Here we go again, by Bob Hooton .

[searun]

Spot on. Partnerships and collaboration with sports fishers and FN is the only way this is going to work.

100%, that is the way forward. Collaboration to influence change is far more effective than ranting a Daddy know's best message. Uniting all stakeholders around taking an effective course of action most can agree upon is also another way forward.

 

[searun]

Agreed, there needs to be a concerted effort to put an end to black market salmon poaching on the Fraser which is rampant. In addition, to simply put the entire debacle on pinnipeds is simply wrong. It would seem to me that certain groups have cherry picked data from the Bison presentation to serve their own agenda on the backs of IFS. Could these be the same people who were using fish culture ( code name for hatchery) as a solution to the declining IFS runs? A move towards sustainable fishing methods would certainly help get more adult IFS on to the spawning beds and still allow for FN fisheries to harvest roe. Maybe they could even get MSC for those fisheries. A win for IFS, and other at risk runs and creating a long term employment for FN.

A move toward selective harvest is a noble objective, but a far more effective recovery strategy is dealing with predation. Gill nets are not the main causal factor in declines of steelhead and salmon - if we eliminated all gill nets the decline would continue unabated. Again, if gill nets were the smoking gun, then what explains the coast-wide declines of salmon and steelhead - particularly those who out-migrate as larger smolts? If someone has some real science that connects the dots proving that if we removed gill nets there would be a remarkable recovery then please bring that forward.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Feels like the twilight zone I remember when removing fish farms was the solution to ocean survival.

Also mix stock gillnet fisheries will remain an issue if you kill seals. over harvesting a week stock while harvesting a healthy stock is what has caused a lot of issues in a lot of runs.

removing gillnets is something that's actually within our managers controls and something that can be done the the near term

not sure why it has to be one or the other.

 

[Sharphooks]

QUOTE

.....”Sometimes when people find a scientific theory that fits with their belief they look no further,” he said. “The reality is that there’s a huge division amongst the scientists, and there’s no certainty at all about what’s really wrong with the Chinook. We’ve got good theories and data, but the confidence that we really know what’s going on and can take action to fix it is just not there.”


ANDREW TRITES

UNQUOTE

I’ve been in the commercial seafood sector for almost 40 years. When I lived in Alaska I worked in government affairs, representing a pollock fleet. I attended industry/government meetings that formulated fishery regulations and calculated quotas for groundfish in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska.


In short, I was a lobbyist for the pollock sector. I got pretty good at studying data. I learned how to cherry pick data that supported the position of the pollock trawlers (how to get bigger pollock quotas etc) and learned to discard the data that might argue the opposite. The cod longliners were on the other side of the table doing the same thing with their data....cod good, pollock bad. Hook good. Net bad. The crabbers were in the middle.....hook and net bad; pot good.

It was just business.

And during those years I got pretty good at smelling agendas and how data could be twisted to support those agendas

Wildman asks a rhetorical question....” not sure why it has to be one or the other...”

It only has to be one (and not the other) when someone has an agenda...also known as an ulterior motive.

I suspect pinniped predation is being used as a red herring to deflect attention from something else. Just a suspicion.

That suspicion started percolating a few months ago when I read in an earlier thread a detailed description of how in-river gill nets are sophisticated and can be hung to differentiate between chum and steelhead to reduce or eliminate by-catch. Steelhead were described as being closer in size to sockeye, the unspoken insinuation being that steelhead would just slip through the mesh unscathed and go on their merry way to the spawning grounds........the 50 steelhead that were reported caught in those in-river gill nets???? ..... just an aberration..... an outlier..... because, as we learned, steelhead are similar in shape to sockeye and don’t get caught in nets hung for chum.

It really is all just a Kabuki Play.....the art of singing and dancing to create a spectacle..

 

[onefish]

I suspect pinniped predation is being used as a red herring to deflect attention from something else. Just a suspicion.

X2

 

[searun]

Yup, confirmation bias. My question to you guys is still....can you explain your gill net hypothesis in light of the broader context of how it then applies to the coast-wide declines? So far no one has.

 

[wildmanyeah]

gillnets are not a driving force of coast wide declines but that not what were talking about is it, were talking about IFS going extinct and in that context gillnets still remain to be a big issue.

 

[Whitebuck]

No nets this fall would have put at least 25% more fish fish back on the spawning grounds and thats not even including the commercial interception.
50 IFS "reported" taken out of a run of 200.

Is it a magical answer to recovery? No.
Does it put more spawners back on the grounds? Yes.

