update from DFO on the Fraser River 5-2 Chinook Run's

[2xeagle16]

Fishery Notice
Category(s):
RECREATIONAL - Salmon
Subject:
FN0545-Recreational - Salmon - Area 19 and 20 - Chinook Management Actions Effective June 17, 2017



Further to FN0155 and FN0301, the Department will be managing fisheries based
on management zone 1 (i.e. returns to the Fraser below or equal to 45,000
chinook) for Fraser Spring 5-2 and Summer 5-2 chinook.

Effective Dates: 00:01 hours June 17, 2017 until 23:59 hours July 14, 2017

Waters: Subareas 19-1 to 19-4 and Subareas 20-4 to 20-7.

Management Measures: The daily limit is two (2) chinook which must be either:
-Wild or hatchery-marked if between 45 and 85cm.
-Hatchery marked if greater than 85 cm.

The minimum size limit for chinook salmon in these waters is 45 cm.

Variation order 2017-300


Notes:

Barbless hooks are required when fishing for salmon in tidal and non-tidal
waters of British Columbia.

The term "hatchery marked" means a fish that has a healed scar in place of the
adipose fin.

Sport anglers are encouraged to participate in the voluntary Salmon Sport Head
Recovery program by labelling and submitting heads from adipose fin-clipped
chinook and coho salmon. Recovery of coded-wire tags provides critical
information for coast-wide stock assessment. Contact the Salmon Sport Head
Recovery Program at (866) 483-9994 for further information.

Rockfish Conservation Areas that are currently in effect and are closed to all
fin fishing. Descriptions of these closures, and other recreational fishing
information, can be found on the Internet at:

www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/recfish

 

[ericl]

Hi Scott & agent aqua - thanks for the info. BTW AA the link to the Boldt decision is a bit inaccurate; only certain WA tribes are part of this decision:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/salmon/BoldtDecision8.5x11layoutforweb.pdf

1. Hoh Tribe – 48
2. Lummi Tribe – 49
3. Makah Tribe – 53
4. Muckleshoot Tribe – 56
5. Nisqually Tribe – 58
6. Puyallup Tribe – 61
7. Quileute Tribe – 63
8. Quinault Tribe – 66
9. Sauk-Suiattle Tribe – 68
10. Skokomish Tribe – 68
11. Squaxin Island Tribe – 70
12. Stillaguamish Tribe – 71
13. Upper Skagit River Tribe – 72
14. Yakima Nation – 72

Back in the day it was very unpopular with us sporties, but people have either died or gotten used to it or don't know anything else. It was in 1974. In Puget Sound we had a 30" max size rule from April 15 - June 15 that started in 1976 or so, protecting Spring Chinook on the White River is southern Puget Sound. That run has somewhat recovered but other threatened/endangered Puget Sound runs have turned the size limit into a series of total closures starting in October & ending July 15 with some 1-2 month openings here & there in the fall/winter. For summer/fall fish the season lasts a couple weeks. During this time restrictions on barbed then treble hooks were enacted. All wild fish must be released & not lifted from the water. Last year the FN refused to sign-off on the yearly proposal for some time; mortality of sporties released fish was an issue (from what I see they have a valid point on this one).
Our open ocean fishery is a bit different in that it is managed under the Pacific Salmon Treaty & in some years wild fish may be retained. Strict catch quotas are in place. The Alaskans can catch about 3-4 times the number of Columbia River Salmon that we can. That way the price can go up $5 per pound to fly it down here & people in WA go broke instead go people in AK.

Figures lie & liar's figure so I don't think a fight with the Fed's/FN's in either country will be successful. The Fed's down here are quite secretive & co-manage the fishery with the FN's behind closed doors.

What I would like to see is how they measure progress/success/failure on Salmon recovery & at what point the restrictions end.

 

[agentaqua]

great post, Ericl - and informative. Thanks!

Great question to end it with, too.

