Important Chinook Information - Feedback Required

One thing is a certainty, nobody can catch fish from an extinct stock! I add my voice to those who support conservation as the first and foremost priority, even if it limits access to a pass time I’m so passionate about.

In my way of thinking, our sectors lobby should be to ensure that if conservation has to happen (and for these stocks, unfortunately, it appears to be well past due) that it be applied equally and holistically. All sectors should forego Fisheries that impact these stocks and all levels of government should be held accountable to enforcing their legislation to ensure freshwater habitat, sufficient water flow and fishery closures are enforced to their fullest extent. Our governments should also address issues surrounding open pen fish farming and, particularly, the uncontrolled overstocking of fish into the North Pacific, ala “Ocean Ranching”, that contributes considerably to the poor ocean survival of all wild stocks.

I find it very encouraging to read how many others truly put the fish first, makes me think there may yet be some hope.

Cheers!

Ukee
I’m willing to do anything necessary too. It would be nice if every sector took an equal **** kicking though and there weren’t salmon in grocery stores or river nets either. The biggest problem with C&R is we are throwing the guides and small businesses that we are fighting for under the bus. And if you add commercial cuts there goes more jobs .

I think one and done vs catch and release won’t make a huge difference either way as we know there is mortality in releasing fish.

Either way we are in a tough position here!
 
Last edited:
I appreciate that some businesses will be seriously hurt by these potential measures.

However, perhaps there also needs to be a shift in thinking. By that I mean embracing catch and release fishing for salmon and not making the sport fishing experience exclusively, or even largely, about keeping fish to eat.

Steelheaders have been taking this approach for decades now. The experience of getting out, catching and safely releasing a fish prompts steelheaders to spend many thousands of dollars.

Why not for salmon?

This would reduce the sport fishing impact on salmon populations. As I said in a previous post on a related thread, the real answer lies in changing the way we live in order to save habitat and stop pollution and global warming. Nobody thinks big picture like that though. Unfortunately, instead it’s all about who is going to get the last salmon. Everybody wants it to be them.

Not me. I would rather have the salmon survive for everyone’s future benefit.


If I knew I was not sending them to nets in the River I would 100% support this. I am not interested to sending them to a different user group to enjoy in massive quantity.
 
If I knew I was not sending them to nets in the River I would 100% support this. I am not interested to sending them to a different user group to enjoy in massive quantity.
IMO, longer term abundance of the salmon stocks is more important than what the "different user group" may or may not enjoy. If we, as recreational anglers, can show our desire and good will for conservation that will send a very powerful message to politicians. This view of my share vs. your share of the pie will get us no where.
 
It’s not goodwill if they force us to do it. If that’s that the case we’ve showed goodwill from the stupid closures last year.
I’m with you ringo that we need to all take a bit of blame, but that’s not how it’s been going.
 
I’m all about conservation as well, but ILHG mentioned its hard to swallow when the fish we are forced to give up ends in someone’s net in the river!

People in my situation who travel thousands of Kms to fish do like to take a few home with us. My reasoning is we don’t live by the ocean and can regularly go out like locals, so a decreased limit is huge to us. My wife and I harvest 8-12 fish a year combined which is less than half what a liscene yearly take is in most areas. I for one think we are already fairly conservative in a matter of sense, so under the proposed limit we either come home with 4 or none.
I don’t think many people can say they only harvest 2 salmon a year and spend 8-10000k a year doing it? Lol
 
I’m all about conservation as well, but ILHG mentioned its hard to swallow when the fish we are forced to give up ends in someone’s net in the river!

People in my situation who travel thousands of Kms to fish do like to take a few home with us. My reasoning is we don’t live by the ocean and can regularly go out like locals, so a decreased limit is huge to us. My wife and I harvest 8-12 fish a year combined which is less than half what a liscene yearly take is in most areas. I for one think we are already fairly conservative in a matter of sense, so under the proposed limit we either come home with 4 or none.
I don’t think many people can say they only harvest 2 salmon a year and spend 8-10000k a year doing it? Lol
True words. Funny thing is only got 5 lol
 
I live in part of the province that I get to see a lot of gil netting first hand every year from March-November. From the lower Fraser bands starting it in late winter to the "FN Commercial Oppty" @ the Harrison mouth which has almost zapped out the entire chum run in Harrison and Chehalis to the upper Fraser bands in the Canyon.