 

[searun]

gillnets are not a driving force of coast wide declines but that not what were talking about is it, were talking about IFS going extinct and in that context gillnets still remain to be a big issue.

I think that is my point - are gill nets really the main problem facing IFS? - how can they be the main threat, when they are not a factor in the general decline elsewhere on the coast. If there was, someone would have been all over it and proven the case for investing in a coast-wide gill net ban. So, we can go ahead and spend a lot of energy removing gill nets and fish farms, and habitat, and so on - but if they are not the main contributing factor in the coast-wide decline all we accomplish is feeling better while Rome continues to burn, which is my point. I also don't care for the divisiveness of how the anti-gill net movement has been advanced. Railing against FN's, isn't going to accomplish much. Influencing change to selective harvest perhaps is a better path, and so too is focusing on solving the broader problem contributing to declines in IF steelhead, Thompson coho, and stream-type chinook. Pretty sure sockeye are also being hammered by predation. There's something far larger at play than gill nets - this is just way beyond the scope of what gill nets could do to impact all these species....or at least no one has brought forward the evidence it is.

 

[terrin]

I think that is my point - are gill nets really the main problem facing IFS? - how can they be the main threat, when they are not a factor in the general decline elsewhere on the coast. If there was, someone would have been all over it and proven the case for investing in a coast-wide gill net ban. So, we can go ahead and spend a lot of energy removing gill nets and fish farms, and habitat, and so on - but if they are not the main contributing factor in the coast-wide decline all we accomplish is feeling better while Rome continues to burn, which is my point. I also don't care for the divisiveness of how the anti-gill net movement has been advanced. Railing against FN's, isn't going to accomplish much. Influencing change to selective harvest perhaps is a better path, and so too is focusing on solving the broader problem contributing to declines in IF steelhead, Thompson coho, and stream-type chinook. Pretty sure sockeye are also being hammered by predation. There's something far larger at play than gill nets - this is just way beyond the scope of what gill nets could do to impact all these species....or at least no one has brought forward the evidence it is.

I guess you have not seen the pictures of the ghost nets with dead steelhead, sturgeon, chinook and chum. It’s actual evidence so should form a part of the science.

 

[Sharphooks]

I was under the impression this thread was specific to Interior Fraser River steelhead???

Nobody is pointing fingers at gill nets in general. It is gill nets specific to the Fraser, gill nets that are being deployed at the peak run timing of at least one IFS run that has been reduced to at best, several hundred remaining spawning fish.

First, we see a report that “50” interior steelhead ended up as by-catch in those gill nets (another word for “dead). A bit of math confirms the sad fact (also known as “data”) that 25% of the remaining spawners of at least one steelhead river were lost to those gill nets.

If the word conservation had been included in the vocabulary of any IFS discussion at the regulatory level, that by-catch percentage would have been deemed an absolutely unacceptable mortality rate and the fishery would have been discontinued.

Meanwhile, inquiring minds who have been following this thread would like to know why the fixation on pinnipeds? It seems abundantly clear that if you wiped out the entire Fraser River and Georgia Strait/Salish Sea pinniped population with automatic weaponry and thereby allowed safe-passage for a handful of smolts to make it safely out to the Aleutian Chain where they could bulk up for a few years and eventually make their triumphant return as adults, all that automatic weaponry and effort would be deemed a complete waste if those returning adults are then wiped out as “by-catch” in a gill net fishery.

I’m on the outside looking in. I admit that, and no, I don’t have any data to challenge the exact number of smolts a seal or sea lion can eat or what kind of ecological pressure that predation can apply on a system. But common sense flies out the door when making the argument that a pinniped cull might be the magic pill that will continue justifying the deployment of gill nets in the peak of a steelhead run in the Fraser River.

To my untrained and myopic eyes, I get the sense that this is all part of the “spirit” of Truth and Reconciliation. The West Coast lacks lobster, but there’s a few salmon left. And so it was decided to use salmon as the currency that lubricates the Reconciliation skids. In the process, IFS steelhead have become a nuisance so it seemed logical to turn them into sacrifical lambs to keep the Reconciliation process (and money) flowing

At this rate of by-catch, the Thompson and Chilcotin steelhead will be gone in a couple of years and my cynical mind tells me that Provincial managers and the DOF are well aware of that.

