Federal government measures failed to protect endangered Chinook salmon in 2019

[SpringVelocity]

NGO's on the attack again.

“In 2019, much of the fishing mortality occurred where recreational catch-and-release of Chinook salmon was permitted.


February 5, 2020
Federal government measures failed to protect endangered Chinook salmon in 2019

 Protection under Canada’s Species at Risk Act needed for Fraser River salmon

VICTORIA — Many more endangered Fraser River Chinook salmon were killed in fisheries last year than promised by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Despite a commitment to reduce Fraser spring and summer Chinook mortality to less than five per cent, recent analyses using the federal government’s own data suggest this limit was far exceeded and that a full fisheries closure would have allowed at least 25 per cent more endangered Chinook salmon to spawn. Last year marked the lowest return of Fraser River spring and summer Chinook on record: fewer than 14,500 reached their spawning grounds.

“Federal fisheries managers failed in their commitments to protect these endangered salmon and increase the availability of these Chinook for endangered southern resident killer whales,” David Suzuki Foundation senior science and policy analyst Jeffery Young said. 

“If the government’s primary objective is to avoid extinction of endangered Fraser River Chinook salmon, the first step must be to ensure that as many reach their spawning grounds as possible,” Watershed Watch Salmon Society senior fisheries advisor Greg Taylor said. “Meeting the five per cent mortality cap in 2020 will require most fishing be closed in times and areas when endangered Fraser River Chinook are present.”

“In 2019, much of the fishing mortality occurred where recreational catch-and-release of Chinook salmon was permitted. To ensure these endangered Chinook salmon are protected, they must be listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act,” Raincoast Conservation Foundation program director Misty MacDuffee said.  

Fisheries and Oceans Canada lacks adequate monitoring to fully assess fishing mortality of Chinook, but for three of the 10 fishing areas, there is enough data to show that at least 4,000 spring and summer Fraser Chinook were killed. The number of spring and summer Fraser River Chinook that successfully made it to their spawning grounds in 2019 was less than 14,500 — the lowest number on record.

“While millions of tax dollars were being spent to fly salmon in helicopters around the Big Bar landslide, our government was allowing thousands of these fish to be killed on their way into the Fraser River,” MacDuffee said.

Management measures put in place in 2019 were intended to significantly reduce deaths of endangered Chinook. The measures faced fierce objections from recreational fisheries. However, despite these objections, total Chinook catch on the South Coast actually increased by 15 per cent in 2019, as compared to the 2014-2018 average. 

Seven Fraser Chinook salmon populations are “endangered” according to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, a federally mandated science body. These fish are key in the local ecosystem, providing a vital food source for endangered southern resident killer whales. 

– 30 - 

Read the Backgrounder here.

For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:

Jeffery Young, David Suzuki Foundation: 250-208-8714

Greg Taylor, Watershed Watch Salmon Society: 604-970-0277

Misty MacDuffee, Raincoast Conservation Foundation: 250-818-2136

 

[Derby]

Typical BS.... Please note the donate button at the bottom of the page

 

[SpringVelocity]

Pretty obvious who is driving the mortality talk on this one. I mean come on.

I just wish we would stop wasting taxpayers money with groups like this.

It takes time and resources DFO simply doesn't have, and prevents us from spending money on enhancement which is what the rivers/stream need.

 

[wildmanyeah]

“In 2019, much of the fishing mortality occurred where recreational catch-and-release of Chinook salmon was permitted. To ensure these endangered Chinook salmon are protected, they must be listed under Canada’s Species at Risk Act,” Raincoast Conservation Foundation program director Misty MacDuffee said.  

Misty is on crack, no one bothered to catch and release and all the mortality on this stock happen in river gilnets and the Fraser slide.

Look at the backgrounder their science comes from 2017 fishing data.

My bet is they have already submitted something like this to the IFMP.