I'm not sure how much of that you guys have seen but I still think that this view of my share vs. yours is just a distraction and will get us no where. We haven't learned to use the PR game to our benefit. General public can only give a rats arse about what "we" have done about the closures. It's all about how you frame the problem for general public and how much compromise you're willing to show if you really care about species that are close to extinction.

EDIT: I'm not a fan of C&R either and don't spend a lot of hard earned $$ on fishing to just do C&R. But if this, along with other TEMPORARY measures, can help us win the PR game and recover the runs for our next generation, I'm all for it.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to be submitting my notes tonight but this made me sit down and do a rough calculation of my direct and indirect spend on sport fishing each year. If I include the September trip with 20 guys that alone is north of $80k at $4k a head. But dollars aside the social benefits to those who participate in this amazing sport should not be overlooked. So I'm going to ask those 20 wives to write a note presenting their perspectives if the guys sit home am mope all weekend because we can't catch fish.

Kidding aside this effort is awesome and thanks to all who are keeping us so well informed.
 
Maybe a stupid question but don't hatcheries work anymore? I know wild salmon or trout are a stronger surviver and it is what we all would like to see more success in survival rate but do we really have that option at this time in history. I know the Nitinat hatchery has been a huge success in the past raising Chinook as well as Robertson Creek in Alberni.
Maybe this Federal Government has no money left for such things after they spend it all on immigration .
Too bad the BC Government couldn't get really involved in this issue it really should be a HUGE priority for all of BC.
 
So, why are you all going along with what you are being fed?

Are you not upset there is no option C?

Well rather than accept A and B give them a C.

No one said you couldn’t.

Why is DFO not doing anything but cutting everyone’s catch as they have done for years?

Just as the east coast?
 
You and i are definitely on the same page. While i have earned my keep as a full time guide since the mid 80's, i think the survival of the salmon trump the investment that we all have in our boats/ gear and the pastime we all love

I agree with Fishtofino when he says "the survival of the salmon trump the investment that we all have in our boats/ gear and the pastime we all love". That's why all this talk about persuading DFO that limits and closures should be avoided because of all the jobs created by the investments in sport and even commercial fishing is wrong. That type of thinking means that we keep exploiting the fish because the economic benefits are more important than the fish. But it is contradictory and self defeating because once the fish are gone "forever", so are all the economic benefits, "forever". And there is so much more to the fish than their economic value as a commodity. So it's a question of whether we care about the meaning of the fish (economically, socially, as a community value etc.) enough that we are willing to sacrifice our enjoyment of them now for the chance that future generations may do so.

Once the salmon reach the point where they are truly at risk of disappearing forever - and I think that is closer that we all think - then the conservation principle will trump everyone's claim to any salmon, and that includes Indigenous claims, which are limited where conservation is necessary.

Like I said in another thread, self-examination by everyone of how we live is necessary, or the salmon (and other species) are doomed. Combustion engines, pollution, global warming are things we don't want to confront and DFO can't ever fix. Only we can. But instead, we want the "wealth" of modern existence but at the same time touch nature's bounty. We now know that big houses, big motor vehicles and rampant consumerism come at a staggering environmental cost. But people just keep wanting more and bigger. Unless we can find ways of living with less stuff, or figure out how to make the stuff without killing the environment, the environment will lose.

Hard choices will need to be made. Think hard about this when you want a bigger truck, another car, a bigger house, more stuff. Even if all of us went with a bit less, it would help. But if we keep going the way we are, the salmon and other species are gone, sadly.

This is what needs to be confronted. So difficult, but utterly necessary. The rest of what's going on is just fighting over who gets the last salmon.
 
I agree with Fishtofino when he says "the survival of the salmon trump the investment that we all have in our boats/ gear and the pastime we all love". That's why all this talk about persuading DFO that limits and closures should be avoided because of all the jobs created by the investments in sport and even commercial fishing is wrong. That type of thinking means that we keep exploiting the fish because the economic benefits are more important than the fish. But it is contradictory and self defeating because once the fish are gone "forever", so are all the economic benefits, "forever". And there is so much more to the fish than their economic value as a commodity. So it's a question of whether we care about the meaning of the fish (economically, socially, as a community value etc.) enough that we are willing to sacrifice our enjoyment of them now for the chance that future generations may do so.

