Worth taking with a grain of salt.......

[Cuba Libre]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/...bMwpegZ5RQ-n9EqCOdnAY52kPJRTvVr943YidLizjvT0Q

 

[searun]

I suppose the same could be said of recreational fishing depending on how one looks at it. Any fishing is having an impact, the art of fishery management is finding the sweet spot that achieves a sustainable balance. All out uncontrolled fishing is just as bad as the NGO close everything down view of the fishery. ITQ Trawl fisheries aren't the answer either. I think the article touched on a few additional critical aspects; 1) avoiding sensitive habitats and spatial areas and times known to be preferred by species of concern; 2) providing incentives to share best practices and develop fishing strategies that minimize negative impacts.

One concern I have with trawl fishing that was not identified in the article was incidental bycatch of non-target species such as salmon...and that isn't just adults, it is also about avoiding juveniles too. The large super trawlers really concern me, with their huge net openings there is really no way for salmon to swim out of the way. I fear the bycatch of salmon will increase markedly with the 6 new super trawlers Canada is allowinginto our waters. This is UNTRIED, UNTESTED fishing technology so we have no way to really know what the salmon bycatch, and even if we place Electronic Monitoring and on-vessel Observers it will take a few seasons to determine the actual performance. These 6 super trawlers could have more impact on Chinook stocks of concern than any recreational fishery....what happened to applying the precautionary principle there?

 

[cuttlefish]

I think it’s a good news story but following in the footsteps of a similarly under-reported story here in B.C. https://www.straight.com/news/david...seafood-drives-changes-bottom-trawl-fisheries
I know a lot of folks on here don’t like the guy in general but I think, in this case, the agreement is a step in the right direction.

 

[searun]

I think it’s a good news story but following in the footsteps of a similarly under-reported story here in B.C. https://www.straight.com/news/david...seafood-drives-changes-bottom-trawl-fisheries
I know a lot of folks on here don’t like the guy in general but I think, in this case, the agreement is a step in the right direction.

Exactly my point....there were efforts in 2012 to start that process...but since then nothing much has really changed. We still don't have EM on all vessels, still don't have on-board observers on all vessels, and those where we do, rumour awash regarding intimidation and bribes being offered to observers to turn a blind eye - truth or fiction....well, I suspect where there is smoke there is fire. Canada still doesn't publish bycatch data in an open manner within the IFMP...best I can find is some research papers that suggest Chinook bycatch varies around 7,000 per year in the hake fishery. How many halibut bycatch? Yet even Alaska publishes their bycatch data and has taken steps to DNA sample Chinook to determine where they are from in order to find ways to mitigate bycatch impacts....and, they have closed areas where there are known bycatch hotspots. Maybe my research efforts are just poor, because I couldn't really find where Canada has done something similar - very happy if someone could help direct my efforts in the right direction if I'm wrong here. Thanks.

 

[cuttlefish]

The most recent Canadian hake fishery data I could find was at this link; https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/pacific-hake-mid-water-trawl/@@assessments. Look in Appendix 4 at Table 2 in the most recent assessment report. Looks to me like ~4 metric tonnes of Chinook salmon bycaught in 2017.
The hake fishery has the lion’s share of salmon Bycatch. Salmon bycatch in the bottom contact groundfish trawl is significantly less.
Cheers and have a Happy New Year.

 

[fish4all]

I suppose the same could be said of recreational fishing depending on how one looks at it. Any fishing is having an impact, the art of fishery management is finding the sweet spot that achieves a sustainable balance. All out uncontrolled fishing is just as bad as the NGO close everything down view of the fishery. ITQ Trawl fisheries aren't the answer either. I think the article touched on a few additional critical aspects; 1) avoiding sensitive habitats and spatial areas and times known to be preferred by species of concern; 2) providing incentives to share best practices and develop fishing strategies that minimize negative impacts.

One concern I have with trawl fishing that was not identified in the article was incidental bycatch of non-target species such as salmon...and that isn't just adults, it is also about avoiding juveniles too. The large super trawlers really concern me, with their huge net openings there is really no way for salmon to swim out of the way. I fear the bycatch of salmon will increase markedly with the 6 new super trawlers Canada is allowinginto our waters. This is UNTRIED, UNTESTED fishing technology so we have no way to really know what the salmon bycatch, and even if we place Electronic Monitoring and on-vessel Observers it will take a few seasons to determine the actual performance. These 6 super trawlers could have more impact on Chinook stocks of concern than any recreational fishery....what happened to applying the precautionary principle there?

I’m not a trawler and I have my own issues with them but I struggle with misinformation about the industry.
All the factory trawlers that are here and the ones coming have full EM (up to 13 cameras running) plus an observer on board. The smaller draggers have one observer on board and there is talk about backing that up as well with EM. Canada has some of the highest standards of monitoring in the world on its groundfish fisheries. Alaska has little to no reliable observer data. No EM and a huge fleet in the Gulf that has no data.

