I already mentioned the great work the streamkeepers are doing at post #11 but I guess its worth repeating. This has nothing to do with the Harvesting of Herring for the Roe Fishery. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but from many posts on this thread a lot of older fisherman clearly remember a lot more herring around so when DFO meetings are held with the stakeholders and the graphs come out on Jimmy Pattison woodfibre showing how great everything is and opportunity for roe harvest for Jimmy's fleet look the DFO officials and Jimmy's lobbyists straight in the eye and call B.S.
Herring roe fishery
- Thread starter fishingbc
- Start date
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Yes it does. If you close down that fishery without proper data to support ours would be next. Bye Bye JDF recreational fishery. The commercial fishery would likely attack us. Too much to risk, and with what is going on right now it isn't wise. Anyways I will bow at of this one. I would love to see you guys in Vic do some of those projects I posted in Gorge and Esquimalt areas. Could make a very big difference. Acomplish the same as what you are asking and win for both sides.
Last edited:
fogged in
Well-Known Member
These are some quotes from people who know a lot more about the Herring Fishery then I do.
“Today, substantial spawning is in one isolated population around Denman, Hornby [and] that area. But all of the other populations have been systematically wiped out up and down the coast and this is all we have left.”
“What adds insult to injury is that fishers are no longer getting economic value for the herring. Long gone are the days when they were getting $3,000 or $4,000 a tonne. Now they’re getting $500 or $600”
“They (DFO) tend not to shut down a fishery until it’s close to biological extinction,”
“Stocks on Haida Gwaii and the west coast of Vancouver Island are low and closed to commercial fisheries”
“Today, substantial spawning is in one isolated population around Denman, Hornby [and] that area. But all of the other populations have been systematically wiped out up and down the coast and this is all we have left.”
“What adds insult to injury is that fishers are no longer getting economic value for the herring. Long gone are the days when they were getting $3,000 or $4,000 a tonne. Now they’re getting $500 or $600”
“They (DFO) tend not to shut down a fishery until it’s close to biological extinction,”
“Stocks on Haida Gwaii and the west coast of Vancouver Island are low and closed to commercial fisheries”
searun
Well-Known Member
Exactly Fogged In, that is what the MSE is all about. Manage the fishery to ensure we only fish when there is a harvestable excess to spawning & ecosystem sustainability requirement. Close harvest when stocks are not able to be sustainably fished, and allow harvest to a level that is scientifically determined to be sustainable. The MSE is a far better approach than managing by emotion. Take a closer look: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2019/2019_001-eng.html
fogged in
Well-Known Member
I get it...and I have read the DFO management strategy. MSE
"For Pacific Herring, key uncertainties include: historical and future trends in natural mortality, steepness of the stock-recruitment (SR) relationship and SR functional form, potential changes in survey coverage and sampling, an unknown relationship between herring biomass and spawn survey index (estimated by the parameter q), and uncertainty in spatial population dynamics."
ETC ETC ETC...
Easier to understand your point "Close harvest when stocks are not able to be sustainably fished"
I think you are missing my point.
Herring stocks around Southern Vancouver Island are very low, brought about by the harvest as you call it., or do you care to deny it?
Herring in are in decline and it is a result of the harvest, or do you care to debate it.
An abundant stock of Herring around Vancouver Island would be beneficial to all, or do you care to argue it..
DFO have a very bad record of managing and assessing stocks accurately and consistently, or do you care to say otherwise.
You suggest I am driven by emotion..."a far better approach than managing by emotion"
My argument is not based on emotion, but experience and first hand observation supported by MANY others!
I would ask...who gets to determine what is a healthy and acceptable level for the Herring Stocks and state emphatically that the present method of determination is not effective or beneficial to all!
Can you tell me if a heavy harvest of Herring in the Denman Island area will effect the abundance in Nanaimo, Saanich Inlet, Sidney and Victoria where Herring were once in abundance?
Last edited:
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
That’s why a lot of areas around southern Vancouver island will be turned into MPAs because people can’t effectively manage stocks.
The UN has decided that the best way to manage our oceans is to simply keep everyone out of a certain portion of them.
The herring fishery is not going anywhere tho it’s have a large participation by First Nations.
The UN has decided that the best way to manage our oceans is to simply keep everyone out of a certain portion of them.
