Another Sun Article

[Rockfish]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/me...a+rivers+pink+coho+chinook/8778494/story.html

A great year for Pinks Coho and Chinook but very poor for Sockeye.

 

[Whole in the Water]

So what's up with the Times Colonist, we don't see these articles there?

 

[scott craven]

Heard this on "the Q" yesterday, the FN are not happy about the fishing ban
and pointing fingers at other sectors.
wait a minute, nobody's allowed to fish sockeye so why point fingers ?

 

[Big Green Machine]

Heard this on "the Q" yesterday, the FN are not happy about the fishing ban
and pointing fingers at other sectors.
wait a minute, nobody's allowed to fish sockeye so why point fingers ?

One of the Babine Lake Band elders was on CKNW yesterday and he was pretty much blaming the DFO for lack of support. He said they used to have a hatchery program for Sockeye but it was cut quite some time ago. He also said there were recreational anglers on the lake fishing and he assumed it was for Sockeye but there are Rainbows and Char in that lake so not sure if people can target those species when Sockeye is closed.

 

[agentaqua]

Craven, it's been ruled in court that after conservation needs are met - next priority is supposed to be FN harvest. That's much more difficult to provide if those FN are up a large river (like the Babine Nation) - when the commercial, sports, and Alaskan fishermen have already taken their share. It's one of the difficulties faced when managing salmon between countries, and between sectors - when the fish swim a long ways to get there.

 

[scott craven]

Craven, it's been ruled in court that after conservation needs are met - next priority is supposed to be FN harvest. That's much more difficult to provide if those FN are up a large river (like the Babine Nation) - when the commercial, sports, and Alaskan fishermen have already taken their share. It's one of the difficulties faced when managing salmon between countries, and between sectors - when the fish swim a long ways to get there.

I understand that, however isn't Sockeye closed coast wide ?

 

[agentaqua]

I understand that, however isn't Sockeye closed coast wide ?

No - not to my knowledge - not on the way to a river. I believe there has been some Canadian openings by area for seine and gillnet. There is also the troll fishery, and various interceptions by marine-based commercial-sports and sports fishermen, as well as some FSC fishing. Some areas that contain "stocks at risk", or stocks where the predicted run size is to too low to provide adequate spawning numbers - those areas remain closed. Once the runs gets to any particular Canadian river - it may or may not be sufficient to allow commercial, sports, or even FSC fisheries some years.

The Alaskan commercial, commercial-sports, sports, and native fishing fleets had very little restrictions on fishing opportunity this year. They would have caught some proportion of various Canadian stocks, including the Fraser and Skeena. They did relent under pressure from Canadian politicians/communities along the Skeena started complaining, and in one small area in Alaska they truncated their commercial season there - since most of that fishery was targeted on Skeena stocks. It's always been a bone of contention.

 

[scott craven]

Thanks for clarifying this agent.

 

[Seafever]

As soon as a stock drops for a particular year, all sectors start ranting and throwing hissy fits like a bunch of schoolchildren.

When it's a bumper year...there is never an enquiry into why it was so good.

In a low year the stock is suddenly "at risk " and "threatened".

In a bumper year you never hear those words.

There are obviously oceanic factors at work here.....like they have been in previous years.

But the only concerning "factor" as far as sectors go is to start pointing fingers at everybody else and whine like a baby......as usual.

 

[Dave H]

One of the Babine Lake Band elders was on CKNW yesterday and he was pretty much blaming the DFO for lack of support. He said they used to have a hatchery program for Sockeye but it was cut quite some time ago. He also said there were recreational anglers on the lake fishing and he assumed it was for Sockeye but there are Rainbows and Char in that lake so not sure if people can target those species when Sockeye is closed.

Sockeye aren't ever part of a "hatchery program" as stated, but rather from the spawning channels on the Pinkut and Fulton rivers, tribs to Babine Lake.

I'm not up-to-date with their operating status today, but aside from periodic cleaning out of silt and stuff I don't see what has been "cut some time ago."

And after over 60 million taxpayer dollars put into those projects over the years one has to be pretty self-centered to be whining about "lack of support."

Color me not impressed.


Take care.

 

[agentaqua]

Sockeye aren't ever part of a "hatchery program" as stated, but rather from the spawning channels on the Pinkut and Fulton rivers, tribs to Babine Lake.

Certainly, the spawning channels are well known, and would produce much more sockeye than a normal-sized hatchery could...BUT:

1/ Are you sure they never had a "hatchery" (verses the spawning channels), and
2/ It is possible that the communication got mixed-up in the article, and they were actually talking about the fish fence?

replies? ideas?

 

[Cuba Libre]

1/ Are you sure they never had a "hatchery" (verses the spawning channels), yes

2/ It is possible that the communication got mixed-up in the article, and they were actually talking about the fish fence?...not likely

 

[Big Green Machine]

The elder said they 'used to release smolts', but now I'm thinking, he could of been thinking springs or coho and used this as a means of showing how the DFO doesn't support them. If true, pretty misleading and would have nothing to do with low numbers of Skeena Sockeye. I too thought there were no hatcheries for Sockeye. Well now there is one being built in Penticton.

