Those that saw the righting on the wall are now doing whale watching, eco-tourism or have found something else. Buying a bigger boat with more technology to chase fewer fish was not the solution. $1000 dollar a trip is not catering to a very large fraction of the population, unless I'm missing something. I remember not to long ago when guests were quite happy to go out in a 14' lund. No sounders, radar, power downriggers, bbq's, potties. Guests actually fished.
April 1 Fishing Regs-sell your Boats!!
- Thread starter spring fever
- Start date
Sea lyin’
Well-Known Member
That’s your answer? Go whale watching? Figures. Come back when you have a real answer for the guides who depend on fishing for a living.
Whatever dude. That was the answer for some. You missed the boat on that one. Your going to have to get creative and use your own brain if you want to continue making money on the water. otherwise "Sell your boat", get another job. The writing has been on the wall for quite some time. The fishing industry has been hurting for 30-40 years now. Your not the first.
Sea lyin’
Well-Known Member
Uhh. I’m a tourist. I live In the interior and like to eat what I catch. You want to release what you catch I don’t care. I don’t think the whole industry from tackle shops and manufacturers to boat builders to camp grounds and other fishing based industries should suffer because you think that no one should be keeping a fish to eat.
In case people are unable to read this article due to the Globe's subscriber firewall I have copied the article (see Below)
How Ottawa thwarted efforts to help an endangered species
JUSTINE HUNTER
VICTORIA
PUBLISHED 1 DAY AGOUPDATED MAY 15, 2021
73 COMMENTS
SHARE
TEXT SIZE
BOOKMARK
Steelhead trout are spawning this month on the Chilcotin and Thompson Rivers in British Columbia’s southern interior, after an arduous journey from the Pacific Ocean. The population is clinging to the edge of survival, with just 261 fish expected to make their way home to breed.
Scientists warned this was coming more than three years ago, but newly released internal documents show Ottawa blocked efforts to publicly release findings that spelled out both the threats and the potential solutions.
The B.C. government and independent experts maintain that the science is clear that strong – and politically difficult – action is required to avert extinction.
In January, 2018, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), an independent advisory panel of scientists, put out a rare emergency bulletin declaring the southern interior steelhead trout was at imminent risk of extinction. The population had been reduced by 80 per cent over the previous 15 years, and was at its lowest point in 40 years.
Three main threats include inadvertent bycatch by gillnet fisheries targeting Pacific salmon; habitat degradation; and poor ocean conditions. Only one of those threats could be easily controlled – but curtailing the fishery would be an unpopular move.
And it was a political decision. COSEWIC asked the federal minister of environment to protect the southern interior steelhead trout under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA), which would have had significant implications for commercial, recreational and Indigenous fisheries.
The minister rejected the request in 2019. But not before an intense behind-the-scenes battle over what the science called for.
Roughly 2,800 pages of documents obtained by the B.C. Wildlife Federation under an Access to Information request show management at Fisheries and Oceans Canada worked to rewrite the findings of a scientific panel that assessed the recovery potential for these fish.
Steelhead trout are jointly managed by B.C. and Canada. A team of scientists from both levels of government produced a peer-reviewed report in response to the COSEWIC designation.
Justine Mannion, the acting manager for fish population science at the Department Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), alerted the team on Oct. 31, 2018, that she was “getting questions” about the report from senior bureaucrats in the assistant deputy minister’s office. The office was asking for “slight modifications,” the documents say.
That same day, Sean MacConnachie, DFO’s section head for aquatic ecosystem and marine mammal science, said the changes being sought were undermining the integrity of the process.
“The ongoing involvement by people who were not part of the process, who have not been involved in the development of the materials or the advice, continues to compromise our ability to meet the deadlines as well as the scientific integrity of the process,” he wrote.
The edited report was published, sparking a furious response from scientists on the B.C. side. They argued that the report no longer reflected the work of the science team, and that the changes specifically removed key points.
“The new summary report is inconsistent with the joint science team’s determination regarding how immediate action to reduce mortality provides the best chance of recovery,” wrote Jennifer Davis, B.C.’s director of fish and aquatic habitat, in a Dec. 7, 2018 e-mail. She demanded that DFO remove the report from public circulation. Ottawa refused.
“As it stands now, the published summary report contains substantive changes which are not supported by B.C. scientists,” wrote Manjit Kerr-Upal, the province’s director of conservation science.
