Totally agree with you - AGAIN, Barbender. And yes, the same scenario occured just a few topics down the list. Again and again we all blame each other and lament that nothing is done. Well, Rob W., if you are so concerned about the salmon, why don't you take the initiative and call for a big fund raising event, an informative meeting of all stakeholders, initiate a scientific project, a political debate or SOMETHING? You laying down the guiding business isn't going to help AT ALL! Why is it so hard to understand for some people that it is up to US ALL to take action and not to wait until somebody else does maybe something? Politicians react upon polarized pressures and don't think for a second that posting nasty comments on a forum will be recognized AT ALL! ONLY if we as sportsfishermen sit together with natives, commercials, loggers, affected businesses,local governments, and other stakeholders and discuss the scientific evidences that the government is providing, come up with agreeable solutions and then lobby the governement to take actions according to a locally developed work plan. That will catch votes because it has chances for at least a successful implementation and the politicians jumping on this train can proclaim that they care for the Canadian environment and resources - and are even good with the natives - which always looks good in an election campagne.
Possible Chinook closure's
- Thread starter scott craven
- Start date
For years all that I hear is about the problems and very little to do with solutions. There are many educated people hired to research, manage, regulate and inforce concervation measures. The issues are thown out there, changes proposed and someone is always offended and the finger pointing begins.
Why does the end result have to be so drastic? (Complete closure)
Let's get on with it. Start with some smaller changes. Take a step in the direction of solving some problems.
I would like to see some short term area closures though out the season. Small enough areas to leave us places to fish. Maybe even a complete closure from Sept.15 - November 15 to protect the river bound salmon(This should not have too big of an effect on the economy or charter businesses.) Cut down the daily retention limits. IMO and not to get a rise out of anyone... close the rivers to fishing salmon.
Come down hard on those selling fish unlawfully. The list goes on...
I don't think there is any one answer and feel that every bit helps. None of the above suggestions will solve the problem but they all may help.
Sporties, natives, commercial, charters... We are all going to have to give a little now or a lot later.
Start small and get on with it I say.
Tips
Why does the end result have to be so drastic? (Complete closure)
Let's get on with it. Start with some smaller changes. Take a step in the direction of solving some problems.
I would like to see some short term area closures though out the season. Small enough areas to leave us places to fish. Maybe even a complete closure from Sept.15 - November 15 to protect the river bound salmon(This should not have too big of an effect on the economy or charter businesses.) Cut down the daily retention limits. IMO and not to get a rise out of anyone... close the rivers to fishing salmon.
Come down hard on those selling fish unlawfully. The list goes on...
I don't think there is any one answer and feel that every bit helps. None of the above suggestions will solve the problem but they all may help.
Sporties, natives, commercial, charters... We are all going to have to give a little now or a lot later.
Start small and get on with it I say.
Tips
Rum Buddies
Well-Known Member
well put tips.
If anybody made to the cowichan meeting there you would have seen how much research DFO has done, but how little action they actually take. They'll research the sh*t out of the problem and by the time they work all those figures into a horrible little graph its going to be too late.
There was one group that actually got off their butt and did something, they diverted the river and fixed the stoltz clay bank problem - which will have a very real effect. They did this with private money and no involvement from DFO. Those guys are heroes in my eyes.
On a side note, did anyone hear that idiot suggest that brown trout were the cause of the declining chinook stocks?
If anybody made to the cowichan meeting there you would have seen how much research DFO has done, but how little action they actually take. They'll research the sh*t out of the problem and by the time they work all those figures into a horrible little graph its going to be too late.
There was one group that actually got off their butt and did something, they diverted the river and fixed the stoltz clay bank problem - which will have a very real effect. They did this with private money and no involvement from DFO. Those guys are heroes in my eyes.
On a side note, did anyone hear that idiot suggest that brown trout were the cause of the declining chinook stocks?
Red Monster
Well-Known Member
Rob, last week you claimed not to "defend any non-compliant roadside sales of fish whatsoever" and suggested I was reading something into your posts.
Now this week you argue that the illegallity of native's selling fish is "debateable." Really? Have you changed your mind in the last week? Or have I gone and read something into your posts again?
Rum Buddies
Well-Known Member
what are you talking about? Thats 168/day * 356 days - confusing.
This is pre-school logic, you're saying since your rights are infringed that gives you a free pass to break the law?
