Here we go again, by Bob Hooton .
- Thread starter OldBlackDog
- Start date
That is the next logical & excellent question, whitebuck - and dependent upon the expert quoted - varies immensely. Trites has convinced the scientific community - particularly the ENGOs - that it has to be a massive cull. That's the premise that Walters commented on. But I seriously doubt that this is logistically feasible, but also socially acceptable to many urbanites who would push the politics against a cull like this.
Another less-heard narrative is to remove the "problem" seals @ choke points - esp. harbour seals in order to focus on smolt survival. This too would entail dozens/yr and a commitment to do it yearly on most rivers. This would only work on smaller, remote rivers, IMHO where cameras are less.
Then there is the commercial seal fishery as envisioned by Thomas Sewid and the Pacific Balance Marine Management and supported so far by a few FNs which is not necessarily focused on smolts survival but rather a commercial market. It could also serve double-duty, however. I think this is the most likely vehicle for any culls (besides the already-operating small-scale FSC cull) because altho some NGOs would still like to whine about it - if FNs are doing the harvesting - the ENGOs will be somewhat more muted in their illogical and emotional responses (I hope). This would be on the order of some hundreds/yr. - maybe enough to slightly depress some harbour seals in some areas that are easily accessible. If those areas overlapped with areas that smolts use - which they should - it will be a "win-win", as far as I am concerned.
PS - besides the science-based beanie study and others - I heard they cut open a culled harbour seal w 200-300 smolts in it's belly.
Another less-heard narrative is to remove the "problem" seals @ choke points - esp. harbour seals in order to focus on smolt survival. This too would entail dozens/yr and a commitment to do it yearly on most rivers. This would only work on smaller, remote rivers, IMHO where cameras are less.
Then there is the commercial seal fishery as envisioned by Thomas Sewid and the Pacific Balance Marine Management and supported so far by a few FNs which is not necessarily focused on smolts survival but rather a commercial market. It could also serve double-duty, however. I think this is the most likely vehicle for any culls (besides the already-operating small-scale FSC cull) because altho some NGOs would still like to whine about it - if FNs are doing the harvesting - the ENGOs will be somewhat more muted in their illogical and emotional responses (I hope). This would be on the order of some hundreds/yr. - maybe enough to slightly depress some harbour seals in some areas that are easily accessible. If those areas overlapped with areas that smolts use - which they should - it will be a "win-win", as far as I am concerned.
PS - besides the science-based beanie study and others - I heard they cut open a culled harbour seal w 200-300 smolts in it's belly.
Last edited:
It was actually Searun attacking other points of concern being expressed as being “Trump like beliefs”. Reminds me of the so called deplorables.
To repeat was already said most here agree that pinniped populations need to be addressed but not in isolation of other issues particularly Gill netting in the river.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
Robs assessment was done in consultation with Cosewic i believe he says so in his presentation. Rob also offered clarifying comments on social media BCWF page that i believed were deleted. Where he stated removing fishery interceptions is the best thing we can do immediately to help these fish,
ALSO FYI another Sara assessment will be happening shortly for these fish that Rob is participating in. I believe completing the threat calculator is part of that assessment. Not doubt predation will be on there as significant source.
I'm not advocating against a seal cull, i'm in favor of removing some of their population. What i'm saying is there is multiple sources of mortality for these fish that can be acted upon. Commercial fishing is less a concern then when the assessment was done as they now have a have a restricted window where they cant fish that is 42 days. I believe the recommendation form Cosewic was like a 60-80 day window. FSC fishery's have a 27 day window where they cant fish. A big step to help these fish would be to increase the FSC window to the same as commercial fishermen's. I think that's the least that could be done in the short term.
I dont have the data from when those 50 steelhead were intercepted in the fraser FSC fisheries but i suspect a good number of them would of been between that 27 day and 42 day window. Even tho there was less participation in those fisheries as DFO put in a regulation in the fsc permanent that prevented overnight set nets.
I will also not that i believe the albion test fishery caught 5 steelhead. I can't remember the figure but i believe 3 were released alive and 2 were dead. So in a 30 min set 2 steelhead died. This speaks to the lethality of even the most professional fished gillnet.
Sounds like good recommendations, WMY. The size, length and type of gillnet fishing likely also affects intercepted steelhead. Overnight - as you mentioned - but also circle-setting verses drift verses attached. It would be good to prohibit the gillnet fishing that catches the most steelhead in that window timing. Coho often go up on the shallows and into cutbanks and hide. I am not sure about steelhead responses wrt hiding from fishing activity - but I bet they have them. It would be good to keep gillnets out of those areas - wherever they are.
