littlechucky
Crew Member
Do you know the number of annual vs short term licenses?
Might be an increase in “salmon tourism”.
Or maybe everyone went out and bought a boat with their BC real estate winnings....
Winter fishing yes/no
- Thread starter Stizzla
- Start date
Do you know the number of annual vs short term licenses?
Might be an increase in “salmon tourism”.
Or maybe everyone went out and bought a boat with their BC real estate winnings....
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
I agree with this and think it will probably allways be the case unless we start seeing more summer time only restrictions.
In lots of areas of the coast you can still go out in the summer bonk your two daily and bring home 4 with no max size restrictions.
Aces
Well-Known Member
The point I took was that the numbers of the main source of southern BC winter chinooks aren’t doing so great.
I’ve provided my 2 cents worth on this topic and won’t be commenting anymore. Flame away
mbowers
Well-Known Member
Follow the money from Oak Bay and Pedder Bay marinas owned by Bob Wright when the limits were implemented and I think you might have an idea why the minimum size limits get larger as you get further away from those marinas
If you ever do find the science please let us know.
Thx good post. Interesting read
I would suggest that it is extremely unwise for actual sport fishers to be attacking the sports regulations in any area as being somehow too liberal and that doing so harms the interests of all salt water sport fishers everywhere in the province. Trust me there are more than enough of those outside the sport fishing community working to reduce and eliminate sport fishing because they gain financially from doing so including the ENGO’s. How helpful for them to be able to say that even sport fishers want more reduction and point to public comments on forums such as this as proof.
This nonsense over the minor variance in minimal Chinook size limits by area is a great example of us shooting ourselves in the foot. Is it uninformed petty jealously that somehow it is unfair or inappropriate that in one area you can keep a 4 lber where as in another area it must be a 5 lber, because it sure as hell is not a conservation issue when the facts are examined closely.
There are a great many valid reasons why regulations vary by area and clearly DFO agrees with them or the regulations would be the same everywhere. If that is what you want, be careful what you wish for, because you sure as hell may get it.
We really need to consider the totality of all regulations in a given area and the reasons why these differences exist. Sure you can keep a very slightly smaller Chinook off Victoria in the winter compared to some other areas; big deal!
Last spring we caught a nice Chinook off Oak Bay that was a little under 20 lbs which we release beside the boat (early extreme slot restriction). Sure, if we had caught it a kilometer farther north we could have kept it in that area which has the slightly larger minimum size limit but no slot. I doubt the fishers in that area would want to trade off the very slight minimum size difference between our area and theirs for the massive negative impact of adopting the very low upper size limit required by our early extreme slot restriction. Like I said, be careful what you wish and argue for, you may just get it.
This nonsense over the minor variance in minimal Chinook size limits by area is a great example of us shooting ourselves in the foot. Is it uninformed petty jealously that somehow it is unfair or inappropriate that in one area you can keep a 4 lber where as in another area it must be a 5 lber, because it sure as hell is not a conservation issue when the facts are examined closely.
There are a great many valid reasons why regulations vary by area and clearly DFO agrees with them or the regulations would be the same everywhere. If that is what you want, be careful what you wish for, because you sure as hell may get it.
We really need to consider the totality of all regulations in a given area and the reasons why these differences exist. Sure you can keep a very slightly smaller Chinook off Victoria in the winter compared to some other areas; big deal!
Last spring we caught a nice Chinook off Oak Bay that was a little under 20 lbs which we release beside the boat (early extreme slot restriction). Sure, if we had caught it a kilometer farther north we could have kept it in that area which has the slightly larger minimum size limit but no slot. I doubt the fishers in that area would want to trade off the very slight minimum size difference between our area and theirs for the massive negative impact of adopting the very low upper size limit required by our early extreme slot restriction. Like I said, be careful what you wish and argue for, you may just get it.
Last edited:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
You highlight one of the major issues within the Sportfishing family, total lack of transparency and poor communication by DFO! It should not be onerous to get an answer nor considered negative to have the audacity to question as to why rules differ from area to area. In fact I would say if you don’t you deserve what you get! If DFO has a reason to implement different rules from area to area, they should be quite happy to not only publish a rule,but be quite willing to defend it and provide background on how it came into being. It should never be a mystery why there is a variance, this simply leads to speculation . If there is a valid reason for a specific rule that impacts the public, it should be made public! If it’s a good rule, logical , defendable through facts and common sense it will be accepted! If you just accept and never question governments decisions, you may not get what you asked for, but you’ll get what you deserve.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
I agree with you and not to worry no one is pushing for any change in that area. It is already over regulated as it is, and there is no concerns.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Which area is already over regulated and there is no concern about? Just curious.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Why? What difference does it make just curious?
Do you fish in area 19 and 20 where Rockfish fishes? If you did you most likely wouldn't have made your comments above.
My opinion.
Last edited:
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Wow, no need to get so prickly! If you make a cryptic statement on an public forum, you should expect to be asked for clarification! If you don’t want to backup your post , try using a PM. Clearly I didn’t know where Rockfish fishes or I wouldn’t have asked the question now would I?
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Ok buddy. Again why do you keep poking? Do you want our winter fishery closed? I guess you arent paying attention yet. Carry on.
Last edited:
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Again, some proud fishermen with their catch of Springs off the Victoria area.
Some will say a fish is a fish, but is this the best way to manage this precious resource?
I have said it before, these small winter feeder springs travel in large schools and when you are on them fishermen can limit out in short order.
This is a nursery area for springs from in December, January and February. Lets use common sense and lay off them!!!
Some will say a fish is a fish, but is this the best way to manage this precious resource?
I have said it before, these small winter feeder springs travel in large schools and when you are on them fishermen can limit out in short order.
This is a nursery area for springs from in December, January and February. Lets use common sense and lay off them!!!
Last edited:
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
That photo look familiar? This was taken from a photo from Justin at Tailspin charters a few days ago. I don't see what the issue is.
We aren't going to be pushing to remove the winter fishing opportunities in Victoria/Sooke. There is no data to justify it, and the impact I would say is minimal.
It seems yet again were stuck in the same scenario to make ourselves feel better by tossing other fisheries under the bus. Is that what you want fogged in? A complete shutdown of Chinook fisheries all year round in area 19/20?
We aren't going to be pushing to remove the winter fishing opportunities in Victoria/Sooke. There is no data to justify it, and the impact I would say is minimal.
It seems yet again were stuck in the same scenario to make ourselves feel better by tossing other fisheries under the bus. Is that what you want fogged in? A complete shutdown of Chinook fisheries all year round in area 19/20?
Last edited:
Here’s the thing – little chinooks, even hatchery fish, given the opportunity, grow into big chinooks, and big chinooks are Orca food.
Imo, anglers are losing the public relations battle on social media and need to be more proactive. Whales are the big ticket and some much needed positive publicity would be achieved if anglers announced they would voluntarily stop this fishery.
Imo, anglers are losing the public relations battle on social media and need to be more proactive. Whales are the big ticket and some much needed positive publicity would be achieved if anglers announced they would voluntarily stop this fishery.
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's from a recent trip by a charter.
We have a dozen or so charter guys available to fish out of Victoria and some of them are fishing and limiting out regularly on small, immature springs.
Add that to the sporties (remember the guy in Dec. who said he took 18 last week and another who said never seen so many boats) and the numbers become significant.
Again I ask...is this a good use of this precious resource?
As you say "I don't see what the issue is." I can only assume you feel this is a good way to manage the resourse.
We all have our opinions, I just don't agree with you!