The herring fishery is not going anywhere tho it’s have a large participation by First Nations.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
False read the 2019 spawn reports. 91 miles of spawn in central. 54 miles QCI with a partial assessment. WVCI increased with a partial assessment as well. Spot spawns in the gulf by Powell River, North to Powell River ferry as well as the main spawn around denman and hornby.
Inaccurate. Last year as a self processor we were paid $2800/t for our herring.
False. The science is peer reviewed through a process using 3rd party scientists and stock assessors.
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Do you or anyone else care to answer my four points in my last post?
and question...
"Can you tell me if a heavy harvest of Herring in the Denman Island (91 miles of spawn) area will effect the abundance in Nanaimo, Saanich Inlet, Sidney and Victoria where Herring were once in abundance? "
Herring stocks around Southern Vancouver Island are very low, brought about by the harvest as you call it., or do you care to deny it?
Herring in are in decline and it is a result of the harvest, or do you care to debate it.
An abundant stock of Herring around Vancouver Island would be beneficial to all, or do you care to argue it..
DFO have a very bad record of managing and assessing stocks accurately and consistently, or do you care to say otherwise.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
To the best of my knowledge these stocks are independent. The stock below Nanaimo has a different make up of size and age than the stock around hornby.
More herring die of natural mortality and old age than what is captured in the fishery. I would not call 85-125,000 tons assessed in one small area very low.
herring stocks for most of the coast have been increasing with every area now above “ cut off”
To a point. Too much herring can have an adverse effect on other species. As stated Chinook fry and herring compete for the same food.
the science is quite often overridden by politics as in the east coast cod crash. DFO science said there was a defensible Chinook fishery this summer and politics closed it. How did that work out for everyone?
Last edited:
fogged in
Well-Known Member
To sum it up as this debate between you and I and a few other Herring harvest supporters is going nowhere.....
You are someone who works and earns money harvesting Herring, so it is no surprise you don't support reducing the harvest rate.
I am only a Sports Fisherman who has observed a severe loss of Herring in the area I frequent.
We are never going to agree on the harvest rate of Herring are we!!
But lets not be misleading.
The information I posted, albeit without any personal direct knowledge was for the price of Herring Roe.
"Herring roe was once considered a delicacy especially in Japanese cuisine, and it could bring in up to $5,000 a ton, says Scott. Now, a ton of herring roe is only sold for between $150 to $700."
I am told the rest of the herring goes into pet food or is used for fertilizer and if it was not for the value of the Roe, the fishery would be GREATLY reduced!
Last edited:
fish4all
Well-Known Member
You asked the questions. And to the best Of my ability I answered them. The values I used came straight off our settlement last year. Some of the guys fishing for big companies that assume zero risk are PAID less but the gross value is still there. Yes some of the bi product is used in fertilizers, makeup, oils, vitamins, pet food. Why wouldn’t you use every part of the fish. Do you eat all your salmon heads and fins, guts???
The commercial sector is no different then the sports sector, when science says there is enough Chinook out there you expect reasonable opportunity.
That is the same with commercial fishermen.
What was your reaction to the unscientific closure of the Chinook fishery this summer? How did you feel when the politics of the city folk closed your fishery?
The commercial sector is no different then the sports sector, when science says there is enough Chinook out there you expect reasonable opportunity.
That is the same with commercial fishermen.
What was your reaction to the unscientific closure of the Chinook fishery this summer? How did you feel when the politics of the city folk closed your fishery?
Last edited:
searun
Well-Known Member
I believe Fish4all answered all your questions, with reasonable detail. One additional note is the model's adjustment due to tracking natural mortality of herring stocks. Example being it is interesting to see how stocks of SoG herring in recent years increased in abundance to historic levels, and now the cycle is (due to natural mortality) tracking the other way. The MSE model predicted this shift, and as we go forward adjusts harvest. Seems to me to be a science-based approach to fishery management. Not perfect by any means, but a good start.
The emotional side of me would say close down the herring fishery so we can have them all available to Chinook and Coho as a food source. The reasonable side of me, sits back and looks at how the fishery is managed asking if there is indeed a harvestable surplus to recruitment and ecosystem need....and from what I see there are times where certain stocks are at abundance levels where that can happen, so therefore I have no problem with a harvest.