I am hearing rumours of a investigation by DFO regarding something to do with the missing Chinooks in the Cowichan river. A lot of hush hush right now. Not sure if anyone else has heard the same thing. Apparently the numbers were not as bad as initially thought as many more carcasses were found at the mouth of the river.
Rum Buddies
Well-Known Member
Not sure what that means? Why would there be carcasses at the mouth of the river?
What ever the reason, DFO clearly stated the numbers were better then they originally thought, not good but better.
B
blueorca
Guest
Just my perspective on things....
When a certain resource gets to the lower limits of susatainability, then it seems that all the parties involved in it's economy, start pointing fingers at the route cause of it's demise.
Humans as a species, will target a resource until it's gone, then target another, less desireable one, and on it goes.
(Commerical harvesting of Jelly fish is just starting to pick up!)
The writing is, and has been on the wall for a number of years.
Unless, collectively, we take action, the pattern will not change.
Taking care of other problems that are contributing to the issue, development near rivers, global warming, etc. has to be done in conjunction with conservation.
Oh and by the way, if you believe that one fish spawning X number of eggs equals Y number of fish that return, then you are missing some important factors, such as predation, evironment and natural selection.
When a certain resource gets to the lower limits of susatainability, then it seems that all the parties involved in it's economy, start pointing fingers at the route cause of it's demise.
Humans as a species, will target a resource until it's gone, then target another, less desireable one, and on it goes.
(Commerical harvesting of Jelly fish is just starting to pick up!)
The writing is, and has been on the wall for a number of years.
Unless, collectively, we take action, the pattern will not change.
Taking care of other problems that are contributing to the issue, development near rivers, global warming, etc. has to be done in conjunction with conservation.
Oh and by the way, if you believe that one fish spawning X number of eggs equals Y number of fish that return, then you are missing some important factors, such as predation, evironment and natural selection.
Poppa Swiss; I was involved in the Stoltz project and I can assure you that the Fed paid their share. If I remember right it was 30%. The rest came from province and local contributors also including logging companies...Yeah, the Brown trout mentioning was fun! I tell ya, there are clowns in this world...
The latest Cowichan chinook numbers are 2,500 which is low but not very much lower than in the last couple of years. So, it's another warning shot but not the described catastrophe - YET. Only in conjuction with the numbers of all streams along the coast we can see a sharp drop this year - all the way from California to northern BC...
Rum Buddies
Well-Known Member
oh my bad, I thought the old guy giving the presentation made a point of stating it was all from raised funds and that DFO was not involved. Either way, that was a great example of actually getting something done - the meeting was pretty depressing but that was good to see. Good for you for participating in that Chris.
2500 fish now. Who is counting the damn things, and where can we get regular reports?
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
I wasn't necessarily pointing the finger...just saying we should all have the same fishing rights, not depending on race, religion, societal beliefs etc.
Poppa; DFO actually did not contribute $ - they had manpower on the project. But the Pacific Salmon Commission chipped in $ - that is federal money. Often hard to follow through what channels moneys come from. Provincial funds were provided as well as raised moneys from private donors such as the mill, logging companies and several initiatives.
L.C.; DFO is responsible for the fish counts and I expect them to release some final numbers soon - you know, counting and adding up numbers is hard work for our bureaucrats Take it easy on them!
L.C.; DFO is responsible for the fish counts and I expect them to release some final numbers soon - you know, counting and adding up numbers is hard work for our bureaucrats
Take it easy on them!
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Hence why Natives should be abiding by the same laws as everyone else.
Come on SG this is becoming tiresome rhetoric. The fact is is that the Courts and treaties unequivically provide for these aboriginal rights, end of story. It will never ever be the "same laws as everyone else."
I agree that some groups take advantage of these Rights and the sale of fish is a contentious issue but I bet there are hundreds if not thousands of sporties that poach now and again or cheat the regs.
How many coho are morted out on the offshore banks from quides poking them through the head with huge singles attached to 7" spoons and plugs, trying to fill their Spring quotas for their clients.
All user groups contribute to the present state of things and as Tips stated, "Sporties, natives, commercial, charters... We are all going to have to give a little now or a lot later."
Rum Buddies
Well-Known Member
15-30%
R
Robert Warren
Guest
Rob, last week you claimed not to "defend any non-compliant roadside sales of fish whatsoever" and suggested I was reading something into your posts.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
debateable... is it not also illegal to infringe upon rights guaranteed under a treaty? You can't really call one act illegle by implementing an illegal act?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now this week you argue that the illegallity of native's selling fish is "debateable." Really? Have you changed your mind in the last week? Or have I gone and read something into your posts again?