 

[searun]

Guess its easier drinking the cool aide a little too long looking for the captain obvious factoids to reinforce Trump-like beliefs, than spending a few moments considering other possibilities. So far no one has offered credible scientific evidence that links gill nets to salmon and steelhead declines along the coast. Pointing fingers at FSC nets is far too easy, obvious and very likely isn't the main reason behind the Thompson steelhead declines. Spoiler alert - those nets were there during the banner return years. Could it be that something else is going on?

However, it feels good to have a scapegoat to blame.

Guess we will have wait until you get your wish and gill nets are removed, then we can watch the decline continue unabated or lead to recovery....or if not, then what? Oh, someone will tell us that trout will suddenly become anadromous and then all will be good in a thousand years or so in theory.

 

[wildmanyeah]

Lol man your really muddy the waters about the topic at hand and that is IFS survival.

no one here is saying FSC nets on the Fraser are responsible for coast wide fluctuations in salmon abundance.

what they are saying is given the population current abundance that can’t withstand mix stock fishery removals.

go ahead and kill seals and if the stock recovers then go back to gillnetting. However in the meantime stop the Gilnetting. Or really just move it off the main stem of the Fraser.

lol sheesh man

 

[Dave]

searun, have you spent any time at all on the Fraser River?

 

[Derby]

A lot more time then u most likely...

 

[agentaqua]

I think the better approach is to examine all of the available data and making assumptions that are supported by the data rather than attacking the messenger when alternative narratives are presented.

Derby posted the link for Rob Bison's presentation on Interior Fraser River steelhead at:

https://m.facebook.com/BCWildlifeFederation/?__tn__=C-R

Searun presented key insights from that presentation in post #67 the previous page. Those key findings were:
1. Double survival from inshore predation (pinnipeds) = change in pre-fishery abundance - 486%; change in spawner abundance - 486%
2. Steelhead fishing mortality to zero (removal of gill nets) = change in pre-fishery abundance - 11%; change in spawner abundance - 39%
3. Maximize fry to parr survival (habitat improvements) = change in pre-fishery abundance - 10%; change in spawner abundance - 10%

Maybe key in on these data wrt effective management actions instead of attacking searun for offering an alternative narrative.

 

[Dave]

A lot more time then u most likely...

Yes, that’s possible but considering I have beach seined, dip netted, gill netted and electroshocked the Fraser River from Tete Juane to Ladner over about 35 years I find it unlikely.

 

[wildmanyeah]

I think the better approach is to examine all of the available data and making assumptions that are supported by the data rather than attacking the messenger when alternative narratives are presented.

Derby posted the link for Rob Bison's presentation on Thompson at:

https://m.facebook.com/BCWildlifeFederation/?__tn__=C-R

Searun presented key insights from that presentation in post #67 the previous page. Those key findings were:
1. Double survival from inshore predation (pinnipeds) = change in pre-fishery abundance - 486%; change in spawner abundance - 486%
2. Steelhead fishing mortality to zero (removal of gill nets) = change in pre-fishery abundance - 11%; change in spawner abundance - 39%
3. Maximize fry to parr survival (habitat improvements) = change in pre-fishery abundance - 10%; change in spawner abundance - 10%

Maybe key in on these data wrt effective management actions instead of attacking searun for offering an alternative narrative.

https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/Ea-SteelheadTrout-v00-2018Feb-Eng.pdf

https://wildlife-species.canada.ca/species-risk-registry/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/Lr-SteelheadTroutLetterFromCOSEWICChair-v00-2018Feb-Eng.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

Thanks for the links, WMY.

I noted that the Emergency Assessment for Thompson River and Chilcotin River steelhead populations was conducted on January 10, 2018. The video of Rob Bison's IFR steelhead presentation was posted on Dec. 04th 2020. Did the authors of the emergency assessment have the analysis that Rob presented on and searun extracted the main points from before Jan. 2018?

In other words - is the assessment using the most up-to-date data that Rob presented on?

If so - the other key word that COSEWIC used was "partially" - that the decline is "partially" reversible if by-catch fishing mortality (all fishing - incl. sports and not just gillnetting) is reduced. That's a pretty broad term "partially" and they didn't use the term "largely", neither. It does not contradict Rob's analysis that gillnetting could be responsible for a change in pre-fishery abundance - 11%; change in spawner abundance - 39%.

 

[Derby]

Yes, that’s possible but considering I have beach seined, dip netted, gill netted and electroshocked the Fraser River from Tete Juane to Ladner over about 35 years I find it unlikely.

lol.. if you say so why is it everytime someone get stumped here someone has to pull out the qualification card too funny