2020 SFI CONFERENCE SERIES - Charting a Predictable Path for Salmon and BC’s Public Fishery

[IronNoggin]

2020 SFI CONFERENCE SERIES - Charting a Predictable Path for Salmon and BC’s Public Fishery

November 13th Session: Mark Selective Fishing (MSF) and Mass Marking (MM)

Join us tomorrow, Friday, November 13th, at 9:30 am for the second of four webinar sessions in the 2020 SFI Conference Series.

Last week we heard from Rebecca Reid, Regional Director General, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and then Dr. Carl Walters who presented on The Role of Marine Mammal Predation in Recent BC fishery collapses. Tomorrow the discussion turns to Mark Selective Fishing (MSF) and Mass Marking (MM). To aid both recovery of salmon and provide reliable and predictable opportunity for BC’s public fishery action must be taken. A solution that has been successfully implemented, mark selective fishing and mass marking, will be discussed by representatives from Washington State and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Attendance to these sessions is free but you must register. Sessions are approximately 90 to 120 minutes long, with an audience question and answer period following each presentation or speaker. Topics covered are within this year’s theme, Charting a Predictable Path for Salmon and BC’s Public Fishery.

Ask Questions
Written questions can be asked following each speaker using a free, simple tool called sli.do or slido.com. Once each session begins access another web page or use your phone to go to slido.com and enter the session code in the participant area. On November 13th the code is: #MARKSELECTIVE. See samples of PC / mobile of the sli.do participant page. As the chat function in the Zoom webinar will be disabled, please ask and vote on questions posed through sli.do.

Thank you to our 2020 Conference sponsors and supporters.

We hope to see you online tomorrow, November 13th, at 9:30 am. If you haven't already, register for each remaining session including tomorrow, November 20 and 27. You will receive a calendar and e-mail reminder for each event when you do.

 

[ziggy]

Was worth it last week. Looking forward to tomorrow’s.

 

[SpringFever552]

Registered

 

[Derby]

A Good one to listen in on today guys

Here's the link to the signup for the SFI conference


https://sportfishing.bc.ca/news/2020-sfi-annual-policy-conference/

 

[wildmanyeah]

 

[ziggy]

Thanks for posting the charts. Had to follow via phone today and found it hard to visualize when the speaker was referring to graphs and charts he was showing.

 

[ericl]

Thanks WMY - as further clarification/explanation on the "Potential For Pure MSF" slide, there is a requirement that the mark rate be 50% or greater to have a MSF. It was also brought-up that the status quo in JFS in winter/early spring was already a "take-all" fishery and the come-back was that that may change (ie further restrictions).
Also, to the best of my knowledge the SWVI inshore fishery is an ISBM (Individual Stock Based Management) fishery and mortality of US stocks are capped under the current treaty as they are in waters south & east of VI.
I found it interesting that the US presenter mentioned that it was difficult/impossible to harvest excess hatchery fish in terminal areas because the Treaty Tribes choose to not use selective fishing methods. Dunno if the FN's in BC have a similar right (using whatever methods they choose to fish). I am very much for getting the Gillnets outta the rivers; looks like that in WA the isn't gonna happen any time soon.
Here is my take:
Looks like it took WA 3 plus years to get MSF up & running, so in any time/location enclosed by a black box in chart 1 could have a MSF then. I would think that any MSF in these areas would not exceed the Treaty ER of US fish. The other areas would require mass marking of BC chinook followed by studies to repeat the data in chart 1 to ensure there was at least a 50% mark rate before having a MSF in those areas. What we do not know is how many years of data as that represented in chart 1 would have to be collected before a MSF go-ahead. My guess is 2 years to implement mass-marking minimum, 2 years for them to reach proper size for studying minimum, and 3 yers minimum for study. 7+ years.
Down here the tribes fought MSF's very hard. They believe that the incidental Mortality rates of 15% for legal size fish & 20% for undersized plus a drop-off mortality rate of 5% is too low. I tend to agree with them on that.

 

[ziggy]

I guess to me it’s hypocritical for FN’s to be complain at the potential impact of marked fishery on wild stock, when they continue to gill net the Fraser. I can’t imagine a less selective fishery, amply illustrated by some photos on this site which show salmon and sturgeon rotting in nets. Conservation seems to be something that everyone else does and to a degree we are probably all guilty, but netting to me and complaining about incidental catch is laughable.

Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t support anyone who favours stretching nets across migration routes at choke points. ENGO’s, DFO or First Nations, while this is still going on, they have no moral ground to stand on. Gill netting migrating fish in a relatively narrow river doesn’t even count as fishing. FN can still harvest fish as is their right, but the method they use to do it must also meet the whole of the court ruling in which Conservation was one and they were two! No groups right trumps conservation, this part of the ruling is often not mentioned.