The quick and too simple answer is - if the Wild Salmon Policy is fully implemented - in there - is a description of how salmon fisheries are to be managed utilizing stock trajectory models and a sliding scale of TAC wrt fisheries (but not stock enhancement activities). see: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/species-especes/salmon-saumon/wsp-pss/index-eng.html

 

[ziggy]

I find the difference between 19-4 and 19-5 puzzling. No one seems to have a plausible explanation? I'm sure there is one, but if so ,its pretty much a mystery to the average fisher.

 

[scott craven]

I find the difference between 19-4 and 19-5 puzzling. No one seems to have a plausible explanation? I'm sure there is one, but if so ,its pretty much a mystery to the average fisher.

There is no logical explanation that I could find.
seems to me if there has to be a slot closure to protect Fraser fish
it should be consistent in all area's these fish swim.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Wow that great area 18 gets thrown under bus.

 

[scott craven]

I don't think any one is getting thrown under the bus.
we have been under restrictions here for many years in the name of conservation.
I have no problem if all user groups abide by the same rules.
What is the point of unfairly restricting one group so another can whack away ?

 

[SpringVelocity]

I don't think any one is getting thrown under the bus.
we have been under restrictions here for many years in the name of conservation.
I have no problem if all user groups abide by the same rules.
What is the point of unfairly restricting one group so another can whack away ?

Sorry for the de-rail
back to reports

You actually think the slot limit is about conservation?

Look I don't like area 19 and 20 restrictions. But if you think spreading pain to other area makes sense than go for it. So should area 18 complain that it's closed in July when area 19 is open? I fish areas 18,19 and 20. The restriction is about moving our allocation to another user group. It won't doing anything and I don't want the same restriction for other areas. Have a look at the new sombrio from original sheringham boundary. There is perfect example. If you want to start it another thread be my guest. I would like to know why we should have a coast wide slot limit just because one area has a restriction. We all should have options for some of us that do trailer our boats to other areas.

Be careful of wishing slot limits in other areas.

 

[scott craven]

Read the post, I said all user groups not just area 18
(commercial, F/N and sport fisher's )
and yes it is aimed at conservation.

 

[SpringVelocity]

Read the post, I said all user groups not just area 18
(commercial, F/N and sport fisher's )
and yes it is aimed at conservation.

Like I said be careful what you ask for. And I do disagree it's based on conservation. It's based on court case where a user group wants more. I think this new restrictions in area 18 is brutal with an area already heavily restricted with cowichan fishery.

 

[tincan]

No chinook retention over 85cm for a lot of fishing areas around Vancouver and the Gulf Islands area. See below for details. Once again, DFO does NOT include a chart showing the exact closure area but states "
and those portions of Subareas 29-3 to 29-5 that lie southeasterly of a line from a point on the eastside of Valdes Island located at 49 degrees 05.562'N and 123 degrees 39.989'Wthen extending approximately 57 degrees True to the North Arm Jetty Light
located at 49 degrees 15.440'N and 123 degrees 16.778'W." Does anyone have these spots marked who could share a chart/picture so that we can all ensure we know the exact location of the restrictions?

Looks like a lot of different areas and restrictions are all around Thrasher Rock area so you could be straddling the line at times.

Here's a link to the different management area maps - http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/areas-secteurs/index-eng.html


http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?pg=view_notice&DOC_ID=197459&ID=all
Category(s):
RECREATIONAL - Salmon
Subject:
FN0544-RECREATIONAL - Salmon - Areas 18, 19 and portions of Subareas 29-3 to 29-5 - Chinook Management Actions Effective June 17, 2017


***Note: This area has been enlarged to include a portion of Subarea 29-3.

Further to FN0410, the Department will be managing fisheries based on
management zone 1 (i.e. returns to the Fraser below or equal to 45,000 chinook)
for Fraser Spring 5-2 and Summer 5-2 chinook.

