTLEDGE*
Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada

Abstract.—The abundance of coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch has declined dramatically over much of the southern part of its range along the Pacific Coast of North America. This decline has created the need to reduce fishing mortalities, including bycatch mortalities in fisheries that are targeting other species. Traditional gill-net fishing causes an estimated 35–70% mortality rate on incidentally caught coho salmon. A reduction in this high mortality rate is necessary if gill nets continue to be used in fisheries that inadvertently intercept depressed coho salmon stocks while fishing other species. By using modified gear, short net soak times, careful handling of fish on removal from the gill net, and a newly designed recovery box, the short-term mortality rate on incidentally caught coho salmon can be reduced to as little as 6%, possibly even lower in some circumstances. This substantial reduction in mortality on nontargeted species expands the possible role of gill nets in the development of selective fisheries.
 
As a former gillnetter who is still very conservationally minded, I shake my head at some of the attitudes of the sporties on this board.
I had a coho-hotel on my deck for years, never needed to use it except for one steelhead when chum fishing in Nitnat.
The steelhead survived just fine.
As far as gillnets being indiscriminate killers, I take exception to that uninformed view.
Salmon gillnets are either 60 or 90 meshes deep.
A mesh is anywhere from 4.5 to over 6". If the target species salmon is not in the top 30' or so of water, gillnets are useless.
Gillnets are not allowed to be sunk or anchored.
Gillnets are quite selective by using the appropriate size mesh for the target species of salmon.
You will not catch any Alberni sockeye in a six inch mesh.
I fished and represented many gillnetters through my time on the board of the Pacific Gillnetters Association and my conservationalist views were representative of those I fished with.
Not sure why I am going into such detail, this reminds me trying discourse with religious fundamentalists that must believe in their 'facts' to create enemies in others.
I love being on the water and hope that my children will also have the same opportunities and enjoyment that I have been blessed with.


Gong Show
 
Too bad you were not out with me on a gillnetter on dark and stormy nights in Johnstone Straits. You would have a different perspective.
 
Back
Top