 

[ericl]

I guess to me it’s hypocritical for FN’s to be complain at the potential impact of marked fishery on wild stock, when they continue to gill net the Fraser.

I agree. What they probably want is total closures. This what we have in WA; for most of the year in all marine areas it is a total closure; no C&R, no MSF fishing. Although we have a MSF fishery, these fisheries are only open about 10% of the time (less than 10% in inside waters more than 10% in outside waters. I believe the BC FN's are betting this will happen in BC. They are probably also betting that the fish are slowly going extinct, so to maintain their catch numbers there must be less mortality from other fishing groups.

 

[IronNoggin]

I'd suggest that DFO's answers were on track with shutting ever increasing areas down with very little or no data supporting those closures.

Case in point: When the question was asked: What rational does DFO use to close chinook fishing when catching clipped fish has zero effect on stocks of concern, especially when tied to areas where the interception rate of stocks of concern are noted as less than one percent.

The answer: It kills too many fish. In other words "Because we say so".

Nog

 

[ziggy]

I'd suggest that DFO's answers were on track with shutting ever increasing areas down with very little or no data supporting those closures.

Case in point: When the question was asked: What rational does DFO use to close chinook fishing when catching clipped fish has zero effect on stocks of concern, especially when tied to areas where the interception rate of stocks of concern are noted as less than one percent.

The answer: It kills too many fish. In other words "Because we say so".

Nog

Another thing they are quick to point out is they have no resources either monetary or personnel wise to monitor the fishery properly. Now we all know every Government Department pleads poverty, rather than look at how they spend or allocate the resources in their budgets. You can be sure there will never be a shortage of office workers and Managers in DFO, but That’s not true of the frontline people.
So it would seem, if you buy this claim or if this is the truly the case, their only option is to use closure. As I have said countless times on here, closure costs nothing and effectively stops the honest from fishing, which are most of the Public. Enforcement costs money and requires personnel not to mention can lead to confrontation. Way easier to have a total ban than to monitor an opening and vastly easier to ban the law abiding than to stop illegal netting in the Fraser.

 

[ericl]

IMO the future lies in the graphic "Current Mark Rates" posted above; any time/location not marked with either of the 2 darker orange colors will not be having a MSF in the near future. As an FYI, many of these areas have been dealing with closures for around 30+ years or so.
FYI I have never seen the info presented in the "Current Mark Rates" before.

 

[wildmanyeah]

yes in areas where there are lots of American marked fish! TY!

 

[ericl]

I'd suggest that DFO's answers were on track with shutting ever increasing areas down with very little or no data supporting those closures.

I find the data presented last Friday compelling & convincing. I expect that those in position of making decisions will find it so as well. In the areas represented by the data in the Current Marks Rates graphic, are there any natural stocks that are "not of concern" only; ie can you be certain that no stocks of concern will be impacted? More importantly, do you believe that FRIM (fishing related incidental mortality) exists at the 15% & 20% figures presented?
I agree this is hard to take in light of the other mismanagement issues that are not being addressed. Some are legally allowed to impact stocks of concern while others are not. FYI sports/commercial anglers in BC are legally allowed to impact US stocks of concern. AK impacts everybody else stocks of concern. In an ideal world AK would not impact BC & BC would not impact the lower US west coast. If this would be the case, what fisheries would BC have? I think a look at the Current Marks Rates graphic tells all; along with all those marked US fish are their wild at risk cousins. Are members on the forum being hypocritical?

 

[wildmanyeah]

AK impacts everybody else stocks of concern

does the boldt decision apply to alaska fisheries? or does it only affect washington fisheries?

 

[ziggy]

I find the data presented last Friday compelling & convincing. I expect that those in position of making decisions will find it so as well. In the areas represented by the data in the Current Marks Rates graphic, are there any natural stocks that are "not of concern" only; ie can you be certain that no stocks of concern will be impacted? More importantly, do you believe that FRIM (fishing related incidental mortality) exists at the 15% & 20% figures presented?
I agree this is hard to take in light of the other mismanagement issues that are not being addressed. Some are legally allowed to impact stocks of concern while others are not. FYI sports/commercial anglers in BC are legally allowed to impact US stocks of concern. AK impacts everybody else stocks of concern. In an ideal world AK would not impact BC & BC would not impact the lower US west coast. If this would be the case, what fisheries would BC have? I think a look at the Current Marks Rates graphic tells all; along with all those marked US fish are their wild at risk cousins. Are members on the forum being hypocritical?