One change was key. In the early drafts, the lead authors concluded that “any harm will inhibit or delay potential recovery” and that exploitation by fisheries should be reduced below current levels wherever possible.
That version never made it into the final report, which instead concluded that “allowable harm should not be permitted to exceed current levels.”
After the final, altered report was made public, the federal government announced it would not recognize the steelhead as a species at risk. “Listing Chilcotin and Thompson River Steelhead as endangered under SARA would result in significant and immediate negative socio-economic impacts on Canadians,” the decision read.
Jesse Zeman, director of fish and wildlife restoration for the B.C. Wildlife Federation, said it took him more than two years to get the documents, and hundreds of pages were redacted, leaving him with questions about why the changes were made. But he said it is clear that the formal, transparent process for providing science-based advice to DFO and the public was undermined.
“We have this iconic, endangered species, but DFO does not want to move away from fishing,” Mr. Zeman said. “They edited peer-reviewed science to justify the status quo – that’s the reality.”
The steelhead trout behaves like salmon – spending much of its life in ocean waters before returning to the river where it was born to spawn. But unlike Pacific salmon, it can return to the ocean and complete the cycle again.
Mr. Zeman said these runs are worth trying to save. “Steelhead anglers all over the world know about the Thompson steelhead because they’re so strong – they have to navigate Hells Canyon. They are just these amazing fish.”
Officials from DFO did not respond to interview requests. In a written statement, the department said the government will reconsider listing the southern interior steelhead trout under SARA, as COSEWIC has recently reconfirmed that the fish are endangered. In the meantime, the department has proposed measures to reduce bycatch during this year’s salmon fisheries, including a “rolling window” shutdown during the peak migration period for Thompson and Chilcotin steelhead trout.
Eric Taylor, a zoologist at the University of British Columbia and an expert in freshwater fish, was the chair of COSEWIC when it issued the emergency statement in 2018. He said DFO’s meddling in the reports was “indefensible” because management changed the conclusions against the advice of its scientists.
Had the federal government accepted COSEWIC’s advice and listed the steelhead trout under SARA, it would have required the government to adopt a recovery plan that would have been in place by now, Prof. Taylor noted.
It also would have forced significant changes on the salmon fisheries on the Fraser. SARA imposes legal prohibitions against killing or harming that species or damaging its critical habitat on federal lands, oceans, and inland waters.
But Ms. Davis, B.C.’s lead scientist who had pushed back against DFO’s interventions in 2018, maintains that Canada can still take action and help the steelhead trout rebound.
Ms. Davis said in an interview that the science hasn’t changed since COSEWIC first flagged its concern. “All the scientists behind the scenes, when we worked all together on the recovery assessment, all came to agreement. That’s why not seeing that report come out was just so heartbreaking, because of all the efforts we made to actually get all the scientists together.”
She said B.C. is now working with Indigenous governments in the interior to improve stewardship. She would like to see a “massive shift” to more selective fishing, which is more expensive but could protect steelhead trout without closing the salmon fishery.
“Let’s just look at the hard, cold facts of the population right now: We know we need to do more,” she said. “We’re really trying to do everything we can. But I don’t control DFO. So I need a willing partner here.”
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I think you might be an eternal optimist and good on you. Catch and Release is the next obvious target for the ENGO fundraising campaign ( in fact it already is) and frankly I think we all know how it will play out, torture for fun. It’s not about modifying it’s about canceling. This is all about a the death of a thousand cuts
Rain City
Crew Member
I don't agree with this at all and I don't think any sport fisherman should be tolerating or advocating for this. Keeping your first fish and getting the lines out of the water will have far less impact. People must need a ladder to get up on that C&R horse. You're killing the fish and it's pretty easy to see.
wolf
Well-Known Member
OK so lets do C & R hhhmmm ok... ummm are some of you on here completely oblivious to the FACT that we are not the ones threating the fish of concern , its is QUITE clear you have not looked at any science based DATA that supports this...we DO NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yet they closed most of Vancouver island...WE fish for 1 reason thats to get fish and to take home and cook for dinner .. same with hunting I hunt for the food aspect as I know where it comes from been a way of life since man walked . And you dont want us to forage or gather our own food.
