The time to speak up for our rights to salmon fish is now!

[cohochinook]

I'm sharing this from a Facebook post that Bonchovy put up:

THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!!!

PLEASE SHARE AND EMAIL
The majority of the South Coast from Port Hardy, Port Mcneil, Telegraph Cove, Campbell River, Comox, Pender Harbour, Nanaimo to the Fraser River to Vancouver, Victoria and up around the corner to Sooke, Port Renfrew, Bamfield, Port Renfrew, Ucluelet, Tofino, Zeballos and Winter Harbour are facing extreme challenges!
Please read - like - share, help to get the word out!
TIME TO GET LOUD!
Fisheries and Oceans Canada has released their proposal for the upcoming 2019 sport fishing season. We have been given two options
Option A: April 1 - July 31 Chinook Non-Retention
Option B: April 1 - July 31 1 Chinook
Please help by emailing your concerns stressing the importance of not going with Option A. Salmon fishing is a way of life in British Columbia! This would be devastating to BC's coastal communities. Going with Option A would destroy fishing lodges, fishing charter companies, tackle retailers, hotels, restaurants, sea plane companies, boat dealers, marine supply shops, fuel docks, marinas and the list goes on!!
It is time for the DFO led by Minister Jonathan Wilkinson to know that enough is enough. It is time for a government with some teeth and conviction to right this sinking ship of management. It is depressing listening to Department of Fisheries and Oceans employees feel virtually helpless due to years of budget cutbacks. Now is the time to adopt management strategies based on science with FUNDING, not politics. The importance of recreational fishing to the social and economic fabric in BC is MASSIVE.
DFO has put restrictions on the South Coast for at least 15 years now to try and get more early timed Chinook back to the Fraser River Obviously the last 15 years of restrictions has done nothing to help and neither will these silly proposals.
We have done our part for 15 years to no avail .
Its time for DFO to step up and start more enhancement on the Fraser which should’ve started 15 years ago when they put the first restrictions on us .
Many of our other systems are seeing great returns of fish . So why not the early Fraser River Fish ? It certainly isn’t sport fishing !
PLEASE EMAIL NOW AS THERE ARE HIGH LEVEL SFAB MEETINGS GOING ON THIS WEEK.
Jeff Grout
jeff.grout@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
AND
min@dfo-mpo-gc.ca
Honorable Jonathan Wilkinson J

 

[Firstlight]

HERE IS THE LETTER I SENT TODAY:

Jeff,

The proposed options will destroy the sport fishing in the region as well as impact the local economy. To be clear, If this occurs, I will put my boat in storage.

1) Option A provides only some fishing but no or very little retention. The sprortfishing industry requires at least 4 retention fish to justify the time and expense for the sport fishermen. In the absence of they, there is insufficient rational to spend the monty for board, lodges, equipment, etc.

2) Financial Impact: With Option A, I am convinced that most sportfishermen will just stay home. When this happens the following impact occurs from May 1 2019 to December 31, 2019:

• Reduced travel related spending in the region: Personally I will see at least $12,000 in reduced travel spending.
• Reduced marine related spending (fuel, services, equipment): $25,000
• Reduced fishing spend (tackle, rods, bait, services): $5,000

TOTAL: $45,000 for 1 person.

In addition, I will no invite friends and relatives to fish this year. They all travel to BC and spend money here. Typically this is 8 people per year.
Their finical spend per person is:

• Reduced travel related spending in the region: at $6,000 in reduced travel spending.
• Reduced marine related spending (services, equipment): $3,000
• Reduced fishing spend (tackle, rods, bait, services): $2,000

TOTAL IMPACT OF OPTION A OR B:
8 x $11,000 PLUS $45,000 for me = $133,000

LONGER TERM IMPACT

• At some point I will sell my boat - no longer worth keeping
• local services will go out of business

Jeff, The issue here is commercial fishing and excess First Nations fishing. There is insufficient stocks to support an industry that is akin to clear cutting lumber.
If commercial fishing slowly declines, the region will not suffer economically. However, if Sportfishing declines, the impact will be felt in: Air transport, Hotels, restaurants, lodges, retail, fuel, services, real estate, etc.

 

[IronNoggin]

You did a pretty good job, right up to this point:

Jeff, The issue here is commercial fishing and excess First Nations fishing. There is insufficient stocks to support an industry that is akin to clear cutting lumber.
If commercial fishing slowly declines, the region will not suffer economically. However, if Sportfishing declines, the impact will be felt in: Air transport, Hotels, restaurants, lodges, retail, fuel, services, real estate, etc.

