The Hill to Die On - by Bob Hooton

[OldBlackDog]

Lol! I haven't fished in over 5 years, this won't affect me at all but it will impact many who do.
Yes, it is too late for IFS but you have to hope we have learned a bit because Skeena steelhead will be next.
Edit:
I am not advocating for listing Skeena steelhead under SARA.

Interior Fraser River steelhead is not the only population suffering from drastically reduced returns this year. From northern B.C.’s rivers to the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon, Taylor says coast-wide, the numbers have plummeted. In the Skeena River, the steelhead fishery was finally closed in October after August returns dropped to around 5,280 adult fish, the lowest in 66 years of monitoring and less than a quarter of the historical average.

“They should have 25,000 to 45,000 fish,” said Taylor.

 

[wildmanyeah]

In the Skeena River, the steelhead fishery was finally closed in October after August returns dropped to around 5,280 adult fish, the lowest in 66 years of monitoring and less than a quarter of the historical average.

“They should have 25,000 to 45,000 fish,” said Taylor.

No mention of 45% of the run that went into First Nations FSC.

 

[Derby]

A rational, practical mind where one's ego doesn't call the shots - would openly ask if constantly attacking all sectors and all potential allies is the most effective way to affect change, Searun. But maybe it's not about affecting change, at all. In that case one would ask - what is the intent, then?

There is a lot of truth in your statement....

 

[SpringVelocity]

There is a lot of truth in your statement....

Yep

 

[onefish]

No mention of 45% of the run that went into First Nations FSC.

If 45% of the run was caught on the sparsely populated Skeena system imagine the % that gets intercepted in FN FSC on the Fraser system.

 

[agentaqua]

No mention of 45% of the run that went into First Nations FSC.

Not implying in any way that the numbers you state are incorrect, WMY - just wondering where you are getting them from? How is that estimated?

 

[wildmanyeah]

self reported by FN steelhead kill numbers

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for the informative post, WMY.

So from the table you provided - FN reported 1914 steelhead caught & retained in the Skeena for 2021. From OBD's post #41 above - he reports that Taylor reported that "the steelhead fishery was finally closed in October after August returns dropped to around 5,280 adult fish". So 5280 returned as escapement and 1914 were caught in FN FSC catch. 5280+1914 = 7,194 total return run size. 1914/7,194 = 26.6% exploitation rate in 2021 as FSC catch - not 45%. How did you get 45%?

 

[wildmanyeah]

Thanks for the informative post, WMY.

So from the table you provided - FN reported 1914 steelhead caught & retained in the Skeena for 2021. From OBD's post #41 above - he reports that Taylor reported that "the steelhead fishery was finally closed in October after August returns dropped to around 5,280 adult fish". So 5280 returned as escapement and 1914 were caught in FN FSC catch. 5280+1914 = 7,194 total return run size. 1914/7,194 = 26.6% exploitation rate in 2021 as FSC catch - not 45%. How did you get 45%?

no that harvest happens after 5300 tyee test fishery number

so it’s 1914/5300 so more like 36%

don’t no if there is an actually spawning escarpment generated

 

[IronNoggin]

Given Ottawa’s track record, he says it’s not likely DFO will list Interior Fraser River steelhead as endangered under SARA. Still, he says he’s more hopeful now that Joyce Murray, a British Columbian, heads DFO as minister.

“If nothing else, she’ll pay more attention to it,” said Taylor. “I’m hoping (she) has the gumption to strike a new course.”

Don't expect anything different from the current Minister, she is a bit of an ideologue with little interest in science.

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, Skeena is down to 1/4 of the run.
So, when do we start to care, or do we wait like the Thompson.

History shows, we talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

 

[onefish]

So, Skeena is down to 1/4 of the run.
So, when do we start to care, or do we wait like the Thompson.

Its not like people didn't care or write letters or light their hair on fire as the Thompson was going for a crap. All that happened. DFO paid lip service, just like they are doing now.
Expecting DFO, who managed the demise of the Thompson steelhead, to change their ways, is like expecting the Canucks to win the cup, its just not going to happen.
Based on what has happened to other steelhead runs around the province, I suggest you fish the Skeena system now before it is shut down too.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Its not like people didn't care or write letters or light their hair on fire as the Thompson was going for a crap. All that happened. DFO paid lip service, just like they are doing now.
Expecting DFO, who managed the demise of the Thompson steelhead, to change their ways, is like expecting the Canucks to win the cup, its just not going to happen.
Based on what has happened to other steelhead runs around the province, I suggest you fish the Skeena system now before it is shut down too.

