How many Chinook are we allowed ?

[Steve95]

Where I used to live, I only fished freshwater and primarily one lake. It was easy....one walleye, lol. Funny thing is, the fish and game couldn't seem to get it right there either.
I checked the licence and read the regs for our areas again. I guess you just have to pay more attention here as it changes.

 

[Rockfish]

To me it is not that people want to wack so many. It is that I think it is a bad idea period for us to be suggesting or sound like we are demanding/wanting any further fishing restrictions of any type to sport fishing. Trust me other sectors and the ENGO's do a great job of that already and they don't need our help to screw us over further. We are allowed to keep 20 a year in area 20 and much of 19 but in over 20 years I have never come remotely close to keeping 20 or 15 a year for that matter off Sooke and Victoria as I don't keep more than we can eat and a considerable number of the ones I do keep are often smaller hatchery. I guess it is possible that at some point I would be willing to trade off going from 20 to a 15 annual limit through the SFAB process but only if it were really necessary and in exchange for something else we thought of greater value. These minor variations between areas are often there for reasons. Would someone from an area where you are allowed to keep 15 a year really want to trade with us for our annual 20 limit keeping in mind that with it would come other regulations like perhaps a slot limit you don't have. Sure you could keep 5 more Chinook a year but right now with that trade you could perhaps only keep a max 67 cm Chinook if it was not clipped or about a 7lber. You had better enjoy that opportunity to keep those extra 5 Chinook if you really want them because with that trade those 10, 15, 25 or 40 lb un-clipped Chinook perhaps you caught or could have caught so far this spring and summer, you may well have had to throw those back.

 

[ziggy]

To me it is not that people want to wack so many. It is that I think it is a bad idea period for us to be suggesting or sound like we are demanding/wanting any further fishing restrictions of any type period to sport fishing. Trust me other sectors and the ENGO's do a great job of that already and they don't need our help to screw us over further. We are allowed to keep 20 a year in area 20 and much of 19 but in over 20 years I have never come remotely close to keeping 20 or 15 a year for that matter off Sooke and Victoria as I don't keep more than we can eat and a considerable number of the ones I do keep are often smaller hatchery. I guess it is possible that at some point I would be willing to trade off going from 20 to a 15 annual limit through the SFAB process but only If it were really necessary and in exchange for something else we thought of greater value. These minor variations between areas are often there for reasons. Would someone from an area where you are allowed to keep 15 a year really want to trade with us for our annual 20 limit keeping in mind that with it would come other regulations like perhaps a slot limit you don't have. Sure you could keep 5 more Chinook a year but right now with that trade you could perhaps only keep a max 67 cm Chinook if it was not clipped or about a 7lber. You had better enjoy that opportunity to keep those extra 5 Chinook if you really want them because with that trade those 10, 15, 25 or 40 lb un-clipped Chinook perhaps you caught or could have caught so far this spring and summer, you may well have had to throw those back.

Your probably right regarding the minor variations between areas,but like many DFO policies and regulations, not many people can come up with a logical reason for these variations. I think if there are sound reasons,it’s important that DFO make these known to the general public. As far as communication goes,DFO is a complete failure. If there’s a reason based on science as opposed to politics, they should articulate it rather than leave it to idle speculation.

 

[Rockfish]

Some times the variations between areas occur because DFO accepts different ways to get to the same results in terms of recommendations from the local SFAB and the discussion and vote at those local meetings. For example as I recall with the latest requirements to reach a 25 to 35% reduction in Chinook at our local meeting we came to the conclusion that there was only 2 options. Move to a one Chinook only a day limit or accept even more expanded slot restrictions and be able to keep two. If we failed to make a recommendation then DFO would not have to consider our voted recommendation and decide for us without our input. Keep in mind that while some other areas were about to face major restrictions for the first time, for us these were on top of years of expanding slot restriction which started years back with the very tight early slot to protect the early 4-2 upper Fraser stream type Chinook. To us even more expanded slots seemed like the better option. I assume that other regions meetings and votes came to different decisions or did not make a recommendation and left it to DFO to decide without input. Kind of Sophie's choice really, do you want your left leg or your right leg cut off, do you move to one a day limit or slot limits that may allow you to keep two but likely only small Chinook for the spring and most or even all of the summer. It seems to me that sometimes the variations between regions can be because DFO is actually trying to be flexible and sometimes accepts the local wishes of the anglers and unique local circumstances, while still accomplishing their objectives in the big picture. For the vast majority of anglers who never go to the meetings and then complain about the outcome with new regulation restrictions perhaps it would not be a bad idea to go to them. If you don't go, you have no voice and frankly don't have much of a base to complain if you don't like how it turned out.