Please explain how 10 trawl vessels with full EM and observers will have more of an impact on Chinook stocks of concern then 280,000 unmonitored recreational fishers and an unmonitored in river gilnet fishery? The trawl vessels data will be under heavy scrutiny as it actually exists where the recreational and gilnet numbers will be an educated guess at best.
As you put it What happens to applying the precautionary principle here?

 

[searun]

For starters, Canada does not publish salmon bycatch numbers in our Groundfish IFMP. Secondly, we do not DNA sample Trawl salmon bycatch to determine where and when stocks of concern are encountered. So therefore Canada has no reliable way to know where/when or even "if" there are bycatch impacts. EM is only being talked about as a "pilot" so again, while we have superior monitoring to our US friends, to their credit they have actually gone out and determined where their fleet encountered the highest salmon bycatch and created avoidance measures (closed hotspot areas). I'm not saying AK is a saint, far from it...but, Canada still has a ways to go IMO to understand where we have bycatch issues and then designing fisheries that avoid those.

EM and observers are useless unless we are actually sampling all bycatch to determine stock composition and then mapping out where/when specific salmon stocks are encountered. Again, I would have far less concerns if we had a transparent (published) robust approach to actually doing something constructive with monitoring data.

The concern I have with the Super Trawlers (regardless of how monitored they are) is they tow a significantly larger net (AKA wider opening) that makes it very difficult for salmon to swim out of the way. IMO this makes the Super Trawlers super problematic in terms of their potential to increase salmon bycatch. We already know that the Trawl fleet has some level of salmon bycatch (thought to be around 7,000 fish from the limited info I can find).

The recreational numbers are far better understood than you make out here. We have dockside creel, DNA, CWT etc. So we have data to help shape fishery plans to avoid stocks of concern, whereas the Trawl fishery does not. Moreover, we have decades of data in both the recreational and commercial troll fishery so it is fairly easy to determine migration trends, run timing, stock composition.

And for the record, I'm not against Trawl fishing, just calling out concerns regarding Canada's apparent lack of bycatch data and therefore potential problems these Super Trawlers bring to our coast....there is a reason they have been chased out in Australia...and perhaps a reason why some people I know in the industry have started speaking out against them. Even to the point they are encouraging the rec sector guys to take a closer look. If they are worried that speaks volumes and I think warrants a closer look at exactly what Canada is doing here to construct a robust bycatch monitoring program so we at least have some data to shape fishery management.

 

[searun]

The most recent Canadian hake fishery data I could find was at this link; https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/pacific-hake-mid-water-trawl/@@assessments. Look in Appendix 4 at Table 2 in the most recent assessment report. Looks to me like ~4 metric tonnes of Chinook salmon bycaught in 2017.
The hake fishery has the lion’s share of salmon Bycatch. Salmon bycatch in the bottom contact groundfish trawl is significantly less.
Cheers and have a Happy New Year.

Thanks, yes that was the only information I was able to find and raises concern for me about the quality of our salmon bycatch monitoring program.

From 2014 report:

Other than Chinook Salmon, the catches of the other four species of Pacific salmon are insignificant in the fishery. Chinook salmon make up approximately 93% of the salmon catch by the Canadian hake fishery (Appendix Table 2), typically accounting for less than 9 mt of catch annually. Coho and Chum salmon make up the rest of the salmon catch, typically less than 1/3rd mt annually. Many populations of Chinook Salmon from southern British Columbia, entering the ocean south of Cape Caution, have experienced repeated years of low spawner escapements and there is a high degree of uncertainty about their longer term abundance and productivity. DFO is currently undertaking several initiatives in order to assess the current status of these stocks and to guide the implementation of appropriate actions for their conservation into the future. These actions are within the context of both the Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) and upcoming assessment of status by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), currently scheduled for autumn 2014 (DFO 2013g).

From 2017 report:
Salmon Incidental catch of salmonids continues to be very low in the Canadian mid-water trawl hake fishery, accounting for approximately 0.08% of the weight of hake catch (Appendix 4 Table 2). Chinook Salmon represent 75% (4.24 mt) of this bycatch and Chum 17% (0.94 mt).

So 4.24 mt = 9363 pounds, and at an average weight of 10 pounds that is 936 Chinook adults. 9 mt = 19,842 pounds, at average weight of 10 pounds would be 1,984 fish. I found another reference stating bycatch was as high as 7,000 Chinook, so it appears the monitoring and data is a bit all over the place.

Impacts appear fairly small considering the lack of data. That is also of course assuming the catch is adults and not juveniles. If the catch is juveniles then we are talking about a much larger impact. Seems small, but that reflects only a portion of the actual catch and represents our fleet performance with smaller net openings. The guys I know who fish on Trawlers tell me that their small net openings are easier for salmon to detect and swim out of the way. Interject Super Trawlers with large net openings and the potential impact could be very significant and is essentially unknown.