 

[Rockfish]

And after over 60 million taxpayer dollars put into those projects over the years one has to be pretty self-centered to be whining about "lack of support."

Take care.

Can’t get overly excited about 60 million over many years especially with efforts and projects that have since been abandoned.

The USA spends over a Billion dollars a year just on their west coast Hatchery systems. Not to mention hundreds of millions more on things like habitat restoration, removing dams etc. Sure they have a population 10x ours but over the last 10 years there economy has been in the tank for much of it compared to ours yet they still managed to spend money at that level on Pacific Salmon.

Those of us on south VI are thankful for USA Pacific salmon funding efforts with Coho and Chinook as without it we would not have much of a sport fishery. Not that they don’t have a reason to be generous providing salmon to Canada from their hatcheries as in my view they leverage it for access to Canadian bound wild salmon and we both benefit from access to each other’s fish.

In my view when we compare Canada and the USA on a per capita basis, Canada should be spending at a minimum 150 million on Pacific hatcheries and habitat restoration projects each and every year. Given our stronger economy over the last 10 years; 250 million a year would be better.

On a per capita comparison over the last 10 years Canada has underfunded Pacific Salmon Habitat restoration and enhancement in my opinion to the tune of about 1.4 Billion. Further the USA has very few open net pen fish farms on the west coast compared to Canada and don’t seem to be permitting expansion, so arguably our Pacific salmon need a lot more funding support. As for fish habitat protective legislation our government seems hell bent on turning them into a world class joke because they are an irritant for certain businesses with a lot of influence with government, which means more fish habitat damage and therefore an even greater need for habitat restoration and salmon enhancement tax dollar funding.

The golden age of Canada funding Pacific salmon, especially hatcheries, was decades ago; it is time for a renaissance. The Conservatives have made cut backs an art form and the liberals, when they were in power, were not much better in their later years especially with regard to salmon enhancement.

So how about we play a little catch up with a 1 billion onetime payment to do some major habitat projects and buy up things for example like over subscribe fresh water leases draining our rivers and stressing fish etc. Then reestablish our once somewhat adequate hatchery system which govt. seems to want to abandon or at least turn over to volunteer labor and fund raising by sports anglers for those still remaining. Then make sure that 250 million of DFO’s 2 billion annual budget goes directly into Pacific salmon habitat restoration projects and hatchery support for Pacific salmon each and every year. If the USA can do it, so can we.

All sectors need to work together on applying political pressure to increase funding for habitat restoration and salmon enhancement. We may have our conflicts over allocations but this is something we can all agree on because it will benefit us all. There are indications that is beginning to happen and I understand that SVIAC has had a preliminary meeting with First Nations leadership in this regard. I suspect that will scare the hell out of certain DFO mandarins and politicians. Their lives are easier when we are divided on this issue.

Strong vibrant Pacific Salmon Populations have the potential to return billions to the Canadian economy each and every year,. This can't happen if the primary tool in DFO’s tool box is to continuously cut back on harvesting and Pacific salmon support while using our tax dollars promoting, protecting, supporting, and expanding open net fish farms for alien Atlantic salmon. That is nothing more than a slow path to Pacific salmon extinction.

 

[cuttlefish]

Can’t get overly excited about 60 million over many years especially with efforts and projects that have since been abandoned.

The USA spends over a Billion dollars a year just on their west coast Hatchery systems. Not to mention hundreds of millions more on things like habitat restoration, removing dams etc. Sure they have a population 10x ours but over the last 10 years there economy has been in the tank for much of it compared to ours yet they still managed to spend money at that level on Pacific Salmon.

I agree with all you say, Rockfish. Just a bit confused about where the money comes from in the USA. Other than monies for things like Treaty agreements (http://fund.psc.org/about_fund.htm) like the PSC and money for dam mitigation, doesn't the hatchery and restoration funding come from the individual states. I imagine that would have an impact on the per capita contribution you use for comparison.

Thanks

 

[Rockfish]

I agree with all you say, Rockfish. Just a bit confused about where the money comes from in the USA. Other than monies for things like Treaty agreements (http://fund.psc.org/about_fund.htm) like the PSC and money for dam mitigation, doesn't the hatchery and restoration funding come from the individual states. I imagine that would have an impact on the per capita contribution you use for comparison.

Thanks

Don’t really know the break down as to where the US funding all comes from with certainty and don’t want to spend the time to do Charlie type research, but I bet the US members can fill you in. The critical factor is that I understand their government/s funds it and the money all comes from the same taxpayers whether Federal or State.

I really don’t think the Federal government and most of the other provinces would be interested in changing the basic contract of Confederation and turning our ocean resource over to BC. Alberta has control of and benefits greatly from the control of their petro resources and Saskatchewan its Potash. BC and the East coast province do not have the same control of salmon and marine fish and our coasts because the coasts belong to Canada not the provinces. My estimates are crude but I think essentially close.

One thing is certain, if the provinces had control of and responsibility for our marine species there would be a lot less Federal fishery bureaucrats in Ottawa, many of which I suspect seldom see a real ocean and are too distant to really understand our needs.