The test fishery often uses multi-panel nets to sample the widest range of sizes - where at least one panel is steelhead-sized. Is this the best net to use during this window? maybe not.
I agree we should decrease multiple sources of mortality for these fish that can be acted upon.
The test fishery often uses multi-panel nets to sample the widest range of sizes - where at least one panel is steelhead-sized. Is this the best net to use during this window? maybe not.
I agree we should decrease multiple sources of mortality for these fish that can be acted upon.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
"The gill net used in the Albion chum test fishery is 150 fathoms long, constructed from 6.75" mesh."
"
The Chinook test fishery normally fishes every day from April 1st through August 31st. During this period, the test boat uses two different nets which fish on alternating days: the "standard" Chinook net, which is constructed using eight-inch mesh; and a "multi-panel" net, which consists of panels of six, seven, eight, and nine inch mesh. The purpose of the multi-panel net is to ensure representative sampling of Chinook passing through the lower Fraser River, due to the wide range of body sizes observed in Fraser River Chinook stocks. Use of the multi-panel net began in 1997 - prior to that, the test fishery operated with the eight-inch mesh net only.
From September 1st through October 20th, the Albion Chinook test fishery fishes every other day, alternating days with the chum test fishery (which fishes a 6.75 inch mesh gill net). Throughout this period, the Chinook test fishery uses the eight-inch mesh net exclusively.
The multi panel alternates with Chinook test and is not used past September 1. All the mortality from the test for steelhead occured after september 1 when they were using the 6.75 chum mesh
Last edited:
If this is indeed true what a great opportunity to do DNA analysis to determine species and origin. Do you have a link or just anecdotal?
You'll never guess where I found that posted, Dave. On Hooton's blog in comments added by Ken Pearce one of the founders of PACIFIC BALANCE PINNIPED SOCIETY on December 31, 2020 at 5:08 pm along w other critiques of Hooton's assertions:
Hey, it was you who questioned my time on the Fraser. I have no bone to pick with you Derby, I tend to agree with most of your posts.lol.. if you say so why is it everytime someone get stumped here someone has to pull out the qualification card too funny
But its plain to see from the few of us who have spent time on the Fraser that some on this forum have little practical knowledge of the river, it's fish stocks and the sports and FN fishery.
sthdslayer
New Member
I have been following the arguments here any find that some are quite positional The one hand wants to deal with predation one group feels the nets are the greater issue. The one thing both concur on is neither solution is easily attainable in the short term. There is no doubt the predation in the Fraser is a major impediment to recovery of Upper Fraser stocks of chinook, Coho and steelhead. In my opinion we need to look south of teh border to the comprehensive and proven predator control programs. While we are negotiating through the pinneped issue why not target Nothern Pike minnow similar to the program on the Columbia.
Regarding the nets with reconciliation and UNDRIP you are not going to tell FN how to harvest. But i believe you can get them onside to an enhanced effort to deal with the illegal netting and resultant sales. I believe this kills significantly more Upper Fraser chinook and steelhead than does authorized FSC fisheries.
My point is we need to do something now not down the road so why not pick those issues where there is common ground and work towards solutions that are doable now.
Regarding the nets with reconciliation and UNDRIP you are not going to tell FN how to harvest. But i believe you can get them onside to an enhanced effort to deal with the illegal netting and resultant sales. I believe this kills significantly more Upper Fraser chinook and steelhead than does authorized FSC fisheries.
My point is we need to do something now not down the road so why not pick those issues where there is common ground and work towards solutions that are doable now.
Here's the ENGO narrative:
www.hakaimagazine.com
What Would a British Columbia Seal and Sea Lion Cull Actually Entail? | Hakai Magazine
Proponents are calling for the deaths of at least 75,000 seals and sea lions in the first year.
www.hakaimagazine.com
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
And we are surprised?Here's the ENGO narrative:
What Would a British Columbia Seal and Sea Lion Cull Actually Entail? | Hakai Magazine
Proponents are calling for the deaths of at least 75,000 seals and sea lions in the first year.
As noted by science, we really DO NOT KNOW what the problem is yet!
Until we understand what is going on in the Ocean we really have no ideal.