 

[ChinookExerciser]

Nice try but this says it all:

"The three marine fisheries that had enough data for analysis were: North Coast (recreation and commercial), and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (extending from Swiftsure through Victoria, the Gulf Islands and the mouth of the Fraser River). Our estimates indicate that around 600 early Fraser Chinook were killed in North Coast recreational and North Coast commercial troll fisheries in 2019. Another 3,500 likely died in recreational fisheries from Juan de Fuca through to the mouth of the Fraser River from a combination of both retention and release mortality. If total mortalities from all 10 fisheries could be included, estimates of the number of endangered Chinook killed in Canadian fisheries would be much higher than the approximately 4,000 that can be accounted for in these 3 fisheries. The number of Fraser River 42 and 52 Chinook that reached their spawning grounds was approximately 14,500. Fishing related mortalities of more than 4,000 endangered Chinook in the South Coast and North Coast recreational fisheries and North Coast commercial fisheries is a consequence of a management plan that allows for significant fishing effort in times and areas where endangered Chinook are known to be present. If these fish were not killed, it is possible that escapements would have increased by 28% above the 14,500 that reached their spawning grounds."


Does the recreational fishery have science to dispute this claim?

 

[ziggy]

This is how these groups embellish and lie their way to financial success. Here they go on the offensive to deflect from the fact that last years campaign was BS. Rather than admit they were wrong, they simply claim that further measure are required because of course our well paid staff could not have been mistaken! Unfortunately they, and many other environmental groups are getting away with unsupported claims, embellishment and outright lies. Remember the starving polar bear video? How about the Walruses jumping off a cliff? All proven to have nothing to do with the enviro claims attached to them, but the media downplays the campaign of misinformation out of fear of the self proclaimed enviro warriors and their addled guilt ridden disciples. Sad really!

 

[wildmanyeah]

Does anyone know when it says in the background that the jdf has regulated genetic sampling for the rec fishery. It says the JDF including area 29 is the only area that has it.

Who conducted this sampling??

 

[SpringVelocity]

Nice try but this says it all:

"The three marine fisheries that had enough data for analysis were: North Coast (recreation and commercial), and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (extending from Swiftsure through Victoria, the Gulf Islands and the mouth of the Fraser River). Our estimates indicate that around 600 early Fraser Chinook were killed in North Coast recreational and North Coast commercial troll fisheries in 2019. Another 3,500 likely died in recreational fisheries from Juan de Fuca through to the mouth of the Fraser River from a combination of both retention and release mortality. If total mortalities from all 10 fisheries could be included, estimates of the number of endangered Chinook killed in Canadian fisheries would be much higher than the approximately 4,000 that can be accounted for in these 3 fisheries. The number of Fraser River 42 and 52 Chinook that reached their spawning grounds was approximately 14,500. Fishing related mortalities of more than 4,000 endangered Chinook in the South Coast and North Coast recreational fisheries and North Coast commercial fisheries is a consequence of a management plan that allows for significant fishing effort in times and areas where endangered Chinook are known to be present. If these fish were not killed, it is possible that escapements would have increased by 28% above the 14,500 that reached their spawning grounds."


Does the recreational fishery have science to dispute this claim?

Only in the circle of trust.

 

[ziggy]

Nice try but this says it all:

"The three marine fisheries that had enough data for analysis were: North Coast (recreation and commercial), and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (extending from Swiftsure through Victoria, the Gulf Islands and the mouth of the Fraser River). Our estimates indicate that around 600 early Fraser Chinook were killed in North Coast recreational and North Coast commercial troll fisheries in 2019. Another 3,500 likely died in recreational fisheries from Juan de Fuca through to the mouth of the Fraser River from a combination of both retention and release mortality. If total mortalities from all 10 fisheries could be included, estimates of the number of endangered Chinook killed in Canadian fisheries would be much higher than the approximately 4,000 that can be accounted for in these 3 fisheries. The number of Fraser River 42 and 52 Chinook that reached their spawning grounds was approximately 14,500. Fishing related mortalities of more than 4,000 endangered Chinook in the South Coast and North Coast recreational fisheries and North Coast commercial fisheries is a consequence of a management plan that allows for significant fishing effort in times and areas where endangered Chinook are known to be present. If these fish were not killed, it is possible that escapements would have increased by 28% above the 14,500 that reached their spawning grounds."


Does the recreational fishery have science to dispute this claim?