It also appears to me that this is becoming a venue just to argue rather than have a fact-based discussion of the fishery. Hope I'm wrong on that point. Again, for the record, I'm not a commercial fisher and have no vested interest in the herring fishery, but I strongly support wise management that ensures we (Canada) derive social and economic benefits from our natural resources. If that is not our desire as a nation, then we should just make our oceans a giant MPA network....ooops, I think the Turd is already taking us there.
If we adopted a "close fisheries" even where there is science-based harvest surplus, then we might as well create one very large MPA called the Coastal Pacific MPA and close it all to any harvest of anything. That would allow us to let nature return to whatever level of abundance it could support. That would get us back to pre-contact ecosystem conditions.
Downside is it would also be a socioeconomic disaster....but not to worry, the Green Plan is steeped in socialism....the rich should just pay for all of those who don't have economic opportunity that we took away from them to protect things....we don't need to work for a living, its a simple plan.... give everyone free dental, free medical, free housing, food banks, food stamps....all is good, the rich will keep their businesses here in Canada and pay increased taxes for us.
The emotional side of me would say close down the herring fishery so we can have them all available to Chinook and Coho as a food source. The reasonable side of me, sits back and looks at how the fishery is managed asking if there is indeed a harvestable surplus to recruitment and ecosystem need....and from what I see there are times where certain stocks are at abundance levels where that can happen, so therefore I have no problem with a harvest.
It also appears to me that this is becoming a venue just to argue rather than have a fact-based discussion of the fishery. Hope I'm wrong on that point. Again, for the record, I'm not a commercial fisher and have no vested interest in the herring fishery, but I strongly support wise management that ensures we (Canada) derive social and economic benefits from our natural resources. If that is not our desire as a nation, then we should just make our oceans a giant MPA network....ooops, I think the Turd is already taking us there.
If we adopted a "close fisheries" even where there is science-based harvest surplus, then we might as well create one very large MPA called the Coastal Pacific MPA and close it all to any harvest of anything. That would allow us to let nature return to whatever level of abundance it could support. That would get us back to pre-contact ecosystem conditions.
Downside is it would also be a socioeconomic disaster....but not to worry, the Green Plan is steeped in socialism....the rich should just pay for all of those who don't have economic opportunity that we took away from them to protect things....we don't need to work for a living, its a simple plan.... give everyone free dental, free medical, free housing, food banks, food stamps....all is good, the rich will keep their businesses here in Canada and pay increased taxes for us.
You guys expect us to believe this statement? "More herring die of natural mortality and old age than what is captured in the fishery." An Old age herring is 6 to 8 years old or older. Be curious to know why we don't see too many large older herring in the salmon stomachs we catch.
fish4all
Well-Known Member
Nope I doubt you will believe it but the science is out there if you look.
Years ago we had a warm current push up from the south. With the warm water it brought pilchards. The pilchards decimated herring stocks In some areas as they compete for food. When the cold water returned the herring stocks flourished. There are far larger impacts on the herring stocks than fishing.
Salmonholic
Member
This years sog food and bait fishery has been down graded to 6000 short tons . So 6000 •2000 lbs •2 fish per lb = 24 million fish. Does this sound correct? Seems like a lot of impact on our local stock or am I missing something ?
↑
You guys expect us to believe this statement? "More herring die of natural mortality and old age than what is captured in the fishery." An Old age herring is 6 to 8 years old or older. Be curious to know why we don't see too many large older herring in the salmon stomachs we catch.
Nope I doubt you will believe it but the science is out there if you look. I looked for data that supports your statement "More herring die of natural mortality and old age" but couldn't find any. Can you provide me with a link perhaps?
Salmonholic
Member
This years sog food and bait fishery has been down graded to 6000 short tons . So 6000 •2000 lbs •2 fish per lb = 24 million fish. Does this not impact our local stocks or am I missing something ? And 2 fish per lb is on the large side .
Found this. As a fi shery increases in intensity, the older f1sh are i ncreasingly caught off and the fishery comes to depend more and more on newly recruited ind ividuals. These changes are reflected in the age structure of the population : there is a decline in the proportion of older fish
Here is a great read and you can see its only gotten a lot worse. Take a close look at the number of tons of herring and then compare that to the current tonnage and you can see we are not even close to anything historical, http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/10026.pdf
Similar threads