Effective Dates: 00:01 hours June 17 until 23:59 hours July 14, 2017

Waters: Subareas 18-1 to 18-6, 18-9 and 18-11, 19-5, and those portions of
Subareas 29-3 to 29-5 that lie southeasterly of a line from a point on the east
side of Valdes Island located at 49 degrees 05.562'N and 123 degrees 39.989'W
then extending approximately 57 degrees True to the North Arm Jetty Light
located at 49 degrees 15.440'N and 123 degrees 16.778'W.

Management Measure: The daily limit is two (2) chinook salmon per day between
62 and 85 cm. Chinook salmon over 85 cm may not be retained.

The minimum size limit for chinook salmon in these waters is 62 cm.

Variation Order: 2017-300

 

[tincan]

Got out the old Google Earth and plugged in the coordinates and below is what I came up with. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that from now until July14th you can keep any 2 springs (62cm and up) if you are NORTH of the red line on this chart and if you are SOUTH of the red line you can only keep 2 springs between 62-85cm. Other regs/rules apply of course but this is just my attempt to visualize the new chinook regs as of June 17th, 2017

 

[Whitebuck]

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/fraser/docs/abor-autoc/UpperFraser/UMFOpenTimes-eng.htm
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/HTMLs/CommunalOpeningTimes.html
http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/firstnations/HTMLs/ChinookKeptCatch.html
The catch rates are nowhere near the amount that have actually been taken, as the FN members have been told there quota will be reduced this year due to very low sockeye numbers.

 

[Peahead]

Got out the old Google Earth and plugged in the coordinates and below is what I came up with. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that from now until July14th you can keep any 2 springs (62cm and up) if you are NORTH of the red line on this chart and if you are SOUTH of the red line you can only keep 2 springs between 62-85cm. Other regs/rules apply of course but this is just my attempt to visualize the new chinook regs as of June 17th, 2017

View attachment 33866

You absolutely correct on your maps and slots size catch notes for the areas.

I have been communicating with some of the SVI guys (area 19-20) about this topic over on another thread.

http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...effective-march-29-2.65845/page-3#post-835167

Seems for years SVI /JDF fishers have felt 19/20 was unfairly targeted. I understand that but I know many were at the same time unaware that the south inside waters of Georgia Strait in area 18 and sub areas of area 29 have also had closures and slots too......maybe not for as many years is all. Just speaking for area 29, as I am not rehearsed well on area 18, we have had all the areas of the mouth of the Fraser either completely closed to fishing or at the least non-retention of Chinook for a long time. Area 29-5 and 29-4 have had the "Valdes Is." slot (62cm-67cm retention only) exist to June 17th each year for a while now.....not sure how many years( thats only a 5cm size range that can be retained !!) . Starting June 17th this year that slot area changed to increased in area but put the slot up to fish size (62cm - 85cm) to July 14th . The increase in size of the slot area now includes part of sub area 29-3 all the way across from Valdes to North Arm Fraser River jetty. Also NO chinook over 85cm hatchery or "wild". The 19/20 SVI area on the other hand does allow 1 hatchery to be over 85cm in most or all sub areas as I understand.

I agree with SVelocity above - sure some guys in SVI are frustrated from years of slots in 19/20 (apparently 10 years now). However to wish slots on other areas because your own area has a slot is absurd to me but unbelievably this was being implied ! The inside waters of the Gulf Islands and over to the Fraser River have had closures and slots for some time now too and I can tell you alot of SVI guys didn't know that. They thought they were the only ones targeted - Now the slot areas are larger off Vancouver with this new slot reg. to July 14th . It extends well into 29-3.

I don't have the answers on how to fight these slots but I see us as a user group that fights among ourselves too much to be productive. Our sector lacks organization and focus on becoming one strong unit. I hope someday we can be that . Fighting for our rights is important but we have to fight as a sector and have a common goal.

EDIT: I am going to find out what level of involvement SFI has had in these political and so called "conservation measures" that have created all these slots popping up all over - like where do they stand on this? Do they feel this is about conservation first with FN getting priority after conservation ? Do they feel there's nothing that can be done if there are not enough fish left after conservation and FN priorities? Its getting scary as I see this just getting worse years after year unless these stocks rebuild......or will that even matter if FN want more?