And then you went completely off the rails. And I mean COMPLETELY!
Beyond noting that you and your sector take more chinook than any other, and have for years, and in the interest of keeping this thread civil, I strongly suggest you send me a pm wherein I can, and will educate you as to why.

In the meantime, if you have indeed already sent this, I sincerely hope you are not encouraging others to follow suit!

Ticked,
Nog

 

[dmurph]

my letter

Hi Jeff,

I’m writing in regards to the proposed fishing restrictions for the 2019 sport fishery in BC. I would like to express how important a sport fishing opportunity is for my friends, family, the province British Columbia and the entire country. Salmon fishing is a way of life for many in British Columbia and beyond, going with proposed option A would destroy many coastal communities and a past time that is important for so many Canadians. Option A would be devastating for fishing lodges, small charter companies, tackle retailers, marine supply industry, boat dealers and repair shops, fuel docks, marinas, sea plane companies, hotels and much of the coastal bc economy that all depend on salmon fishing. I can tell you that on a more personal level, that for my family sport fishing is a way of life and a real passion for the whole family. My wife and I love fishing together, it is a great sport that both women and men can enjoy equally, we have a 7 year old boy who has grown up fishing for salmon his entire life. salmon fishing is a great family activity that is a real passion and way of life that also helps feed my family as well as many of my friends. We have personally invested all of our disposable income over the years to salmon fishing, hundreds of thousands. We would travel from Whistler to Vancouver every weekend, get in our boat 60000k, which we pay 3000k to moore at a marina, fuel up at the gas dock often 300 dollars, and then spend the weekend camping and fishing all around the southern straight. Often we stay at other nearby marinas spending money at restaurants and supporting other economies This doesn’t included the big trips toVancouver Island in which we ferry our boat over. All of this we often share with family who fly in from other parts of the country to enjoy, and the neighbours and friends who may not otherwise get a chance to enjoy salmon. My point is a lot of money gets invested though sport fishing , but thats not the important part, its the way of life that we get out of it thats priceless. Taking away salmon fishing opportunities from us just doesn’t seem right. Its especially hard to accept when other certain groups will still be entitled to catch salmon. There are obviously a lot of opinion as to whats happening with salmon stocks, the southern orca and ocean conditions, but will stopping or restricting salmon fishing in the ocean have an impact when we continue to net the same fish in the rivers. Why should one group still have opportunities when my boy who’s spent his entire life fishing for salmon have his opportunity taken away. I don’t think any group should have their salmon opportunity taken away, but rather better management for all, in this case Option B for sport fishing would be a good start. Sport fishing allows any resident to purchase an affordable license and have an opportunity to catch a salmon and feed their family, this should be the last sector to get cut back to zero opportunities.

I would like to thank you for your time and hope that you understand what sport fishing means for my family, its not just a past time for well off old white men, it’s a real passion and way of life for many Canadians and beyond.
Please at the very least do what you can to ensure Canadians still have opportunities foe salmon fishing in BC.

Thank you,

Dave Murphy

 

[CIVANO]

I live across the straight from Sooke. I have trailered my boat with 3 friends to fish Sooke and then Port Renfrew for 31 straight years. We spend 1 week in July and 1 week in August on the Island. We rent a house, secure moorage at the Port Renfrew Marina, buy our fuel there. We buy our food and drinks in Sooke on the way through. We stop at Trotac and Island Outfitters in Victoria for supplies and licenses. We have spent between $8500 and $9000 for the 2 trips total X 31 years! If option A is chosen we will not be returning. As you can see, many will be impacted because I am not alone in my decision

 

[Gong Show]

I have sent the emails, scary stuff.
I have friends coming in from Smithers, Washington State and Yorkshire England this July.

 

[Blackmax]

So with the 1 fish option you will have multiple fish kills as fisherman catch and release looking for the big one, then there will be those that kill a fish then dump it overboard when they get a bigger one.

 

[cohochinook]

So with the 1 fish option you will have multiple fish kills as fisherman catch and release looking for the big one, then there will be those that kill a fish then dump it overboard when they get a bigger one.

I would like to have a little bit of confidence that most participants on this forum, would handle their fish with care and follow the regulations.

Presenting this kind of a perception about sport fisherman, makes us look like a bunch of greedy a-holes, which I don't think is true. Yes there may be a few bad apples, but education and calling in reports when you observe bad behavior is what has to be done. We can't let a couple Bad actors have the fishery for chinooks being totally closed!

It's bad enough that some of the NGO's portray Sportfisherman like this, but when labeling our own selves like this it's worse!

