.

[GLG]

I agree that we do have declining Chinook runs ("stocks of concern" ) in BC that obviously need protecting however I suggest that this doesn't mean that the overall numbers of Chinook ( food for SRKW) is way down. Those particular declining stocks and "stocks of concern" likely have no relationship as to why there is a decline of SRKW. Ian said that there are plenty enough Chinook for SRKW to eat - he also commented that his area has been just full of Chinook this year. I know some very experienced fishers involved in the sport fishing industry that would agree with that despite knowing there are declining Chinook "stocks of concern" in BC . One of them said there is more Chinook in lower Georgia Strait in the last 5 years than there has been in the previous 20 years ! I don't find that unrealistic as I have also found fishing for Chinook in lower Georgia Strait has been better the last few years DESPITE some BC stocks in trouble. Hence makes no sense to surmise then that SRKW are on the decline due to any lack of Chinook to eat. Size average is down though but I don't believe SRKW would starve themselves because their abundant food source was a little too small lol . A large portion of the Chinook we are catching is thanks to our friends down south pumping our waters with Chinook. Many of the Chinook in our waters are US bound fish and SRKW will be eating. US bound Chinook are likely part of the reason that Chinook fishing is being reported as better the last few years.

The evidence suggests that SRKW do key in on the large Chinook and ignore the smaller ones. It's complicated but if we're talking about the whole population of Chinook and where these SRKW range then this paper will be of interest (mind the age of the data). It shows a trend to younger fish in abundance, like we are seeing, and a decrease of larger (older) fish. So it maybe correct that fishing has been great but finding a tyee is rare now. Going from memory.....One of the reasons that DFO said that we needed a new regulation for the 2018 SOG was to protect the Harrison Chinook 4/5 year class. In my area we saw lot's of 3 year class so clearly it's easy to think DFO is wrong if you don't understand the reason for the new regulation and think a Chinook is just a Chinook.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/faf.12272

 

[wildmanyeah]

One of the reasons that DFO said that we needed a new regulation for the 2018 SOG was to protect the Harrison Chinook 4/5 year class

LOL sure looks like its being protected....lets have a Seine fishery during peek migration of Harrison chinooks

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2009021589388965

 

[GLG]

I will try to bring this back to my main reason for posting - See post #14, I am still attempting to find out from searun what the sport fishing industry's stance is on this so maybe I will PM him. I think Ian's video has some very good points ( the original topic of this thread) however I know some will say that it is just "observational science" and nobody will listen if it is not "real" science. What actually is "real" science ? Is it "real" if it has been tainted or ignored depending on a particular political agenda ? What if there hasn't been enough or any "real" science and yet decisions are rushed without the appropriate research? Is that still "real" science? eg. from searun's post above:

"Unfortunately this Critical Habitat designation is more about playing politics to appease the Greens than it is about making actual science based decisions aimed at really protecting whales and implementing strategies that will be most effective. The Green NGO's are pressuring DFO and the Minister to make rushed decisions based on flawed science advice. Read carefully the science advice that DFO is relying upon to designate Swiftsure and LaPerouse as Critical Habitat - you will see there is virtually NO actual scientific evidence offered"

Thanks for this post it shows to me that you giving a lot of thought to the issue. I don't know why DFO wants to give Swiftsure and LaPerouse as critical habitat. It doesn't make much sense to me either. Are those two areas for the whales or are they for their food? DFO must show their reasons or else they will lose support from many of us.

 

[GLG]

LOL sure looks like its being protected....lets have a Seine fishery during peek migration of Harrison chinooks

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2009021589388965

Without context you not really helping your case. Is that your plan?

 

[wildmanyeah]

Without context you not really helping your case. Is that your plan?

I am sure you know right now it peek migration of Harrison Chinook at the Fraser river mouth. Right now they have a sockeye seine fishery going on. Harrison Chinook are going to die as by catch in a commercial fishery.

This sure does not seem like a way to help increase Harrison Chinook numbers in the SOG.

 

[OldBlackDog]

I am sure you know right now it peek migration of Harrison Chinook at the Fraser river mouth. Right now they have a sockeye seine fishery going on. Harrison Chinook are going to die as by catch in a commercial fishery.

This sure does not seem like a way to help increase Harrison Chinook numbers in the SOG.

Further to this it will not be helping the other endangered species, Steelhead!

 

[wildmanyeah]

Further to this it will not be helping the other endangered species, Steelhead!

Or IFR coho, that the whole SOG is managed around.

 

[GLG]

How about you two start your own thread with your concerns and leave this one to the point at hand.
It would be an interesting thread that many may want to learn from.
Better yet go here and have at her.
https://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum/index.php?threads/seiners-at-the-south-arm.71786/

 

[OldBlackDog]

Or IFR coho, that the whole SOG is managed around.

Yup, kind of interesting to see how DFO will explain how they are effecting three endangered species at once.

 

[ericl]

I started fishing Ucluelet in 1986 - not daily but had my boat moored there & Tofino for several years & lately fish the area 1-2 times per year.