Totally missing from this is the net fishing numbers in the Fraser. While the right to fish by First Nations has priority over all but conservation, why are no numbers attributed to them? If you want to throw numbers around, eliminating the gill net catch in the Fraser from the equation must surely skew the argument of what percentage of fish were caught recreationally in relation to those who made it to spawning grounds. Why is this not even mentioned? Additionally good science doesn’t usually base its theories on terms such as “likely” ( how likely) or “Our estimates”(based on what) it is possible” (isn’t almost everything). To call this science IMO is ludicrous.

 

[ChinookExerciser]

Totally missing from this is the net fishing numbers in the Fraser. While the right to fish by First Nations has priority over all but conservation, why are no numbers attributed to them? If you want to throw numbers around, eliminating the gill net catch in the Fraser from the equation must surely skew the argument of what percentage of fish were caught recreationally in relation to those who made it to spawning grounds. Why is this not even mentioned? Additionally good science doesn’t usually base its theories on terms such as “likely” ( how likely) or “Our estimates”(based on what) it is possible” (isn’t almost everything). To call this science IMO is ludicrous.

read the backgrounder Read the Backgrounder here.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Read this for the real answer.

From article,

1. December 5, 2019. The silence from DFO continues but an informant advises that a related issue just might be the fact that Grand Chief Ken Malloway, the Chairperson of the Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat, has a company that monitors 22-25 FN bands in the Fraser Valley. Malloway indicated that included about 60% of the FSC fisheries and 100% of Economic Development (“Economic Opportunity”?) fisheries. How blatant can conflict of interest get? The relationship between this company and those 70 monitors indicated to me on Sept 23 to be the ones responsible for the same objective is unknown, although it would be logical to assume they are one in the same. I’d ask DFO but history instructs that would only add to my long list of unanswered communications.

http://steelheadvoices.com/?p=1868#more-1868

read the backgrounder Read the Backgrounder here.

 

[ziggy]

read the backgrounder Read the Backgrounder here.

It still fails to answer what the impact was of gill netting, non selective killing of fish in the Fraser River. Why? Do you not agree that nets blocking a narrow stretch of water that the fish might pass through would severely impact the ability of those fish to reach the spawning grounds? Would you not “estimate” the impact of closing off a river with nets would have a greater impact than hook and line in open water? If these organizations want to have any credibility they have to address the fact that their whole house of cards collapses in the absence of this data. To simply write off the Fraser harvest as an unknown, when so much of their evidence is based on “estimates” is lazy at best but more likely disingenuous, or fearful of offending groups they want for allies. To even suggest gill netting in the Natal stream whether legal or not is not a factor, destroys what little credibility this article may have had.

We all need to do our part but let’s not base our response on poor science by professional fundraisers.

 

[wildmanyeah]

In here is the actual document they submitted to DFO it's actually quite different from their "backgrounder"

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a2n4rv0j9dgmzxk/2020 IFMP Priorities Feedback Package Jan-24-2020.pdf?dl=0

 

[Derby]

Nice try but this says it all:

"The three marine fisheries that had enough data for analysis were: North Coast (recreation and commercial), and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (extending from Swiftsure through Victoria, the Gulf Islands and the mouth of the Fraser River). Our estimates indicate that around 600 early Fraser Chinook were killed in North Coast recreational and North Coast commercial troll fisheries in 2019. Another 3,500 likely died in recreational fisheries from Juan de Fuca through to the mouth of the Fraser River from a combination of both retention and release mortality. If total mortalities from all 10 fisheries could be included, estimates of the number of endangered Chinook killed in Canadian fisheries would be much higher than the approximately 4,000 that can be accounted for in these 3 fisheries. The number of Fraser River 42 and 52 Chinook that reached their spawning grounds was approximately 14,500. Fishing related mortalities of more than 4,000 endangered Chinook in the South Coast and North Coast recreational fisheries and North Coast commercial fisheries is a consequence of a management plan that allows for significant fishing effort in times and areas where endangered Chinook are known to be present. If these fish were not killed, it is possible that escapements would have increased by 28% above the 14,500 that reached their spawning grounds."


Does the recreational fishery have science to dispute this claim?[/QUOTE

the NGO side is now exposed I see... LOL what took u so long..