 

[RODNREEL]

I would like to have a little bit of confidence that most participants on this forum, would handle their fish with care and follow the regulations.

Presenting this kind of a perception about sport fisherman, makes us look like a bunch of greedy a-holes, which I don't think is true. Yes there may be a few bad apples, but education and calling in reports when you observe bad behavior is what has to be done. We can't let a couple Bad actors have the fishery for chinooks being totally closed!

It's bad enough that some of the NGO's portray Sportfisherman like this, but when labeling our own selves like this it's worse!

Well said.

 

[paguy]

Having to let the big fish go for the last twenty years or so has been a real learning experience, especially from a guy who was raised to kill your limit and go home. It gets easier and you learn over time how to handle big fish at the boat without doing much damage. We all have a responsibility to do are part to make sure this past time continues into the future.

 

[Peahead]

So with the 1 fish option you will have multiple fish kills as fisherman catch and release looking for the big one, then there will be those that kill a fish then dump it overboard when they get a bigger one.

I would like to have a little bit of confidence that most participants on this forum, would handle their fish with care and follow the regulations.

Presenting this kind of a perception about sport fisherman, makes us look like a bunch of greedy a-holes, which I don't think is true. Yes there may be a few bad apples, but education and calling in reports when you observe bad behavior is what has to be done. We can't let a couple Bad actors have the fishery for chinooks being totally closed!

It's bad enough that some of the NGO's portray Sportfisherman like this, but when labeling our own selves like this it's worse!

Agree coho, and I will add that this is not another 'catch and release' debate thread nor a poaching thread. Illegal activity or common catch and release fishing happens anyway no matter if chinook retention is 1 or 2.

Now as far as the options ( A and B) . Before I write I will be getting some more information at a meeting this week. While option A is certainly the one to avoid ( I personally think its there to make getting B option look like we did well if we get it) but I actually also don't like or agree with option B either. For a couple reasons........ please read cohochinook's share of Bonchovy's FB post above that started this thread, and then read it again as that sums it up for me.

I also don't like the ONE HATCHERY ONLY fishery from April 1st-July 31st for option B as written for portions of area 29 off Vancouver. "Portions of area 29 ( 29-3 to 29-5) " as it is worded looks to be saying all of 29-3 to 29-5 will be 1 hatchery only. If they meant to say a portion of those sub areas then that could be much lesser area but at the moment the way it is worded I have to assume means those sub areas which are portions of 29. I will confirm at meeting this week so will save my letter writing until after.

We have till March 1st to send those e-mails so you still have a bit of time to edit them!

 

[Saxe Point]

Having to let the big fish go for the last twenty years or so has been a real learning experience, especially from a guy who was raised to kill your limit and go home. It gets easier and you learn over time how to handle big fish at the boat without doing much damage. We all have a responsibility to do are part to make sure this past time continues into the future.

I agree with you but would argue we should (and may have to) go a step farther - catch and release.

I find it incredible that, according to a few posts on this thread, people are spending many tens of thousands of dollars for the sport fishing experience, yet without the ability to keep fish, they will give it all up. One poster said the magic number is 4 fish (per person, day or year is unclear). Think of how expensive each of those fish are in terms of money spent to catch it. Each fish is staggeringly expensive, so they must be paying for the experience. Or are they?

If they really valued the experience, they should be able to enjoy it without keeping any fish. Catch and release. Steelheaders also happily spend many thousands on gear, travel, guides, boats, accommodations etc. to stand in sometimes very cold rivers and cast hundreds or thousands of times. Sometimes they get nothing, but sometimes they hook and fight a steelhead - and let it go.

One of the best fishing trips my son and I had was to the Skeena country - Bulkley and Morice rivers. Drove days. Slept in a tent in October when it was -10 at night. Hundreds, maybe thousands of casts. Walked miles of river. Not even a touch. We still talk about how great the trip was.

Sport fishing, not sport catching, not sport keeping.

 

[dmurph]

I’m not a huge fan of catch and release, I’ve learned to be happy with less for sure, but I really like that we get rewarded. Getting to keep salmon that is then shared with friends and family. I like the fact that’s is not solely for the purpose of enjoyment and that the salmon has real meaning or purpose. I definitely live the experience of it but if it was just catch and release I don’t know, I know there’s pretty good science on the survival rate but I feel better using the fish as opposed to releasing and hoping it survives. We use 100 percent of the fish we can keep, we don’t just slice off 2 fillets, my wife enjoys the art of processing the fish as much as catching. I guess all I’m trying to say I sure hope we can at least keep some salmon as I’d rather catch my own as opposed to buying it. I feel rod and reel sport caught is the mist sustainable way to eat salmon. Not saying I’m against catch and release or wouldn’t participate if I gets to that, but the catching part sure makes the sporting part seem purposeful

 

[Peahead]

I agree with you but would argue we should (and may have to) go a step farther - catch and release.