Well then I say you cant grow a garden then ... Buy it from the supermarket
BUT HEY lets allow the natives to net the river ( ANY C & R going on there ) UMMM I DONT think so... so lets go whale watching ... seen the regs?? cant get within eye sight really.... and whale watching companies are hurting worse then us...trust me ...
Point is the only way we will win this is to SUE the government as every time the ENGO and the FN threaten that they get their way.... the ones representing the "sports industry " playing nice has gotten us no where....
Well then I say you cant grow a garden then ... Buy it from the supermarket
BUT HEY lets allow the natives to net the river ( ANY C & R going on there ) UMMM I DONT think so... so lets go whale watching ... seen the regs?? cant get within eye sight really.... and whale watching companies are hurting worse then us...trust me ...
Point is the only way we will win this is to SUE the government as every time the ENGO and the FN threaten that they get their way.... the ones representing the "sports industry " playing nice has gotten us no where....
scott craven
Well-Known Member
The thing is, you can't keep a Chinook until August
outbeen
Well-Known Member
Agree 100%, the government imposes no limit to how much fish you can buy or consume. It's clear these "conservation measures" are really just virtue signalling.
Thought no retention until July 15th？
You are missing something. If you have spent anytime in the Strait of Georgia in the last 5 years, you can now got back to a 14 foot Lund with no sounder, hand down riggers and no radar... and catch as many chinook as people did the 80s. Buying a bigger boat to chase fewer fish is not the reality in Georgia Strait, it is the opposite and that is why it is why the fight needs to continue for sustainable access. The numbers of chinook are impressive. Sprinkled in are stocks of concern that are utilized to amplify the reconcillatory politics.
Rain City
Crew Member
In Vancouver it'll be until Sept 1st but I have no idea what that has to do with anything. This whole conversation is pointless and counterproductive. Does everyone forget we were retaining fish all year just two years ago??!!
Aces
Well-Known Member
You’re giving them way too much credit.
Aces
Well-Known Member
Depends on the area.
with the new whale watching regulations they are feeling the pinch too
I hear you, Wolf, and even agree with you. But the new regs won't allow retention and I am not going to stop fishing completely because of this. I enjoy being on the water and the process of tricking a fish and doing this with my friends or sons even if I don't get to take home our catch. I have no interest in getting briefly out, bonking the first keeper and go home again. None whatsoever. Trailering the boat to the marina, setting up all the gear, flying out to the fishing grounds - all to quit after 15 min when you get the first keeper to the boat? No thanks!
I realize there is a chance that they kill C&R fishing too at some point. But until then I will enjoy what I can, even without retention. And maybe by then, the sport fishery has shrunk to be so small that NGOs etc won't bother going after it anymore.
Do I like this all? Absolutely no. But I can't change it and it seems no one else can either. So, make the most of it. If you have a better plan, please, I am all ears but don't spoil me the last bit of fishing enjoyment we have left in the meantime.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Fully agree.
Rain City
Crew Member
But do you guys understand that while advocating for C&R it is going to be exposed for what it is? And by bending over and accepting C&R you're giving up any chance of retaining a fish again?
The reason I asked is to understand when this FN might expired. Truth is I don’t even like eating Salmon so take one home or not is no the primary motivation for me fishing. What I do enjoy is reading fishing reports and it has been few and far in between. I actually started reading archived reports going back to 2014 and it makes me sad and upset to see how much has changed in just few shorts years.
walleyes
Crew Member
Nothing wrong with a certain amount of catch and release it can be fun we do it for other species a lot. But it’s also nice to have the ability to take a meal or two home. No ones saying to live off of it but a few meals a year makes it all worth while. I can tell you this, if it goes to full C&R you can take the tourism end of it pretty much right off the board. Ain’t no one going to drive or fly half way across the country and spend thousands of dollars to catch and release fish. Oh there will be a few but it will turn into a very elite sport, is that what some want, the fishery to be only for the elite of society.
If non retention is in the future why the hatcheries. Hatcheries are intended for a put and take fishery for human consumption. Millions of dollars and thousands of man hours every year and for what, to let them swim by to be caught in the nets in the river by a non contributing sector, talk about a kick in the conads.
If non retention is in the future why the hatcheries. Hatcheries are intended for a put and take fishery for human consumption. Millions of dollars and thousands of man hours every year and for what, to let them swim by to be caught in the nets in the river by a non contributing sector, talk about a kick in the conads.
Similar threads