 

[papalorge]

I thought the river was closed to everyone. I seen gillnetters between aldergrove and mission last weekend, probably doesn't help netting up the last few stragglers of an entire run...

 

[Whitebuck]

FN have been legally and illegally netting the early Chinook run daily since mid febuary.

 

[scott craven]

No wonder there is such frustration from angler's when we must return these fish so they can be caught in the river.

 

[Peahead]

No wonder there is such frustration from angler's when we must return these fish so they can be caught in the river.

Absolutely its frustrating - but with respect to just the legal fishing that is going on in the river, we all know FN have priority after conservation concerns have been satisfied so are fishers frustrated mainly because they don't feel any sector should be touching these fish as a stock of concern or are they frustrated because they feel there is no true conservation concern at all ( and FN and rec sector should both have a crack at em) ? If there is only enough fish for conservation and FN then we already know that the rec sector is next in line, so would just be watching the fish swim by while FN had their priority on them.

I think proof that any 'stock of concern' doesn't swim in the waters you rec fish at that specific time would provide a very good argument to have restrictions lifted to the rec sector in that area. With fishing closed or restricted as a precautionary measure (because of lack of stats) not sure how stats would be gathered other than those doing DNA samples ( or test fishery which is $$ ) Conclusion: to all the guides, do DNA sampling and head returns in retention allowed areas because without enough stats to prove otherwise, areas will get closed or made slot !

 

[GLG]

Conflict resolution on the Fraser has been an issue for many years with misinformation on both side every year. This has been recognised and a process has been set up that as Rec Anglers we have agreed to participate. By all means I hope that our members here contact this group with their concerns. Working together is better the fighting as the only loser will be the salmon.

http://fraserriverpeacemakers.ca/

 

[ericl]

I find the difference between 19-4 and 19-5 puzzling. No one seems to have a plausible explanation? I'm sure there is one, but if so ,its pretty much a mystery to the average fisher.

I know Fraser chinook are caught off the West Coast of San Juan Island, which is west of area 19-5. Could be that the common migration route for these fish does not go thru 19-5 but instead goes by San Juan Island in the US.

Have also heard that Fraser river Spring Chinook (AKA 5-2 type fish) make landfall from the open ocean in NW Washington state. If true, this would explain lack of restrictions out by Port Renfrew & up WCVI.

No wonder there is such frustration from angler's when we must return these fish so they can be caught in the river.

Given the estimated return is less than 49K fish, and that the FN netters have caught around 1K of them so far, I'd say the chance of a fish the sports must release being caught in FN nets is close to 2% - 5%. Given the popularity of bait/treble hooks in the greater Sooke/Victoria area, mortality of released fish is at least 15%, so right now you guys COULD be killing more fish than the FN's.

Down here in the US trebles are banned, and Chinook are managed by the number of "encounters", which means a dead fish is a dead fish whether not you keep or release it and the FN's are well aware that the sporties down here call undersized fish "Shakers".

Take this as "tough love" from somebody who lives in the US, & LOVES BC & it's people whom I'd take over my fellow Americans any day. Iv'e fished BC since 1978 & have seen a lot of restrictions come & go in just about every management area. Judging from the closures in areas 13-13 to 13-23 back in the 80's & the slot limits/closures of the WCVI surfline a few years later, the restrictions ease or go away but it takes more than 10 years.

I think that technically DFO is good, they just make some poor decisions & suffer from a severe lack of funds.

I knew a DFO biologist from camping with his family on Quadra Island every year at Labour Day. This was back when the limit went from 4 to 2 on inside waters but remained 4 on WCVI. He said DFO feelings were that "all the WCVI fish are US fish so keep it at 4". We now know this policy and managing WCVI runs according to Robertson Creek hatchery returns hammered the native WCVI runs. Back then sportie boats (the good one's) were bringing in 16 20+ lb Chinook per day.

Cheers, Eric