I suspect it all comes down to what constitutes US or Canadian fish. Being as how the fish don’t recognize borders how is nationality determined. Does an American hatchery fish that feeds on Canadian food sources and potentially steals food and environment from a competing Canadian fish it’s whole life, regain citizenship when it comes home.lol. Are marked hatchery stock from Alaska and Washington out competing wild stocks? Is there a safe amount of hatchery fish that can be released to mingle with wild populations? Should Nations agree on how many each country can release? Face it fish return to where they were released so it’s beneficial to have them return to your area after feeding who knows where?

Personally I’d be willing to give up US marked fish if Alaska ceases catching our fish and ceases Salmon Ranching operations. But then again it’s no just them Ranching! Is that going to happen? I doubt it, Alaska and the other Ranchers would tell the lower 48 and Canada to stuff it , and most Americans know it.

Its a tough and complicated problem and as long as the Fish know no borders, it won’t get any easier for those who do.

 

[ericl]

does the boldt decision apply to alaska fisheries? or does it only affect washington fisheries?

Great question. The Boldt decision only affects 21 tribes in WA. According to wiki, there are 33 or so tribes in WA. I believe all these tribes and the fisheries it affects are all in waters inside Near Bay. It allows them the amount of fish available to all the other non-boldt tribes plus 50% of the TAC. As an FYI, before Boldt in 1974 their catch was about 5% of the TAC, and now at 50%+ they actually catch fewer numbers of fish now than pre-Boldt.
There is one run of endangered Puget Sound Chinook that does migrate to AK, and from what I hear during the latest treaty neg's AK was threatened to either go along with catch reductions ( 7.5%% or so) or have their fishery shut-down per Endangered Species Act regulations.

The Boldt tribes are treated like separate nations; they negotiate with WA state as equals (in private sessions) & regulate/enforce their own fisheries within the TAC established by federal/state gov. I suspect that if they don't have this authority already that the BC FN's want the same automity with regulating their fisheries.

I suspect it all comes down to what constitutes US or Canadian fish.

Per language in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, each nation shall catch the equivalency of the number of fish their rivers produce - but there is also a special section of the treaty called "Transboundary Rivers" where things get more complicated.

In reality the primary population bottleneck for endangered Puget Sound Chinook is lack of river habitat, so I am fine with the current fishing regime in BC - hell, I haven't fished in WA for decades, but will be starting as I now have grandkid's that wanna go fishing, but BC will always be my "home" for on-water stuff.
I would like to see wild populations fish exist, but so many rivers down here have gone extinct I'd be fine throwing in the towel on Puget Sound wild fish & concentrate effort/resources where there is a good chance for wild fish (like with what is being done on the Elwa). This appears to be the situation in SEAK (South East Alaska) don't think they have any wild Chinook left - they have hatchery Spring run fish & target these fish with inside fisheries Fall-Winter-Spring.

 

[ziggy]

Hmm wonder what the criteria is for “each nation shall catch the equivalency of the number of fish it’s rivers produce”? It’s meaning must have surely morphed to include hatchery fish? Was it initially based on wild fish production? I guess I’m still on the fence on overall benefit of hatcheries in relation to wild fish, but also aware that ship has likely sailed
The more I think about it the more it seems like kind of a strange statement, which really lends itself to abuse. First it should be much clearer on what “ rivers produce” actually means. It also needs to ensure hatchery production isn’t used to simply increase harvest, for example dumping excessive amount of smolts that are unlikely survive, in order to increase harvest. Or simply fudging numbers.
When you mention SEAK targeting Springs are you just talking about Recreational fishers? I believe the Commercial Fleet is still harvesting a lot of wild Canadian fish?

 

[Rain City]

Hmm wonder what the criteria is for “each nation shall catch the equivalency of the number of fish it’s rivers produce”? It’s meaning must have surely morphed to include hatchery fish? Was it initially based on wild fish production? I guess I’m still on the fence on overall benefit of hatcheries in relation to wild fish, but also aware that ship has likely sailed
The more I think about it the more it seems like kind of a strange statement, which really lends itself to abuse. First it should be much clearer on what “ rivers produce” actually means. It also needs to ensure hatchery production isn’t used to simply increase harvest, for example dumping excessive amount of smolts that are unlikely survive, in order to increase harvest. Or simply fudging numbers.
When you mention SEAK targeting Springs are you just talking about Recreational fishers? I believe the Commercial Fleet is still harvesting a lot of wild Canadian fish?

It just wouldn't be a court decision at all if it didn't lend itself to abuse and confusion. Lawyers know how to "make work".

 

[Derby]

Another good one coming up this friday guys