Once the salmon reach the point where they are truly at risk of disappearing forever - and I think that is closer that we all think - then the conservation principle will trump everyone's claim to any salmon, and that includes Indigenous claims, which are limited where conservation is necessary.

Like I said in another thread, self-examination by everyone of how we live is necessary, or the salmon (and other species) are doomed. Combustion engines, pollution, global warming are things we don't want to confront and DFO can't ever fix. Only we can. But instead, we want the "wealth" of modern existence but at the same time touch nature's bounty. We now know that big houses, big motor vehicles and rampant consumerism come at a staggering environmental cost. But people just keep wanting more and bigger. Unless we can find ways of living with less stuff, or figure out how to make the stuff without killing the environment, the environment will lose.

Hard choices will need to be made. Think hard about this when you want a bigger truck, another car, a bigger house, more stuff. Even if all of us went with a bit less, it would help. But if we keep going the way we are, the salmon and other species are gone, sadly.

This is what needs to be confronted. So difficult, but utterly necessary. The rest of what's going on is just fighting over who gets the last salmon.




Mean while in india & China. .... I will stick with my 1 Ton truck.aa-Cover-cpvnnu56q6pu77rl95r1otb1h6-20170823014104.Medi.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Another point if view is to actually embrace the one fish choice and go forward. I believe that C/R could become acceptable. I would sure like to see future kids fish in an era where all this will finally be fact. All these years of inaction are beating their ugly story. Remember the Atlantic cod? Yes, different story lines but the end was pretty clear. Fish were gone for a long time. Enough rant. and I hope I offended no one.
 
If we have really reached this point, why is it always the REC guys that take the hit. Why are all sectors not cut back evenly. All I see is the REC sector being wiped out then the commies and then FN.
 
If we have really reached this point, why is it always the REC guys that take the hit. Why are all sectors not cut back evenly. All I see is the REC sector being wiped out then the commies and then FN.
With respect, I say that this misses the point and is not a solution. As I said, "The rest of what's going on is just fighting over who gets the last salmon."

We should focus on making sure we don't get there.
 
Sir
Re: 2019 Chinook Salmon Retention Options A and B
The proposed management actions will greatly affect the economy of British Columbia and in turn Canada......
My wife and I fish area 14 exclusively all year. Last year we logged 54 trips fishing, sight-seeing, lunch outings, and nature watching. Many times with relatives from outside our province. Without the benefit of chinook fishing many of our relatives will for-go a west coast fishing/boating experience this year. My brother in law has booked one week in April and two weeks in the summer to visit and fish with us over the past 10 years. Typically he pays for two airfares each time, many dinners out, a couple visits to local fishing stores to purchase the latest hot lures, flashers, not to mention ferries, licenses, or a shinny new rod or reel. Just his lost opportunity would cost our economy thousands of dollars. Similar lost opportunities would come from other relatives delaying a vancouver Island visit.
We understand the plight of our treasured orcas but some common ground needs to achieved for all. Scenario A is completely unfair to the sports-fisherman, scenario B is an acceptable solution for now. Another option could be C .....institute a tagging system whereby you are allotted so many Chinook tags (10, 15, ??). Use them as you wish throughout the year. Use them up....you’re done fishing. Could be instituted for each species of salmon.
I hope you consider that the effect of Option A to be unacceptable for the best interests of Canadians.
Respectfully
Trophy
 
@Saxe Point thank you for your perspective on this. I am trying to understand something about it though. Do you think either option for us is going to stronglychange the downward trend of Chinook stocks?

I would really appreciate it if a numbers guy could post some tangable numbers so in an get behind how much damage we are doing. That means each of the following groups:

-Recreational
-Commercial
-FN river nets
-pinnipeds

I’m guessing we are in a WAY distant third in total numbers, Only ahead of FN. but keep in mind they are a much smaller group of people and those are all quality mature spawning fish. Am I wrong?
 
Back
Top