2019 Fraser Chinook Management Actions UPDATED!!

This may be a dumb question but on that list of scenarios or measures.....when they refer to the WCVI "AABM" versus "ICBM" what does that mean?

Other question for the more informed; when they note 121-127 does that mean that inshore fisheries won't be affected by these measures?
 
Should I be surprised that a commercial fisherman that fishes an unviable (your words) fishery takes issue with me describing what occurs as a slaughter? Do you have a better word for it?

hjgfjdfghkjfdhg

Like I said before I really didnt want to open this can of worms so Im just gonna leave it as is. :)
I don't think thats appropriate one bit...perhaps you SHOULD actually do some research. The east coast cod fishery, that was a slaughter, the commercial here - maybe it was 40-50 years ago? but now, they take less chinook than recreational and have lower and lower takes every year.

I have spend many many hours studying the problems and while some is opinion, alot I see is fact. This should not be focused on commercial/sports one bit - hell, the whole pacific ocean sees 4.6 million chinook taken, yet hatcheries are putting back somewhere around 150 million up and down the coast. We are the reason there are even any whales left IMH. I also put zero blame on whale watching - studies prove proximity have nothing to do with interupting hunting - infact they pick up the same sounds/frequency from a boat 100m away as they do one that is 600-700m away. Also, they whale watch up island too where the transients and northern residents are thriving. It's ridiculous.

The biggest direct issues I see 1. seals taking smolt - to the tune of 27 million is the estimate (by scientists and biologists, not fisherman), 2. herring - recently understand there used to be 5 distinct monitored herring populations - now 4 are in bad shape and closed, and only the 1 is fishable. So did DFO mismanage 4 massive biomasses, taking away from salmon and seal diet just to feed the far east and cats? That is why the seals are up the rivers damnit! That's all on them! 3. Disease - this is the problem for the whales - why isn't more focus on why? This passes down from mother to new born, when they have the parasite, it gets to the point that they cannot eat, thus starve. Not because they can't find food! Why are they getting this? Passed on from wild salmon? Entirely caused by fish farm? Any relation to our sewage outfall? This should be a focus.

Keep fisherman and whale watchers out of it IMH - its all BS what the ENGO's spin.
 
Last edited:
Nog you were or are a sportsfishing guide I know because I was on your boat some years ago so you know all about the sportsfishing end as well

I was indeed for over a decade. Gave it up a couple years back now.
Was also a Marine Biologist - conducted the lion's share of my efforts on anadromous fish and marine mammals in the Western Arctic.
So yeah, I did, and do see both sides of the coin... usually.

This may be a dumb question but on that list of scenarios or measures.....when they refer to the WCVI "AABM" versus "ICBM" what does that mean?

Other question for the more informed; when they note 121-127 does that mean that inshore fisheries won't be affected by these measures?

AABM: Aggregate Abundance Based Management

ISBM: Individual Stock Based Management

The link GLG provided has reasonably understandable definitions.

Terminal Fisheries (ie Alberni Inlet) will most likely be "managed" under a differing set of "rules".
Expect them to be quite crowded as a consequence.

I don't think that's appropriate one bit...

Thanks Dee W. I concur. And another finds his way to the Ignore feature on this site.

I also concur with much of the rest of your post.
The Pacific Balance Pinniped Society meets with DFO in Van tomorrow.
I will be there.
I do not expect much beyond moving the initiative up the ladder, but it's a start...

Cheers,
Nog
 
It seems like we need to send out an SOS call:

Save
Our
Salmon

I have been fishing my whole life, but I only started ocean fishing this past April (2018) and while I have yet to catch a summer run salmon, I'd like too and I'd like my son too as well.

If it's true that 83% of salmon mortality is attributed to spawning ground issues, then we need to focus our efforts on keeping the spawning grounds healthy. Given the many stresses and politics at play here, fixes will not happen overnight. In the interim, we need some type of solution that will keep the salmon alive. In this context, there is a wide body of research that show egg survival rate in hatcheries are better than egg survival rates in the wild. Typically < 1% of eggs in the wild survive to smolt stage, whereas (depending on species) anywhere from 10% to sometimes >80% of eggs survive to smolt size in hatcheries. And this makes sense because hatcheries can maintain peak survival conditions.

The downside to hatcheries however is loss of genetic diversity. I don't know what current hatchery practices are, but one answer to this is to use Wild fish as brood stock. I did an aquaculture degree some 20 odd years ago. Part of the program involved a visit to a local stream each fall to net and milk Wild brooding Chinook Salmon (These were Lake Ontario salmon). We'd do the fertilization by hand, then bring the eggs back to the schools hatchery where we'd raise them to smolts. Then in the spring, release the smolts back to the stream from which the eggs were taken. We had an 85% survival rate.

Success can me measured in many ways. If we look at our winter fishery, the majority of winter springs are hatchery fish. Thus, worst case scenario is we maintain some level of a fishery; best case scenario we are able to reintroduce wild salmon back to their natural restored spawning habitat.

Something needs to be done in the short term, hatcheries seem the logical answer.

Where did you get the figure that 83% of salmon mortality is related to spawning bed issues? Again, I’m no expert, but I did not get that impression from what I have read so far.