Back then we easily got 4 Chinook limits & would catch something over 30 every trip (not every day but very 2-3 days starting in mid-May going thru into September.

The guy on the video is seriously wrong about there being plenty of fish. He comes across so obnoxious, stupid & arrogant it took me 3 tries before I could watch the whole thing.
Back then the trollers had a 6 month season out there; I knew many of them.

As for what is real science, you really need to read some of the studies referenced by the enviro's to see what it's all about. Usually these studies are performed by large institutions that have other studies on the subject. You need to look around on the internet for other studies so that you can determine when the enviro's have cherry=picked their studies to support their political goals. It takes time & effort; I am retired & used to do some research in my job.

ericl, don't go bringing science into this when everyone knows PhD stands for Pathetically hopeless Dweeb.

I have been accused of being a PhD a couple of times but have a 2 year AA degree instead. Lot's of truth in the Pathetically hopeless Dweeb statement; I am more of a real-world experience type of guy. It is when the real world experience is supported by the science that gives me a high level of confidence. The science has it's place. The rants don't. The video is a rant. His observations are not the same as mine. I disagree. THE END.

 

[Peahead]

1986 is 32 years ago and yes I do remember fishing was great back then - lots of wild fish too, not all these hatchery home made things lol.

Your observations lately though as you mention are 1-2 times per year from May to Sept and Ian's observations are approx 100-150 days for that same time period. Both of you have observations that nobody can disagree with as long as the observations do represent accurately what you observed. I usually have no reason to question someone's observations. How those observations are then interpreted is a whole different story. For example if you interpret your 1-2 days of observing from May-Sept and Ian interprets his 100-150 days of observing in the same time period, same location, who's interpretation and conclusion would likely have more accuracy ?

Of course the statement above is putting aside all the university educated scientists and their research (which we all know isn't always particularly efficient at times and often manipulated or performed with a particular political agenda in mind)

As per Ian's "rant" .....I get what your implying as this sort of approach would be dismissed by DFO (or ENGO's ) however it doesn't mean a "rant" is automatically void of facts or truth. Ian is a west coast fishing guide so obviously upset that the offshore banks off Bamfield could become CH and possibly be close to all fishing. His living is threatened along with many others on the coast so yes he can't help but to be biased considering how he makes his living. His points against closing the offshore banks are good ones however. As he points out, the possibility that one of the main issues causing SRKW to decline in numbers is due to pollution and toxins making them sick, is a very real possibility. This should not be ignored.

As you mentioned, if you could hardly even listed to Ian's point of view in the video, then IMO you could be heading on one track .... ( there still may be hope for you though ;-) )

PS ... with reference to my first sentence - I think maybe I am onto something.....the SRKW can't stand the taste of hatchery Chinook !!

 

[ericl]

Peahead, I agree with you on Ian to a point - he goes on about all the Chinook where he fishes (I assume largely on La Perouse) & inside Barkley Sound, but then states he has never seen Orca's feeding there (which I tend to agree with having only seen Orca once in all those years off Florencia Bay), so other than the fraction that turn left at JDF strait, what food do these large amounts of Chinook (I believe he says plenty of fish) do for the Orca? If there are plenty of fish, why does DFO list many of the Fraser Chinook runs as species at risk? As for him being dismissed, I am sure a large majority of non-fishers would do the same. If there are plenty of fish, why is the limit 2 instead of 4? Why are the Chinook counts at the Columbia half the ten year average ?

 

[greenhornet]

I fished Bamfeild and the banks that Ian mentioned for 25 years before I moved north to Nootka and Esperanza and can honestly say Ive only seen them once playing with a seal like he states.Now I haven't put in the number of days he has but I do believe what he says...just my to cents

 

[Peahead]

Peahead, I agree with you on Ian to a point - he goes on about all the Chinook where he fishes (I assume largely on La Perouse) & inside Barkley Sound, but then states he has never seen Orca's feeding there (which I tend to agree with having only seen Orca once in all those years off Florencia Bay), so other than the fraction that turn left at JDF strait, what food do these large amounts of Chinook (I believe he says plenty of fish) do for the Orca? If there are plenty of fish, why does DFO list many of the Fraser Chinook runs as species at risk? As for him being dismissed, I am sure a large majority of non-fishers would do the same. If there are plenty of fish, why is the limit 2 instead of 4? Why are the Chinook counts at the Columbia half the ten year average ?

Obviously there are some specific Fraser stocks of concern that are in trouble and I hope every fisher is aware of that. Been mentioned before in this thread however having those stocks of concern does not mean that SRKW are on the decline because of that. I can't speak to question about the Columbia run in the US although I am aware the run is way down.

The thread "Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales" in the Saltwater Fishing forum has a very similar topic/discussion going on so I will link here:

https://www.sportfishingbc.com/foru...ident-killer-whales.71705/page-11#post-896079

If you go to post # 216 "Langer" is a biologist and posts a view I find makes sense - it questions all the media focus on a lack of Chinook as being the culprit to declining/ sick SRKW. Also post # 217 speaks of the good numbers of Chinook in Georgia Strait available to SRKW. I think the tide may be shifting.