 

[wildmanyeah]

Its Greg Taylor is trying to defend his old data as being relevant lol by cherry picking 2008 data and applying it to other areas in 2019.

What a sickening bunch ENGO's like watershed watch have become.

sad

 

[SpringVelocity]

As soon as the mentioning FRIM in the salmon 2020 thread it put the flag up. Just a little background of where our friend is going. Have close look and you will notice the flow charts look very similar don't they to what is posted above? Take a look also very closely at the statistical graphs.

Incorporating Fisheries Related Incidental Mortality of Fraser River Spring/Summer 42/52 Chinook inthe Estimation of Total Mortalities in Marine Recreational Fisheries (DFOManagement Areas 18,19,20,29,121,123)



https://www.mccpacific.org/wp-conte...hinook-FRIM-Discussion-Paper_6-March-2019.pdf

 

[SerengetiGuide]

What do the last two links posted say? Don’t have time to read them today hahaha

 

[tincan]

Seems like a legit question to ask and so far not much of a response other than deflection. That's not a good look for those of us who want to have access to salmon fishing long-term. If these engo's are throwing around numbers and nobody is there to 1) provide context or 2) dispute their numbers then it's their message that will hit home with the general public (and then politicians).

Context could be things like:
-providing jobs and economic impacts of the rec fishery
-providing historical catch data relative to current
-providing catch data by sector
and so on.

I'm sure the groups representing the rec industry have all of this and more at their fingertips so it shouldn't be too hard to put together a response and share it widely.

Nice try but this says it all:

"The three marine fisheries that had enough data for analysis were: North Coast (recreation and commercial), and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (extending from Swiftsure through Victoria, the Gulf Islands and the mouth of the Fraser River). Our estimates indicate that around 600 early Fraser Chinook were killed in North Coast recreational and North Coast commercial troll fisheries in 2019. Another 3,500 likely died in recreational fisheries from Juan de Fuca through to the mouth of the Fraser River from a combination of both retention and release mortality. If total mortalities from all 10 fisheries could be included, estimates of the number of endangered Chinook killed in Canadian fisheries would be much higher than the approximately 4,000 that can be accounted for in these 3 fisheries. The number of Fraser River 42 and 52 Chinook that reached their spawning grounds was approximately 14,500. Fishing related mortalities of more than 4,000 endangered Chinook in the South Coast and North Coast recreational fisheries and North Coast commercial fisheries is a consequence of a management plan that allows for significant fishing effort in times and areas where endangered Chinook are known to be present. If these fish were not killed, it is possible that escapements would have increased by 28% above the 14,500 that reached their spawning grounds."


Does the recreational fishery have science to dispute this claim?

 

[ChinookExerciser]

It still fails to answer what the impact was of gill netting, non selective killing of fish in the Fraser River. Why?

"There are some sources of fishing mortality, like the illegal Fraser Valley fishing, which appear to be beyond DFO’s ability to monitor or control. The potential loss accrued in these fisheries must be taken into consideration when planning any other fisheries."

 

[ziggy]

"There are some sources of fishing mortality, like the illegal Fraser Valley fishing, which appear to be beyond DFO’s ability to monitor or control. The potential loss accrued in these fisheries must be taken into consideration when planning any other fisheries."

View attachment 50620

No I get that, but they seem to have no numbers for either FSC or illegal fishery. In the absence of actual numbers they in all other cases are pretty quick to fill in the blanks with their own estimates . In fact even when they are given DFO numbers they tend to dismiss them as being too conservative and change the numbers to suit themselves.. You need to attach an estimate to the Fraser harvest in order to have a viable formula. I don’t see where they have assigned a value to this variable in their formula. Perhaps I’m missing the part where they post raw numbers?
As anyone can tell you that has been on the Fraser, there are a lot of fish being taken and as such it is critical to determine how many, unless of course you wish to be vague for whatever reason and deflect onto someone else. The chart you posted shows what they considered as factors but assigned no value to them other than estimates that they likely made to bolster their theory. IMO I am sceptical as to why these numbers are missing and if you truly are interested in adopting an approach to solving this dilemma I’m sure after reflecting on it, you will want to see the impact of these missing pieces.