 

[halimark]

To me it is not that people want to wack so many. It is that I think it is a bad idea period for us to be suggesting or sound like we are demanding/wanting any further fishing restrictions of any type period to sport fishing. Trust me other sectors and the ENGO's do a great job of that already and they don't need our help to screw us over further. We are allowed to keep 20 a year in area 20 and much of 19 but in over 20 years I have never come remotely close to keeping 20 or 15 a year for that matter off Sooke and Victoria as I don't keep more than we can eat and a considerable number of the ones I do keep are often smaller hatchery. I guess it is possible that at some point I would be willing to trade off going from 20 to a 15 annual limit through the SFAB process but only if it were really necessary and in exchange for something else we thought of greater value. These minor variations between areas are often there for reasons. Would someone from an area where you are allowed to keep 15 a year really want to trade with us for our annual 20 limit keeping in mind that with it would come other regulations like perhaps a slot limit you don't have. Sure you could keep 5 more Chinook a year but right now with that trade you could perhaps only keep a max 67 cm Chinook if it was not clipped or about a 7lber. You had better enjoy that opportunity to keep those extra 5 Chinook if you really want them because with that trade those 10, 15, 25 or 40 lb un-clipped Chinook perhaps you caught or could have caught so far this spring and summer, you may well have had to throw those back.

Thanks Rockfish, that's were I was leading people in my post. Any more restrictions weather real or perceived will reduce our numbers, not what we want but certainly DFO's and current Gov plan. Rules and regs do not affect poachers, same as gun laws and gang bangers.

At the swap and shop yesterday, lots of tables of fishing tackle for sale, guys giving up. Hope not what's to come.

HM

 

[ziggy]

Some times the variations between areas occur because DFO accepts different ways to get to the same results in terms of recommendations from the local SFAB and the discussion and vote at those local meetings. For example as I recall with the latest requirements to reach a 25 to 35% reduction in Chinook at our local meeting we came to the conclusion that there was only 2 options. Move to a one Chinook only a day limit or accept even more expanded slot restrictions and be able to keep two. If we failed to make a recommendation then DFO would not have to consider our voted recommendation and decide for us without our input. Keep in mind that while some other areas were about to face major restrictions for the first time, for us these were on top of years of expanding slot restriction which started years back with the very tight early slot to protect the early 4-2 upper Fraser stream type Chinook. To us even more expanded slots seemed like the better option. I assume that other regions meetings and votes came to different decisions or did not make a recommendation and left it to DFO to decide without input. Kind of Sophie's choice really, do you want your left leg or your right leg cut off, do you move to one a day limit or slot limits that may allow you to keep two but likely only small Chinook for the spring and most or even all of the summer. It seems to me that sometimes the variations between regions can be because DFO is actually trying to be flexible and sometimes accepts the local wishes of the anglers and unique local circumstances, while still accomplishing their objectives in the big picture. For the vast majority of anglers who never go to the meetings and then complain about the outcome with new regulation restrictions perhaps it would not be a bad idea to go to them. If you don't go, you have no voice and frankly don't have much of a base to complain if you don't like how it turned out.

Totally disagree with the meeting attendance Mantra, anyone who is a resident of Canada, particularly if they buy a license has just as much right to complain as meeting attendees. We keep hearing how there are 300k anglers, there are neither the space nor local meetings to accommodate all these anglers

As i’ve said in the past, there are no agendas published nor minutes, so a lack of interest is no surprise. Meetings are poorly advertised and I suspect times and locations are more suitable and geared for commercial interests than the average fisher. If attendance is a problem, perhaps it indicates the old system is no longer viable.

In my option the system is broken! Regardless of people with the best of intentions. Failure to embrace the power of the internet contributes to the problem big time. A perfect vehicle for passing information and soliciting feedback is ignored, due to a fixation on having bums in seats.

Whenever I hear the “if you don’t attend our meeting, you have no say” the first thing that comes to mind is BS, no one elected you to speak on my behalf and I have as much right as anyone else. Sorry if anyone is offended but this “meeting attendance “ somehow making people the greater among equals wears thin.

 

[Clint r]

This ^^^^^ is spot on and mirrors my experience exactly.