Ya apparently you did.. You seemed to think I was in some way defending roadside sales by natives? Where as it didn't even enter my train of thought that you were referring to Natives only.
And FYI Natives selling fish is totally different then the gypsies I was referring to at the road side stands. You seem to think that the only way for Natives to sell fish is from a roadside stand? Well Sir that is just plane racist. When I said that Natives selling fish illegally was debatable why do you assume it would be from the back of a truck on a busy road? FYI there are plenty of so called reputable commercial fish processors out there that wouldn't even blink at buying fish from them.
The fact of the matter is that there WAS a commercial aspect to our fishery when we signed the Douglas treaty. We were selling fish to the Hudson's Bay Company that they experimented with our "commercially" caught Salmon by curing it with salt and shipping it back overseas. Plain and simple we caught the fish, they bought it from us before, during, and after the treaty was signed. Which states that we are allowed to carry on our fisheries as before settlement. That means limitless access to all the oceans resource. It seems pretty cut and dry. And to this day we have NOT surrendered any of those rights! The fact that natives have sold fish to white people since they arrived here is no surprise I am sure? But it is a precedent.
That wasn't at all what I said and you missed the entire point. I never said that the 60,000 fish that would have made it back to the ocean are going to spawn. I was saying each guide that catches 100 females a yr is responsible for 60,000 fish that DO NOT</u> make it back TO THE OCEAN. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but I imagine salmon would be like most other small salmonoids in that state and I think there is a safety in numbers scenario that plays out. Quite simply a much larger biomass of small fry would perceivably have a greater chance of more of them surviving predation.
Well said!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
debateable... is it not also illegal to infringe upon rights guaranteed under a treaty? You can't really call one act illegle by implementing an illegal act?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now this week you argue that the illegallity of native's selling fish is "debateable." Really? Have you changed your mind in the last week? Or have I gone and read something into your posts again?
Ya apparently you did.. You seemed to think I was in some way defending roadside sales by natives? Where as it didn't even enter my train of thought that you were referring to Natives only.
And FYI Natives selling fish is totally different then the gypsies I was referring to at the road side stands. You seem to think that the only way for Natives to sell fish is from a roadside stand? Well Sir that is just plane racist. When I said that Natives selling fish illegally was debatable why do you assume it would be from the back of a truck on a busy road? FYI there are plenty of so called reputable commercial fish processors out there that wouldn't even blink at buying fish from them.
The fact of the matter is that there WAS a commercial aspect to our fishery when we signed the Douglas treaty. We were selling fish to the Hudson's Bay Company that they experimented with our "commercially" caught Salmon by curing it with salt and shipping it back overseas. Plain and simple we caught the fish, they bought it from us before, during, and after the treaty was signed. Which states that we are allowed to carry on our fisheries as before settlement. That means limitless access to all the oceans resource. It seems pretty cut and dry. And to this day we have NOT surrendered any of those rights! The fact that natives have sold fish to white people since they arrived here is no surprise I am sure? But it is a precedent.
That wasn't at all what I said and you missed the entire point. I never said that the 60,000 fish that would have made it back to the ocean are going to spawn. I was saying each guide that catches 100 females a yr is responsible for 60,000 fish that DO NOT</u> make it back TO THE OCEAN. What happens after that is anyone's guess, but I imagine salmon would be like most other small salmonoids in that state and I think there is a safety in numbers scenario that plays out. Quite simply a much larger biomass of small fry would perceivably have a greater chance of more of them surviving predation.
Well said!
Ok Jackel lets use a little common sense.There are not a lot of people fishing for winter springs.If you are fishing winter springs?then perhaps you deserve a 8-10 lb spring just for being out there and trying? Or you could wait for someone else to catch the 25 lb fish you wish to protect. You kind of missed the point . By catch is so small compared to summer it is insulting to bring up.I fish winter springs in march in Barclay Sound once maybe twice if the weather permits.How many fill their tags?I don't know but I would be shocked if it was more than 5 percent.Just because you sit in your warm living room watching fishing shows during the winter does not allow you to call for a stop to those that do fish in the winter.
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Clearly, as seen throughout this post, no matter what happens someone will be upset.
Similar threads