In fact, it seems that ocean survivability is also a huge issue. Here’s an extract from the 2019 DFO salmon outlook:

Global temperatures have been steadily increasing over the last century1. Temperatures are expected to continue this warming trend, and in British Columbia are predicted to reach a median temperature increase of 2.5°C by 20802. The Yukon has warmed twice as fast as southern latitudes in Canada in the past 50 years, and temperatures are projected to increase by a further 2.0°C in the next 50 years3,4. Local air and water temperatures have been particularly warm in recent years1,2, which can have direct effects on Pacific salmon stocks and the habitats they use throughout their lives.

This suggests, especially the last sentence, that global warming and ocean survivability are significant problems.
 
NOW is the time for the rec sector to wake up, stop our senseless, immature, infighting and rally together and work hard to push back against the Fed govt. These closures and restrictions will do VERY little to solve the problems with low chinook abundance and all the negative environmental, social and economic impacts associated with declining chinook numbers.

If you have not joined a lobbying group like SFI-BC, SVIAC, WCGA, etc. NOW is the time. They need your financial support and your volunteer help in a BIG way!

NOW is the time to write letters to DFO and MP's and, start/sign petitions to show how many of us there are and the political clout we have. NOW is the time for organized, peaceful protests!

We have to force the Fed Govt. to change their current course of action which is to keep cutting back on rec fishing and do very little else to increase chinook numbers. If we don't we will soon have the same rec fishing rights and opportunities like our fellow countryman on the East coast - next to nil. We cannot let this happen, don't get depressed, or give up, NOW is the time to step up, work together and fight back!
 
Sorry, don't understand what you mean ????????
This whole SARA decision is to assist the review process of the TMP expansion and the sport fisherman and fishers as a whole are just collateral damage. At least the First Nations are putting forward a legal challange to shed some light on all this bs.
 
WITW......" We have to force the Fed Govt. to change their current course of action which is to keep cutting back on rec fishing and do very little else to increase chinook numbers".
Good point....What is DFO doing to increase chinook numbers? Washington state is. They are increasing the number of hatcheries. They are willing to anti up some dollars to help make a difference. Sure hatcheries aren't the best long term solution, but it sure as hell would be a good short term solution. How about the feds put their fmoney where there mouth is and fund a hatchery or two along the Fraser. The feds found the money for a pipeline no problem. Or how about announcing some fed moves/funding to rehabilitate coastal rivers and streams. This is not just about recreation fishing but a huge unrecognized fishing industry that supports real jobs and families in BC.
 
WITW......" We have to force the Fed Govt. to change their current course of action which is to keep cutting back on rec fishing and do very little else to increase chinook numbers".
How about the feds put their fmoney where there mouth is and fund a hatchery or two along the Fraser.

Actually, a chinook hatchery was tried on the Quesnel River at Likely. Quesnel River and other stocks were raised and released, using the then best known hatchery techniques, and .... it failed. The returns did not justify the expense but that was then, so perhaps it would be worth another try. It would be an interesting debate for sure.
 
This may be a dumb question but on that list of scenarios or measures.....when they refer to the WCVI "AABM" versus "ICBM" what does that mean?

Other question for the more informed; when they note 121-127 does that mean that inshore fisheries won't be affected by these measures?
Pipps i know area 121 starts at Bonilla Point just west of Renfrew, it goes from a straight line to Pachena PT, so there is a little window against the shore were you can fish Nitnat, not much around Carmanah as most of that area is an RCA area. Maybe FishT or someone can confirm border of 127 but i'm thinking a line across Barclay Sound, which would mean offshore would be off limits??? Can anyone help on this??
 
Can we get a favor from all online here? Can we stop the thread briefly put aside the differences for a second. I have an urgent request from you guys tonight. I just sent this out on our SFAC Area 17 email list, and Facebook Page. This is pretty scary ****, and I for one don't want to see any areas lose fisheries. But it takes like 5 minutes to send an e-mail. You all asked how you can help well here is your chance. Thanks guys. If you can write posts you can do this one.


Hi Everyone,

URGENT: Pending 2019 Fraser River Chinook Fishing Restrictions - Feedback Required To DFO

Right now our SFAB main board is meeting in Vancouver to discuss our recreational fishery for 2019. We have request from you.

These are the options in regards to changes to our Chinook Salmon fishery this year. The scenarios are listed below Scenario A and Scenario B.

This is VERY IMPORTANT we need you to send tonight a simple e-mail to the two following e-mail addresses within DFO. Do not bother with the minister at this point. Here are the email addresses. Please do not wait!

Jeff Grout, Regional Resource Manager, Salmon
Jeff.Grout@dfo-mpo.gc.ca


DFO Pacific Salmon Team
DFO.PacificSalmonRMT-EGRSaumonduPacifique.MPO@dfo-mpo.gc.ca


We request you do the following in your response:

1. Why Scenario A won't work for you ( shown below).

2. State the financial loss to the local economy with you not being able to fish this year. Be specific and put a dollar amount on it. Include everything you spend locally on your sport and where.
 
Back
Top