I find it incredible that, according to a few posts on this thread, people are spending many tens of thousands of dollars for the sport fishing experience, yet without the ability to keep fish, they will give it all up. One poster said the magic number is 4 fish (per person, day or year is unclear). Think of how expensive each of those fish are in terms of money spent to catch it. Each fish is staggeringly expensive, so they must be paying for the experience. Or are they?

If they really valued the experience, they should be able to enjoy it without keeping any fish. Catch and release. Steelheaders also happily spend many thousands on gear, travel, guides, boats, accommodations etc. to stand in sometimes very cold rivers and cast hundreds or thousands of times. Sometimes they get nothing, but sometimes they hook and fight a steelhead - and let it go.

One of the best fishing trips my son and I had was to the Skeena country - Bulkley and Morice rivers. Drove days. Slept in a tent in October when it was -10 at night. Hundreds, maybe thousands of casts. Walked miles of river. Not even a touch. We still talk about how great the trip was.

Sport fishing, not sport catching, not sport keeping.

I think for many the keeping of a fish is not as important as the shear fact of the experience getting out there and the chance to catch fish - keeping that fish or not. Having the right to keep a fish if they so please is what is being debated here with these reg options. Catch and release fishing is not being threatened (yet) with these options so of course it is no issue for those that don't care to keep anyway. I will say it again , read Bonchovy's FB post that was copied above...... its about removing the ability to have a choice, when it won't help. And in doing so will damage the economy fishing brings. You may not care to keep a fish but the stopping of posession of chinook for all those others that would like to keep a fish will royally Fu@$ with businesses and the economy fishing brings to our province. Its just plain and simple and has dick all to do with those that prefer catch and release ( or are fine with no catches to release)

 

[Saxe Point]

I think for many the keeping of a fish is not as important as the shear fact of the experience getting out there and the chance to catch fish - keeping that fish or not. Having the right to keep a fish if they so please is what is being debated here with these reg options. Catch and release fishing is not being threatened (yet) with these options so of course it is no issue for those that don't care to keep anyway. I will say it again , read Bonchovy's FB post that was copied above...... its about removing the ability to have a choice, when it won't help. And in doing so will damage the economy fishing brings. You may not care to keep a fish but the stopping of posession of chinook for all those others that would like to keep a fish will royally Fu@$ with businesses and the economy fishing brings to our province. Its just plain and simple and has dick all to do with those that prefer catch and release ( or are fine with no catches to release)

We’ve got a salmon population that is in serious danger and you say “its about removing the ability to have a choice, when it won’t help.” I question that it won’t help. My point is that if the salmon are in decline, taking fewer will help while we address the bigger issues that are threatening the salmon. I have mentioned those in other active threads on this issue. Until people address the bigger problems, taking fewer, perhaps none, may save salmon so we all may have a chance to keep some in the future. Like others have said, I’ll sacrifice taking salmon so my descendants can (and I like keeping salmon). If we don’t make the big changes that are needed, you’re just trying to stake your claim to the last salmon.

 

[california]

We’ve got a salmon population that is in serious danger and you say “its about removing the ability to have a choice, when it won’t help.” I question that it won’t help. My point is that if the salmon are in decline, taking fewer will help while we address the bigger issues that are threatening the salmon. I have mentioned those in other active threads on this issue. Until people address the bigger problems, taking fewer, perhaps none, may save salmon so we all may have a chance to keep some in the future. Like others have said, I’ll sacrifice taking salmon so my descendants can (and I like keeping salmon). If we don’t make the big changes that are needed, you’re just trying to stake your claim to the last salmon.

We are hardly going after the last salmon. Stocks have fluctuated over time, and these restrictions are due to Fraser stocks, while many others are doing OK. This graph is from the Pacific salmon commission annual report, and as you can see of the stocks they monitor about 2/3 are at or above escapement goals. this is much worse than it was in the late 90s and early 2000s, but better than in the mid 2000's. We are in a tough period right now with an el-nino and the warm blob being in existence during the rearing time for 2017, 2018 and this years brood years. Ocean survival should be better for 2020. The full 2017 report with historical returns for 22 rivers from alska to Oregon are available on their website https://www.psc.org/publications/technical-reports/technical-committee-reports/chinook/ and are an intersting read on many issues related to Chinook. One system to point out is the Cowichan which had the third highest escapement in 2017 (11,000 fish) since they began counts in 1981, and I had heard 2018 was even higher. Looking at the Fraser stock history they are certainly in trouble.