Well, using that recommendation begin to worry as there are actually only 2 Chinook runs that are acceptable to fish from the Fraser.

When do you think DFO will close all fishing for Chinook? Or will they?


They did for Thompson Coho, yet nothing has changed, no increase in fish and no opening for fishing.

 

[wildmanyeah]

When do you think DFO will close all fishing for Chinook?

don’t worry the proposal for that is currently being worked on and in come on the form of SRKW restrictions

renfew, the golf islands and Vancouver are complete boned. The survey for feedback will be put out in the next few weeks.

 

[onefish]

Well, using that recommendation begin to worry as there are actually only 2 Chinook runs that are acceptable to fish from the Fraser.

When do you think DFO will close all fishing for Chinook? Or will they?


They did for Thompson Coho, yet nothing has changed, no increase in fish and no opening for fishing.

Certain groups will get closed to all fishing, other groups will carry on regardless. The same thing will happen on the Skeena.

 

[Dave]

Certain groups will get closed to all fishing, other groups will carry on regardless. The same thing will happen on the Skeena.

I disagree. I believe big lessons are being learned over the IFS mess and there is time to save the Skeena steelhead.
There just needs to be the will to do it.

 

[onefish]

I disagree. I believe big lessons are being learned over the IFS mess and there is time to save the Skeena steelhead.
There just needs to be the will to do it.

I hope you are right. If IFS were listed and user groups felt some pain I would be more optomistic. It seems to me like they are just kicking the can down the road like they did on the Fraser.

 

[agentaqua]

Well that's a really creative way to describe an exploitation rate, WMY; thanks again for the reply. But it is NOT the way that it is done in the various fisheries management processes in the Province. And NOT the way that various fisheries are managed neither - for all sectors.

Exploitation rate in Canadian (and other countries) fisheries management is defined as the catch taken off the whole population that would be there is there were no fishing - or in fisheries terminology: "the proportion of the total returns caught by Canadian commercial fishery".

Typically, under the WSP, and the parts that were adopted from the WSP into the various fisheries management processes - they use a sliding scale of exploitation rate dependent upon the target run size. The devil in the details there is how does one set both lower (especially) and upper benchmarks (AKA "triggers"). Below the lower benchmark where "conservation" is triggered - no fishing is allowed to be directed (some bycatch). From the lower to the upper benchmark - a sliding scale is supposed to be applied (in theory) from 10 up to 20% where it intersects the upper benchmark (typically where spawning is saturated or another comparable metric is imposed).

Overall the coast over time - those historic exploitation rates have declined from 70-90% before mid 90s to ~20% or less today:

This graph shows those rates from 2005 onwards:

yet here is the trends in catch over time:

So, after examining the data - the open questions are:

Are fisheries and catches (i.e. exploitation rates) the causal mechanism for the declines? Because if they are/were - shouldn't we have seen responses in the stock trajectories?

Should we instead examine other causal explanations (this includes steelhead)?

 

[agentaqua]

I was thinking (always dangerous) that somehow the title of this thread was an appropriate analogy for the development of a strategy when all appears lost (like Sam & Frodo) - but perhaps a bit too fatalistic and final - as well as dramatic. Drama's ok. This topic deserves that acknowledgement of the seriousness. But this exclamation in the title does not encompass investigation of alternative endings and strategic options other than giving up. The die part is the final one.

Maybe the better title would be "What if you don't have to die on the hill" or some other similar thought from Lt.-Gen. Arthur Currie in WWI. He was a genius in understanding strategy. Look him up! Maybe also look up The capture of Vimy Ridge. What would he suggest we do today for IFS?

 

[Teal]

A number of individuals have posted in the past that the “Groups“ need to get together on various issues. The letter is a great example of just that, a number of different groups putting aside their differences to put forward a common message to the government regarding the absolute failure to protect IFS. I remind members of this forum to look at the FOI articles that were published after the BCWF made the request. It showed DFO downplaying the risk of extinction. Having read all the comments thus far I would suggest there is a fundamental difference in approach with those that are willing to risk extinction if it imposes on their angling opportunities and those who are willing to put aside those opportunities in the face of an extreme conservation crisis. Now I suspect in many instances money and fear is the driving force of those who are against the SARA listing of these fish. To suggest more studies and policy papers at a time when the returns are on the cusp of extinction in the Chilcotin and Thompson is simply supporting the status quo and we seem to have ample evidence of where that has led us.