Further, in my view it is much easier for a Federal government to ignore the needs of Pacific salmon especially when they conflict with other business interests that they prioritize over our Pacific fish as they are a Federal Government and they are not all that dependent on BC votes. If Ontario or Quebec with their populations and critical votes necessary to ensure victory in federal elections were located on our coast I suspect things perhaps would be a bit different for Pacific Salmon. If salmon and marine fish were a BC resource and taxation responsibility and dollars were transferred to BC I suspect the Provincial Government no matter where they would fall on the political spectrum at any point in time may be forced to be more responsive to the huge numbers of British Columbians who are very interested in the well being of Pacific Salmon than the smaller numbers of interested voters in other provinces, some of which have resources and business interests who’s development needs may actually conflict with the needs of our Pacific Fish. Of course that does not mean it would be perfect as BC once had greater control of open net pen fish feedlots before it was transferred to the Feds and look how that turned out both before and after the transfer. One also wonders if East Coast cod would have crashed even faster with the high provincial need for jobs at the time if Cod had been a provincial resource.

The basic structure of the division of power between BC and the Federal government that forms the basis of our Confederation is not going to change, so it would seem to me likely not be possible for BC to duplicate anything that individual US states may have the power to do with regard to their funding or decision making related to Pacific Salmon. And as I previously said, I am not really certain how the US state/federal division of responsibilities is set up related to marine species but I suspect it is rather complex.

 

[sammyslabber]

Re: Sockeye hatcheries, maybe this doesn't refer - Skeena; however it has worked in Osoyoos Lake, if it worked there - it could work in other places?
http://www.osoyoostimes.com/new-sockeye-salmon-hatchery-will-spawn-success-for-generations-to-come/

This surely is food for thought as the Feds funding to B.C. hatchery programs trickles to a stop like many a small creek along B.C's coastline...
http://nationtalk.ca/story/vancouve...uld-end-salmon-run-critics-say-vancouver-sun/

The U.S does it why can't we??
http://www.undercurrentnews.com/201...ockeye-salmon-hatchery-in-ruins/#.UgvP_GxraM8

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/publication...dfg_snake_river_sockeye_hgmp_may_2012__2_.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

hey Craven - as a follow-up to my previous post re: marine interception by various fisheries: So far, as reported to date (2013 season) the following below is the reported catch (rounded-off) from the Canadian commercial fishing fleets alone (AK NOT included, except for the Noyes Island Seine Fishery which targets Skeena sockeye):

Area F Troll: 35,000 Chinook retained, 259,000 coho retained, 31,000 pinks retained, 372 chum retained.
Area 3 (Nass River) Gillnet:138,000 sockeye retained, 4,400 coho retained, 293,000 pinks retained, 12,000 chum retained, 1,100 chinook retained
Area 3 (Nass River) Seinet:3,800 sockeye retained, 17,000 coho retained, 2,050,000 pinks retained, 35,000 chum retained, 1,100 chinook retained
Nass Inland Demonstration Fishery 8,000 sockeye retained

Area 4 (Skeena River) Gillnet: 0 sockeye retained, 0 coho retained, 8 pinks retained, 0 chum retained, 997 chinook retained

Area 6 (Hartley Bay Area) Seine: 6,500 sockeye retained, 9,300 coho retained, 4,120,000 pinks retained, 59,000 chum retained, 790 chinook retained

Area 8 (Bella Coola Area) Gillnet: 2,300 sockeye retained, 0 coho retained, 36,000 pinks retained, 59,000 chum retained, 5,300 chinook retained
Area 8 (Bella Coola Area) Seine: 0 sockeye retained, 0 coho retained, 350,000 pinks retained, 25,000 chum retained, 292 chinook retained

There has also been commercial openings in Areas 9 & 10 (don't have the data right now).

Noyes Island Seine Fishery: 32,500 sockeye retained, 30,400 coho retained, 3,985,000 pinks retained, 0 chum retained, 1,100 chinook retained

These numbers are ONLY from one fishery in AK.

Sports, commercial-sports, and FSC numbers are ALSO not included in these numbers.

You can see why First Nations up river feel that their needs are not being taken care of.

 

[trendsetter]

You can see why First Nations up river feel that their needs are not being taken care of.

Fraser river FN have already taken 270,800 sockeye and 23,900 pinks. How many fish do they need? If the stocks are low this year then everyone needs to leave them alone to have a chance to rebuild. There are no commercial sockeye fisheries open nor are there any rec fisheries targeting fraser sockeye open.

 

[agentaqua]

I don't know trendsetter. How big is the Fraser drainage? How many aboriginal communities are there? How many people are there in those communities? How many households? How many fish does that work-out to when you factor-in that some hundreds of thousands of up-river aboriginals rely on these 270K of fish? How many fish do you feel would get them through a winter, plus an economic fishery? Do you understand that if you were living in an upriver First Nations community that you unlikely feel that your needs were taken care of after conservation needs were met, given the numbers I posted here from the Canadian commercial fisheries alone (AND not incl. AK, and sports and commercial-sports)? (PS - I am just trying to present a different perspective here)...