Thanks for that, now I respect Trites even more.Here's the ENGO narrative:
What Would a British Columbia Seal and Sea Lion Cull Actually Entail? | Hakai Magazine
Proponents are calling for the deaths of at least 75,000 seals and sea lions in the first year.
I respect Trites for his knowledge on marine mammals, as well. That doesn't mean his suggestions are necessarily accurate nor totally encompassing in other regards, tho. It also doesn't mean that his or other marine mammal advocates recommendations are unbiased. He has admitted his lack of knowledge on fish and Chinook in past videos. As honest, encouraging and rare that it is to hear experts admit the limits of their knowledge - his opinion on what a cull might look like is no better than mine or yours - or anyone else on this forum. It is sheer speculation.
His assumption about it being a massive cull is both misleading and disingenuous - as are other comments from marine-mammal enthusiasts about why we should leave seals alone because we don't know what we are doing (paraphrasing). Those same people never said the same about actions to protect the SRKW - the were the 1st one banging the drums on it. That is the disingenuous part - as I see it. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander - and if it isn't - they are being disingenuous, & hypocritical, or maybe even dishonest.
The reason I believe they offer a disingenuous rationale for leaving seals alone is because they have an emotional verses a rationale attachment to seals because they are marine-mammal enthusiasts at the core that were conditioned to see seals as cute and cuddly from youth - and certainly many of them have not spent time in the same remote areas studying the impacts to salmon stocks. Not many of them will admit this openly - but at least Trites has admitted his lack of background in salmon. Not many of them really want to have that depth of conversation and let salmon people into decision-making on marine mammals, IMHO. Look at how the SRKW recommendations rolled-out... who did they listen to? Who were on those advisory committees? Did any of them suggest "NO - we shouldn't do anything because we don't know what we are doing"?
His assumption about it being a massive cull is both misleading and disingenuous - as are other comments from marine-mammal enthusiasts about why we should leave seals alone because we don't know what we are doing (paraphrasing). Those same people never said the same about actions to protect the SRKW - the were the 1st one banging the drums on it. That is the disingenuous part - as I see it. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander - and if it isn't - they are being disingenuous, & hypocritical, or maybe even dishonest.
The reason I believe they offer a disingenuous rationale for leaving seals alone is because they have an emotional verses a rationale attachment to seals because they are marine-mammal enthusiasts at the core that were conditioned to see seals as cute and cuddly from youth - and certainly many of them have not spent time in the same remote areas studying the impacts to salmon stocks. Not many of them will admit this openly - but at least Trites has admitted his lack of background in salmon. Not many of them really want to have that depth of conversation and let salmon people into decision-making on marine mammals, IMHO. Look at how the SRKW recommendations rolled-out... who did they listen to? Who were on those advisory committees? Did any of them suggest "NO - we shouldn't do anything because we don't know what we are doing"?
Last edited:
For those of you interested in sustainable fishing models:
thenarwhal.ca
Want to save B.C. salmon? Bring back Indigenous fishing systems, study says | The Narwhal
Traditional technologies, harvesting practices and management systems could bring endangered populations back from the brink, but government buy-in is needed
thenarwhal.ca
"I’d kill every damn one that crosses the border, frankly. I’d like to see them treated as an exotic pest, which means you nail them every time you see them.” This is what Walters says in the above referenced article & i believe him to be correct. The California Sea Lion problem first surfaced in Puget Sound, decades ago when they began picking-off Salmon/Steelhead a few yards from the Ballard Locks in Seattle. Word was that they were attracted here by some Washington State Biologist who began feeding them thinking they would be a cut tourist attraction. They are truly an invasive species.
here is info for reference:
FYI the initial feeding I mentioned took place years before Herchel in 1985.
here is info for reference:
Sea lion deaths have deep roots in Seattle history
10 sea lions have been shot and killed in Puget Sound since late-September. Why is this happening? The reason could very well be traced back to a piece of Seattle history.
mynorthwest.com
FYI the initial feeding I mentioned took place years before Herchel in 1985.
searun
Well-Known Member
Couldn't agree more. Seems highly unlikely we are going to gain traction on the anti-gill net front that easily or quickly. Influencing change towards selective harvest is the best route. And, as I have been suggesting, tossing all our eggs into the anti gill net tent while ignoring the larger problem of predation isn't a wise long-term plan if we truly want to reverse the declines both in the Fraser and elsewhere.
Similar threads