 

[Saxe Point]

We are hardly going after the last salmon. Stocks have fluctuated over time, and these restrictions are due to Fraser stocks, while many others are doing OK. This graph is from the Pacific salmon commission annual report, and as you can see of the stocks they monitor about 2/3 are at or above escapement goals. this is much worse than it was in the late 90s and early 2000s, but better than in the mid 2000's. We are in a tough period right now with an el-nino and the warm blob being in existence during the rearing time for 2017, 2018 and this years brood years. Ocean survival should be better for 2020. The full 2017 report with historical returns for 22 rivers from alska to Oregon are available on their website https://www.psc.org/publications/technical-reports/technical-committee-reports/chinook/ and are an intersting read on many issues related to Chinook. One system to point out is the Cowichan which had the third highest escapement in 2017 (11,000 fish) since they began counts in 1981, and I had heard 2018 was even higher. Looking at the Fraser stock history they are certainly in trouble. View attachment 43447

It’s a figure of speech, not a literal statement. It is meant to illustrate the futility of arguing about allocation instead of addressing underlying causes for the declines. But I like the positive pieces of news you have shared. It’s not yet a disaster for salmon, we need to focus on environmental issues more than allocation if we hope to reverse the declines.

 

[fish brain]

We’ve got a salmon population that is in serious danger and you say “its about removing the ability to have a choice, when it won’t help.” I question that it won’t help. My point is that if the salmon are in decline, taking fewer will help while we address the bigger issues that are threatening the salmon. I have mentioned those in other active threads on this issue. Until people address the bigger problems, taking fewer, perhaps none, may save salmon so we all may have a chance to keep some in the future. Like others have said, I’ll sacrifice taking salmon so my descendants can (and I like keeping salmon). If we don’t make the big changes that are needed, you’re just trying to stake your claim to the last salmon.

The problem is, we have been taking fewer and fewer fish for years. DFO keeps cutting the daily Quota, implementing slot restrictions, closing whole areas like Cowichan Bay and large parts of area 29 while doing nothing to address the underlying issues. They have cut back on all sorts of enhancement work, including hatcheries, and stopped doing meaningful science. Cutting harvests will do nothing to solve declining stocks until they start back into doing the foundational work. Right now, it is the Rec fisher who is doing most of this work. Removing us from the water will likely only make the declines worse, as there will be no incentive for the rec community to continue their work.

 

[Peahead]

We’ve got a salmon population that is in serious danger and you say “its about removing the ability to have a choice, when it won’t help.” I question that it won’t help. My point is that if the salmon are in decline, taking fewer will help while we address the bigger issues that are threatening the salmon. I have mentioned those in other active threads on this issue. Until people address the bigger problems, taking fewer, perhaps none, may save salmon so we all may have a chance to keep some in the future. Like others have said, I’ll sacrifice taking salmon so my descendants can (and I like keeping salmon). If we don’t make the big changes that are needed, you’re just trying to stake your claim to the last salmon.

I fully AGREE that it does make sense to avoid exploitation of the known troubled stocks of concern as they are known to travel through specific areas. In some cases when there is lack of science, the precautionary approach is used, and I understand that (hence why many from rec sector do DNA sampling and most agree to do CWT returns) Without catching we have no CWT info too ! This DNA and CWT info keeps us open (or closed ) based on data received. Slot limits, reduced limits or closures however does not mean it's necessary to have non-retention from April 1st to July 31st ( .....or even all year which could happen). Taking away "choice" to keep a fish when that is not necessary ( stocks of concern not being in an area at that time) all while that causes damage to the economy brought to BC by fishing is just dumb. Progressively cutting the rec sector's catch this way will not bring success . Management by just constantly cutting is cheap and easy to do so I understand why its done. It also fools some people into the feeling it does good so they will agree to it. Rec sector's exploitation on Chinook was much higher back in the eighties and it is down about 75% since then - so I ask how well has that worked ? Now if you want to stop rec sector keeping Chinook with a non-retention reg then fine, but realize what that actually would be doing. Gov and a certain other sector would be getting exactly what I believe has been in the works for a while now..... shifting catch from rec sector over to another who has legal priority all because nothing has been done to effectively rebuild the stocks. Think about it.

 

[N2013]

Hey I've been outta the loop for a while now with a newborn/work. Has DFO set a date as to when they'll have a decision by?